Military

Yes, but is the SCAR cheap to make like the AK-47?

Depends on exactly what you mean. If you are talking making new AK's here in the states they won't be any cheaper than new SCAR's. Now if you are talking buying black market AK's vs making new SCARs then no way. The SCAR will cost $1500 at least and the AK's are anywhere from $30-$200. Problem with that is the AK's are old as snot and would have to be re-conditioned (at least) not to mention doing that would go against the US military policy of buying foreign made primary weapons which is why they never used the AK's to start with. I agree, I'd pay $4,000 to use our weapons vs $30 to use a damned old Russian made plinker.

The US military can afford the new guns, Washington just needs to cut some crap out to make it happen easier. I'd start with cutting the weather modification and HAARP funding! There are tons of things we pay for that are a waste of money...funding new and great weapons should be the priority.

Washinton needs to cut out the middleman. They need to make the weapons themselves. Cheapest and best way in my opionion. And I am not for big government.

I'd say bad idea. Things like guns need to be made by experts with experience that can mass produce quality components. The alternative would be a government owned and operated arms producer and thats not really plausible as it causes too many problems constitutionally and in practice. They would have to hire experts from the industry that know what they are doing and pay them more than they are now as a contractor.

The same costs would be incurred in self producing in the US by the governement as a major arms producer would have and probably more so. Gun makers already have the equipment on hand and the staff to run it.

The only thing I can think of to cut costs is if the government cracked down on excessive union pay and benefits and took the EPA to the chopping block along with the IRS. That may cut down the costs of making the weapons by the makers in the frst place. High cost of production in this country starts with those three things. All thats left it to make the arms in another country where labor is cheaper and that brings us back to the AK's.

DurzasMinion wrote: What Canada needs, is an assault rifle that can make us proud. We had our moment in WW1, with the Ross Rifle.

Durza the Ross Rifle was a piece of garbage

True. However, Gun makes need to stop profiteering. 800 for a stock M16 and you still need to buy and install a different foregrip and anything else you want. Seriously overpriced.

@Drekea,
While it did jam a LOT, the Ross Rifle was the weapon of choice for most Snipers, since it was so accurate. The fact the we made the most accurate weapon, and the best sniper, makes me proud.

Haha. 1.5 miles is an insane shot for sure. But you used American Ammo. Woot! We win!

DurzasMinion wrote:@Drekea,
While it did jam a LOT, the Ross Rifle was the weapon of choice for most Snipers, since it was so accurate. The fact the we made the most accurate weapon, and the best sniper, makes me proud.

While yes snipers retained a fondness for the Ross it was as I said a piece of garbage in the environment it was deployed in, the muddy dirt filled trenches with Infantrymen

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Yeah, the terrain makes a big difference for performance.

Haha, yes it was bad in the trenches. But if there was a Lee Enfield laying there, we could pick up instead...

That would require a Brit to drop it (often after death) and putting that point forward just furthers my point of proving the ross was junk