The market and guns
Oleg has a good piece on how the free market affects the development of rifles:
Logistically, the G36 and its now-discontinued civilian variant SL8 are dependent on HK for service and parts. Unlike the AR15 and the AKM derivatives, these rifles do not enjoy wide aftermarket support. The same is even more true of the P90, of which no civilian version even exists. The availability of parts and of armorer expertise strongly favors the established designs produced by several manufacturers.
The situation is a result of two factors. The first is the obstacles placed by the US laws on the way of any company wishing to make or import modern small arms for civilian use. The severity of that problem varies over time but adds restrictions and uncertainty to any business plans. The second is the reluctance of some companies, notably H&K, to even consider the civilian market as important. In the US, that civilian market is large, diverse and, in effect, an extended beta test of any new or improved weapon system. Not selling to individuals cuts off an important source of feedback on the ergonomics and reliability. Gaming software companies understand that and market variants of the army training simulators to the public at large.
There’s a great deal more and you should read, particularly the various safety and reliability problems with the FN P90 and the H&K G36. Notably that the 5.7 round is only as effective as a 22 magnum. And, also, FN recently started selling the FN P90 in a civilian version, though various sources report that the wait time to get one is over one year. That said, this is precisely why I do not buy any H&K products. Not even their high reliability AR magazines or hats. They’ve essentially told us gun loving civilians that they will not cater to us, unless we want a USP or a sporterized rifle, like the SL-8. I’m a rifle sort of guy and I like them to look and function a certain way. The more they look like they’d give Diane Feinstein a conniption, the more I want one. If they made a G36 and an XM-8 in a civilian configuration, I’d buy one of each. With H&K’s financial issues, maybe they’ll reconsider and focus a bit on us civilians.
The other issue that the lack of a market creates is there will be no new rifle for the military developed in the US. US gun makers (except for Colt) rely heavily on the civilian market. No one is going to develop the next assault rifle unless they can immediately make money off of it and US military contracts are way off in the future. Sure, there’s the occasional smaller company that caters to them but they seem to do so more from a hobbyist standpoint than a business standpoint.
Regarding the AR-15, the facts are it is the longest serving rifle in US military history. Lasted longer than the Garand and the M1A. The reason is it’s a damn fine rifle. It has some problems but they can be fixed. Those problems are the dirty gas system (it eats where it shits) and the less than effective round that the military uses. There are already fixes for those, such as a switch to the 6.8SPC or the 6.5 Grendel rounds and switching the gas tube system with a gas piston system. And these fixes came from the market. Billy Bob tinkering in his garage probably came up with the first piston system and a hobbyist created the 6.5 Grendel. Also, the fact is that the XM-8 only fixed one of those problems because it fires the same 5.56 round the AR-15 does.
Addressing the market’s impact on guns, Marko writes:
. . . there’s only so much you can do to a HK91 or a G36, despite the Lego-like nature of the latter. The problem is that it’s the wrong kind of Lego…H&K intended the G36 to be modular so it could be switched from a rifle to a carbine to a light machine gun in a hurry, but it’s modular only in that it can be reconfigured to meet military mission needs without having to invest in three different weapon systems. It’s Armorer/Supplier Lego, which looks great on paper.
The AR, on the other hand, can be turned into a varminter, a match rifle, a rimfire plinker, a pistol caliber carbine, a service rifle, a commando carbine, a large-bore specialty gun and a capable sniper rifle just by pushing out a few pins and swapping out a few user-changeable parts. That’s true modularity, and because of it the AR is far more flexible than any other centerfire rifle. It’s User Lego, fun in a box, do-what-you-want, and 90% of the AR uppers on the market simply wouldn’t be available if the only AR customers were government armorers. No wonder the design keeps trucking despite its length in service.
I’m going to have to disagree a bit and state that the reason the AR and 1911 are modular is because they’ve both been around for decades. And the market made the modifications. The AR did not start out modular and only really became so in the 1980s with the development and wide use of the M4 carbine. Not sure when the 1911 got all gun geek on us. If the G36 were available to civilians, was on the market for a while, and had a wide customer base, it would become modular because folks would make adjustments to it. The market is why you can get free floating barrels, modular rail systems, stocks with better cheek-welds and just about any caliber you could want for AR carbines. Not because the military asked for them. The same would happen for the G36, if it had a market.
I expressed sadness before that if the military adopted the XM-8 that it would be the first time in US history that the military’s main battle rifle would not be available to citizens (and for you purists, it’s actually the second as the M4 carbine was not released prior to 1986 but some civilians converted their NFA registered M-16s to M-4s). And I think it’s safe to say that without citizens, the US military wouldn’t have its current battle rifle.
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
“Regarding the AR-15, the facts are it is the longest serving rifle in US military history. Lasted longer than the Garand and the M1A. The reason is it’s a damn fine rifle.”
To be correct, I think you mean the M-14. 🙂
Yes, the AR-design has been in service as the frontline rifle longer than any other. That’s right, but the reasons are far more complex than the mere design.
First: the actual *rifles* are changed out often. The M-16 begat the A1, which begat the A2, which begat the A3, which begat the A4 and the M4A2… There aren’t any rifles in frontline service that are 40 years old. Most, I understand, are under 5. There’s a churn, if you will, of new ones coming in and old ones going out. (even with the same “mod”). If you count the mod as a “new gun”, the track record isn’t as good.
The M-14 shows back up every time we get in a serious shooting war, amazingly enough. (not so much to some of us) Now most groups in the thick of things in Iraq appear have at least 1 (in a way, replicating the WWII, Garand and BAR distribution, which ironically enough, the M-14 was supposed to “solve”).
The AR was adopted largely because of politics. Political pork, Pentagon infighting, technological worship… and that’s persisted with the rifle up to today. Now, replacements face the same problem as the .276 Peterson faced in ’36 in the Garand. There’s so much ammo in the supply line, so many armorers who need to be retrained, new tooling, new procedures, that it’s easier to perpetuate the AR line with minor adjustments than to make a major shift.
Which was the Army and Marine’s rationale for not adopting the AR during the Vietnam build-up. Overridden by lots of politics, wishful thinking, and desire for “progress”.
Plus, you always have the internal Pentagon politics. After vietnam, we were hardly going to spend a lot to build a new rifle. It wasn’t until Reagan in the 80s, that the military started to improve it’s hardware from the ruin that had befallen it – and the “fixes” for the AR were brand new, no reason to change now, when we can just make minor changes. (Not soley restricted to the AR family, the M-14 was adopted largely because of a … strongly implied rationale (that Springfield Armory (not the current gun company) knew better, but.. failed to explain/clarify that M-14s could be produced with the same machinery/factories as the M-1 Garand, without major changes.)
During the 80s, no major shooting occured. Even the “First” Gulf War resulted in few infantry battles. Basically, this is the first prolonged exposure to combat the AR has faced since Vietnam. And the results of that are causing a lot of rethinking in some areas, a lot of entrenchment in others, and the usual politics are settling in. The Air Force insists there is no *need* for a new rifle, after all, Air Power is the way to go, no need for infantry. (This is a common thought, and oft-disproved, (just ask the RAF’s “Bomber” Harris) but that’s a whole ‘nother long rant). There’s some resistance to any change under combat conditions. And there’s some resistance to admitting that there’s a *problem*. After all, who wants to admit that they sent troops into harms way ill-prepared and with inferior equipment? (This is seperate and different from the “up-armoring humvee’s discussion, but most anti-Bush people would conflate the two, erroneously).
The only “politically correct” way to fix this was.. the M-14. And in Afghanistan, the Marines quickly de-mothballed, and rushed theirs to the front. The Army wasn’t very far behind, and now you notice the proliferation of M-14’s in pictures from the front. Just last weekend, chatted with a friend who’s son has been in Iraq about a month, and he said that basically, they’d asked who was familiar with the M1 Garand/M1A at one point, and most of the “gun nuts” raised their hand, and they’ve been given M-14s, and quick briefings on care and feeding of said rifle) (Also, that a highly touted, civilian aftermarket stock had been issued, broke on a regular basis, and they’re back to walnut, with home-drilled weaver mounts for tac-lights and duct tape for cheekpieces. 🙂 )
Sorry for the nit-pick. The general gist of your point remains, and is correct. The civilian aftermarket is why the AR *is* as successful as it is. “Aftermarket” mods came out first in the civilian world, and have been adopted in huge numbers. (This also has some downsides, again, another story). Even the M-14 is succeeding because of the huge amount of people like myself who have them, scoped them. Scope mounts, new stocks, cheekpieces, cleaning supplies, all of which were proofed in the civilian market, and were available *immediately* when they were needed (even if some ways bent or broke procurement rules).
What else do you need to say, but “Barrett .50”? Created soley for the civilian market, and adopted by the Army when they saw what it could do.
For some, shutting down the most productive testbed, forcing it all into the halls of the Pentagon and lunches with congressional lobbyists would be a good thing. I submit, you’d be hard pressed to find anybody on the sharp end who thinks that.
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
My primary consulting gigs are in the Auto Industry.
I know most of the laws they must abide by.
One of them is that the vehicle be able to be maintained by it’s owner – “The General Public with Reasonable Knowledge”.
There are many laws about what one can and can’t do with their auto.
But none of them are as draconian as the laws relating to gun ownership.
Owning and using a car is not enumerated in the Constitution.
Yet we have way more freedom and way more *rights* in relation to our auto than we do firearms. And vehicles can be just as useful – and just as dangerous – as a firearm.
One of the reasons autos have evolved as they have is because people were free to tinker with their personal property without the FedGov interfering. It just boggles my mind that I am legally allowed to add nitrous to a car and give it 500 horsepower in my garage, but I can’t put a sound reducer on my firearm. (I live in Michigan.) I could go on, but I think you get my point.
I’m going to go smash and break things now.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Don’t mind the nit picking, I pick a few. I was not intimating they were using the same one.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Don’t mind the nitpicking. I wasn’t trying to say that each rifle was in service for 40 years.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:56 am
Right, I didn’t think that you did, but not everyone understands those things. 🙂
It’s a funny thing about military stuff. In some ways, it’s a lot hardier and more rugged than it used to be, and sometimes it’s not.
Which brings up a whole ‘nother set of problems with logistics. Say, take handheld GPS. By the time you get it issued to everybody, the manufacturer has a new model out, faster, better, cheaper.
At one point, I worked at a supercomputer facility, and one of the jokes/truisms they’d relate to you when you came in was “If you’ve got a project that will take you 4 years to solve with today’s computers, don’t do anything for 2 years. 2 years in, buy the computers, they’ll be more than twice as fast, they’ll be cheaper than right now, and you’ll be done ahead of time”
The opposite issue is faced by the vehicles – which are in service far longer than ANYBODY would have expected by ’03 Springfield or Garand standards. Heck, I’ve heard the P-51 was built with the expectation that it would only be flying an average of 120 days in combat areas.
But, while we’re on the subject, and though it does detract from your point, let us all bow our heads and give thanks to JMB. There is but one designer, and Cooper is his prophet. Lest we forget the longest serving *weapon system* is the M1919 Machine gun. 🙂
But many of the AR proponents I know will toss up the longevity issue – despite the fact that the AR system is nowhere near as rugged, and individual guns have been wholesale replaced (as opposed to IRAN (Inspect and Repair/Replace as Needed)) that the Garands (and now the M-14s) stayed in service with.
(I just don’t know how you ever get used to the Slinky getting *poinged* next to your head with the AR! 🙂 )
February 4th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I think that in answer to your questions about the 1911 going gun geek with aftermarket parts – a *guess* on my part, and it’s only a guess – is that the popularity of ipsc and practical shooting in the late 70s early 80s was the beginning of the current trend we see today.
I’d be interested to see if anyone can prove/disprove.
nice post!
February 6th, 2006 at 9:41 am
[…] The folks at The Firing Line have already started a group buy. Excellent. I like the 7.62 version (which can be seen here if you scroll down a bit). Official confirmation from SigArms is expected from the Shot Show next weekend. I hope they do and I hope H&K follows their lead and gets into the civilian market, as I’ve poo-pooed them for their lack of in the past. […]
April 29th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
[…] I’ve discussed The Market and Guns before. Ronnie Barrett sums it up: …When politicians say “we’ll ban sales of this caliber or that rifle to anyone except the police department and the military” who do they think will be making those items? We don’t have a “U.S. Springfield Armory” anymore – the government shut them all down years ago. If we could only sell to the military, every firearms company in the United States would fail. The industry condition is that fragile…. […]