testtest

Article on should the US build a new Springfield Armory

It'll never happen and I think that's for the best. While the original Springfield Armory was a great part of American history, I can't even imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that is our current government running an armory. It would be subject to all manner of political whims. Especially in an anti-gun administration.
Our current system of purchasing from independent companies is already full of pitfalls, corruption and political favoritism, just imagine how bad it would become if the government owned the factory?
Just trying to get Congress to approve it would be an insane battle that would go on for untold years.
Bringing back Springfield Armory is a nice dream, but that's all it is. :rolleyes:
 
Grayfox said:
It'll never happen and I think that's for the best. While the original Springfield Armory was a great part of American history, I can't even imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that is our current government running an armory. It would be subject to all manner of political whims. Especially in an anti-gun administration.
Our current system of purchasing from independent companies is already full of pitfalls, corruption and political favoritism, just imagine how bad it would become if the government owned the factory?
Just trying to get Congress to approve it would be an insane battle that would go on for untold years.
Bringing back Springfield Armory is a nice dream, but that's all it is. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
My first emotional thought was "that would be nice". Then I read your post, 100% correct. :(
WHAT WAS I THINKING?
 
Grayfox said:
It'll never happen and I think that's for the best. While the original Springfield Armory was a great part of American history, I can't even imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that is our current government running an armory. It would be subject to all manner of political whims. Especially in an anti-gun administration.
Our current system of purchasing from independent companies is already full of pitfalls, corruption and political favoritism, just imagine how bad it would become if the government owned the factory?
Just trying to get Congress to approve it would be an insane battle that would go on for untold years.
Bringing back Springfield Armory is a nice dream, but that's all it is. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t be allowed to produce any “assault weapons” or anything with a mag capacity of greater than 10.
 
The US Army already has the DEVCOM Armaments Center, the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) and US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC).

Home - DEVCOM HQ

The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command, known as DEVCOM, accelerates research, development, engineering and analysis to deliver Warfighter
devcom.army.mil devcom.army.mil


www.nist.gov

U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
www.nist.gov www.nist.gov
 
Talyn said:
The US Army already has the DEVCOM Armaments Center, the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) and US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC).

Home - DEVCOM HQ

The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command, known as DEVCOM, accelerates research, development, engineering and analysis to deliver Warfighter
devcom.army.mil devcom.army.mil


www.nist.gov

U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC)

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
www.nist.gov www.nist.gov
Click to expand...

"As the 101st Airborne Division prepared last year to receive their first M10 Bookers—armored combat vehicles designed specifically for infantry forces—staff planners realized something: eight of the 11 bridges on Fort Campbell would crack under the weight of the “light tank.”
It turns out that though the vehicle was initially conceptualized as relatively lightweight—airdroppable by C-130—the twists and turns of the Army requirements process had rendered the tank too heavy to roll across the infrastructure at the infantry-centric Kentucky post, and nobody had thought about that until it was too late."
Meghann Myers
Staff Reporter
April 27, 2025
DEFENSE ONE

ARDEC & JSSPA Working like a charm. ;)
Sorry brother couldn't help myself.:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
2.5 of programs I mentioned above were involved in the M10 Booker program (which was cancelled because of political & budget reasons.

ARDEC & JSSPA are involved in small arms/munitions development, much like the old govt. Springfield Armory, consistent with the title of this thread. And they weren't involved in the M10 program.

The M10 Booker was developed are part of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MFP) Program. The primary organization within the US Army responsible for developing armored vehicles is the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) (part of the overall DEVCOM), with U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM).

Home - Ground Vehicle Systems Center

GVSC continues to serve as the Department of Defense’s technology laboratory and engineering center of excellence for all ground vehicle advancement and
gvsc.devcom.army.mil gvsc.devcom.army.mil


Got to know the subject matter & material so Better luck next time. ;)
 
BTW - Eight of the eleven bridges at Ft. Campbell could not support the weight of the M10 Booker. There was no problem accessing the training area on the three that could handle it.

The real problem were the Base personnel (CO, etc.) that told the crews to drive the M10 Booker on bridges that they weren't rated for the M10 Booker weight.
 
Talyn said:
2.5 of programs I mentioned above were involved in the M10 Booker program (which was cancelled because of political & budget reasons.


Got to know the subject matter & material so Better luck next time. ;)
Click to expand...
Correction

2.5 of programs I mentioned above were "NOT" involved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top