Dear Dave,
On the behalf of Southerners everywhere, I would like to thank you D#&!*%* Yankees for adopting the Model 1861 during the late lamented War of Northern Aggression. I might not be here today if they had purchased more Henry rifles.
I'm sure that any surviving Native Americans are similarly grateful for crooked quartermasters.
Keep up the curmudgeonly commentary.
Signed,
Joe Sixpack- American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God!

Government procurement is usually from the lowest bidder or from the bubba that provides the biggest kickbacks. Most of the time the soldiers and Marines don't even get a reach around.

A .30-40 Krag would be a great purchase if you need a rifle to function as a 3-in-1 rifle, boat paddle, and Hi-Lift Jack handle.

Just remember when dealing with gov't contracting you are dealing with the product that met the minimum qualifications for the least cost. Doesn't exactly fit the motto of "buy once, cry once"

Governments are like large corporations in that the most important decisions are usually made by the least informed. Too bad.

Sadly our Doughboys wanted, were refused the Lewis gun, which still had some use during Round 2 with the Hun.

I guess the Marines have a contract with Colt to start getting 1911s now too.

Don't forget the confusion caused by the .45 Colt/.45 Schofield. Those armed with the Peacemakers were OK since they could fire both, but those armed with the Smith&Wesson were damned if they end up with .45 Colt rounds.

Or the unlamented magazine cut offs that were placed on Krags, Springfields, Enfields, etc. so the troops would not waste ammo.

As for mistakes, the US isn't alone in this, but obviously US mistakes are more obvious to American observers. "Leaders", such as they are, are obsessed with what they already have, and if a new idea threatens what is in inventory, the new idea is killed. Instead of thinking like Apple, they're thinking like Kodak (Kodak had all the pioneering patents for digital photography, and it made most of the earliest digital cameras, but it also had tons and tons of film and silver, so it couldn't commit fully to digital, and today it is bankrupt).

Hitler famously rejected the intermediate-cartridge rifle (what we now call the assault rifle) idea because he knew he already had 8 billion 7.92x57mm rounds in storage. Legend has it Hugo Schmeisser and his colleagues had to hide the assault rifle project under the model disguise "MP" so that Hitler would think it was just another submachinegun (machine pistol to Germans). It wasn't until demand from frontline troops for the then experimental MP-43 swelled that Hitler finally got behind the program (he even renamed it StG 44 for dramatic effect, that SOB).

The British wanted to replace the Lee-Enfield and its archaic rimmed .303 round as early as the 1910's, but WW1 intervened. The rifle became the 1914 Enfield, but the old chambering remained. On the positive side, they lucked on the Czechoslovakian ZB-26, which they adopted and turned into the Bren Gun. After WW2, the British were developing a much more handy rifle, a "bullpup" called EM2, with a new 7mm intermediate round, but it became a casualty of the NATO decision to adopt the 7.62x51mm instead. Don't get me wrong, I love the 7.62, but when you compare it to the much older (1889) 7.65x53 Belgian (also called 7.65 Argentine or 7.65 Mauser), they're the same cartridge for all practical purposes. Why go through all that trouble?

The French had many prototypes of self-loading rifles. Rossignol invented direct gas impingement as early as 1901, and unlike the M-16, the French rifles are much simpler in construction and operation. But two World Wars and economic and political instability prevented any of the projects to materialize. When the French finally were able to roll out the MAS-49 (and MAS-49/56), it was versatile, with ability to launch grenades and provision for optical sights (an idea catching nowadays) AND it was reliable, able to work in Indochina (tropical rain forest) and Senegal and Ivory Coast (desert) with equal dependability. Compared to the M-16, the MAS-49 broke into just six parts, all of them large and impossible to lose, and required only gasoline or diesel and rags to clean. (As for the fighting record of the French themselves, let's just say the Legionnaires fought bravely and heroically, but they were often on the losing side. They deserved better generals and political leaders.)

As for the Russians, their Mosin-Nagant was obviously archaic (and ugly) and still used a rimmed round, but was probably the most reliable manually operated battle rifle ever. After WW2, they fully embraced the assault rifle doctrine in the form of the AK. They also adopted the DMR as early as 1963, in the form of the SVD/Dragunov rifle, nearly 40 years before the US did. Their Kalashnikov designed PK machineguns are already lightweight at 19(PK) and 17 pounds (PKM) and they've had them since 1960's. Meanwhile the US and the West had to upscale the FN Minimi to 7.62 and use titanium parts just to get it down to 18 pounds, in order to have an equivalent weapon.

Of course, true to form, the Soviets/Russians spoil all these innovations by insisting on using that rimmed 7.62x54R round for their DMRs and machineguns! So you see, there's a lot of mistakes going around.

Excellent piece! There are plenty of examples where our weapons development and procurement processes really got it right, but some of these are graphic examples of failures. I read Chris Chiver's book and its difficult to believe how badly our government failed in what should have been an easy process of providing our troops with a robust, reliable rifle. What also struck me in his book was the extent to which the gun/writers community also bought into the press releases regarding the early versions of the M-16. I see this even today, as "articles" about the latest piece of equipment appear as though they have been written by the press department of the manufacturer.

I was in a gun shop recently and found a Krag for sale, the bore was good and action was workable, definitely a usable rifle, I believe it was for $300. What do y'all think of the .30-40 Krag as a deer round, provided I can find it.

Dave what p#@ses me off the most is the blatant disregard of our infantry guys by keeping the BAR out of their hands because it "might" get into the wrong hands.
Surely Robert McNamara wasn't alive back then to screw things up for military small arms.

Not only the .30-40 Krag as WAM listed can do, if you run out of ammo on a charging Water Buffalo, you can clobber it to death!

The M-4 rifle does well if it gets the attention it needs. Take care of your weapon and it will help take care of you, as we say. I think it will be an easy transition to whatever replaces the M-4/16 design. I don't see the gas impingement system being on the next combat rifle the Army / Marines adopt.
You're right on the mark with the praise of the M-2 machine gun, a favorite of many ground pounders. Don't forget about the M-240B machine gun. It is a good replacement for the M-60 machine gun. I don't have too many nice things to say about the M-249 machine gun....

Gov't blunders aren't restricted to whole firearms. I often wonder what ever possessed US Army to put the 1905 battle [rear] sight on the excellent Springfield 1903? That thing is HORRIBLE!

The overarching point here, as I see it, is that decisions are made by people who won't have any personal "skin in the game", except in the form of government contracts in their districts. This is true throughout governmental bodies in general in modern history. Decision by committee; I recall R. Heinlein's reference to "a committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain". Yep, it fits.

The problem with the M1 Carbine was the anemic round it was chambered for. If the gun had been chambered in say, .357 Magnum, which was developed in the 1930's, people might sing a different song about it.

Dave, we opted for the 9mm Beretta when we wanted to have US forces bases in Italy, and the .45 paid the price.

We wanted to update our M16/M4 with the FN SCAR, and yet only Special Operations Command has them.

I would rather have a weapon such as the SCAR from FN Herstal or what we were supposed to have in the XM8 from Heckler & Koch, but no, we're stuck with a underpowered short range weapon that does not have the range to kill at the distances that our Soldiers and Marines face in Afghanistan.

Krag = very smooth action. Unlike top-loading magazines, it could be topped off without opening the bolt. in practice, more than one round could be added at a time.

The problem with the US Krag was it was relatively weak compared to the Mauser, and thus did not allow any significant "upgrade" to the round's performance. When the .30-40's MV was increased to 2,200fps to approach that of the 7mm Mauser, the rifles appeared stressed. While the .30-40 Krag has evolved as a civilian round, as a military round it was stuck to 1890's performance. By comparison, the 7.62x54R Russian round, a contemporary of the .30-40, has been upgraded to where it is now the equivalent of the 7.62 or even .30-06.

@George Szaszvari,
if I recall correctly the M1 Carbine was intended for Machine gun crews, Radiomen, Tankers, Artillerymen, Forward observers, Signals troops, Engineers, Headquarters staff etc.) who did not use the service rifle as a primary arm, but who still needed a weapon, one that is more accurate than a handgun and lighter than the Thompson (which at nearly 11 pounds, was actually heavier than the Garand). It's not that the "1911" in particular was problematic. Any handgun in the US inventory in WW2 would have been considered the same. Plus, in the end, the carbine replaced neither the submachinegun nor the pistol, rather, the carbine became a front line weapon of its own, where of course, it inevitably got used for jobs it wasn't intended to (like shooting at targets beyond its effective range), and was found wanting.

Hobob,

Muzzleloaders vs. Spencer/Henry.

My friend wondered about the same thing after he watched Kevin Costner's "Dances With Wolves". At the beginning of the movie, John Dunbar (Costner) on a horse is shown being shot at by Confederate troops armed with musket rifles (or rifled muskets) and they didn't touch him. Later in the movie, when Dunbar is assigned to Indian territory, every character seems to have a lever action in hand. There wasn't a lot of years between the two, so my friend wondered why the soldiers weren't armed with lever actions in the first place.

I suppose this is where cost and industrial capacity come in. The powers that be were probably OK with a few hundred lever guns for special units, but for regular infantry, not. Too costly, perhaps. Or maybe, like the case of the BAR, they were afraid captured lever guns would be copied by the enemy.

But even if we cannot afford Spencers or Henrys for every soldier, why not breechloaders like the Sharps?

We'll never fully understand why the powers that be arrive at these decisions. Consider the Ferguson rifle, a breechloader that the British had as early as the American Revolution (1770's). It was expensive and not very reliable, but you would think the British would work at it until it became viable. But no, the Brown Bess had always seen them through, and generals favored bayonet tactics anyway.

To O Garcia: The rationale for single-shots was that repeaters would cause troops to forsake aimed fire, burn up all their ammunition, and run out. This was the case for a long time, witness the magazine cutoff in the Krag. In a way they were right, given our 25,000 rounds per casualty-inflicted rate in Korea and Vietnam.

There was also, as you point out, a fixation with the bayonet. If you couldn't fix a bayonet to it, what good was a rifle, and the Henry at least was useless in that department. There was the story about the U.S. Marine officer who, the first time he saw a flamethrower demonstrated, said that it was very nice, but where do you fix the bayonet? It may have been Chesty Puller.

And no less a person than Benjamin Franklin suggested to the Continental Congress that the longbow might be a better weapon than the muskets of the time.

I dont get why everybody is slamming M14 rifles. I enjoy David's articles but I wonder what his experience with them is. As an Army veteran we used M14 rifles in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a great rifle and everybody argued over who would get issued the M14 as we only had a few of them available! I am out of the service now and have a Springfield Armory M1A which shoots sub MOA with match ammo, its very reliable. I have not heard anybody who USED an M14 badmouth one.
Also in regards to the M4/M16 comments. I used both of these rifles in both theaters as well, they performed well without babying them. As far as knock down power I think people come to expect to see somebody get knocked on their butt with 1 round because thats what they see on TV. Shot placement is key no matter the size of the round, and sometimes people just dont die that easily. That is all.

An interesting subject, with some good points, but also some contentious opinions without much substance, and even some incorrect stuff. As already pointed out, the revolver and cartridge adopted at the turn of the 20th century was the 38 Long Colt, not the better 38 Spl. The design issues of the 38LC are documented in Wikipedia. Some firearm historians/collectors beg to differ with your poor opinion of the 1873 Springfield Trapdoor which was simple and fast to operate for a single shot, the 45-70 round superior to anything in repeating rifles at the time (despite some issues with copper cartridges, that may, or may not have been influential at Custer's demise (the jury is still out on that one.) As combat ranges closed repeaters gained the advantage, but that is what 45LC revolvers with 7½" barrels were for... and the combat tactics of mounted troops dismounting to form skirmish lines could be discussed here, but... Then there is the Krag Jorgensen charged with being "grossly inferior" to the Mauser, but many disagree, citing the main issue as the funky side reload of the KJ compared to faster clip reload of the M. Then you just regurgitate the good old jingoistic stuff about the 1911, a great pistol for some, a complete dog for others, which was considered problematic enough as a side arm for the controversial M1 Carbine to replace it for many personnel, and those who like to compare the M1 Carbine unfavorably with the M1 Garand never seem to appreciate this point, and if the M1 Carbine was asked to do more than it was designed for, Audie Murphy (as well as my father-in-law, bronze star 1944-5 Philippines campaign) still liked it. And we have the more recent issue of Beretta 92s, Sig Sauers, etc, and your comment that "the 9mm has no fans at all" makes me wonder...