Yes, IIRC we even ended up paying up in the case of the '03. The beloved Springfield is probably not quite as good a military weapon as the '98 Mauser, but in that case the Krag was so markedly inferior the Mauser design that we had to copy it, more or less.
I read somewhere that after WWII, the US Army, after hearing endlessly from GI's who bitterly complained about the superiority of the MG-42 over our design, converted a couple to .30-06, and the conversions, being sloppily done, didn't work right. The Army then pronounced the design unreliable.
The M-60 incorporated features of the MG-42, but they changed it enough to screw it up.
The sad fact is that in the US method of making war, rifles and machineguns are very much of secondary importance to supporting fires in the big scheme of things, and the discipline and training of our guys (and gals) makes up for any small arms edge the Jihadists might have. The possible shortcomings of our infantry weapons only becomes an issue after the "big battle" is over, and the "small battles" of counterinsurgency begin.
posted on 04/17/2006 5:07:44 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson