HK-417A2 a worthy replacement for G3 battle rifles.

[A1Kaid]

The problem is that R&D costs money, plus you have to add in the cost of manufacturing and training, etc, etc. If you want a military grade rifle that's future proof, you need to spend quite a bit of money. Yes, there are gun smiths in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean they have the technical know how to produce a brand new system that the military can use as a standard issue rifle, because most of them specialize in repairing or cloning existing weapons systems. Now, you do have a point that the money stays in Pakistan, but money isn't the only problem; I've mentioned it before, but time is also a limiting factor, Pakistan simple doesn't have the luxury of time.

Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term, because you don't have to waste time to wait until the rifle has been cleared by the military, which can itself take a heavy toll financially. Another problem arises that the locally developed rifle may not live up to military expectations, in which case the rifle could be cancelled anyway. It's happened with many military forces, simple example would be Korea.

Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term

Whose going to give POF a license? Licensing is out of Pakistan's hands and makes Pakistan dependent on a foreign country for licensing it's own standard issued rifle. Did you ever think about the cost of foreign dependence or do you only factor in cost of rupees? Two importing already manufactured guns is only a quick solution but isn't a good one, as we are discussing a long-term solution. We don't need a short-term rifle, G3 is fine, if we're going to replace G3 it needs to be replaced with a well invested and long term rifle platform--one that is domestically developed and manufactured.

 

[That Guy]

The same who pay for the military and POF. You act as if the country doesn't have money to mass produce a rifle, that is the flaw in your logic. Who appointed you secretary of the Treasury, you're cost arguement is baseless, because as I told you and others told you that for Pakistan developing a new rifle is more beneficial both militarily and economically. First, money would be spent inside the economy supporting domestic arms industry. Second, it's a more sustainable policy than just importing new rifles--because in actuality many new rifles (especially western manufactured ones) are more expensive than what Pakistan or POF could manufacture one for. Third, once a new rifle is developed Pakistan can sell it for export to other countries and recoup all cost incurred during development phase and generate profit afterwards.




We're not discussing stop gap, we're discussing a new standard issued rifle. G-3 is fine for current war and insurgency, it doesn't need to be replaced because of the current war, it needs to be replaced because there's a need for a new and more tactical rifle one that preferably has a piston upper.

The fact that you think we need a "stop-gap" proves you are simply thinking short-term, and that is we're we differ. I don't even think you ever fired a G3, they are solid and dependable in battle and the "current war" is no matter for the G3.

G3 has been used in these conflicts.


Wiki

All of a sudden we need to get a "stop-gap" rifle because of what? The insurgency in Waziristan? Can you specifically cite any failures that you can attribute to the G3 rifle in counter-insurgency operations?

Okay, first of all, no need for personal attacks. Whether or not "I fired a G-3", or I'm a "secretary of the treasurer of Pakistan" has nothing to do with this argument, that's an ad hominem. In fact, I can very well send a similar argument right back at you, and you'd realize just how bad that argument is.

My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.

Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, in care of conflict with a neighboring country (and no, I'm not talking about India, but it would be even more urgent to do so if India is considered). The G-3 would be perfectly acceptable if modern warfare was still fought in trenches or hills, but they're not.

Next, your argument is that importing the rifles would cost more, but that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here. Next, developing a rifle takes time and money, the reason why I said that Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of both is that Pakistan's neighbors are already going further and further ahead of Pakistan in terms of infantry systems. The G-3 is good, but it is outdated for a reason, guns are replaced based on current requirements, not because of the rifle is good or not; why do you think the French are replacing the FAMAS, which is also a good rifle?

Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.

Whose going to give POF a license? Licensing is out of Pakistan's hands and makes Pakistan dependent on a foreign country for licensing it's own standard issued rifle, two importing already manufactured guns is only a quick solution but isn't a good one, as we are discussing a long-term solution. We don't need a short-term rifle, G3 is fine, if we're going to replace G3 it needs to be replaced with a well invested and long term rifle platform--one that is domestically developed and manufactured.

I'm sorry, but where do you think the G-3 came from? It's not a domestically developed rifle, it's made by Heckler and Koch, a German company. In fact, a vast majority of the weapons that come out of POF are either clones or license produced systems of foreign defense corporations.

As for who's going to give POF a license? There are plenty of global manufacturers that are already selling weapons to Pakistan, so a reluctance to sell isn't a problem. Next, when you're going to standardize a rifle for your army, and foreign consortium get involved in a competition, it's a given that they must offer licensed production so that the military in question can continue to produce the rifle even when the foreign nation has stopped supporting the weapons system design.

Your argument that Pakistan would become dependent on a foreign nation (i.e sanctions prone) is misplaced here. Small arms aren't like tanks or jets, once you get a license for producing a certain small arms weapon system in your country, and get all the equipment, once sanctions come into play, it's very hard to get the production lines to stop. Why do you think the G-3 continued to be produced in Pakistan Ordinance Factories, despite the fact that Pakistan was under economic and military sanctions from the EU and the US for a few years? Your concern is misplaced.

 

[A1Kaid]

pay for the development?
The same who pay for the military and POF. You act as if the country doesn't have money to mass produce a rifle, that is the flaw in your logic. Who appointed you secretary of the Treasury, you're cost arguement is baseless, because as I told you and others told you that for Pakistan developing a new rifle is more beneficial both militarily and economically. First, money would be spent inside the economy supporting domestic arms industry. Second, it's a more sustainable policy than just importing new rifles--because in actuality many new r

Okay, first of all, no need for personal attacks. Whether or not "I fired a G-3", or I'm a "secretary of the treasurer of Pakistan" has nothing to do with this argument, that's an ad hominem. In fact, I can very well send a similar argument right back at you, and you'd realize just how bad that argument is.

My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.

Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, in care of conflict with a neighboring country (and no, I'm not talking about India, but it would be even more urgent to do so if India is considered). The G-3 would be perfectly acceptable if modern warfare was still fought in trenches or hills, but they're not.

Next, your argument is that importing the rifles would cost more, but that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here. Next, developing a rifle takes time and money, the reason why I said that Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of both is that Pakistan's neighbors are already going further and further ahead of Pakistan in terms of infantry systems. The G-3 is good, but it is outdated for a reason, guns are replaced based on current requirements, not because of the rifle is good or not; why do you think the French are replacing the FAMAS, which is also a good rifle?

Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.



I'm sorry, but where do you think the G-3 came from? It's not a domestically developed rifle, it's made by Heckler and Koch, a German company. In fact, a vast majority of the weapons that come out of POF are either clones or license produced systems of foreign defense corporations.

As for who's going to give POF a license? There are plenty of global manufacturers that are already selling weapons to Pakistan, so a reluctance to sell isn't a problem. Next, when you're going to standardize a rifle for your army, and foreign consortium get involved in a competition, it's a given that they must offer licensed production so that the military in question can continue to produce the rifle even when the foreign nation has stopped supporting the weapons system design.

Your argument that Pakistan would become dependent on a foreign nation (i.e sanctions prone) is misplaced here. Small arms aren't like tanks or jets, once you get a license for producing a certain small arms weapon system in your country, and get all the equipment, once sanctions come into play, it's very hard to get the production lines to stop. Why do you think the G-3 continued to be produced in Pakistan Ordinance Factories, despite the fact that Pakistan was under economic and military sanctions from the EU and the US for a few years? Your concern is misplaced.

My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.

You're argument doesn't stand on two legs, your argument is shortsighted and your only answer is import.

Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, i

Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do.

That's why it's best to have invest and develop a new rifle rather than importing new rifles. It is less expensive in the long run for Pakistan to develop a new rifle than continuously import new rifles. When you issue standard rifles there must be a long-term investment in the platform and the best option is to develop your own when one has the resources and Pakistan certainly does, despite what you believe.

Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.

Wrong, because not every nation has the resources to mass produce their own military rifles. Simple economics, and for some countries it may be more expensive to manufacture a rifle than buy one, depending on their labor costs. Pakistan has low labor cost and can mass manufacture rifles less expensively. Go read about competitive advantage.

In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here.

See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice. Two, what are you going to do every time weapons need to be phased out? You're answer is import, when what POF really needs to do is develop and manufacture a new military rifle that will not only address the necessity of a new rifle for the future, but boost the domestic firearms industry in Pakistan.

Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here

Licensed manufacturing from other countries doesn't lead to long-term sustainable solutions, because every time you have a new necessity you are seeking additional licenses to meet those challenges that too from foreign companies. Developing your own allows you to address your own issues in your own hands.

 

[That Guy]

You're argument doesn't stand on two legs, your argument is shortsighted and your only answer is import.





That's why it's best to have invest and develop a new rifle rather than importing new rifles. It is less expensive in the long run for Pakistan to develop a new rifle than continuously import new rifles. When you issue standard rifles there must be a long-term investment in the platform and the best option is to develop your own when one has the resources and Pakistan certainly does, despite what you believe.



Wrong, because not every nation has the resources to mass produce their own military rifles. Simple economics, and for some countries it may be more expensive to manufacture a rifle than buy one, depending on their labor costs. Pakistan has low labor cost and can mass manufacture rifles less expensively. Go read about competitive advantage.



See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice. Two, what are you going to do every time weapons need to be phased out? You're answer is import, when what POF really needs to do is develop and manufacture a new military rifle that will not only address the necessity of a new rifle for the future, but boost the domestic firearms industry in Pakistan.



Licensed manufacturing from other countries doesn't lead to long-term sustainable solutions, because every time you have a new necessity you are seeking additional licenses to meet those challenges that too from foreign companies. Developing your own allows you to address your own issues in your own hands.

All of what you said is true, expect for the parts that include all of what you said.

You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import). You don't seem to understand how licensed manufacturing works, and how a military standard rifle competition seems to work, despite the fact that I've pointed out how it does. You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.

Look, there is no point in continuing this argument, I'm know for a fact that I'm right, and you think you're right too, so we're at an impasse.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

if a new independent airborne infantry brigade is raised on the lines of American Rangers or 101 then something lighter and modern may be adopted but thats already covered by our modified type 56/81

Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?

 

[A1Kaid]

All of what you said is true, expect for the parts that include all of what you said.

You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import). You don't seem to understand how licensed manufacturing works, and how a military standard rifle competition seems to work, despite the fact that I've pointed out how it does. You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.

Look, there is no point in continuing this argument, I'm know for a fact that I'm right, and you think you're right too, so we're at an impasse.

You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import

I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?

You also didn't answer my last point that stated...

See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice

Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need. License is needed when making exact rifle replicas.

Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.

You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.

That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?

sorry I dont have details on that . I understood the para jumping as an extra for the different arms without a dedicated force by the way POF has already few variants of H&K with modern rails for new gizmos rails in Carbine size...
re gun in the OP, question is how good are they in field cleaning and repair in case of a jam.

 

[That Guy]

I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?

You also didn't answer my last point that stated...



Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need. License is needed when making exact rifle replicas.

Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.




That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.

Okay, fine, you want me to answer you, I'll do it.

I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?

Actually, you haven't addressed my points at all, especially my cost argument, which you continue to ignore.

You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.

So R&D does matter, because if you're building a brand new rifle, you need to built it's internal components from scratch.

See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice
Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need.

Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.

Actually, that's a lie you just spoke right there. A great example would be Pakistan's current rifle of choice, the G-3, which was still relatively new when it was first fielded by Pakistan. Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36, which is offered as with foreign export variant by HK, and it would be fine. This "newness" of a rifle completely depends on who bids on the rifle contract, and which rifle they offer against their competition. I doubt any nation would block such a large order, especially in today's economic climate.

Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.

What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.

Like I said, it's not easy to develop rifles, you said it yourself...

Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture

...IF.

That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.

That's the civilian market you're referring too. That's loose change and isn't enough to keep an entire industry going. If demand wasn't so high with the PA, POF would have been bankrupt years ago. Even now it's facing shortage of funds, and is in debt. The POF-5's sales aren't even known either, so we can't really call it an export success, as we don't know the number of civil sales on the gun. So you are not only basing your argument on a simple assumption that because on rifle was export to another nation (by misrepresenting facts), you're saying that this result would automatically make the new rifle just as successful. It's a buyers market out there, if they don't like your product, they don't care how cheap it is or how good your last product was.
-----------------

Look, you don't have to admit you're wrong, just ignore my comment and move on.

 

[rockstar08]

this Gun looks nice, but i think Army will be thinking not just about design but other things as well, like fire rate , weight etc

 

[A1Kaid]

Okay, fine, you want me to answer you, I'll do it.



Actually, you haven't addressed my points at all, especially my cost argument, which you continue to ignore.

You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.

So R&D does matter, because if you're building a brand new rifle, you need to built it's internal components from scratch.



Actually, that's a lie you just spoke right there. A great example would be Pakistan's current rifle of choice, the G-3, which was still relatively new when it was first fielded by Pakistan. Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36, which is offered as with foreign export variant by HK, and it would be fine. This "newness" of a rifle completely depends on who bids on the rifle contract, and which rifle they offer against their competition. I doubt any nation would block such a large order, especially in today's economic climate.

Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.

What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.

Like I said, it's not easy to develop rifles, you said it yourself...



...IF.


That's the civilian market you're referring too. That's loose change and isn't enough to keep an entire industry going. If demand wasn't so high with the PA, POF would have been bankrupt years ago. Even now it's facing shortage of funds, and is in debt. The POF-5's sales aren't even known either, so we can't really call it an export success, as we don't know the number of civil sales on the gun. So you are not only basing your argument on a simple assumption that because on rifle was export to another nation (by misrepresenting facts), you're saying that this result would automatically make the new rifle just as successful. It's a buyers market out there, if they don't like your product, they don't care how cheap it is or how good your last product was.
-----------------

Look, you don't have to admit you're wrong, just ignore my comment and move on.

You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.

I said as in the same principle meaning all modern rifles basically do the same operation when the trigger is engaged the hammer strikes the firing pin which strikes the primer of the round. This fundamental principle, something you obviously don't understand, this is found in nearly every rifle and that is how rifles are made today, no R&D required for this. Other mechanics may differ but the fundamental principle is quite similar.

By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.

They recently developed a multi-caliber rifle, that already is a major step.

Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36,

Said nothing about new vs old, new as in the next rifle, G3 is an old rifle and it serves the army well. Pakistan can go for G-36, a rifle you know nothing about. Problems have arisen with the G-36 from loss of accuracy, barrel, and lack of heat dissipation according to Der Spiegel German troops reporting failures; and no Pakistan isn't interested in the G-36. G-36 doesn't have any significant advantages that it could give Pakistani troops that the G3 can't. Now you would have known that had you actually done some research yourself into the G36.

What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.

The company shutdown because they didn't innovate and made a bad product (Famas) and was purchased and merged with Nexter that now manufacturers a multitude of military hardware.

Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.

France's firearms company had little experience with NATO specification 5.56 which was a new caliber at the time, since then many firearms manufacturers have learned more about 5.56 caliber rifles. That's one major reason why R&D back in that era took longer as a new NATO 5.56, NATO magazines, and all new specifications were introduced and implemented by NATO for a standard issued rifle. Again, something you of course didn't know. R&D for a .308 or 5.56 rifle wouldn't necessarily take 11 years to do to develop a new rifle, POF has years of firearms manufacturing experience.

Do you know how long it took the US to develop and deploy with the M-16? Five years, and they had already issued it, which is very feasible for Pakistan as well.

Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.

Why do companies like HK, Colt, and FN, and Norinco exist? Because those companies develop their own military rifles and firearms, and have invested in a long-term sustainable policy of development and manufacturing the same POF must do. You defeated your own point.

 

[A1Kaid]

@That Guy


The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.

When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.

All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.

 

[Zarvan]

@That Guy


The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.

When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.

All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.

I support the local firearms but developing a Gun like HK-417 is difficult and why waste time and money on designing new one when you have so many options in the world only issue is do you have the money to get the license to produce some Gun

 

[A1Kaid]

I support the local firearms but developing a Gun like HK-417 is difficult and why waste time and money on designing new one when you have so many options in the world only issue is do you have the money to get the license to produce some Gun

HK417 is a great option, however HK has not given anyone for that matter a license to manufacture one of their best rifles. So I doubt they will give Pakistan a license. Makes no business sense for them to do so. HK417 is exclusive to HK as of now.

That's why I support pakistan developing its own battle rifle something that can match a great rifle like the HK417. There's no reason why Pakistan can't do that. There is no wasting time it is a long term investment and a more sustainable policy.


Good luck trying to convince HK to give you a license to manufacture one of their newest and best rifles.

 

[That Guy]

@That Guy


The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.

When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.

All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.

So, from what I can tell, you have no real argument to stand on, and have resorted to calling me a sell out. C'est la vie, I guess.

Just a question, who am I selling out to?

 

[That Guy]

I said as in the same principle meaning all modern rifles basically do the same operation when the trigger is engaged the hammer strikes the firing pin which strikes the primer of the round. This fundamental principle, something you obviously don't understand, this is found in nearly every rifle and that is how rifles are made today, no R&D required for this. Other mechanics may differ but the fundamental principle is quite similar.



They recently developed a multi-caliber rifle, that already is a major step.



Said nothing about new vs old, new as in the next rifle, G3 is an old rifle and it serves the army well. Pakistan can go for G-36, a rifle you know nothing about. Problems have arisen with the G-36 from loss of accuracy, barrel, and lack of heat dissipation according to Der Spiegel German troops reporting failures; and no Pakistan isn't interested in the G-36. G-36 doesn't have any significant advantages that it could give Pakistani troops that the G3 can't. Now you would have known that had you actually done some research yourself into the G36.



The company shutdown because they didn't innovate and made a bad product (Famas) and was purchased and merged with Nexter that now manufacturers a multitude of military hardware.



France's firearms company had little experience with NATO specification 5.56 which was a new caliber at the time, since then many firearms manufacturers have learned more about 5.56 caliber rifles. That's one major reason why R&D back in that era took longer as a new NATO 5.56, NATO magazines, and all new specifications were introduced and implemented by NATO for a standard issued rifle. Again, something you of course didn't know. R&D for a .308 or 5.56 rifle wouldn't necessarily take 11 years to do to develop a new rifle, POF has years of firearms manufacturing experience.

Do you know how long it took the US to develop and deploy with the M-16? Five years, and they had already issued it, which is very feasible for Pakistan as well.




Why do companies like HK, Colt, and FN, and Norinco exist? Because those companies develop their own military rifles and firearms, and have invested in a long-term sustainable policy of development and manufacturing the same POF must do. You defeated your own point.

Oh my god, the number of straw man arguments, and basic misrepresentation of facts in this quote of yours is amazingly high.

The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.

Next, you're ignoring every other component of a weapon with your "basic principle",and saying that no R&D is needed, when clearly it is. India's multi-caliber rifle is still in development, and has been for years now.

Now you're saying that the company didn't innovate and made a bad product, which are all your own subjective opinion, so don't pass them of as facts.

Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.

How do you think HK Colt, FN, and Norinco made their rifles? With money, which they had,and it took them years and many failed attempts to make their desiges feasible. Hell, the Colt M-16 was originally an Armalite (AR-10) design, which Colt bought, because Colt had for years failed to make their own design of an assault rifle viable. POF has experience with cloning and making existing designs, not creating a brand new rifle. The POF-5 example you gave previously,is an MP-5 clone. Designing a brand new rifle is completely different than cloning an existing rifle, ask any gun enthusiast here or anywhere.

The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem. The M-16 has been redesigned multiple times to fix it's continued problems, and 90% of it's problems were addressed only dozens of years later.

Look, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, just stop.