- cross-posted to:
- guns
- cross-posted to:
- guns
You must log in or register to comment.
How the fuck can a company competing with another that had been developing their shit for twenty years get beat with something developed in less than 18 months? Corporate espionage is the correct answer.
20 years of development sounds like a red flag to me. Normally it takes a few years to design a gun. Sounds like there were a lot of issues on TV’s side of things.
The M3 grease gun was made in 7 months and the Thompson had 20 years to improve by the time the M3 came out. That didn’t stop the US army from buying tons of M3s.
I don’t know if you’re being dumb or trying your best to argue here (apologies for sounding rude too), but there’s s significant difference between a cheap stamped inaccurate steel reciever of a crappy Grease Gun to rapidly pump put guns in order to win the War due to wartime budget restrictions compared to a fucking high temperature and high pressure polymer-case firing carbon fiber reinforced barrel light machine gun capable to accurately hit and penetrate ceramic armored infantry area targets at 800+ meters.
The point was guns have been made in much less time. 18 months is fast but not unreasonable for such a large player in defense contracting to produce something like the 338 mg.
Or hire the guy with the expertise and tell him to do it again but different. You can own an engineer’s work but you can’t expect to keep him from working elsewhere if there’s a better opportunity.
Three words: non disclosure agreement.
