Why old military rifle designs consigned to museums?

[stubbicatt]

I've often wondered as I watch the evolution of military rifles why older designs are consigned to the dustbin, or museums. Why are some older designs quietly retired?

The FAL and Gew3 come to mind as examples, as would the M1/M14 had it not been recalled into service in the last few years. (The M14 being the "scaled down" version of the M1 seems like a good example of use of a proven design being recycled).

These designs are proven, solid, reliable, designs. Yet they are replaced by arguably less reliable rifles. I understand different cartridges place different demands on engineers and such.

Take ferinstance the Mauser bolt action. As of 1898 it was cutting edge technology. Today arguably less robust, but obviously similar, actions such as the Remington 700 are pressed into service as sniper rifles... why not the Gew98 action? It is now considered antiquated and no longer used.

There are SLRs in inventory... the M16 and others, why not a FAL scaled down to the necessary dimensions to accommodate the 556 ammo? Instead we get the odd bullpups and the DI gas system with all of its flaws. I see the wisdom in the G3 being scaled down to the HK33 as a great example of building on "what works," although for some reason the HK33 never really caught on.

There is really nothing wrong with the FAL design, except perhaps the adjustable gas system. Yet it is completely erased and new designs start from zero, but don't perform any better? Is it simply marketing, the "selling" of a new design? A well placed "campaign donation" to Senator Schmuckatelli's campaign to seal the deal?

The basic operating principles remain the same... nothing is so greatly improved as to warrant scrapping of a proven design?

--I guess today the same arguments are advanced concerning the retention of the M16 or its progeny.

Just a musing I guess.

 

[woodybrighton]

The m14 is still being used because it was available and the m4 runs out of steam at longer ranges the British have the LSW or crow cannon that can perform the same role.
also having a bull pup means infantry soldiers have a rifle that can reach out to 600metres.
The SLR( FN fal) offers no real world advantage above that range you have sniper rifles machine guns and support weapons

 

[Slamfire]

Why old military rifle designs consigned to museums?

I've often wondered as I watch the evolution of military rifles why older designs are consigned to the dustbin, or museums. Why are some older designs quietly retired?

You would have to know the specific reasons. Usually cost or tactics. I know the FAL was a very expensive rifle to make, and thus it would have been a very expensive rifle to sustain. I looked up the price of a factory new FAL in a 70’s vintage Gun Digest. My recollection that the price adjusted for inflation was $3,000 each. That’s a lot of money.

As for the HK91, I suspect it went out because it was in 7.62 Nato. After forcing the 7.62 down the throats of our NATO allies in the 50’s, politics replaced the cartridge with the 5.56. The US created this problem of having the most troops in Europe, and then supplying its Army with a non standard round. In the 70’s , the European armies that could, switched over to 5.56 but adopted more advanced rifles. The British adopted the L85A2, Austrians the AUG, Germans the G36, and the French the FAMAS.

These designs are proven, solid, reliable, designs. Yet they are replaced by arguably less reliable rifles. I understand different cartridges place different demands on engineers and such.

Take ferinstance the Mauser bolt action. As of 1898 it was cutting edge technology. Today arguably less robust, but obviously similar, actions such as the Remington 700 are pressed into service as sniper rifles... why not the Gew98 action? It is now considered antiquated and no longer used.

You do not understand the real reason behind arms procurements: Profits and Campaign contributions. The tactical is merely the "cause célèbre". The Mauser M98 never was in US production, and the true M98 has not been made for at least 60 years. So who is the American manufacturer of M98’s who has enough lobbying power to push it through Congress?

The Army no longer has the in-house capability to design or manufacture arms, at best they have hobbyists who read Gun magazines, or guys who shoot on rifle teams. The Army guys are going to look at what is on the market and modify an existing design.

When they choose an item that is in US production they create friends on Capital Hill. This is the highest profit and lowest risk alternative that you can create for an industry. No manufacturer is going to risk setting up a production line for a limited number of rifles “just in case” the Army is going to use it. And they sure will not touch any of those millions of obsolete M98’s that are of uncertain materials and dimensions, and convert them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Today arguably less robust, but obviously similar, actions such as the Remington 700 are pressed into service as sniper rifles... why not the Gew98 action?

The true Mauser design has a relatively slow lock time, compared to more modern designs, which makes it less suitable for precision, long range shooting.

The choice of Remingtons for sniper use was really an accident. The Marines wanted the Winchester Model 70 as their basic sniper rifle, but Winchester had changed the design in '64. The Marines wanted the old design, Winchester said no, and the Marines went to Remington, which fell over backward to accomadate them. Remington has pretty much dominated the market ever since.

 

[highorder]

The true Mauser design has a relatively slow lock time, compared to more modern designs, which makes it less suitable for precision, long range shooting.

The choice of Remingtons for sniper use was really an accident. The Marines wanted the Winchester Model 70 as their basic sniper rifle, but Winchester had changed the design in '64. The Marines wanted the old design, Winchester said no, and the Marines went to Remington, which fell over backward to accomadate them. Remington has pretty much dominated the market ever since.

Bingo.

 

[rcmodel]

Money, among the other things already mentioned, like politics.

It is much cheaper to make Model 700 receivers & bolts out of what is basacally round bar stock on a CNC lathe, then to pound steel forgings out.
Then mill them down to the shape of a 98 Mauser, leaving several pounds of steel shavings on the floor from each receiver forging.

rc

 

[stubbicatt]

"You do not understand the real reason behind arms procurements: Profits and Campaign contributions." Says Slamfire.

but...

"Is it simply marketing, the "selling" of a new design? A well placed "campaign donation" to Senator Schmuckatelli's campaign to seal the deal?" Said Stubbicatt

Not at all the same thing. Guess I'll concede ignorance.

--Guess Stubb doesn't know what Slamfire knows!

 

[Slamfire]

Ah shucks, you buried the answer way down in your message.

 

[Titan6]

There is really nothing wrong with the FAL design, except perhaps the adjustable gas system

Kind of says a lot does it not? Leaders don't like soldiers having easy access to fiddle with things that can make their weapons stop working because they will fiddle with it.

Take ferinstance the Mauser bolt action. As of 1898 it was cutting edge technology.

And completely unsuitable for trench warfare. The Germans could not modernize until Hitler came to power so they were stuck with it. They changed it as soon as they could.

You do not understand the real reason behind arms procurements: Profits and Campaign contributions.

Not really. Sure they play a role but the military in the US at least generally get what it asks for. A huge heavy rifle like the Garand, while the best for WWII is not what the military needs today.

The basic operating principles remain the same... nothing is so greatly improved as to warrant scrapping of a proven design?

The military is always fighting the last war next..... mix in politics, R&D and things change. The basic principal, a missile flying down range to kill your enemy, that has not changed in a long time but may sooner than you think.

 

[Quiet]

... why not a FAL scaled down to the necessary dimensions to accommodate the 556 ammo?

FN did "scale down" the FAL to 5.56x45mm, the result was the FN CAL.

No one wanted it. It was in production from 1966-1977.

FN improved upon the CAL and made the FN FNC. Which was adopted by about 13 countries.

 

[BlackHand1917]

Of course the US used the Mauser, we call em Springfields.

 

[Rosstradamus]

Why aren't they still making Model T's?

 

[Limeyfellow]

BlackHand1917:
Of course the US used the Mauser, we call em Springfields.

And of course their main service rifle in WW1, the M1917. That rifle really got screwed over after WW1 though.

 

[.45Guy]

Yes, and the M1917 is more Mauser than the '03 with it's two piece firing pin.

But on the tangent of the OP, the Charlton reportedly worked well... Perhaps we should replace the 249 with it...

 

[ArmedBear]

Why aren't they still making Model T's?

They are.

http://www.spiritcars.com/
http://www.randyshr.com/1923_1927_T_bucket_kits.html

etc.

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT the Mauser, it's hardly on the dustbin of history. It just isn't a common military rifle any more.

The rifle-as-bayonet-platform paradigm that had been around since the early 18th century is good and dead, so the K98 and similar rifles really have no place in modern military tactics.

For accuracy, a push-feed design is easier to build. So the Mauser isn't a common sniper rifle action.

The action found new life as the basis of higher-end hunting rifles, and is going strong.

 

[fearless leader]

For the same reason they do not still use muskets on the battlefield.
If you were about to deploy to Afganistan, which rifle would you like? I probably would not pick an M98 Mauser. Having carried one in 1972, I am a big fan of the M-14.

 

[223man]

The nature of warfare has changed:
1900: Armies of similar nature lined up in trenches.
1950: Armies of similar nature maneuvering.
2000: Asymmetric forces in slums and ghettos fighting whack-a-mole style.

Who wants to fight door to door with a M98? Screw the Geneva convention, give me an AA12 or (if we must be correct ala Geneva) an HK 416 in 6.8 SPC.