How Military Guns Make the Civilian Market

[SecularMotion]

This week, the U.S. Army will brief arms manufacturers on the design requirements for a new standard-issue handgun. Several gun makers will compete for the lucrative contract, developing weapons that are more reliable and more powerful than those currently in service. Officials say the upgrade is overdue—it’s been nearly 30 years since the Army adopted the Beretta M9. But the last time the military challenged the industry to make a better handgun, all the innovations intended for the battlefield also ended up in the consumer market, and the severity of civilian shootings soared.

Studying gunshot injuries in the D.C. area in the 1980s, Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University noticed an alarming trend—as time went on, more and more patients were arriving at the emergency room with multiple bullet wounds. In 1983, at the beginning of the study period, only about a quarter of gunshot patients had multiple injuries, but in the last two years of the study, that proportion had risen to 43 percent. Over the same period, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of 15-rounds (or more) were replacing six-shot revolvers as the most popular firearms in the country. It’s not difficult to see the correlation—more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims. But why had guns changed so radically in such a short period of time?

In 1980 the Joint Services Small Arms Program invited the firearms industry to develop a new military handgun, with more than double the capacity of the sidearm American troops had been issued previously. At the time, soldiers were still using essentially the same handgun their grandfathers had carried into the trenches of World War I, a pistol John Browning had designed at the turn of the century. Its standard magazine held just seven rounds. The U.S. Army had a long wish list for a replacement, with 72 mandatory design requirements and 13 additional “desirable” features. According to Leroy Thompson, author of The Beretta M9 Pistol, “many of these mandatory requirements were very military-specific, which made it difficult for an off-the-shelf commercial pistol to fulfill them without alteration.”

In a series of trials, prototype guns were slathered with mud, soaked in salt water, subjected to hot and cold temperatures, dropped, and fired thousands of times. The Army tallied each misfire and scrutinized each mechanical failure, requesting various design tweaks along the way. Italian manufacturer Pietro Beretta entered the trials with a prototype based on their Model 92 semiautomatic pistol, which had been developed for Italian military and police forces. By 1985, Beretta had won the contract, and the Army placed a preliminary order for more than 300,000 of the new pistols, now designated M9. Initially the guns were manufactured in Italy, but to meet demand Beretta moved production to Maryland.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/how-military-guns-make-the-civilian-market/375123/

[hack89]

1. Nearly every gun in the civilian market started as a military weapon

it has been that way for ever. Shotguns are the only exception I can think of.

[Starboard Tack]

3. Stun guns, water pistols, nail guns, glue guns, air guns, toy guns, bb guns?

But you probably meant guns designed to kill humans, right?
How about we keep all of the above plus the shotguns and deep six the rest? Do you think the world might be a happier place?

[hack89]

5. I am glad you are maintaining a sense of humor

a 20 year losing streak would get many people down.

[Starboard Tack]

11. My life is a barrel of laughs.

What's the point if you don't have a sense of humor? I lived in the US for 35 years and the only people I knew who died of gunshot wounds killed themselves.

[hack89]

12. I know - mental healthcare in America is a disgrace

one day we will have single payer.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Maybe the NRA and the gun industry could chip in a few $$

Like the tobacco industry has to fork out every now and then.

[flamin lib]

4. So you're saying that nearly every gun in the civilian market was designed specifically for killing

human beings? What about the highly vaunted sports shooting so important to the NRA types?

[hack89]

6. What about it?

the vast majority of guns will never kill a person. The vast majority of gun owners will never kill a person. I have been shooting my entire life and except for military training, killing people has never been the focus of my interest.

[flamin lib]

7. I don't know you that well but

if you, as so many gungeoneers, have a cc permit I submit that killing people is kinda high on the list of why you have/carry a gun. That is why the marketing of military arms to the public works so well. "Designed for them(insert picture of soldier in camo) built for you" and "Consider your man card renewed" are ads that appeal to and are really effective on masculinity challenged men.

If you don't have a cc permit or carry in public this reply does not apply to you personally.

[IronGate]

8. Oh good god!!!!!

Do you actually believe this claptrap?
You actually believe that someone who has a carry permit wants to kill someone else?

[flamin lib]

13. I believe, along with a number of NRA tactical instructors, that the majority

of concealed carriers suffer from the Rambo syndrome (they're term, not mine) and fantasize about being a hero. So, yeah, if you find it necessary to carry in public because you may need to defend yourself puts a high priority on being able to kill someone. And that makes you vulnerable to machismo advertising.

This is the editorial "you", not any specific individual, not you personally and not meant as a personal affront. I don't know you as you don't know me.

[IronGate]

16. Sure there are a few Rambo types out there that want a CCW just for

that specific purpose, but they're the tiny minority of CCW holders, the majority hope to never have to use their firearm to harm another.
Several of my colleagues have a CCW and not one of them hopes they can shoot someone.

[flamin lib]

22. How do you back up that statement?

This a serious question and not a flippant reply. Gather all the CCW together and ask the question. How many will answer in the affirmative?

[IronGate]

25. I've asked my colleagues the same thing because I've seen this claptrap before,

and their answer is what Starboard Tack posted already, they hope to never have to use it, but they're prepared to use it if forced to.
They also realize the legal ramifications of having to shoot someone in self defense.
Most CCW holders are level headed, law abiding citizens who just want to be left alone, and most will do what ever it takes to avoid or de-escalate a bad situation, especially if they're carrying.

[flamin lib]

27. So you asked the question and accept the answers without question?

Sounds scientific to me.

[IronGate]

29. Take it however you want,

but your description of CCW holders is nothing more than claptrap.

[flamin lib]

30. Is that a technical term? Not seen it in any of the publications I've read.

In fact that is the reasoning used by Kleck to dismiss the NCVS when it conflicted with his conclusions. It's also the chief issue other researchers take with Kleck. Anecdotal evidence can't be verified and should be suspect.

[gejohnston]

32. the only researchers who took on Kleck

were Brady Shills. I don't know of any researcher who are real criminologists have any issue with Kleck. In fact:
http://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/profs/top-criminal-justice-professors
http://criminology.fsu.edu/news/fsu-criminology-professor-recognized-as-one-of-25-top-criminal-justice-professors/

[flamin lib]

55. Funny, I sent you a list pages long with publications which you claimed to have "read them all"

and very few were sponsored by gun control groups.

[gejohnston]

57. I did read them

I believe I said criminologists. I also said peer reviewed and published in criminology journals. Harvard School of Health's department is funded by the same organization that astro turfs Brady campaign, the Joyce Foundation. Bloomberg school of Health is self explanatory.

[flamin lib]

58. So, you pick one and discard all? The only nit you can pick is funding?

Do you have any issues with methodology? Sourcing of data? Anything???

The only thing ya got is who might have sponsored the publication?

Why are criminologists more qualified than academians?

Like I said in another thread, if it weren't for ad hominem there'd be no discussion here at all.

[gejohnston]

59. criminologists are academians

I would have to re read each one and address one individually. That means I would have to have access to the raw data. IIRC, one was a Phil Cook study that mostly agreed with Kleck's but said something else in the press release.
Funding matters, check the funding sources for climate science denial "studies".

[flamin lib]

60. Crimologists are no better academians than any others.

Several of the publications were available in their entirety but having a mind like a steel trap is sooooo convenient. ( closed tight)

Can't be bothered with conflicting facts? Oh, and since you read ALL the cited publications and I've given you one of the issues taken with Kleck can you tell me the other repeated problem other researchers had?

If not, let's dispense with your superior attitude.

[gejohnston]

61. Actually I can be bothered with conflicting facts

After all, everything in life is usually a three sided sword. Like a divorce court's three sides of the story: His, Hers, and the truth which has elements of Him and Her and facts neither included. In Hemenway's case, he accused Kleck's pollster's of rigging the study without providing any evidence of it.
I never said Kleck's study doesn't have its flaws, neither did he.
While I did read them, it has also been quite awhile.
Sorry if it seems that I'm putting on airs, I am certainly not superior to anyone other than perhaps Michelle Bachmann.

[flamin lib]

62. Michelle Bachman! OK, made me laugh and that's worth something!

But you have to give up the fixation with Hemenway. There were a lot of publications on the list that had no Hemenway on them. The other irritation is that Kleckinistas always go back to Kleck or others who have a dog in the fight to debunk criticisms. How dumb is that?

If there's a disagreement between two authors find a neutral third party to settle it. There were a few of those in the multiple links I sent you (which you read every one of).

What is the other recurring criticism of Kleck's work? Hint, it isn't methodology.

[gejohnston]

63. Hemenway is the most prolific

Kind of like Lott on the other side. Most of the other people are pretty obscure other than Phil Cook.
Hemenway and Lott have an ideological dog in the fight.

Kleck never did, but now he is the best known. Probably the most respected in academe out of the gun researchers. He simply found an area where little work has been done when he started in the 1970s. He gets awards from his professional society and is one of the top 25 criminal justice professors in the US.
Lott goes to NRA conventions and Hemenway gets a free dinner and a plaque from the Brady campaign. That doesn't mean everything Lott and Hemenway does is bullshit, but they are open about their bias.

Recurring criticism? Other than being kind of outdated? I have read that he is an NRA shill, which I know he isn't, since he supports gun control measures the NRA doesn't (UBC similar to Colorado's). The NRA didn't fund any of his research. You tell me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. That's as ridiculous as saying anyone choosing to not carry WANTS to be a victim.

[Duckhunter935]

51. how many of these instructors, whats the number?

where and how did you interview them?

[flamin lib]

56. I didn't interview them any more than you've interviewed Bloomberg.

But here ya go anyway:

If someone carries weapons concealed, he must really be looking for or expecting trouble instead of avoiding it (whether they were carried legally or not).
Jim Grover, "Don't Be a Victim!," Guns & Ammo, July 1992, 21

...the license to carry concealed, deadly weapons in public is not a right but a privilege. To be worthy of this privilege, one must be both discreet and competent with the weapon. The gun-carrying man who lacks either attribute is a walking time bomb.
Massad F. Ayoob, In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection (Massad F. and Dorothy A. Ayoob, 1980), 81.

e aware that when you start carrying a gun, your personality may change. You may become more confident but also more aggressive. You may go to places that you would not have gone before simply because you are armed. You may think you are invincible, but you're not. . . . "most police officers and probably civilians who carry guns fantasize at some time or other about winning a gunfight.”
Chris Bird, The Concealed Handgun Manual: How to Choose, Carry, and Shoot a Gun in Self Defense (San Antonio: Privateer Publications, 1998)

"Civilians who buy guns for street defense tend to think that their very possession will alleviate the dangers," and may thus unwisely stroll into situations where it may later appear "he was looking for trouble."
Massad F. Ayoob, In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection (Massad F. and Dorothy A. Ayoob, 1980)

[Starboard Tack]

15. I don't think it's about wanting to kill

It's more about being prepared to kill. That entails a particular mindset. Most of us don't consider killing other humans as a method of conflict resolution. We rely on other means, if possible. So, without the presence of any overt threats on our lives, the guns stay at home, safely locked up. The "carrying just in case" crowd are, or should be, ready to kill or be killed. Those are the rules when you walk out the door carrying a loaded firearm.
So, if you are not prepared to kill, don't even think about carrying. And if you are prepared to kill, then be prepared to be killed or wounded and also be prepared for all the other potential consequences that come with killing another human.

[IronGate]

18. That is an apt description.

Most CCW holders hope to never have to shoot someone else.

[flamin lib]

23. Like the Cialis daily users they just want to be ready when the moment's right. nt

[IronGate]

26. Bullshit!

They want to be prepared in the unlikely event that they're forced to defend themselves.

[flamin lib]

33. How is what you said different from the Cialis commercial?

Like the Cialis daily user the ccw often spends a lot of time thinking about the time being right. Only they call it "situational awareness". Again taken from NRA tactical instructor's comments.

[Eleanors38]

46. Situational awareness: Good, even when unarmed.

And a term used by many who wouldn't step near the NRA hdqtrs. You would agree that everyone should practice "situational awareness," no?

[Eleanors38]

49. I guess a Cialis ad has more cred than Archies' Comix.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Just as most hang gliders hope to land safely.

And most motorists and pedestrians hope to arrive safely at their destination.

Then you've got the military. Looks like you were there. And in the military you've got a bunch of guys who actually hunger for the kill. I'm sure you probably met some. I've met a few, including one or two who felt short changed because they never got to experience the thrill of the kill.

So, the key word is "most" and "most" never make the headlines.

[IronGate]

28. U.S. Marines.

And you're right, I did meet a few like that, they tend not to last very long in today's Marine Corps.
And I can tell you from personal experience, there is no thrill of the kill for most of us, it's sickening to take a human life, it lives with you for the rest of your life if you have any conscious at all.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Like I said, the key word is "most"

And thankfully, that is the case. Imagine if it were otherwise. I have a young friend (friend of my daughter, actually) whom I recently spent some time with. Pleasant, peace loving guy, who has a twin brother. The brother just got out of the USMC, very embittered because he didn't get posted to a hostile zone and didn't get to kill any "ragheads", which he really wanted. Now, apparently, he's building his own little armory and filling his head with extreme RW hatred. A ticking time bomb with a clean record. Makes one wonder how many of those are walking around, all eager to scratch that itch.

[hack89]

10. I haven't carried in public in years - I live in a safe area and don't need to.

I just maintain it as a matter of principle.

My interest is target shooting with my entire family - that is why I have a safe full of AR-15s. My wife and daughter would laugh at your "masculinity challenged men" comment.

[flamin lib]

14. Women are about 3% of the gun market. Wonder why that is? nt

[hack89]

19. Gallup says 15% of women own guns

and the rate is steadily rising. I suspect they are discovering how much fun shooting can be.

[Eleanors38]

47. Where did you pull that from? 1955?

[NYC_SKP]

21. You just don't get it do you? You don't even try to get it, it seems. Don't want to get it.

Can you just look at history on your own-- it's pretty obvious what the relationship is between military and civilian weaponry has been historically.

Do you realize how many other civilian innovations came out of the military?

Have you ever flown in a jet aircraft?

Do you know how much of your electricity is coming from a nuclear reactor?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", but be happy to get and answer.

The fact of the matter is that military applications are the root of a significant portion of all patents and inventions.

You could, for example, take the invention of the stirrup.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Ah, leveraging ignorance to generate more fear. Semi-auto pistols go back 120+ years.

This article suggests to the typical (ignorant of guns) reader that 15-round designs came about suddenly and that the JSSAP specs somehow are responsible for a scary proliferation of high capacity mags.

Um, no, I'm not even going to waste my time.

Military guns in one form or another have been in the civilian market since the beginning of guns, with a few reasonable exceptions.

This is still the case, except that the number of exceptions have grown over time, and they are less and less reasonable.

Guns aren't the problem.

[DonP]

9. I have one of those "Military Guns" in my home

It's a "state of the art" '03 Springfield, made in 1914 and re-barreled in 1942 and "gently used" by the USMC in the Pacific. Got me one of those new fangled semi-auto Garand's too. At 200 to 600 yards they can both still can put them in the center, if the shooter does their job.

Amazing "facts" too! The Beretta contract required a US based manufacturing facility as part of the military supply agreement. Which Maryland just drove out of state to Tennessee.

There seems to be no shortage of either ignorant or lazy writers (or readers for that matter) for the masses who don't want to bother doing any research and choose to write, from "their heart", but I think their primary source is about 12 vertebrae lower and aft of center.

[flamin lib]

20. I have it on good authority that NOBODY

in the gungeon calls names or resorts to base insults. I think I'll bookmark this post for further reference.

My favorite is the 7.5 Swiss.

When hunting and target shooting began to decline bolt action rifles ceased to be promoted by manufacturers. The vast majority of advertising today is for AR style weaponry and the accompanying furniture.

[gejohnston]

31. bolt action rifles ceased to be promoted by manufacturers

Too bad too. While ARs have their place, but usually nothing a good bolt action can't do better. My favorite is the .30-30 lever action.

[DonP]

34. I like my K-31 but ...

It's more like a piece of fine jewelry than a battle rifle.

One look at the fine Swiss machine work on the action and you know if it got dropped in the mud or sand at Omaha beach or Entiewok Atoll, you'd have to spend 20 minutes cleaning that beautiful straight pull action. As opposed to my "Peasant Proof" Mosin-Nagant 91-30, that could have been buried in the rubble of Stalingrad for 70 years and would still work.

But the K-31 is also the only rifle I don't have to reload for. The stock military ammo is match grade quality.

FWIW, my insults were aimed at the writer for being either ignorant or lazy and to anyone dumb enough to buy his story a face value. In a way, a self qualifying insult.

[flamin lib]

35. This is way off SOP but nobody is complaining.

Both the Swiss 7.5, successor to the Schmidt Rubin, and the MN are good examples of design to purpose. The MN was designed to be used and maintained by a farm boy who never used anything more sophisticated than a shovel. (Post Soviet soldiers aren't like that). The 7.5 carbine was designed for a neutral country with a sophisticated citizenry in a rugged mountainous country. A platoon above a mountain pass could pin down a battalion from a quarter mile away.

I take your insults as nothing more than ad homonym, attacking the messenger so as to ignore the message. But what the heck, if it weren't for ad homonym there'd be no discussion here at all.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Sorry to nitpick, but it's "ad hominem"

No "y" in latin. In fact "Y" is called Greek "i" in both Italian and Spanish, though it is used in Spanish, as in "Yo"

Please excuse the interruption. I'm a little compulsive at times. I find your conversation quite fascinating.

[flamin lib]

38. auto correct strikes again!

[Starboard Tack]

39. LOL, gotta love it.

[flamin lib]

40. I actually spelled it correctly but failed to notice the "correction".

Even if I had noticed the number of keystrokes to correct it on this tablet is outrageous.

But thanks for the constructive criticism.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Can you cite this "good authority" for us?

TIA...

[flamin lib]

45. OP is 7 ways to defeat the NRA

See post 5.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. One poster out of thousands is now "good authority"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=149495

What do you think that means above and beyond the inaccuracy of
one claim in that post?

[flamin lib]

54. Read the whole sub thread and the post that engendered the comment. nt

[Eleanors38]

48. I think the ref was to the writer's aft torpedo tube,

and not a description of anyone at DU. I'm surprised you followed the rather clinical road map. Reminds me of G.B. Shaw's response to a critic: "I am in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me."

[Duckhunter935]

52. Two rifles I would love to have

I have a great military spec 1926 Mosin and a 1944 Swiss K31. Both very sweet shooters. My Colt 45 government is also a very nice shooter.

[ManiacJoe]

41. An entertaining read that a fact checker could have improved.

[Eleanors38]

44. Nothing to see here. A tired, meaningless debate...

The hand-me-down approach of military-to-civilian use is a couple hundred yrs old, now. Curiously exception: The Remington Model 8 was a .35 high-powered rifle developed for civilian use in 1908. It was semi-automatic. The U.S. Army would wait another 33 yrs before sending its troops into combat with a similar technology.

U.S. and military forces around the world now equip soldiers with Full-Auto rifles. U.S. civilians are still dancing with whut brung 'em: semi-auto technologies

I think the beef, again, is with magazine capacity. And that horse first bolted the barn with a civilian rider. Incidentally, the Model 1911 Colt pistol is a 100+ yr old semi-auto design only somewhat different from Barettas and a host of other makes: shoots fast as you pull the trigger.

[ileus]

50. From the rejects we have great choices for personal safety.

And of course we have the winners like the M11-A1

[dookers]

64. Its the other way around

Rarely does the military develop any small arms on its own except for niche weapons. Most of the small arms in the US military were acquired off the shelf. The AR15 and Beretta 92fs were available on the civilian market years before the military adopted them as the M16 and M9.

[pablo_marmol]

65. Your pandemic of propaganda won't convince persons with integrity

that there is an epidemic of gun violence.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/