Should U.S. military firearms be 100% U.S.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
stchman

stchman

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
2,617
Location
Saint Louis, MO
I have given this some thought and I do believe YES.

During WWII I believe all military firearms were made here in the U.S. It made sense as the U.S. could only control what was inside of its own border.

Is it just me or does this worry ANYONE else? I mean if the U.S. goes to war our enemies could simply destroy the overseas plants that manufacture our weapons.

Does the U.S. military mandate that all service pistols/rifles/ammo be made here in the U.S? Does the military have a big enough supply in case of war where the supply of these needed items could be cut off?

Just wondering.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Does the U.S. military mandate that all service pistols/rifles/ammo be made here in the U.S? Does the military have a big enough supply in case of war where the supply of these needed items could be cut off?
Click to expand...
All military issued items including uniforms and firearms must be made in the U.S. except for special circumstances. I remember when we changed from BDUs to ABUs there was a big stink that unit funding could not be used to buy uniforms made outside the U.S. Granted the uniforms we buy are made by the blind but at least they are blind Americans.
 
Although we use say Beretta and FN weapons in our military, they have factories here to supply us. Not a problem as you've outlined.

One of the ironies though, in WWI, we had to pay Mauser royalties since the Springfield '03 used a Mauser licensed action.
 
We still have pretty significant manufacturing capability in this country and M4 / M16 and other rifles are not difficult to make, they are already sourcing from multiple manufacturers.

I'd be more worried about ammunition the guns. When the wars started the military purchased training ammunition from over seas.

We had ammunition in reserve but they didn't want to tap into it and domestic production was scheduled to increase.
 
Although we use say Beretta and FN weapons in our military, they have factories here to supply us. Not a problem as you've outlined.

One of the ironies though, in WWI, we had to pay Mauser royalties since the Springfield '03 used a Mauser licensed action.
Click to expand...

I do remember hearing that. I think the U.S. probably stopped with the royalty payments during WWII.
 
As long as we don't buy from our enemies I'm in favor of getting the best in their hands.
 
It's not an issue because it's already a requirement. The plants are here in the US as part of that requirement.

Every company competes and those that get the contracts have domestic production or agree to put it in place.
 
Going from memory......

But I think we paid the royalties before WW1 after it was determined we "Borrowed" the design after the Spanish American War. I really doubt we paid royalties once War was declaired.
 
As an American Tax Payer, I would rather these go to US companies for our military, but not to an exclusion of any other, because I want competition and the best stuff for our military.

The Soviet closed system was a good example of a system in which there was little or no competition and their equipment became antiquated and their techonogy did not keep pace with ours. I'm not saying that all thier stuff was / is bad, just they found themselves falling behind due to the lack of a free market and competion. A lot of the time thier large technological steps were made by copying western technology or as a response to it. Certainly we had some of these effects, but we were / are generally driving the technological improvements.
 
One of the ironies though, in WWI, we had to pay Mauser royalties since the Springfield '03 used a Mauser licensed action
Click to expand...
Actually, no.

Mauser sued us over the Mauser stripper clip, which we used in the '03 Springfield, and won. We paid Mauser a royalty on each stripper clip we produced until we entered WWI. At that point, we confiscated the Mauser patent as enemy property.
 
As long as we don't buy from our enemies I'm in favor of getting the best in their hands.
Click to expand...

Yet many here have no problem buying guns made in China who is not exactly our friend (even if they own more of our country than we do).

Weapons systems made by our trusted Allies, (like England) are not in question
 
I remember reading a DOD report not to long about about the supply of 5.56. Over the lats few years they have had to purchase some from overseas suppliers because they were using more than our national production could make. Remember thats with civilian sales to.

I think this was corrected either last year or is going to be this year.

The military worries about this stuff to.
 
The practice of buying arms and using designs from overseas dates back to the Revolution and was customary right through the Civil War and beyond. The only reason we had to make so much of our own weaponry during WWII is that our allies had lost so much manufacturing capacity and the demand was so huge. But you can go back to the Revolutionary War and find our guys fighting with French muskets or the Civil War with the Enfields and a whole array of arms from the German states.
 
Today's ally can always become tomorrows enemy, and vice versa......

Military hardware should always be under domestic production.
 
"Should US military firearms be 100% US?"

No, they should be the best. If the best comes from somewhere else, then so be it. We shouldn't subsidize inefficient industries. Having said that, the American gun makers are some of the best in the world.

One thing to consider, though, is that there is no such thing as a 100% American gun any longer. It may be assembled in the US, even forged and machined in the US, but the iron may be from overseas. The vanadium may be from overseas. The chrome may be from overseas. The oil that the plastics are made from may be from overseas. Most American products today do have foreign content.
Mauserguy
 
Every company competes and those that get the contracts have domestic production or agree to put it in place.
Click to expand...

That's right.

When the M9 contract was awarded to Beretta, that meant that Beretta had to set up shop in the US. It meant jobs in the US, and a new company's presence in the US. We got the best design the world had to offer when the competition was held, and it is produced in the US. That sounds like the best of both.

BTW Beretta is one of several firearms companies near Brescia, Italy. Despite appearances, Beretta isn't really a huge company. They are in Gardone Val Trompia, a town that looks much as it did 200 years ago.

http://www.berettaweb.com/Gardone_VT/Gardone_VT.htm
sud.jpg

The economic impact of the M9 contract happened here in the US, not in Gardone VT.
 
An interesting question. When I was working on Modernizing the machine shop at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, a Public shipyard in the Department of Defense we encountered numerous problems in procuring machines. The machines, by law had to be a minimum of 51% US made. This put us in a quandary as American companies had shifted so much of our industrial production off-shore. It used to be we made the best machines. Then we didn't anymore because the manufacturing base wasn't US anymore. Those that were still here were far more expensive, and in many cases of lesser quality. So we ended up with spending more and getting lower quality machines. You know, the machines used to repair our carriers and submarines. Many of the Japanese companies set up assembly plants here in the US. They made the machines in Japan, took them apart, sent them to the US where they were assembled using enough US content to qualify the 51% law. To boot they were still cheaper than equivalent machines made in USA by US manufacturers. Sound like auto industry maybe?

Moral of the story, is buy the best you can get and attempt to force business managers to bring our jobs home. Pay the premium, but buy American Made in USA products when they are the best.
 
Is it just me or does this worry ANYONE else? I mean if the U.S. goes to war our enemies could simply destroy the overseas plants that manufacture our weapons.
Click to expand...
We have been at war for some time now.
 
We have been at war for some time now.
Click to expand...

True.

Maybe he was referring to all the saber-rattling that Belgium and Italy have been doing lately. When Belgium decides that, instead of living well by selling us guns, chocolate and beer, they'd rather launch a frontal assault on the US, well, THEN what will we do?:D
 
I'd like to say yes, but as a practical matter, we need to provide our troops with that which will do the job best. Now, if it's a question of best price, then I would like to see a law that requires the contract be given to an American company with a comparable product.

One day the U.S military will be carrying Norinco's.
Click to expand...

Only if our national language becomes Chinese. Better that we pay all our debt to China in American products. I know, good luck with that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
U.S. Military Being Sent to the Border with Mexico
Replies
9
Views
877
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
B
  • Locked
U.S. Military Small Arms Maintenance Capability
Replies
14
Views
655
brekneb
B
berettaprofessor
  • Locked
Triicon Places Bible Codes on US Military sights
Replies
18
Views
955
JShirley
JShirley
Z
  • Locked
The Guns Of Calderon (IBD article)
Replies
0
Views
250
Zipperhead
Z
Zundfolge
  • Locked
The end of an era :(
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
siglite
S
Back
Top