Comments by "GunFun ZS" (@GunFunZS) on "Q&A 41: Rebuilding Elbonia, and Lots of British Rifles" video.

  1. Well that's one end of the spectrum. The other end is something like the M14. 15 years of development-ish. And the only basis of the job was 1 converting to a cartridge of identical mechanical energy 2 turning the dog leg operating rod into a straight operating rod for mechanical simplicity, 3 making it feed out of box magazines 4 adding a bonus happy switch which you can later disable. Obviously number four shouldn't have happened. And number two and three were reasonable and not that difficult solutions. See the Italian attempt at the same thing. I think the m17 and its predecessor programs also are informative of the other end. A good solution exists that meets all practical requirements. Actually many many well-proven and inexpensive solutions exist. but we are going to spend millions and millions and years and years to pick something. We're going to spend more studying it than it would have cost just to have bought them all. And then we're going to add some nicely requirement that doesn't add utility but does eliminate anything that is currently on the shelf. So we will get something that is basically identical to an on-the-shelf option with some very minor change but now it does not have the proof history behind it. So then we can either field it without the proof or spend a bunch more testing it. And I think the m17 is an excellent pistol. It obviously had some teething problems which would have shown up in rigorous testing. But they work those out and I think they did end up with a superior gun of the guns available. It's just they took something like 30 years of programs to end up with a gun that is basically what you could buy for $600 at any gun store.
    10