Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Arrissen]

Civgov/ civilian weapons Just kidding. Well mostly, but I guess a few things to consider are that if surplus weapons such as the M14 and M1 have for the most part gone to National Guard and Militia units respectively, then there aren't that many options left. And besides going back to an old weapon system may not be sustainable over the long term anyway with regard to service life.

Can the Colt factory up 'Gun River' or whatever it's called be brought back into operation Or some of the other gun factories along the river maybe I can't remember what happened there.

IRL, rifles that are gas piston operated rather than direct impingment operated are on the rise in a big way, such as the HK416, FN SCAR and LWRC, with plenty of other companies doing the same. I too wonder if this would not be the way forward in the 21st Century, given time and regardless of the setbacks to the arms industry caused by the war. The logic still stands; gas piston driven rifles are alot more reliable.

I can't see American fighting men adopting an AK as their mainstay unless they absolutely had to, even though they are great weapons in many ways. As for mass-produced stamped weapons, yeah there are some good examples in history, that's true. That could be an option I suppose, but just not the best deal really is it Kind of like being stuck with a red-headed step child.

[Legbreaker]

Kind of like being stuck with a red-headed step child.

Ooooo, I had one of them...
And now I don't!

[Targan]

Dammit Leg! Softdrink came out my nose!

Funny sh*t.

[copeab]

Whatever it the rifle will be after 2000 (ir 2013), resources will dictate it needs to be easy to manufacture (pressed steel over milled steel, probably wood instead of plastic) and using an existing cartridge (apart from the already-mentioned 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm cartidges, the .30-30 is another possibility).

[95th Rifleman]

Whatever it the rifle will be after 2000 (ir 2013), resources will dictate it needs to be easy to manufacture (pressed steel over milled steel, probably wood instead of plastic) and using an existing cartridge (apart from the already-mentioned 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm cartidges, the .30-30 is another possibility).

An M16 variant chambered for the 7.62 seems on the cards (HK417 anyone). Reprots from the afghanistan and Iraq seem to be very critical of the 5.56 for it'slack of stopping power.

[Webstral]

There are some compelling reasons for sticking with the M16 family, and there are some compelling reasons to go with a different rifle from 2001 onward. I created this thread so that some of this would come up. For many years, I rather blithely assumed that Milgov would continue to manufacture the M16 out of sheer inertia. I"m no longer convinced that inertia suffices as an explanation, since by 2001 many of the pre-war rifles will be on their last legs in terms of serviceability.

The difficulties of manufacturing the M16 vis--vis many of the other options deserve serious consideration. I honestly don"t know if Colorado Springs had the capacity to manufacture new M16s. As mentioned above, Rifle River has PCs retrieving dies from the Colt facility along the Connecticut River. Can Milgov supply the other necessities in 2001 I honestly don"t know the answer, but I do know that the M16 is a much more demanding piece of hardware to manufacture than the AK-47. Politics might prevent the otherwise serviceable AK-47 from becoming the weapon of choice, but practicality might dictate that a rifle more easily manufactured take over from the M16 as the pre-war rifles wear out.

The M1 has a lot to recommend it. There are many of them out there to begin with. The rifle has a stellar reputation. The round packs a punch. Mass production is a success story already. Brass will have to be fabricated in large quantities, but sooner or later a lot of new brass is going to be needed for the pre-war stock of rifles anyway. It really comes down to the question of how many new M16s can be manufactured versus how many of a different rifle can be manufactured with comparable commitments of resources.


Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I can see serviceable M16's withdrawn from the suporting units and reissued to Infantry and other combat arms to replace those worn out.
The rear units would received something like the M3 Grease Gun or other stamped type SMG - anything that can be produced in an average backyard workshop really.

[95th Rifleman]

I don't see any kind of chance for the AK47 being chosen, you'd have to start from scratch. Design a copy that suits American manufacturimg and ammunition, it'd be allot of effort when there are much cheaper alternatives. Most countries that use the AK47 don't build them, they buy them.

I agree with the statement regarding replacing M16's in the rear and issuing them cheap SMGs.

The M1 argument has me thinking. Before the M16 the M14 was the standard American rifle which is essentilay a modernised M1. The M14 is still in service in some US units and is a reliable platform which is easier to mass produce. If the M16 does proe to be too hard to make post-twilight war then wouldn't the M14 be the logical replacement It makes more sense than stepping back to the WW2 era M1.

[Sanjuro]

I'm with 95th on this one- even if there was no wish for the full auto capability of the M14, the more versatile magazine compared with the M1 would be a good reason to go with it- only the FN-FAL compares as a battle rifle, and that would be harder both politically, and manuacturing-wise.

[copeab]

The M1 has a lot to recommend it.

Unfortunately, it has some drawbacks. The round has a lot of kick for most people (and by 2000, you are getting into using old men, young boys and women as troops, so this matters a lot). This could be solved by chambering the M1 for a lower-powered cartridge.

Also, the eight round en bloc clip is inconvenient. You need to use either a stripper clip or a detatchable magazine (late in WWII, there was an experimental rifle based on the M1 which used BAR magazines).

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I still say (in the context of the game) OT the AR-18 could likely be the alternate for the M-16. Its simple stamped construction. One could even use wood for the grip and hand guard. It uses the same ammo with the AR-180 lower mods it would still use the same mags.

Personally in my campaign the mil-gov is going to adopt the m96 Expeditionary Rifle system (adapted from the Stoner 63 system).

The Civ-gov is using the M16EZ and what ever else they can get their hands on.

[Legbreaker]

I imagine down towards Texas, the miliitary units there may be issuing captured Mexican and Russian weaponry to rear area units.

[Raellus]

I still say (in the context of the game) OT the AR-18 could likely be the alternate for the M-16. Its simple stamped construction. One could even use wood for the grip and hand guard. It uses the same ammo with the AR-180 lower mods it would still use the same mags.

Good call, sir. I think this option is a good compromise between continued construction of the relatively complex, finely finished M16/AR15 and switching to a simpler design using a different cartridge (i.e. the AK-47) or a battle rifle firing a heavier round.

Relatively simple construction, solid design, familiar/common ammunition. I think this is the right call.

[Legbreaker]

Production of a new rifle would have to be well down the list of priorities though. Feeding the people, re-establishing communications, rebuilding power generation and distribution and generally picking up the pieces would have to come first.
Whatever weapons existed would have to suffice for at least a decade, with worn out parts replaced on an as needed, individual basis.
Defence is important, but if a government can show stability and signs of recovery, it's likely more and more people would willingly join up giving it more and more legitimacy and an increased ability to withstand outside pressures.

Once that initial decade or so of reconstruction and recovery has passed, what weapon is selected long term will really revolve around what materials, skills and facilities are available. It seems to me impossible for a government to decide on a weapon before then.

[Webstral]

I agree that the M14 has some advantages over the M1, provided it is manufactured with only safe and semi-auto capability. Copeab, I'm hearing you about the recoil. I'm not convinced that there will be so many women and children receiving post-Exchange manufactured rifles that this idea should influence weapon or ammunition choices. Of the 130-140 million Americans left in 2001, a large percentage will be young men; older and younger Americans, along with people with special needs, will figure prominently among the dead. The manpower problems faced by the various militias are more likely to be ones of support rather than an actual scarcity of young men. Labor will be needed in the fields, etc.

The AR-18 is an interesting idea. I confess that I knew nothing about it until you brought it up, Corporal. I like the looks of it a lot. Commonality of ammunition with the existing American service rifle, combined with significantly easier manufacturing and greater tolerances certainly make this an attractive option. I like it so much that I may just have SAMAD open an assembly line (such as can exist in 2000) for it. Mesquite grips and stock would be appropriate.

A major drawback to using the design it explaining its presence. The history of the rifle is not promising. Some explanation would be required as to how a rifle with limited sales in the US starts being manufactured as a replacement for worn-out M16s. Costa Mesa is in a bad location in terms of post-Exchange survivability. If the nuke strikes on Los Angeles don't knock out the Costa Mesa facility, occupation of the area by the Mexicans will put the assets off-limits to the Americans. Still, there's no reason why some sort of story can't be concocted. For SAMAD, the issue of contingency planning comes up early. It's entirely possible that one of the researchers comes across the AR-18 and arranges for blueprints and manufacturing specs to be purchased. Perhaps the Pentagon's Division of Contingency Planning catches wind of this and, as 1997 advances, ensures that all major posts have copies of the blueprints, manufacturing specs, and machining requirements of an acceptable replacement for the M16. Alternatively, someone else gets the design under the eye of the DCP, and thus SAMAD and Colorado Springs are in a position to exploit the pre-Exchange research.

Anyway, I'm feeling pretty positively about the AR-18 idea at this point. Thanks for contributing it, Kalkwarf.

As to making do with replacement parts on an individual basis, I can't say that I agree with that position at all. Circumstances may dictate that replacement parts are fabricated locally as needed, but Milgov is going to put proper arming and equipping of loyal troops at the top of the list. Without proper arms, the food can't be defended. Given the limitations on transportation in the 2000's, one of the most effective things Colorado can do is export rifles. A proper assembly line in Colorado churning out spare parts offers a tremendous savings in labor to the cantonments the Joint Chiefs want to support. However, Leg, if you are proposing that most cantonments are going to have to make do with what they have for a while, then I agree. Very few locales in 2001 are going to be in a position to make decisions. Milgov, though, with its relatively stable sources of food, fuel, minerals, and labor in Colorado is going to be in a position to decide how best to support the scattered loyal cantonments while wooing the straying sheep back into the fold.


Webstral


Upon reviewing my posts, I realize that I have not defined my thesis very well. Legbreaker and I are not really arguing different positions. We're looking at the picture from different perspectives.

When I started the thread, I was thinking very specifically of Milgov. I haven't given Civgov much thought, in all honesty. I was thinking of the Colorado base of operations in particular, although the Milgov enclaves in Puget Sound and central California might also have the resources to start local rifle production in 2000. It's hard to imagine that very many other locations are going to have the luxury of committing resources (manpower, machinery, raw materials, energy) to starting an assembly line for a standard service rifle on anything like a mass production scale. Local gunsmiths can produce new firearms on a very limited basis, but by 2000 these people are going to be very busy keeping the existing stock of weapons in repair. From this standpoint, Leg is correct about the inability of most cantonments to mass produce their own service rifles.

However, in Howling Wilderness Milgov is building new industry from the ground up. We know a new arsenal has been established as of early 2001. Milgov will want to support its remaining cantonments with supplies of arms, ammunition, and machinery for making more of both. I acknowledge that I am rather blithely assuming that Milgov also invests in airships to transport arms and ammunition from Colorado to other locations throughout the nation pursuant to Operation Manifest Destiny. With airship transport available but of sharply limited capacity in 2001 and 2002, Milgov is going to want to ship cargoes of very high utility. Rifles, medium machine guns, man-portable rocket launchers, and mortars fit the bill nicely. Other cargoes, like personnel with specialized knowledge and custom-built machinery for mostly-intact critical facilities also fit the bill, but that is a subject for another thread. Of these weapons, rifles will be required in the greatest quantity. Therefore, the Joint Chiefs will want to ensure that the weapon chosen for manufacture is something that can be produced at an acceptable cost, delivers acceptable performance, best exploits the existing skills of the soldiery available, and supports logistical concerns. My remarks about new brass notwithstanding, a rifle that fires the same ammunition as the M16 definitely has its advantages over a rifle that uses a different cartridge.