Gov't Arsenals vs. Private

Discussion in 'Technical Questions & Information' started by dcriner, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. dcriner

    dcriner Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    Illinois
    I seems that in the past, some of our most effective military firearms were developed and build by U.S. arsenals. Is the idea of government arsenals now obsolete?
  2. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,575
    Location:
    Australia
    pretty much , nowdays it seems its all about appeasement
  3. Jim K

    Jim K New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,397
    During the Kennedy administration, the bean counters decided that a government arsenal (i.e., Springfield) was not cost effective and could be closed, and that the government's small arms needs could be met by private industry. I am neutral on that specific issue, but the decision had one unfortunate effect in that it took away almost all of the government's small arms design and production expertise. From that point, the government lost not only its own R&D but also its capability to evaluate design and estimate tool up and production time and cost.

    Left to themselves, military planners, especially of the junior officer variety, tend to "ask for the moon" because they have no ability to understand how much said "moon" is likely to cost. Contractors, unfortunately, will try to give the government what it says it wants or needs. If the contractor personnel know that the job is impossible or will cost too much, they keep quiet - after all, their paychecks are on the line. With no government expertise to provide a source of sound estimates of cost and capaility, every small arms system tends to have cost overruns, poor performance, and a failure to understand the conditions encountered in combat.

    Jim

Share This Page