Design World

  • Home
  • Technologies
    • 3D CAD
    • Electronics • electrical
    • Fastening & Joining
    • Factory automation
    • Linear Motion
    • Motion Control
    • Test & Measurement
    • Sensors
    • Fluid power
  • Learn
    • Ebooks / Tech Tips
    • Engineering Week
    • Future of Design Engineering
    • MC² Motion Control Classrooms
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
  • LEAP AWARDS
  • Leadership
    • 2022 Voting
    • 2021 Winners
  • Design Guide Library
  • Resources
    • 3D Cad Models
      • PARTsolutions
      • TraceParts
    • Digital Issues
      • Design World
      • EE World
    • Women in Engineering
  • Supplier Listings

U.S. Military Shipped Defective Firearms

By Megan Crouse | November 18, 2015

Share

The Pentagon knowingly shipped defective gun parts to US Marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an in-depth investigation on Motherboard.

Documents acquired from the Department of Defense indicate that tens of thousands of defective firearms parts were sent to the field in the last decade, and that the government did not test the quality of some of the gun parts it bought. Furthermore, contractors whose weapons had been shown to be defective continued to be awarded government contracts with no further quality tests, thanks to a waiver system that allows contractors with whom the government has worked before to bypass the tests.

Two of the firearms affected, the M249 light machine gun and the M2 heavy machine gun, are some of the most important machine gun systems in the US military. Tens of thousands of these are in the Army’s inventory, and 12,500 M249’s might have been impacted by defective sights by June 2008 alone. A third of the 2,600 soldiers polled in a 2006 report said that they had experienced problems with the M249 that left them unable to fire.

The quality complaints reached the Pentagon in both 2009 and 2013, but were not investigated further. In some cases, this was because the relatively low cost of machine gun parts meant that an investigation wasn’t prioritized. (The extractor pin, a part of the M249 that failed often enough that an article was devoted to it in the Army publication PS, The Preventative Maintenance Monthly, costs $1 to replace.)  In other cases, the government or military publications would advise soldiers to remove defective parts, but combat soldiers might not have time to report those parts to the government.

“It’s bureaucracy at work,” said Kevin Holland, a small arms repairer for a Defense contractor, as quoted by Motherboard. “Everybody wants the US Army guns, but everything made for the government is made by the lowest bidder, the cheapest.”

Michael Friedman, former Director of Logistics and Integration at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said that defects in small arms parts aren’t as common today as they were in the mid-2000s. He was not at liberty to explain why.

More information and statistics can be found at Motherboard.


Filed Under: Aerospace + defense

 

Related Articles Read More >

Ontic acquires Servotek and Westcon product lines from Marsh Bellofram
Flexible rotary shafts support thrust reverser on 150 LEAP 1-A turbofan engines
Drone-mounted inspection breaks barriers for F-35
TriStar, a misunderstood failure of design

DESIGN GUIDE LIBRARY

“motion

Enews Sign Up

Motion Control Classroom

Design World Digital Edition

cover

Browse the most current issue of Design World and back issues in an easy to use high quality format. Clip, share and download with the leading design engineering magazine today.

EDABoard the Forum for Electronics

Top global problem solving EE forum covering Microcontrollers, DSP, Networking, Analog and Digital Design, RF, Power Electronics, PCB Routing and much more

EDABoard: Forum for electronics

Sponsored Content

  • Global supply needs drive increased manufacturing footprint development
  • How to Increase Rotational Capacity for a Retaining Ring
  • Cordis high resolution electronic proportional pressure controls
  • WAGO’s custom designed interface wiring system making industrial applications easier
  • 10 Reasons to Specify Valve Manifolds
  • Case study: How a 3D-printed tool saved thousands of hours and dollars

Design World Podcasts

May 17, 2022
Another view on additive and the aerospace industry
See More >
Engineering Exchange

The Engineering Exchange is a global educational networking community for engineers.

Connect, share, and learn today »

Design World
  • Advertising
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Manage your Design World Subscription
  • Subscribe
  • Design World Digital Network
  • Engineering White Papers
  • LEAP AWARDS

Copyright © 2022 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy | Advertising | About Us

Search Design World

  • Home
  • Technologies
    • 3D CAD
    • Electronics • electrical
    • Fastening & Joining
    • Factory automation
    • Linear Motion
    • Motion Control
    • Test & Measurement
    • Sensors
    • Fluid power
  • Learn
    • Ebooks / Tech Tips
    • Engineering Week
    • Future of Design Engineering
    • MC² Motion Control Classrooms
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
  • LEAP AWARDS
  • Leadership
    • 2022 Voting
    • 2021 Winners
  • Design Guide Library
  • Resources
    • 3D Cad Models
      • PARTsolutions
      • TraceParts
    • Digital Issues
      • Design World
      • EE World
    • Women in Engineering
  • Supplier Listings