>US in the 1900s (decade)

>US in the 1900s (decade)
Lol we are going to spend literally 10 years fixing the 1903 and actually putting it into production. Nevermind the fact that just a decade earlier we were fielding single shot large bore breachloaders.
>US in the 2020s
Lmao lets just trial and adopt and produce this gun thats marginally better than what we have and could have just been fulfilled by a receiver set... In like 1 year. Because we can kek. Lets also disqualify the competitors that have been working on their highly advanced projects, funded by us, since literally 2012, because we can, kek.

Was isolationism really all that?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Keep crying pussy America number one

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Are you implying that the 1903 was a bad design?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      no he's implying that the 1903 was a huge jump foreword in technological progress while whatever ngsw acr bs they've been doing lately is so minuscule its is a waste of time to adopt them

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >huge jump foreword in technological progress
        By what measure? It was a marginal improvement over the Krag in both ammunition and action.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Strippers are cool, but they could have just welded a stripper clip rail on the Krag and called it good

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Strippers are cool, but they could have just welded a stripper clip rail on the Krag and called it good

          The Krag and .30-40 didn't have any huge, disastrous flaws, but a long enough laundry list of inadequacies that cutting losses by adopting a new rifle and cartridge was the only real option for the Army. The ballistics were shit, improving the ballistics meant cracking the weak single locking lug bolt, the cartridge rim was shit, the magazine was shit, and nobody was happy about it, so why do anything other than start fresh and try again.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      M1903 was replaced by M1917 with the Enfield action. Also 1903 wasn't originally 30-06.

      The 1903 is fine on the same way the mosin nagat is fine.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The 1917 is a mauser action, not a lee action

        Technology has advanced and continues to accelerate orders of magnitude beyond early 20th century engineers could ever imagine
        >This stumps OP

        Nah both the 1903 and Sig M7 are not technologically hyperborea, they are fairly standard in regards to the tech curve
        The difference is the amount of time procurement actually took

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        superseded in service but did not replace as the M1917's use by the military was mostly discontinued in favor of the M1903 after WW1 (which is why the M1903 continued to receive upgrades in the interwar whereas the M1917 did not). Moreover the M1917 is a Mauser action; although there are noticeable differences between the M1903 and M1917 on the user end the practical difference is small

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >although there are noticeable differences between the M1903 and M1917 on the user end the practical difference is small
          *as in the user will notice the differences but the actual difference in capability on the grand scale is marginal

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Lol we are going to spend literally 10 years fixing the 1903 and actually putting it into production.
        We did the exact same thing with the Krag before it and the Garand after it. The British also took a similar path with the Lee-Enfield.

        >with the Enfield action.
        When the Brits started designing the rifle that would become the Pattern 1913/14/US M1917 they literally started by taking a US M1903 and modifying it with a receiver sight and wiener-on-close bolt. They were just too proud to blatantly use a Mauser 98.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >and wiener-on-close bolt
          What was the purpose of doing that? Just to LARP as Lee Enfield?

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Was isolationism really all that?
    Absolutely yes but not but not for the chilrish reason you point to

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Technology has advanced and continues to accelerate orders of magnitude beyond early 20th century engineers could ever imagine
    >This stumps OP

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You don't get it. The XM7 is the new Krag. Once it shows its failings in combat, it'll be replaced with the new 1903 and all will be right with the world.
    >Was isolationism really all that?
    Absolutely. We were entirely self sufficient and could sell our goods all over the world.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Now the us is just doing reverse isolationism. Everyone not backed by the US is the isolationist

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    a decade earlier they were fielding Krag-Jorgensens firing .30 caliber spitzer rounds

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      How many US krags were in service (issued, in units hands) in 1893 compared to US trapdoor springfields

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *