"Across the 20th and 21st centuries, armies repeatedly tried to replace standard-issue rifles that simply refused to disappear. Designed for specific conflicts like World Wars, Cold War showdowns, or even regional wars, many of these weapons stayed in service for decades longer than intended. In most cases, it wasn't nostalgia that kept them around. It was reliability, logistics, and the uncomfortable reality that replacing a rifle on paper is far easier than doing it across an entire military."
"Understanding why some standard-issue rifles remained in service long after the conflicts they were designed for helps explain how military institutions actually make decisions. Weapons do not disappear when wars end; they persist because of logistics, training, cost, and trust earned in combat. Examining these rifles reveals how reliability often outweighs innovation, how doctrine lags behind technology, and why "obsolete" does not always mean ineffective."
Standard-issue rifles created for specific 20th- and 21st-century conflicts often stayed in service for decades beyond their original purpose. Proven reliability and established logistics chains made older rifles easier to keep than to replace across entire militaries. Replacement efforts are complicated by the cost of new weapons, extensive retraining, and supply-chain overhaul. Military doctrine and procurement frequently lag technological change, allowing dependable older designs to persist. Obsolescence often reflects design age rather than battlefield ineffectiveness. The endurance of these rifles reflects institutional choices that prioritize dependability, cost-effectiveness, and operational continuity.
Read at 24/7 Wall St.
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]