5 ms·

In 1934, USA practically banned sale & possession of machine-guns. ... As such, the market incentive to develop modern & sophisticated automatic weapons pretty

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.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Here's a very relevant analogy: The massive .50BMG rifle ammunition was developed around 1910. Its primary use was established in WWII as an anti-aircraft machine-gun round, intended to throw a lot of lead in the air fast with little concern about accuracy. In the 1970s, precision long-range rifle shooters were looking for something that could fire with interesting accuracy at very far targets, 1000-2000 meters. They repurposed the .50BMG ammo, built large long rifles to fire it, and put it to a completely new use from its original intent. In 1980, the Barrett M82 semi-automatic rifle was created - something that the military had no interest in the development of, and which was created solely by the civilian market. The military suddenly took notice of this hard-hitting very long range rifle that used standard military ammo, and suddenly military snipers had a new tool - thanks to civilians - to enhance US national security using this one-man gun which could take out significant targets a mile away. Had there been a ban on civilian ownership of .50BMG guns, which some groups have been pushing for hard for decades, the M82 would never have been developed, and a lot more military targets would have been taken out with far more expensive missiles with far more collateral damage & casualties.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    Actually, soldiers had been using scoped M2 HMGs as sniper rifles since Korea.[1] After Hathcock's success with one, Barrett decided to build a real sniper rifle around the cartridge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#M2_as_a_sniper_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#M2_as_a_sniper_rif...
    - hga 12y ago
      There's a big difference between a sniper being issued a 30 pound rifle he can carry, and the mode in which Hathcock used M2s, by borrowing the use of one if it was handy (128 pounds with tripod if not mounted on a vehicle).
      - vonmoltke 12y ago
        I agree, which is why Barrett made those rifles. My point was that the .50 BMG had been recognized by the Army as an effective long range marksman's round, to the point where they were procuring and issuing scopes for the M2, 30 years before Barrett made their first rifle.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Er, the Soviet Union took small private developers out of the market earlier and more completely than the US, so I don't think you can rationally claim that any disadvantage the US has was grounded in that.
- the_af 12y ago
  Yes, that's why the assertion surprised me. I understand the interplay between the private and military markets. But to me, "national security" is a grander notion; it's about stopping attacks on a country or its interests abroad, not about the quality of its small arms...
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Yamamoto, hesitating to attack the USA mainland directly. (Though possibly apocryphal, the quote summarizes the "national security" justification. Among other issues, defending against a modern direct assault would be hampered by the lack of civilian-owned arms which would be significantly more advanced if not for the NFA et al bans.)
    - the_af 12y ago
      Yes, the quote is probably apocryphal. I think the sentiment is misguided: once it's up to civilians wielding small arms, it's not a matter of national security anymore; if it's come to that, it's likely a catastrophe already. National security is the job of the army and law enforcement/intelligence agencies. I can see how having small arms in the hands of civilians would help mount a resistance movement against an occupying power, but that's not a matter of national security.

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.
ctdonath 12y ago
Here's a very relevant analogy: The massive .50BMG rifle ammunition was developed around 1910. Its primary use was established in WWII as an anti-aircraft machine-gun round, intended to throw a lot of lead in the air fast with little concern about accuracy. In the 1970s, precision long-range rifle shooters were looking for something that could fire with interesting accuracy at very far targets, 1000-2000 meters. They repurposed the .50BMG ammo, built large long rifles to fire it, and put it to a completely new use from its original intent. In 1980, the Barrett M82 semi-automatic rifle was created - something that the military had no interest in the development of, and which was created solely by the civilian market. The military suddenly took notice of this hard-hitting very long range rifle that used standard military ammo, and suddenly military snipers had a new tool - thanks to civilians - to enhance US national security using this one-man gun which could take out significant targets a mile away. Had there been a ban on civilian ownership of .50BMG guns, which some groups have been pushing for hard for decades, the M82 would never have been developed, and a lot more military targets would have been taken out with far more expensive missiles with far more collateral damage & casualties.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Actually, soldiers had been using scoped M2 HMGs as sniper rifles since Korea.[1] After Hathcock's success with one, Barrett decided to build a real sniper rifle around the cartridge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#M2_as_a_sniper_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#M2_as_a_sniper_rif...
  - hga 12y ago
    There's a big difference between a sniper being issued a 30 pound rifle he can carry, and the mode in which Hathcock used M2s, by borrowing the use of one if it was handy (128 pounds with tripod if not mounted on a vehicle).
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      I agree, which is why Barrett made those rifles. My point was that the .50 BMG had been recognized by the Army as an effective long range marksman's round, to the point where they were procuring and issuing scopes for the M2, 30 years before Barrett made their first rifle.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Er, the Soviet Union took small private developers out of the market earlier and more completely than the US, so I don't think you can rationally claim that any disadvantage the US has was grounded in that.

the_af 12y ago
Yes, that's why the assertion surprised me. I understand the interplay between the private and military markets. But to me, "national security" is a grander notion; it's about stopping attacks on a country or its interests abroad, not about the quality of its small arms...
- ctdonath 12y ago
  "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Yamamoto, hesitating to attack the USA mainland directly. (Though possibly apocryphal, the quote summarizes the "national security" justification. Among other issues, defending against a modern direct assault would be hampered by the lack of civilian-owned arms which would be significantly more advanced if not for the NFA et al bans.)
  - the_af 12y ago
    Yes, the quote is probably apocryphal. I think the sentiment is misguided: once it's up to civilians wielding small arms, it's not a matter of national security anymore; if it's come to that, it's likely a catastrophe already. National security is the job of the army and law enforcement/intelligence agencies. I can see how having small arms in the hands of civilians would help mount a resistance movement against an occupying power, but that's not a matter of national security.