Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Brother in Arms]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Brother in Arms

[HorseSoldier]

Something like the AR-18 or AK would be ideal for the production circumstances MilGov, CivGov, New America and other T2K era governments find themselves in, as well. Both designs are relatively limited in their requirements for skilled machinists and gunsmiths. Nor does either require materials only available in a modern import/export fueled economy.

[Panther Al]

I disagree with the AK for the same reasons as given earlier, Politics.

Last thing MilGov needs is to give the impression to the average person that they like Soviet (You know, those people that nuked grandma and grandpa, and killed uncle Jed and cousin Bill over there) stuff. An American Design is super critical. It has to be seen as pure 100% US Designed and Made. Yes, it could be argued it is a waste of resources to start up Rifle Production as well as Uniform Production, perhaps even more important than rifle, but in this case public perception is more important. If people believe that things are on the ups, they will work harder, and be more upbeat. They will start taking more care of themselves and the things around them (After all, now that the factories are going, those damned chislers from the cities gonna charge an arm and leg for stuff, just you watch! And taxes! I ain't gonna pay no sales tax less I gotta.), they will start to look for ways to be on top when things really kick off, so they will be working harder, all very positive things: The mindset seeing more uniform soldiers and new rifles being handed out will all lead to this. Which makes getting people thinking that tomorrow will be better regardless is worth the waste of those resources.

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

And that is exactly my point too. Where's the NEED You've got a country overflowing with weapons compared to surviving number of people, yet food and water in T2K is at an extreme premium. The priority MUST be on survival first and producing the next generation weapon second.
The total military strength of Milgov isn't anywhere near what it was prewar either. Most of those soliders will already be armed, and even if only half of the weapons brought back from Europe are available to reissue, that's still more than the requirement. As has been mentioned time and time again, supporting troops can be issued with non-standard weapons, just as the Germans did in WWII. The uniform will in most cases hold more weight than the weapon they carry - a firearm is a firearm to most people and having an M16 pointed at you will hold as much authority as having a mini-14 shoved in your face. A double barrel shotgun commands more respect than an Uzi to many people also when they're staring down the barrel...

[Targan]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Listen to the working gunsmith, people! I think here we have the one member of this forum best qualified to comment on the topic of this thread.

Great to see you posting again Brother. You have been missed. So you're not up in Vermont anymore

You're definitely not being 'too real for this forum' (and my feelings are a little hurt that you refer to it as a 'fantasy role playing game forum' ). Though we are in the minority there are a number of members who agree with your point of view (myself included).

I think if MILGOV (and maybe CIVGOV) do start large scale production of rifles it will not be until after 2001, maybe not for several years after that, and in my opinion the most likely candidate would be something along the lines of the M16EZ (possibly modified to semi auto only). Don't get me wrong, I recognise and agree with the advantages of the AR18 but it seems to me that putting together a production line for that rifle from scratch would be more difficult than gathering together existing (known) supplies of M16 parts and spares and recovering all that manufacturing equipment described in the 'Rifle River' Challenge mini-module.

Perhaps some of the posters to this thread haven't read 'Rifle River' It is an important mini module for a number of reasons, chief of which (for me) is that it's canon. It slots in nicely with the first of the 'Last Submarine' modules because it is in a similar geographic area and because if MILGOV was going to be throwing major resources into the area to recover the USS Corpus Christi it makes sense they would try to kill several birds with one stone (attempt to renew contact with the MP brigade in the area, attempt to renew contact with the remnants of the Coast Guard in the area, recover the casts and dies at the Hartford rifle factory, etc).

[Mohoender]

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

I think Targan already commented that one and I agree with what he said. For my part, I'm glad you answered my question.

[Raellus]

Here are a few questions for our resident gunsmith/s:

Wouldn't existing supplies of M-16s wear out after years of hard use

After at least 3 years of combat operations, with no significant influx of replacement parts, wouldn't a lot of M16s be breaking down around mid-2000 I mean, barrel wear alone would diminish accuracy, correct And the M16 is a notoriously complex, hard to maintain weapon, is it not

I'm under the impression that the U.S. army acquires and issues new rifles at least every decade, if not more often. Why is this, if not because of wear issues Why not crank out replacement parts/kits instead At what point does it become more economical to just make a whole replacement weapon

These are some serious questions that need answering.

Let me reassure the neysayers that I think that the M16 would be around in large numbers for a very long time. There's just so many out there, both in military use and in civilian hands. But, I think that there would be very sound reasons for MilGov (and CivGov) to begin looking at manufacturing a large-scale replacement weapon in the early '00s.

The AR-18 is a good choice because it is easier to make, easier to maintain, and has higher tolerances than the M16 family. It can also use the same, widely available ammo. It would be a much better weapon for the very young and very old conscripts or civilian militias.

I don't see this weapon completely replacing the M16 in U.S. service, but I do see it complimenting the M16 in a big way.

I'm eager to read your responses to these questions.

[waiting4something]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

[Raellus]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

I don't think that the AR-18 is "great", just that it's a logical choice for production post-TDM. Once again, it's easier to make than the M-16. This is going to be very important post-TDM.

I've seen pics of Stoner rifles (related to the AR-18) with wooden furniture so brittle plastic shouldn't be an issue. I think plastics would be exceedingly rare in the Twilight World.

And al lot of those M-16 out there in 2001 are going to have "worn out parts or poorly made parts... just waiting to go tits up." I think that's why we're having this discussion (correct me if I'm wrong Web).

[waiting4something]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field. The M203 and M249 yes, but the M16 no. Most M16's will out live their users as with most rifles. I'm sure they can down thousands of rounds before they start having fatigue. The only factor that is gonna be a probelm would be having gun oil or ammo for them maybe.

[James Langham]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

In the UK it isn't perfect but it is practical - see discussion as to it being used by the British Army.

The M16EZ was a cute idea for background, analyzed it isn't perfect in logic but it does give some wonderful flavour to the background.

[Legbreaker]

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range

Going back to my grandfather again, in WWII he was stationed to a radar unit - they'd fly their Beaufort bomber around as a target for calibration of the long range radars. The majority of his time was spend away from combat zones, however he still managed to wear out 2 barrels on his SMLE - probably due to the fact that the rifles issued at the time were made cheaper, with thinner barrel walls and lower quality metal, and he was firing scavenged AP and Incendiary rounds...

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

[Webstral]

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose. Since, however, you have repeatedly denounced the idea that there is any need for the manufacture of a new service rifle for Milgov-backed forces for many years to come, and since that is the subject of this thread, your observations are just more of the badmouthing of American equipment weve been hearing from you for years. If you insist on offering negative opinion of US gear on the slightest pretext, I recommend that you start a separate thread for that purpose and quit trying to hijack mine for the purpose of venting your spleen.

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range

This is a reasonable question for which I have no ready answer.

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

This is the kind of contribution I have been hoping for. Your earlier observations about the energy requirements of aluminum manufacturing, among others, are also valuable contributions.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose.

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience. Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

[HorseSoldier]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field.

You run them hard enough, they'll break (as will AKs or anything else made by man). This won't be aided at all by shooting reloaded ammo manufactured to looser tolerances than factory spec ammunition. The reason that almost all the Garands offered for sale by CMP today are mixmasters from an assortment of manufacturers is not because that's how they built Garands back in the day, it's because after service in WW2 and then Korea rifles were pulled out of service and sent to be repaired and rearsenaled. Many of those weapons probably didn't need it, but that process should shed some light on how hard wartime service can be on a weapon.

Add in normal wartime attrition -- weapons lost, damaged, or destroyed on the battlefield or elsewhere and you've got a reasonable need for additional weapons (hence, for instance, the M16EZ). Add in the fact that neither MilGov, nor CivGov, nor anybody else has unfettered control and access to pre-war stockpiles of rifles any more than they have access to anything else and you've probably got a situation where there are a lot of M16s and M4s floating around in CONUS, but not much to speak of for warehoused weapons and spare parts at the command of MilGov ready to equip refilled ranks of military units. And a situation where MilGov and CivGov both need weapons -- whether that means finding enough parts or machinery to make new M16s, or a new design, or whatever.

I don't see any new production M16s coming off a production line anytime in the early 21st century. The design requires too much quality aluminum and other relative exotics to field. I see it being the mainstay of MilGov and CivGov (and common with New America and various warlords, etc.) but as far as production goes it is a legacy system and operating costs will rise as time goes on. Fabricating replacement pins and springs is feasible, but other components like bolts will be rather more problematic. Building or rebuilding rifles from used or new components that are available is a possible partial solution, if the faction in question has access to someplace where parts are stockpiled.

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria. (And I agree that a copy of an AK wouldn't work, for political/appearance reasons, but cosmetic differences could easily cover up something close to a direct copy internally -- i.e. the Galil or even more so the Sig 550 series.)

It's entirely possible, given how fragmented things are circa 2000, that you'd have a situation where different cantonments loyal to the same government would be pursuing different solutions to the same problem. You might have a cantonment on the east coast that was supplementing their M16s with FAMAS they traded with the French for, one in the middle of the country that had access to enough intact rifles or spare parts that they were able to get by with nothing but M16s, and a third on the west coast that was making a pressed/stamped select fire 5.56mm rifle similar to the StG-44/AK/AR-18 to supplement their 16s.