Why the US Gov HAS to spend so much money on weapon development:

[Fletchette]

Look at DARPA, and the X Prize, both of which put HUGE amounts research for the government for 1million each

X Prize was completely privately funded. They even had a rule prohibiting teams from using any technology that was developed with government funding.

Sometimes, and I know you don't want to hear this, but sometimes it isn't necessary for an engineer to understand all the first principles of what he is doing.

Sometimes, just sometimes, this is correct. However, most of the time if an engineer does not have the basic knowledge that his predecessors did he/she will dramitically screw up.

Yes, we as a nation are experiencing a brain drain. Most college students do not even seem capable of writing with correct grammar. As for engineering, we landed men on the moon in 8 years from a standing start (1961 to 1969) and now, with all of our "knowledge" we are proposing to go back in 13 years. This is suppoded to be "visionary".



Consider who actually makes stuff anymore. America? Nope. Other countries design, test, build and manufacture far more than the U.S. does now. Somehow, we are supposed to move into a "service economy", with uneducated college graduates.

I look at what was made 100 years ago and marvel.

 

[Fletchette]

p.s.

With regards to the original premise of this post, I will agree that if we did not have so many laws there would be more individual experimentation with small arms. Someone might even come up with cost effective solutions to expensive problems.

For example. If people were allowed to own tanks, you might see less expensive tanks that can do 99% of what our current tanks do. The X Prize is a good example. People just a few years ago scoffed at the idea of privately developed spaceflight. Now it is real.

 

[Keaner]

We are still making huge advancements in technology.

Secondly, you are assuming that given the chance, we cannot come up with anything "new" for weapons as a collective.

Part of DARPA iirc, was to give your project findings TO the government, so it was basically a way to get colleges to fund a HUGE project.

All I am saying is, that the common person is no longer encouraged to invent the way he was 100 years ago.

Right now, it is a NECESSITY that the government spend that much money, but if the common people were encouraged a little more to develop stuff on their own, the government would not have to. That was the main point.


*BTW: The M1 is such a good rifle BECAUSE of its simplicity. Sometimes the simplest idea is the toughest think of.

 

[Hardware]

All credit to John Moses Browning, but let's also not forget David Marshall Williams, inventor of the M1 Carbine. While his design was improved upon and polished, it was not significantly changed between the prototype and the service rifle.

 

[cracked butt]

Garand though I'll give you. The M1 ain't much more than a bolt-action with a stick welded on the bolthandle ponying up to a gasport, when you get right down to it.

Yup, and making it work was easy too. That's why there are numorous coversion kits out there to turn your remington model 700 into a semiauto.

Why the US Gov HAS to spend so much money on weapon development:

The short answer- because the government is far better at wasting money that doing any useful function. Don't get me wrong, they've come up with some nifty contraptions over the years and put men on the moon, but overall more money is wasted than spent doing something productive.

 

[Rembrandt]

Why the US Gov HAS to spend so much money on weapon development?

...So we don't make the same mistake the French did with the Chau Chau...

 

[Sam]

CrackedButt,
Ever seena Charlton AR?
It is an SMLE with a strap on gas cyl and cam arrangement to operate the bolt.
Works just like a Garand, but does not look quite so elegant and it in that rimmed Brithing shell too.

Sam

Sam

 

[davec]

Ever since World War II goverment defence contracts have built in guaranteed profit for the contractor.

FDR started the practice just before the war to encourage guys like Ford and GM to switch production to armaments. Even as late as 1940 they still saw the civilian market as the best place to put their resources to maximize profits. However, once the goverment began guaranteeing them profit built into the contract they had an incentive to switch over.

That practice should of stopped after World War II, but it did not. Instead of reverting to pre-war way of doing things where a contract was signed between the contractor and the goverment for a set price, and the company could keep as profit anything leftover after their costs were covered, defence contractors slowly became bloated semi-goverment entities who were (and still are) GUARANTEED their existence by the US taxpayer no matter how efficient they are or are not.

Eisenhower said something on the subject back in 1961...he called it the military-industrial...something or other, I don't remember.

But no...no..more important to federally subsidize our defence industry then allow it to operate in a free market....and if you *dare* suggest changing things...well be prepared to be called fun things like "weak on defence" and have your picture used in television ads next to Saddam Hussien and Osma Bin Laden.