Ammo For Sale

« « In his defense | Home | Dick’s stepped on theirs » »

There’s little market for it

Military Times: Mattis infantry reformer blasts weapons makers to quit stalling and make a better, more lethal rifle.

Because of the silliness that is current gun laws, why would a manufacturer invest in building a select fire rifle when there’s no market for it? And on the pretense that said gun maker may, but most likely will not, get a cushy contract. Odds are you’re not going to get a new rifle because there’s no one to sell them to.

8 Responses to “There’s little market for it”

  1. pkoning Says:

    The article says they want “… an intermediate caliber rifle with a piston action, polymer ammunition casing, a suppressor and digital fire controls.”
    WTF? Polymer case? What ever for? Digital fire controls? So the enemy can hack your rifle into not operating? I know the NJ anti-gun politicians want a “smart gun” like that, but the DoD is supposed to contain people who know better.

  2. Lyle Says:

    All of the controls on all of my guns are digital. You operate them with your digits.

    If he means a rifle should be electronic, as in another stinking computer, well, he’s not thinking clearly.

    A 6.5 or 6.8 is the right idea, and we already have several choices in those bore sizes. You increase the weight of the ammo though, and some people will bitch about that.

    You want more power and reach, so does that mean you’re willing to carry fewer rounds for the same weight, and more recoil? That depends. It’s all a set of compromises, but the middle sixes (.260 to .270) are definitely in a sweet spot for a man-carried rifle.

    I do find it interesting that the media pukes are wailing about the extreme lethality of the AR (presumably in 5.56) while military are bitching about it’s ineffectiveness.

    I observe that it has become fashionable for some vets to wank on the AR platform. All true and objective assessments aside, it is a fashion.

    Government higher-ups can bitch all they want, but they brought it on themselves with the Hughes Amendment, as Uncle says.

    If it is true that the AR sucks (it’s not that bad), it is also true that it has remained in service since well before the Hughes Amendment. Longer, I believe, than any American service rifle ever. So either it’s not that bad or we fucked ourselves as a country with all this gun control bullshit. When firearm development was at its peak pace, there were no gun restrictions.

    The authoritarian response to such a self-inflicted conundrum would be to simply order someone to produce something fantastic, “or else”. That seems to the tack they’re on now. More Soviet-like.

  3. Lyle Says:

    You vets have to understand that our experiences with the AR in 223 Rem. in the field as civilians have involved a large selection of expanding bullets. Big difference. So there’s that too. Our military, I submit, still has some things to learn from the civi gamers (who shoot a fuckload more than you) and the hunters, and furthermore might want to consider ditching the agreement against dum-dums in some cases.

  4. Bill Twist Says:

    “WTF? Polymer case? What ever for?”

    I can think of several reasons.

    First is weight: even a very small reduction in weight per round adds up when the combat load of a soldier is 120 rounds. Also, if you’re shipping ammunition by air, if you can cut 5% off the weight of each round, you can take that much more ammo per plane load.

    Second is cost and availability: Copper is a strategic metal. It costs money, and you have to dig it out of the ground or recycle old brass to make new brass. Out of the top 20 copper mines in the World, only 2 are in the US. That could cause a problem in a war, especially since brass is often a “throwaway” item on the battlefield.

    Third is lack of reloadability: Because you leave a lot of brass on the battlefield, it can be scrounged and reloaded. If your cases are single use only, they can’t be reloaded and used against you at some later point.

    I’m not saying that I necessarily think that polymer cases are the way to go, only that there may be some advantages, depending on your viewpoint.

  5. Drake Says:

    The military has paid some lip service to the idea but shown no real interest in switching to a 6.5mm cartridge.

    If Mattis wants a new weapon, hold a trial first for the cartridge (6.5 Creedmoor, Rem .260, etc…). Make sure it can be belt-fed in a machine gun. Then hold a trial for the weapon itself. Every major gun manufacturer in the world would submit for trial.

  6. Dave L. Says:

    There’s also very little money to be made from selling the actual guns themselves to the military. Back when I was a company commander, the M16A2 rifles on my property book had a list value of $279, in 2004 dollars.

    So really the only ways to make money are 1) spare parts and accessories; 2) civilian market sales based on “this is what the Army and Marines use.” That’s why SiG was willing to sell the P320 at a loss – because they can sell it, unchanged from the .mil form, on the civilian market.

    As far as the cartridge part of the problem, there is at least a partial solution, developed by the Army Marksmanship Unit – the .264 USA cartridge. Still brass cased, but it’s a start.

  7. Ratus Says:

    I think this Scales dipstick is the same one who was floating the switch back to 7.62×51 for the infantry​.

    P&S and TFB did whole series of why that was a “Bad Idea”

    I know that the P&S podcast has claimed to have influenced the killing of that idea for now.

    The top brass only see a “magic bullet” solution of get the “perfect gun”, instead of the needed training that would let them use what they have more effectively.

    If you guys are not watching/listening to the Primary & Secondary podcast on YouTube you are missing out.

    Watch Modcast 103 with Ian and Karl of InRangTV along with several SF vets/trainers and others.

  8. rickn8or Says:

    “2) civilian market sales based on “this is what the Army and Marines use.” That’s why SiG was willing to sell the P320 at a loss – because they can sell it, unchanged from the .mil form, on the civilian market.”

    B-b-but DAVE! That would make it a WEAPON of WARRR!