stubbicatt
Member
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.
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.