Ask Ian: Going Broke Making Guns During War
Q&A (Standalone)
•
13m
From Jubs on Patreon:
"They say that 'no one's gone bankrupt making guns during a war,' but is that actually true?"
It's usually true, but not always. Even during a war, you can make enough bad choices that you can go bankrupt as a gun manufacturer, and Hopkins & Allen is a perfect example of how. During World War One they were wrangled into a contract to make SMLEs for the British which they could not possibly meet. Having already started the tooling process when that deal fell through, they were desperate for a new client, and found the Belgian government looking for arms. H&A signed a deal with the Belgian s to make Model 1889 Mausers, but underbid it and ended up losing money on every rifle that went out the door. By March 1916 they were in receivership, with the principals filing lawsuits against each other over allegedly being tricked by German spies.
Up Next in Q&A (Standalone)
-
Ask Ian: Procurement Then & Now (and ...
Asked by Charles on Patreon:
"I'd love to hear you do a deep dive on the commissioning and procurement process of the Chauchat compared to the FAMAS or the HK416F (or the STEN and the L85, PPSh41 and the AK-12 etc). The specific question to answer would be: 'why does defense procurement take so ... -
Ask Ian: Good Bullpup Conversions
From John on Patreon:
"You've covered your fair share of strange conversion of firearms. Have you ever come across a bullpup conversion that was actually useful, and not a kludge?"Nope.
That's basically the whole answer.
Okay, to elaborate a bit, it's because making a bullpup use blue ...
-
Ask Ian: Why Don't More Rifles Have C...
Edit: I mixed up the selector and rear pin holes; the rear takedown pin hole is not stepped. Sorry!
From Ryan on Patreon:
"Why do more rifles not have captive takedown pins? It seems that if someone is developing a rifle from the ground up there are almost no drawbacks to having them, especi...
