Originally Posted by John Galt
My basic point is that the Army knows best what the Army needs, so rather than testing corporate-produced weapons, the military ought to be designing(both the AR15 and the M9 are poorly designed for use in battle conditions), refining(H&K finally perfected the AR design just a couple of years ago, and it hasn't even been implemented yet), and producing its own weapons(obvious from poor quality control in the M9) and essential materiel, at least in peacetime.
I do agree that corporate and even foreign contracts for supplemental production of specific products may be necessary for during wartime, but I think the primary means of manufacture for specific systems, like small arms, should be directly in the hands of the US Government in order to streamline the process of oversight.
Someone has to the make the weapon. Whether that entity is a the military itself or a contractor working for the military isn't going to change that. The military is going to have a minimum standard regardless of who manufactures the weapon. The manufacturer is going to have a quality assurance process whether that manufacturer is the military itself or a contractor. Therefore I still don't see what the argument is.
These problem that you keep bringing up ultimately fall back to the military itself. If they choose to purchase a crappy product, that's their fault.
In another thread, you insist that free markets should be allowed to operate without restriction, however when it comes to the military, you seem to think that should not
be the case. You've yet to produce a sound economic reason to support this thinking.
So I'll simply repeat what I've already said: If the best quality and most competitive price comes from our manufactures, then we should purchase from them. If those things are present elsewhere, we should purchase there.
Thanks for your response.