New Hampshire vs West Virginia on USAspending: $2.48B vs $1.66B

Two small states, two munitions peaks

New Hampshire’s $2.48B and West Virginia’s $1.66B sit on Census counts of 1,409,032 and 1,769,979. Neither is a large-population file. New Hampshire still holds the larger stock and the higher ratio: $284.15 per capita versus $113.44.

Award volume favors West Virginia, 14,302 versus 9,224. West Virginia’s file is busier in rows on a smaller stock. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 keeps New Hampshire ahead on recency: $400.4M versus $200.8M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

New Hampshire’s $2.48B versus West Virginia’s $1.66B, $284.15 versus $113.44 per capita, and $400.4M versus $200.8M in FY2026 are the dollar side. West Virginia’s 14,302 awards versus 9,224 and 1,769,979 residents versus 1,409,032 are the volume-and-headcount side. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing versus ammunition (except small arms) manufacturing are distinct NAICS peaks. Do not merge them. Outlays are not in the packet. Cite USAspending.gov.

Small arms and ordnance versus ammunition (except small arms)

New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. West Virginia’s lead NAICS is ammunition (except small arms) manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $2.48B and $1.66B. The labels are adjacent in the munitions cluster and are still distinct NAICS slices. They are first reads on each mix, not the whole award file.

The 9,224 New Hampshire awards and 14,302 West Virginia awards include many actions outside those two labels. Use the New Hampshire and West Virginia state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $400.4M versus $200.8M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $200.8M in West Virginia. Recency preserves New Hampshire’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $400.4M or $200.8M by 9,224 or 14,302 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $284.15 and $113.44 already sits beside Census counts of 1,409,032 and 1,769,979.

More people in West Virginia, a cooler ratio

West Virginia’s 1,769,979 residents exceed New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. West Virginia still trails on $1.66B versus $2.48B and on $113.44 versus $284.15 per capita. Award volume of 14,302 versus 9,224 is West Virginia’s win on rows.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident.

Adjacent munitions peaks on two small-state files

New Hampshire’s small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing and West Virginia’s ammunition (except small arms) manufacturing are neighboring NAICS labels on $2.48B and $1.66B. They are still distinct peaks. Both sit on USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

West Virginia has more people (1,769,979 vs 1,409,032) and more awards (14,302 vs 9,224). New Hampshire holds the stock, the $284.15 versus $113.44 per-capita reading, and FY2026 of $400.4M versus $200.8M.

An obligation is a commitment. Cash can lag. Cite USAspending.gov. Do not collapse the two NAICS labels into one munitions total; the packet reports them separately.

Neither state is a large Census file. The intensity gap of $284.15 versus $113.44 still follows from $2.48B versus $1.66B on 1,409,032 versus 1,769,979 residents.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The New Hampshire and West Virginia hubs hold agencies and recipients. Keep FY2026 of $400.4M and $200.8M labeled as a recency slice of obligations, not cash.

How to read New Hampshire versus West Virginia

Read New Hampshire first on stacked dollars ($2.48B vs $1.66B), spending per capita ($284.15 vs $113.44), and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $200.8M). Read West Virginia first on population (1,769,979 vs 1,409,032) and awards (14,302 vs 9,224). Note small arms and ordnance versus ammunition (except small arms).

The comparison hub holds the tables. The New Hampshire and West Virginia hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series.

Questions

Does New Hampshire or West Virginia have more federal spending?

New Hampshire leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.48B to West Virginia’s $1.66B. New Hampshire also leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $113.44, on 1,409,032 residents against West Virginia’s 1,769,979. West Virginia has more awards (14,302 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $200.8M in West Virginia.

Are both states led by munitions industries?

New Hampshire’s top industry is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. West Virginia’s is ammunition (except small arms) manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.48B and $1.66B. Award counts are 9,224 in New Hampshire and 14,302 in West Virginia. Both mixes are USAspending.gov obligations.

Why is New Hampshire’s per-capita figure higher?

The packet reports $284.15 per capita in New Hampshire on 1,409,032 residents and $113.44 in West Virginia on 1,769,979. Stacked stocks are $2.48B versus $1.66B. Award counts are 9,224 versus 14,302. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are New Hampshire vs West Virginia figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.48B and $1.66B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $400.4M and $200.8M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($284.15 vs $113.44) uses Census population where present.