ForgottenWeapons
patreon
Ask Ian: "Last Ditch" Rifles for World War III? (ad-free)
🕑 Added 2023-02-08 12:00:03 +0000 UTCFrom Thunderchild on Patreon:
"How would you see a modern major nation (US, USSR/Russia, China, etc) simplify their small arms in a large scale war, WW3 or Cold War gone hot? You've mentioned in the past how most nations end up having to simplify to meet demands, so why not start simplified?"
The reason for simplified small arms is to increase production speed. During peacetime deployment of new arms, it generally doesn't really matter how long manufacturing takes, and enough rifles will be built for the standing army and some predetermined number of reserve weapons. Last-ditch guns become a necessity when battlefield wastage and increased conscription combine to demand arms well beyond the production capacity of a country's industrial base. The only solution is to simplify the design to decrease production time - and the simplifications can't hinder the effectiveness or safety of the weapon, or else there is no point in producing them in the first place.
Comments
I feel like the forward assist and possibly the dust cover would also probably get omitted in a last ditch scenario, as well.
Mart Boo
I work with tools for barrel making. A considerable amount of time and cost is consumed by barrel honing. By just deep hole drilling and button rifling, it would be so much faster cranking out barrels with slightly reduced accuracy and lifetime. Just an idea...
With this subject, I’m thinking of WWII. With the development of the M-3 and M-3 Al grease gun. To replace the Thompson. The grease gun had a long time in service. WWll to Desert Storm.
Adam Schindler
I think that we could see AR-180 production scaled up in that circumstance. A KP-15 with a BRN-180 upper would be a VERY efficient rifle to produce. The (very expensive and limited) production machinery is far more design agnostic than Ye Olde One Operation Milling Machine of yore, thus the penalty for switching designs is lower while the premium on time for any individual machine is higher.
Michael Baggott
We could even go with civilian-style ARs to be issued to troops. In other words, semi-auto ARs with 16" barrels which wouldn't require any changes to assembly lines. Troops don't "need" full auto/burst functions on their rifles and the don't "need" 14.5" or shorter barrels.
Guido Schriewer
and such sit comes faster than todays people think IMO. it's some time back that some major country HAD to do such. and as always... forgotten lessons. forward assist. FIRST thing could go bye bye!
Thomas Batha
As usual your response is well thought out. I would look at the problem from a different angle: Why not stop destroying every rifle we have that is two iterations behind the current model? Our government has de-milled over a million M16 and M 16A1 rifles. Some were not salvageable but many were in new condition. It seems that the "Pentagon planners" decide that if an item has an NSN that is wrong, it is cheaper to scrap than store. Of course this fails to take into consideration exactly the issues that you addressed.
z c
Just 3D print FGC-9s
Stephen T. Goode Jr
In the U.S., there are hundreds of manufacturers of the AR-15 rifles. They could make a standard pattern of M-16 without change in quality of arms. China and Russia would have a greater problems since state owned factories would have to set up product runs. The real question is how many multi-axis milling machines are there in the country.
Brett Baker
Investment castings for receivers. Simplify barrels with nitride finishing.
