You would be suprised by how much of our military equipment is made overseas. The government bought a bunch of Chinese Kevlar last year and Sen. Webb and Sen. Warner urged the appropriate committees to buy American (Dupont makes Kevlar in Richmond, VA). A lot of our computer stuff is made overseas and the new tanker plane was supposed to be made by a French company. Welcome to the global marketplace.
Should U.S. military firearms be 100% U.S.?
- Thread starter stchman
- Start date
- Status
Trust me, I'm the biggest free market guy you'll ever want to meet, but there are valid strategic reasons why you want your military supplies/weapons made inside your borders. Which is why Beretta had to set up a plant on US soil.
Best product that met requirements (well, we can debate on some other thread), but one of those requirements was that it be at a plant here. Even I can be happy with that free market solution that get's the job done.
Note that the Charleville musket was used in the Revolutionary War.
Once the war was won, American efforts to supply our own military with arms made in government armories were fraught with corruption.
Our current system is pretty good, actually.
Once the war was won, American efforts to supply our own military with arms made in government armories were fraught with corruption.
Our current system is pretty good, actually.
TedP
Member
Let's not forget the Hotchkiss and the Chauchat. Both French made.
Jesse Heywood
Member
I agree, but there is more to the story. One of the selling points Airbus used was that their tanker was built with more U.S. manufactured parts than the Boeing tanker.
For everyone who hates the Beretta M9, thank the politicians that passed the GCA of '68. The act took Beretta mouse guns off of the US market as "non-importable" for not garnering enough "sporting purposes" points.
The unintended consequence is that Beretta set up a US factory well ahead of the M9 trials and the very presence of their plant already extant in Maryland resulted in rapid prototype changes between rounds of the trials and also no doubt made their lowest bid, (based on lower overall costs for spare parts), far more credible than SIG, who had no manufacturing capacity onshore when the SIG SAUER P226 also finished as technically acceptable.
FWIW, I believe that the US would be well armed on the individual weapon between the M-16/M-4/M-14 rifles coupled with, say, the S&W M&P pistol. However, we'd be hurting for a modern 5.56mm SAW without FN's design, another area in which the machine gun ban almost creates an insuperable barrier to domestic tinkerers working out new automatic weapon designs.
Why go through the bother of getting licensed, then design and prototype, and then burn piles of developmental cash into new weapons that can only be sold to various levels of government? It's more profitable to make the next "smallest" 9mm concealed carry pistol in this country because Congress has cut the ephemeral nuts right off of the spirit of innovation in this country in more fields than just regarding squad automatic weapons.
The unintended consequence is that Beretta set up a US factory well ahead of the M9 trials and the very presence of their plant already extant in Maryland resulted in rapid prototype changes between rounds of the trials and also no doubt made their lowest bid, (based on lower overall costs for spare parts), far more credible than SIG, who had no manufacturing capacity onshore when the SIG SAUER P226 also finished as technically acceptable.
FWIW, I believe that the US would be well armed on the individual weapon between the M-16/M-4/M-14 rifles coupled with, say, the S&W M&P pistol. However, we'd be hurting for a modern 5.56mm SAW without FN's design, another area in which the machine gun ban almost creates an insuperable barrier to domestic tinkerers working out new automatic weapon designs.
Why go through the bother of getting licensed, then design and prototype, and then burn piles of developmental cash into new weapons that can only be sold to various levels of government? It's more profitable to make the next "smallest" 9mm concealed carry pistol in this country because Congress has cut the ephemeral nuts right off of the spirit of innovation in this country in more fields than just regarding squad automatic weapons.
navyretired 1
Member
The problem of thinking that we're making our own weapons is warming but wrong. The plants are here, the workers are here but the profit goes to Berreta or FN. The plant equipment is also made in those countries. I beleave we have and should have the best equipment but I'm worried how we get it and if that supply could be sustained in a war.
We've been the go-to guy for war production for the 2 world wars but our giant production base has been erroded away to the point that nothing is made here completely anymore. Where are our steel mills, our machine tool production, our weapons production, sad to say that They're closed because the constant demand for profit at all costs. When a U.S. company can't compete on the world market, the profit hungry owners will sell off the whole shooting match starting with the patents then going to the equipment, then the buildings all thats left is a name. This is slightly off subject but one of the last hold outs has given in, I noticed in a catalog the South Bend Lathe Co. has started buying Chinese machines and putting the South Bend name on them to wring the last little profit left to that old company, which had a big part in providing the tooling used in the world wars to make our production base formidable. BTW if our weapons developement companies can't sell their new products (often funded by us tax payers) they will try every way in the world to sell those products off-shore.
People I consider myself a historian and we're not learning from experience.
We've been the go-to guy for war production for the 2 world wars but our giant production base has been erroded away to the point that nothing is made here completely anymore. Where are our steel mills, our machine tool production, our weapons production, sad to say that They're closed because the constant demand for profit at all costs. When a U.S. company can't compete on the world market, the profit hungry owners will sell off the whole shooting match starting with the patents then going to the equipment, then the buildings all thats left is a name. This is slightly off subject but one of the last hold outs has given in, I noticed in a catalog the South Bend Lathe Co. has started buying Chinese machines and putting the South Bend name on them to wring the last little profit left to that old company, which had a big part in providing the tooling used in the world wars to make our production base formidable. BTW if our weapons developement companies can't sell their new products (often funded by us tax payers) they will try every way in the world to sell those products off-shore.
People I consider myself a historian and we're not learning from experience.
TexasBill
Member
I don't really care about the name but the tooling and facilities should be in the United States simply from a strategic point of view. Raw materials are an issue, but they've always been an issue as weapons have become more and more advanced. The U.S. hasn't been able to supply 100% of the materials needed for weapons production for a number of years.
Of course, I remember back in the day when even some law enforcement agencies required the duty sidearm to be made in the U.S.A. Most of the time, that meant choosing between a Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver.
Of course, I remember back in the day when even some law enforcement agencies required the duty sidearm to be made in the U.S.A. Most of the time, that meant choosing between a Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver.
ronbuick
Member
PERIOD, but you can always check out there ammo for OUR weapons, let the debate begin. But always be trained in the weapon of your enemey, JMHO
Ron
Ron
Gungnir
Member
I agree the military should have the best regardless or origin but I'd like to comment on this...
I think you'll find that most of the heavy plant regardless of whether the company is Berreta, FN, BAe, HK, or whoever is made in Japan, South East Asia and China, or India. Which is of bigger concern. Having arms manufacturers here for strategic reasons is all very well, but if you can't self-produce the tooling needed to manufacture those arms you hosed if hostilities ever break out between you and the supplying country.
Also importation of materials is another factor, in 2007 $24.4B of our Iron and Steel came from BRIC (China, Russia, Brazil, India), or G7 (Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada). $6.2B came from China, and $1.1B came from Russia (the two most likely to freeze exports to us).
Back in WW1 and WW2 the US was almost completely self-sufficient, so this trade, or lack of, wouldn't affect production. Now it's a completely different ball game. Finished arms are the top of the manufacturing cycle, without the resources, and tooling facilities, having home produced weapons is still strategically weak, since the remainder of the support and supply chain is external.
navyretired1 said:
I think you'll find that most of the heavy plant regardless of whether the company is Berreta, FN, BAe, HK, or whoever is made in Japan, South East Asia and China, or India. Which is of bigger concern. Having arms manufacturers here for strategic reasons is all very well, but if you can't self-produce the tooling needed to manufacture those arms you hosed if hostilities ever break out between you and the supplying country.
Also importation of materials is another factor, in 2007 $24.4B of our Iron and Steel came from BRIC (China, Russia, Brazil, India), or G7 (Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada). $6.2B came from China, and $1.1B came from Russia (the two most likely to freeze exports to us).
Back in WW1 and WW2 the US was almost completely self-sufficient, so this trade, or lack of, wouldn't affect production. Now it's a completely different ball game. Finished arms are the top of the manufacturing cycle, without the resources, and tooling facilities, having home produced weapons is still strategically weak, since the remainder of the support and supply chain is external.
swiftak
Member
Yes, we have the best steel, the best designers, and the best labor. We can crush all competition when we want to.
In the same way that US industry converted in WWII -- car factories making bombers, small industry making small arms, etc -- if we *really* needed to, the US could convert our indigenous manufacturing capability into whatever we needed it to be.
Fortunately, we don't need to do that because the current logistics plans are working. If it gets to the point in the future where state-v-state warfare damages our current methods of building and supplying war materiel, we'll change to adapt. If the future of the Republic really hinged on such raw materials, design, and manufacturing capability within our own borders, we'd make it happen. Rationing, donating pots-and-pans to supply steel, growing "victory gardens", etc., could all be implemented if the situation were so dire.
But, it isn't.
No need to convert GM plants into building F-22s and C-17s yet.
Fortunately, we don't need to do that because the current logistics plans are working. If it gets to the point in the future where state-v-state warfare damages our current methods of building and supplying war materiel, we'll change to adapt. If the future of the Republic really hinged on such raw materials, design, and manufacturing capability within our own borders, we'd make it happen. Rationing, donating pots-and-pans to supply steel, growing "victory gardens", etc., could all be implemented if the situation were so dire.
But, it isn't.
No need to convert GM plants into building F-22s and C-17s yet.
Tinpig
Member
My son is a BM3 in the Coast Guard. When he was issued cold-weather survival gear at his CG small boat search-and-rescue station last year, very little of it was either made or assembled in the US.
OK with me as long as the purchasing decision was based on best quality rather than lowest cost.
And firearms-related, the USCG sidearm is now the Sig Sauer P229R DAKTM in .40 cal.
Tinpig
OK with me as long as the purchasing decision was based on best quality rather than lowest cost.
And firearms-related, the USCG sidearm is now the Sig Sauer P229R DAKTM in .40 cal.
Tinpig
Last edited:
Quiet
Member
Almost all of the small arms used by the US military are made in the USA.
GunsAmerica Fan
Member
I love just watching you guys come up with great topics. This is something I have been very concerned about for a long time. As many have answered, yes, we do make the US military guns here right now, but I am concerned that in war time we will be in big trouble. It used to be that we had factories and tool and die makers who could quickly tool up should a war effort require a million rifles. We don't have that anymore. All the machines and most of the tool and die makers are in china and india. I know whole commercial sewing shops right here in florida that were packed up and moved to china. It's nuts. Plus we get a lot of our ammo from china, and ammo isn't easy to tool up for in mass production either.
I think that in a national war time situation, instead of making people sell their gold like they did in WWII, they are going to make people sell their AR pattern rifles. The PRC are one of our more likely enemies should a global conflict break out. It's nuts, and really scary to me.
I think that in a national war time situation, instead of making people sell their gold like they did in WWII, they are going to make people sell their AR pattern rifles. The PRC are one of our more likely enemies should a global conflict break out. It's nuts, and really scary to me.
A lot has changed in military supply side economics since WW2. Some aspects of it has stayed the same but has grown tremendously. There were several 'American' corporations that supplied both the US and Germany during WW2, and in some cases actually gave the enemy a better deal than they did the US. One thing we did have going for us then was the large domestic manufacturing base of those 'American' corporations.
Military supply and manufacturing is not decided by patriotism, it is dominated by corporate profits. Many of the American corporations that supplied Germany during WW2 built factories or plants in Europe. They learned they could play both sides against the middle, and give us the squeeze, which meant more profits and power to them.
The name on the weapons or supplies the US military uses doesn't mean much as far as where the profit goes or who makes the profit. The same people, (meaning the very wealthy investors as a group), around the world profit from war no matter where the war occurs or who is fighting it. War is a patriotic endeavor on the humanistic level of the people actually fighting the war, but it is mostly an economic and political endeavour for the very few people actually making the highest level decisions. This whole 'corporate profit, political ambition, military industrial complex collaboration' monster has grown so large that patriotism to country has very little to do with their decisions. They have to give lip service to 'Patriotism' to give the masses something to chew on but that is about the extent of it.
No, we don't have enough corporate base to supply our military in event of a go it alone war. It is a very complex issue for sure. But, guess what. Our American corporations, and even some foreign corporations, will move back.................... when it is profitable.
I have all the respect in the world for the patriotic men and women in our military, but a large percentage of the people that decide which name goes on our weapons are the scum of the earth.
About the best we can do is to hope that we have the best available whatever the name on the side.
Military supply and manufacturing is not decided by patriotism, it is dominated by corporate profits. Many of the American corporations that supplied Germany during WW2 built factories or plants in Europe. They learned they could play both sides against the middle, and give us the squeeze, which meant more profits and power to them.
The name on the weapons or supplies the US military uses doesn't mean much as far as where the profit goes or who makes the profit. The same people, (meaning the very wealthy investors as a group), around the world profit from war no matter where the war occurs or who is fighting it. War is a patriotic endeavor on the humanistic level of the people actually fighting the war, but it is mostly an economic and political endeavour for the very few people actually making the highest level decisions. This whole 'corporate profit, political ambition, military industrial complex collaboration' monster has grown so large that patriotism to country has very little to do with their decisions. They have to give lip service to 'Patriotism' to give the masses something to chew on but that is about the extent of it.
No, we don't have enough corporate base to supply our military in event of a go it alone war. It is a very complex issue for sure. But, guess what. Our American corporations, and even some foreign corporations, will move back.................... when it is profitable.
I have all the respect in the world for the patriotic men and women in our military, but a large percentage of the people that decide which name goes on our weapons are the scum of the earth.
About the best we can do is to hope that we have the best available whatever the name on the side.
Impureclient
Member
Rockit, Can you elaborate on this/them?
This is just one web site of many that explains the deal. You are welcome to do your own research. Just search " american corporations that supplied germany in ww2" or something similar.
Some of these corporations had their own manufacturing facilities and some were just collaborators.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2-background.htm
American Business in the War
Not only was the government concerning itself with a possible war with Japan, but it was also aware that American capitalists were creating a war machine in Germany in the early 1930's, years before Germany started their involvement in World War II.
William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador in Germany, wrote Roosevelt from Berlin:
At the present moment, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings.
The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I.G. Farben Company, a part of the government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion.
Standard Oil Company... sent $2,000,000 here in December, 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make ersatz [a substitute] gas [the hydrogenation process of converting coal to gasoline] for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods.
The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% year [arms manufacture, I believe], but they could take nothing out.
Even our airplanes people have secret arrangements with Krupps.
General Motors Company and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out.16
In addition to these American companies, others were assisting the Germans in creating the materials they needed to wage war. For instance, International Telephone and Telegraph (I.T.T.) purchased a substantial interest in Focke-WoIfe, an airplane manufacturer which meant that I.T.T. was producing German fighter aircraft used to kill Americans.
I.G. Farben's assets in America were controlled by a holding company called American I.G. Farben. The following individuals, among others, were members of the Board of Directors of this corporation:
Edsel Ford, President of the Ford Motor Co.;
Charles E. Mitchell, President of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York;
Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil of New York;
Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the brother of Max Warburg, the financier of Germany's war effort, and
Herman Metz, a director of the Bank of Manhattan, controlled by the Warburgs.
It is an interesting and revealing fact of history that three other members of the Board of Governors of the American I.G. were tried and convicted as German "war criminals" for their crimes "against humanity," during World War II, while serving on the Board of Governors of I.G. Farben. None of the Americans who sat on the same board with those convicted were ever tried as "war criminals" even though they participated in the same decisions as the Germans. It appears that it is important whether your nation wins or loses the war as to whether or not you are tried as a "war criminal."
It was in 1939, during the year that Germany started the war with its invasions of Austria and Poland, that Standard Oil of New Jersey loaned I.G. Farben $20 million of high-grade aviation gasoline.
The two largest German tank manufacturers were Opel, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors and controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm, and the Ford subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company.
In addition, Alcoa and Dow Chemical transferred technology to the Germans, as did Bendix Aviation, in which the J.P. Morgan-controlled General Motors had a major stock interest, which supplied data on automatic pilots, aircraft instruments and aircraft and diesel engine starters.
In addition to direct material support, other "capitalistic" companies supplied support: In 1939 the German electrical equipment industry was concentrated into a few major corporations linked in an international cartel and by stock ownership to two major U.S. corporations (International General Electric and International Telephone and Telegraph.)
Further support for the American owned or controlled corporations came during the war itself, when their industrial complexes, their buildings and related structures, were not subject to Allied bombing raids: "This industrial complex (International General Electric and International Telephone and Telegraph) was never a prime target for bombing in World War II. The electrical equipment plants bombed as targets were not affiliated with U.S. firms."17
Another example of a German General Electric plant not bombed was the plant at Koppelsdorf, Germany, producing radar sets and bombing antennae. Perhaps the reason certain plants were bombed and others weren't lies in the fact that, under the U.S. Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, and therefore the determiner of what targets are bombed.
The significance of America's material support to the German government's war efforts comes when the question as to what the probable outcome of Germany's efforts would be: "... not only was an influential sector of American business aware of the nature of Nazism, but for its own purposes aided Nazism wherever possible (and profitable) with full knowledge that the probable outcome would be war involving Europe and the United States."18
Even Hitler's ideas about exterminating the Jews were known to any observer who cared to do a little research. Hitler himself had written: "I have the right to exterminate millions of individuals of inferior races, which multiply like vermin."
In addition, Hitler made his desires known as early as 1923 when he detailed his plans for the Jews in his book Mein Kampf. Even the SS Newspaper, the Black Corps called for: "The extermination with fire and sword, the actual and final end of Jewry."
This material support continued even after the war officially started. For instance, even after Germany invaded Austria in March, 1938, the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, fifty percent owned by General Motors and fifty percent by Standard Oil, was asked by I.G. Farben to build tetra-ethyl plants in Germany, with the full support of the U.S. Department of War which expressed no objection to the transactions.
Some of these corporations had their own manufacturing facilities and some were just collaborators.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2-background.htm
American Business in the War
Not only was the government concerning itself with a possible war with Japan, but it was also aware that American capitalists were creating a war machine in Germany in the early 1930's, years before Germany started their involvement in World War II.
William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador in Germany, wrote Roosevelt from Berlin:
At the present moment, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings.
The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I.G. Farben Company, a part of the government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion.
Standard Oil Company... sent $2,000,000 here in December, 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make ersatz [a substitute] gas [the hydrogenation process of converting coal to gasoline] for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods.
The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% year [arms manufacture, I believe], but they could take nothing out.
Even our airplanes people have secret arrangements with Krupps.
General Motors Company and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out.16
In addition to these American companies, others were assisting the Germans in creating the materials they needed to wage war. For instance, International Telephone and Telegraph (I.T.T.) purchased a substantial interest in Focke-WoIfe, an airplane manufacturer which meant that I.T.T. was producing German fighter aircraft used to kill Americans.
I.G. Farben's assets in America were controlled by a holding company called American I.G. Farben. The following individuals, among others, were members of the Board of Directors of this corporation:
Edsel Ford, President of the Ford Motor Co.;
Charles E. Mitchell, President of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York;
Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil of New York;
Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the brother of Max Warburg, the financier of Germany's war effort, and
Herman Metz, a director of the Bank of Manhattan, controlled by the Warburgs.
It is an interesting and revealing fact of history that three other members of the Board of Governors of the American I.G. were tried and convicted as German "war criminals" for their crimes "against humanity," during World War II, while serving on the Board of Governors of I.G. Farben. None of the Americans who sat on the same board with those convicted were ever tried as "war criminals" even though they participated in the same decisions as the Germans. It appears that it is important whether your nation wins or loses the war as to whether or not you are tried as a "war criminal."
It was in 1939, during the year that Germany started the war with its invasions of Austria and Poland, that Standard Oil of New Jersey loaned I.G. Farben $20 million of high-grade aviation gasoline.
The two largest German tank manufacturers were Opel, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors and controlled by the J.P. Morgan firm, and the Ford subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company.
In addition, Alcoa and Dow Chemical transferred technology to the Germans, as did Bendix Aviation, in which the J.P. Morgan-controlled General Motors had a major stock interest, which supplied data on automatic pilots, aircraft instruments and aircraft and diesel engine starters.
In addition to direct material support, other "capitalistic" companies supplied support: In 1939 the German electrical equipment industry was concentrated into a few major corporations linked in an international cartel and by stock ownership to two major U.S. corporations (International General Electric and International Telephone and Telegraph.)
Further support for the American owned or controlled corporations came during the war itself, when their industrial complexes, their buildings and related structures, were not subject to Allied bombing raids: "This industrial complex (International General Electric and International Telephone and Telegraph) was never a prime target for bombing in World War II. The electrical equipment plants bombed as targets were not affiliated with U.S. firms."17
Another example of a German General Electric plant not bombed was the plant at Koppelsdorf, Germany, producing radar sets and bombing antennae. Perhaps the reason certain plants were bombed and others weren't lies in the fact that, under the U.S. Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces, and therefore the determiner of what targets are bombed.
The significance of America's material support to the German government's war efforts comes when the question as to what the probable outcome of Germany's efforts would be: "... not only was an influential sector of American business aware of the nature of Nazism, but for its own purposes aided Nazism wherever possible (and profitable) with full knowledge that the probable outcome would be war involving Europe and the United States."18
Even Hitler's ideas about exterminating the Jews were known to any observer who cared to do a little research. Hitler himself had written: "I have the right to exterminate millions of individuals of inferior races, which multiply like vermin."
In addition, Hitler made his desires known as early as 1923 when he detailed his plans for the Jews in his book Mein Kampf. Even the SS Newspaper, the Black Corps called for: "The extermination with fire and sword, the actual and final end of Jewry."
This material support continued even after the war officially started. For instance, even after Germany invaded Austria in March, 1938, the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, fifty percent owned by General Motors and fifty percent by Standard Oil, was asked by I.G. Farben to build tetra-ethyl plants in Germany, with the full support of the U.S. Department of War which expressed no objection to the transactions.
otcconan
Member
If we ever went to war with Italy (Beretta) or Belgium (FN), I guiarantee you that the government would nationalize those factories they use here in the US and it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Arkansas Paul
Member
We should put the best weapons available in the hands of our troops. I would naturally hope that American made arms were superior, but if not, oh well. If I was in combat, the last thing on my mind would be where the gun was made. The only thing I would be concerned with would be whether or not it got the job done.
RedLion
Member
I feel like if we went to war with any country in Europe, especially western Europe, the last thing we'd have to worry about is supplying enough small arms to our soldiers who are kinda already stationed there....
Ever since the beginning of the cold war, large scale conflicts have been pretty much made obsolete. With the widespread use of Nuclear weapons in both Europe and Asia, there's really no modernized country that the U.S. could or should get into a fight with that would not inevitably lead to nuclear war.
Also if we decide to stop buying their weapons, I doubt they'd be so enthusiastic to buy ours.
Ever since the beginning of the cold war, large scale conflicts have been pretty much made obsolete. With the widespread use of Nuclear weapons in both Europe and Asia, there's really no modernized country that the U.S. could or should get into a fight with that would not inevitably lead to nuclear war.
Also if we decide to stop buying their weapons, I doubt they'd be so enthusiastic to buy ours.
otcconan
Member
Bear in mind that as we were fighting the Kaiser and the Nazis, we were paying them royalties on the Mauser action. There is a precedent.
In a war, you want the best weapons possible. It should not concern you where it comes from. All of the FN weapons used by the military are made HERE.
In a war, you want the best weapons possible. It should not concern you where it comes from. All of the FN weapons used by the military are made HERE.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No.
We paid royalties on the stripper clip prior to WWI. As soon as we declared war, all enemy-owned patents were confiscated and became US property, and all payments stopped.
We paid royalties on the stripper clip prior to WWI. As soon as we declared war, all enemy-owned patents were confiscated and became US property, and all payments stopped.
russ69
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 320
"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"
I worked as a designer in Aerospace for the last 30 years. We were only allowed to use foreign materials only if the material was not available in the USA. In each case we had to show specific reason why a USA material could not be used. The raw materials may be another issue but generally it's a cost issue rather than a supply issue.
Thanx, Russ
Mauserguy"
I worked as a designer in Aerospace for the last 30 years. We were only allowed to use foreign materials only if the material was not available in the USA. In each case we had to show specific reason why a USA material could not be used. The raw materials may be another issue but generally it's a cost issue rather than a supply issue.
Thanx, Russ
- Status
Similar threads
