Ok, in 1911 there were different and fewer product liability lawsuits. Drop tests and firing pin blocks were doable, but not a priority. The thumb and grip safety were feature requirements for the Army, so in a way the final customer was worried about liabilities, just not in a courtroom so much.
I don't know that 100 years ago soldiers learned weapon operation any harder than they do now, and in cases the opposite can be argued.
Design the piece to the lowest common denominator? I don't know what modern weapon system he is thinking of, but ease of use has a utility for all. Skilled and tyro. The American soldier of that era was getting lowest bidder items just like now. Other consideration besides fighting utility were considered in the selection process, and that sometime lead to hard lessons in battle. I like the Krag, but the Army could have used something better.
Today's fighters get weapons because of international deal making or factory in a congress critter's district? That's true now, that is true before Browning was born, that is true at our founding, and hell, Browning DID international deal making. FN would make designs Winchester didn't want to develop, after all.
I do love the 1911, tho. On that, Roscoe and I agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete patently offensive comments. Or, really, any comment I feel like. Or I might leave a really juicy comment up for private ridicule. Also spammers.
You can always offend hippies in the comment section. Chances are, those will be held up as a proper example...