Assault on the Small Arms Industrial Base.

• Author: Farrell, Lawrence P., Jr.
• Position: President's Perspective - Gun control in commercial market has impact on military - Brief Article - Column

The U.S. defense industrial base--which our military services depend on to get their weapons and equipment--is composed of hundreds of industrial sectors. Some industries are healthier and wealthier than others, but all are equally important to the national security of the United States.

Today, the vast majority of U.S. military weaponry is produced by private companies, because the United States made a decision decades ago to rely on contractors to make equipment, rather than (owing primarily to cost) have government-owned arsenals produce weapons. This arrangement has proved quite effective. For it to work, however, an industry that makes military equipment needs a robust market to support R&D and a warm production capability. If the market is small, or the requirements episodic, there is a danger that the United States may lose unique manufacturing capabilities that are no longer available in the public sector.

A case in point is the small-arms industry.

The small-arms sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base. These firms make products that are essential to our military. This industry is small and somewhat fragile. To maintain its robustness, it sells products both to the government and to commercial customers, such as sportsmen and gun enthusiasts. To survive, the industry needs to make commercial sales, which provide a cushion between military orders.

This brings me to my key point. The small-arms industry has endured a series of unfair accusations from interest groups and politicians. In one case, incorrect assertions have been advanced, and false conclusions have been drawn based on shallow analysis.

A recent example involves the .50 caliber sniper rifle. The manufacturer has been accused by the Violence Policy Center of providing these weapons to the Taliban. The accusations were endorsed by prominent congressmen and a U.S. Senator.

I should point out that the .50 sniper rifle originally was a sporting rifle, and only later was it adapted for military use. Many of these rifles, which were purchased by the U.S. military, made their way to Afghanistan in the early 1980s to help the local mujahedeen fight the Soviet invaders. Some of those fighters later joined the Taliban regime and kept those weapons. Such turn of events can hardly be blamed on the manufacturer of the weapon. Certainly, the company never sold these rifles to the Taliban.

The subject of this controversy was covered recently in the National Review...