4 ms·

IIRC, the options for ammunition were, at least on a military scale, severely limited. Using the standard .30-'06 ammo would have been impractically heavy and p

IIRC, the options for ammunition were, at least on a military scale, severely limited. Using the standard .30-'06 ammo would have been impractically heavy and powerful. Lighter rifle ammo suitable for combat was practically nonexistent. That left .45 ACP as the only viable option, hence it's use - not the suitability for close-in fights. Possibly interesting subsequent history... In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns (a $200 tax (equivalent to $6000 today) on a ~$50 product). In 1986, that became an actual ban (for post-'86 products). As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 (the USA having by far the largest civilian market for firearms). A few non-USA automatics have been designed since (FN P90 and HK MP7 are of note), built around very lightweight ammunition and high capacity magazines in very compact platforms; these point to what could have been developed & available domestically, but was stifled for want of a market to experiment in. Should the bans be lifted, we may see some remarkable developments follow pent-up demand.

clarkmoody 12y ago
I think the KRISS Vector is an intriguing modern full-auto weapon. It incorporates an internal counterweight system to vastly reduce felt recoil. Like the Thompson, it is also chambered in .45 ACP (and uses Glock mags at that). http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp
CWuestefeld 12y ago
In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns. ... As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 Even the M16 (AR-15) is an outlier after the 1934 NFA. And consider that it was designed in 1957. Contrast this with the USSR's AK47, designed in 1947. Taking the small private developers out of the gave seems to be big reason why the Soviets got there a decade before the USA. Thus, it appears to me that the limitations on gun ownership in the USA is a liability in terms of national security. We can debate about how much it handicaps, and how important that is, but the effect is certainly there.
- the_af 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do gun ownership limitations have to do with US national security?
  - hga 12y ago
    A healthy civilian market means you aren't entirely dependent on the government and therefore politics for innovations. E.g. the AR-15 and its round, which were adopted as the M16 and 5.56x45mm came from the civilian market (and the round's parent was civilian). Most or all of the modern optics that have been used in the GWoT came from the civilian market. Our current and prior service handguns came from civilians, and the same civilian, perhaps with funding from the military during WWII, designed the heavy machine gun we still use to this day. He also designed the lighter crew serviced machine guns we used from WWI (at least in part) through the Korean War. Oh, and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), our light machine gun prior to light versions of General Purpose Machine guns (and part of the internals of our current medium and light general purpose machine gun were inspired by the BAR). Our sniper rifles are all militarized versions of civilian rifles, and I believe their scopes as well. The gold standard sniper bullet is from a civilian company, it's called the Match King, indicating its original purpose. And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head from the 20th Century. I can give you iffier examples of problems that we believe have come from places that extinguished or prevented the development of gun cultures, which is not to say that such places and governments haven't come up with good guns and rounds.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    Developing new firearms is surprisingly difficult and expensive. If there is a large, free, and robust civilian market for them, there is a significant place to try out new designs, tweak them, and generally let the public pay for & field test new designs. With the 1934 & 1986 machinegun bans in place, the only customers are national militaries, which tend to want _one_ design, want it to last for decades, and while willing to pay a lot for R&D are incapable of the orders-of-magnitude more $$$ and design cycles that the civilian market is capable of. As a consequence, there are effectively no new designs available, meaning US national security (as far as small arms go) is stuck with a 50-year-old design improved only by minor tweaks (and most of those, to make the point, are the result of the civilian market for the closely related AR15 rifle). The US military keeps trying to improve over the M16/M4, but can't because there's nothing out there so deeply tested & known, and nothing with a comparably large infrastructure supporting it.
arprocter 12y ago
>the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 (the USA having by far the largest civilian market for firearms). A few non-USA automatics have been designed since (FN P90 and HK MP7 are of note), built around very lightweight ammunition and high capacity magazines in very compact platforms; these point to what could have been developed & available domestically, but was stifled for want of a market to experiment in I think a lot of that has to do with the perception that PDWs are poor replacements for assault rifles - in a battle context greater range and accuracy will win out if you can only carry one weapon and a side arm

clarkmoody 12y ago

I think the KRISS Vector is an intriguing modern full-auto weapon. It incorporates an internal counterweight system to vastly reduce felt recoil. Like the Thompson, it is also chambered in .45 ACP (and uses Glock mags at that). http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp http://www.kriss-usa.com/sub-machin-guns/vector-smg-45-acp

CWuestefeld 12y ago

In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns. ... As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 Even the M16 (AR-15) is an outlier after the 1934 NFA. And consider that it was designed in 1957. Contrast this with the USSR's AK47, designed in 1947. Taking the small private developers out of the gave seems to be big reason why the Soviets got there a decade before the USA. Thus, it appears to me that the limitations on gun ownership in the USA is a liability in terms of national security. We can debate about how much it handicaps, and how important that is, but the effect is certainly there.

the_af 12y ago
Out of curiosity, what do gun ownership limitations have to do with US national security?
- hga 12y ago
  A healthy civilian market means you aren't entirely dependent on the government and therefore politics for innovations. E.g. the AR-15 and its round, which were adopted as the M16 and 5.56x45mm came from the civilian market (and the round's parent was civilian). Most or all of the modern optics that have been used in the GWoT came from the civilian market. Our current and prior service handguns came from civilians, and the same civilian, perhaps with funding from the military during WWII, designed the heavy machine gun we still use to this day. He also designed the lighter crew serviced machine guns we used from WWI (at least in part) through the Korean War. Oh, and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), our light machine gun prior to light versions of General Purpose Machine guns (and part of the internals of our current medium and light general purpose machine gun were inspired by the BAR). Our sniper rifles are all militarized versions of civilian rifles, and I believe their scopes as well. The gold standard sniper bullet is from a civilian company, it's called the Match King, indicating its original purpose. And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head from the 20th Century. I can give you iffier examples of problems that we believe have come from places that extinguished or prevented the development of gun cultures, which is not to say that such places and governments haven't come up with good guns and rounds.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Developing new firearms is surprisingly difficult and expensive. If there is a large, free, and robust civilian market for them, there is a significant place to try out new designs, tweak them, and generally let the public pay for & field test new designs. With the 1934 & 1986 machinegun bans in place, the only customers are national militaries, which tend to want _one_ design, want it to last for decades, and while willing to pay a lot for R&D are incapable of the orders-of-magnitude more $$$ and design cycles that the civilian market is capable of. As a consequence, there are effectively no new designs available, meaning US national security (as far as small arms go) is stuck with a 50-year-old design improved only by minor tweaks (and most of those, to make the point, are the result of the civilian market for the closely related AR15 rifle). The US military keeps trying to improve over the M16/M4, but can't because there's nothing out there so deeply tested & known, and nothing with a comparably large infrastructure supporting it.

arprocter 12y ago

>the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty much ended with the M16 (the USA having by far the largest civilian market for firearms). A few non-USA automatics have been designed since (FN P90 and HK MP7 are of note), built around very lightweight ammunition and high capacity magazines in very compact platforms; these point to what could have been developed & available domestically, but was stifled for want of a market to experiment in I think a lot of that has to do with the perception that PDWs are poor replacements for assault rifles - in a battle context greater range and accuracy will win out if you can only carry one weapon and a side arm