And most of them are dead in 2000, from radiation, disease, starvation or violence related to one of those three.

It's quite likely technical skills will be in short supply giving way to the more important hunting, scrounging and foraging type skill sets instead.
There's unlikely to be a lot of spare time for anyone to learn, let alone teach the engineering type skills that aren't needed on a day to day survival basis.

Leg, I don't know how it went in your place but I know how it went here and in Vermont. The economical crisis stroke us in 2008. Six month later, the number of people fixing their car all by themselves had gone from 1 occasionally to 10 regularly. People who had not been in the field for their entire life have started growing their own food when they had a garden. People threw things away, they stopped and store things again ( although it might not last)

Myself, not having one single skill in fixing household machinery, I learned how to fix the washing machine (about 12 hours: 10 to understand how it works, 1.55 hours to understand what didn't work, 5 minutes to fix it (No choice, I had no money to fix it at the moment).

And I know by my friends living in Vermont that many people they knew and had lost their job returned to the land they owned and farm it.

Barter will develop also and skills will be traded as goods.

You forget about necessity and if its obvious that skills will be in short supply for whatever reason (dicease, radiations...) they will survive. In many areas, among limited population, you'll find plenty of skills. Some, of course, will jump at each other throats but other will collaborate (It is the bases behind Twilight). However, I would rather live in Queens than in the wealthy neighborhood of Manhattan.

You don't need engineering type skills to survive on a daily bases.

That's exactly my point. There won't be a lot of call for the more technical skills such as fabrication of new weapons when the average person is struggling to get enough calories every day.
People may develop some mechanical skills (such as fixing their car), but the ability to operate highly technical machinery to make precision engineered items isn't going to be happening.

The point I was trying to make is you DON'T need precision engineering to make reliable, automatic firearms. When you look at the old WW1 stuff they where big, basic and worked. Sure the modern toys are high-tech, precison stuff made to exacting tolerances but it's not a requirement.

I pointed to the Sten gun as an example, that thing is a damn scrapyard gun but it's reliable, effective and it works.

In the 20th/21st centuries everyone has a level of education (in the west at least) that far exceeds that of the 19th but people assume we have become more stupid? Even your avrage dumb-ass American, college drop-out has a higher standard of education than your average person back in the days when machine guns where being invented.

The principle are known, the technology is proven and all you have to do is get together enough people who know the basics, a bit of trial and error with all the crap left behind post-exchange and you CAN put together a semi-automatic weapon within a month. Once you've done that it's a matter of time before you can produce fully automatic, basic weapons.

The Sten (and SMGs in general) don't require close tolerances and good engineering to be effective (they're only meant for close range spray and pray firepower). A machinegun or assault rifle on the other hand which needs to hit accurately and reliably at a decent range does.
It's the more advanced and useful weapons which will not be produced post nuke while smoothbore type (shotguns) and basic SMGs will become fairly common.

I think we agree. For my part, I do. :)

If we're talking about a guy building rifles in his garage workshop, then yeah, he'd definitely need some skill in gunsmithing to make a weapon that won't blow up in his face the first time the trigger is pulled.

Now, if we're talking about getting a firearms factory up and running, I think you'd only need a handful who actually know how to build a gun, rather than everyone needing to know.
The assembly line eliminates the need to know the whole process of building things. At first, the ones who do know, would be needed to teach the workers their individual part of the process, then they'd be able to shift over to quality control, once the workers knew how to do their respective jobs.

But then, this is just my take on it.

Random thoughts
 

"Knowledge is of two types, that which we know and that which we know how to find." Francis Bacon. Once information on how to do something is available it is a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Consider the Warsaw Ghetto - my guess is that there were few gunsmiths there yet they were making their own weapons.

PPSh41 barrels were often made by taking a rifle barrel that was worn out and cutting it in half to make two SMG barrels. Maybe there is a 7.62mmN answer in the years after the war.

I can see the possibility of an initial shortage, reducing as the tears go by as apprentices become fully trained.

At the risk of nitpicking, I disagree that there won't be a call for the technical skills of gunsmithing. Once someone shows up to take the food, the ability to produce arms and ammunition will be valued second only to the ability to produce food--and a close second, at that. As a practical matter, the ability to repair existing firearms will take precedent over the fabrication of new firearms because (generally) repairing existing firearms will yield more firearms per hundred hours of labor than fabricating new ones, provided the labor and machinery for repair and fabrication are comparable. Therefore, fabrication of new firearms by skilled gunsmiths will take a back seat to repair of existing firearms by skilled gunsmiths.

As on so many occasions, Leg, I think we’re speaking to different circumstances. You prefer a more uniform and more complete breakdown of civilization than I do. Your observations tend to be appropriate for smaller cantonments, which would predominate in the version of Twilight: 2000 you prefer. I tend to concur with most of your observations when they are applied to smaller cantonments even in my own concept of Twilight: 2000.

That much said, technical skills are going to survive and be in demand in locations where the food supply permits. By 2000, the food situation largely will have stabilized throughout most of the world. The pre-war foods will have been eaten or have gone bad. The survivors will be eating food they have grown locally. In some locations, like Colorado, the existence of a powerful pre-war agricultural base, combined with the local presence of fuels, minerals, armed might, and technical expertise, will allow a new homeostasis at a relatively high level. The ratio of farm workers to non-farm workers will be much more amenable to industrial growth than in many other parts of the country. In places like Manhattan and Phoenix, the situation will be more medieval: there will be those who grow the food and those who fight over the food. In Colorado, then, Milgov will have the “luxury” of deciding what kinds of arms and armaments should be manufactured based on needs and resources.

At the risk of pointing out what we all know already, the whole point of an assembly line is to save labor. Throughout the US (and the world), non-agricultural/food producing labor is going to be at a premium. Milgov’s interest in producing rifles for export to friendly cantonments is going to have several dimensions. Even where the local forces have enough rifles for every fighting man or woman who will take to the field, there are significant advantages to providing those forces with a new uniform service rifle firing a common ammunition and capable of delivering a high volume of fire out to the typical maximum range of infantry engagements (<300 meters)(1). This is not to say that hunting rifles don’t have their uses. However, Milgov will see the advantage of standardizing small arms in its cantonments to the greatest degree possible by creating assembly lines in Colorado Springs to manufacture a standard service rifle. As an added bonus, the more dissimilar rifles that can be replaced, the more the base of gunsmithing labor in the various cantonments can be economized by reducing the number of separate tasks the gunsmiths must execute to service the rifles of friendly forces. Therefore, the creation in Colorado of an assembly line for a service rifle that can be shipped—with spare parts, etc.—to the various friendly cantonments creates a situation in which labor is saved at the cantonment, local logistics are greatly facilitated and simplified, and the relative advantage of the local forces vis-à-vis marauders and the like is measurably enhanced.

Of course, for all of this to work Milgov needs to select a good candidate for a new service rifle and have the ability to deliver the rifles. I’ve thrown my support behind the AR-18 because it combines relative ease of manufacture with an ability to exploit the existing base of ammunition, magazines, and experience. As for delivery, I’m sure I’ve beaten to death my argument regarding airships. The beauty of using airships to deliver rifles is that the rifles are relatively low-mass items for their utility. It isn’t practical for Milgov to deliver grain or petroleum until the railroads and/or rivers can be opened up again. Rifles (and other small arms) enhance the ability of cantonments to defend their existing assets. With time and breathing space, the isolated cantonments will find solutions to their problems using local resources.


Webstral

(1) I readily acknowledge that the realities of infantry combat will change in the post-Exchange environment. However, certain realities will persist. The attacker will attempt to use covered approaches to get as close as possible to the defender. The defender will want to exploit cleared fields of fire to prevent the attacker from getting very close. Long-range rifle marksmanship is something that requires a fair amount of practice. Militia troops and even some regulars won’t get anything like the required practice in the post-Exchange environment. Therefore, a rifle with a high rate of fire and a high magazine capacity but shortish effective range is superior to a hunting rifle under many circumstances. Both attacker and defender will want to be able to deliver a high volume of accurate fire in close-to-medium combat ranges.

It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.
I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.

Of course there's nothing like the real thing, nothing that can replace the feel of a weapon actually firing and the sudden recoil against the shoulder. With ammunition likely in short supply (in most areas anyway), accuracy with each round is even more important than it once was. Perhaps for the defensive role, low rate of fire tripod mounted weapons may be the answer. The tripod would minimise the felt recoil and increase accuracy well over that of a hand held SMG or assault rifle. The smaller weapons would still see widespread use, but they'd be secondary to the fixed defensive weapons.

Patrols and offensive actions would of course be a different story with operations carried out only by skilled soldiers who may have been retrained to conserve ammo, and thus extend the service life of their weapons. It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage, with a handful of automatic weapons (GPMGs and LMGs) held in reserve/used as fire support. Essentially a move back to the tactics of the mid 20th Century.

Hunting is more likely to occur with non-military rounds such as .22LR which are relatively useless against enemy soldiers. Bows, crossbows and black powder weapons would see increased use by civilian hunters, along with traps of varying design. Organised agriculture would however be the prime method of feeding the population, especially in areas with greater population densities. In those areas it would seem unlikely the military would allow any weapons in civilian hands - keeps them more controllable and allows the military more weapon options (although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).

Actually, all you need is a half-way decent machine shop, this is just a small listing of the weapons that can be made: Mortars, bazookas, rocket launchers, and grenades, and all of a lot better quality than the "Wojos" of Krakow fame!

The only real shortfall is propellent and filling for the weapons...but then a decent high school chem lab always had problems with creative students trying their hand at homemade mayhem. Toss a college prof into the mix, and we are talking home made mustard gas, naplam, and a rather nasty assortment of nerve gases.

And toss into the pot those who live near any towns with shipyard capacity! Those machine shops can turn out decent quality metal working...stainless steel cannon barrels?

And finally, toss in all of the wanna-be mercenaries and those who purchased books from Paladin Press....Improvisied Munitions Handbooks as well as a varied selection of mayhem how-to books!

The decisions made by Milgov in early 2001 will affect the history of the US over the next 10 to 20 years, certainly. There are sharp limits to what Milgov can accomplish, even if one sets aside the drought. Therefore, decisions made in 2001 will have long-term effects because reversing them will be difficult. The right decision in 2001 will support rebuilding and reunification over the next 20 years without any major changes in ammunition, design, resource allocation, etc.

I presume the whole panoply of ammunition-saving marksmanship training methods will be used. These methods and appropriate devices might be something else for Milgov to consolidate and distribute.

Agreed.

Agreed. Therefore, Milgov is likely going to make some decisions about standardizing a shotgun, a handgun, and a bolt-action rifle for precision fires.


Webstral

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.
Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy. The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

While I totally agree, that the presence of surplus weapons in all likelihood means that they don't have to, you are forgetting the political aspect: By getting industry running, and weapons manufacture is one industry that hits more than one target, they prove to those that look that they are the horse to bet on. While CivGov can't get stuff done, MilGov is getting things running: Plenty of food, manufacture, even (And I would push for this for no other reason than of public relations) some luxuries being made. The need for weapons isn't critical: Its the political/public relations angle that needs to be addressed.

A key factor is likely to be making the troops LOOK like a military unit. Having an M16 family weapon will make you look official, having mixed weapons, an AK series or a hunting rifle will make you look like a marauder.

I rather think that the key factor would be maintenance problem. The more different equipments the bigger the headache for those charged with maintaining equipments in working order.

If I consider the exemple of ww2, official look didn't depended on the type of equipments. German garrison troops had been issued all kind of equipments from all occupied countries. However, less of these captures equipments were issued to front line units. So much for the official look of things.

True, weapon commonality is a good thing, but what about all those M16's brought back from Europe? The military certainly aren't going to let the discharged soldiers simply walk off with nearly 50,000 perfectly good weapons are they? (Probably only about 30,000 M16s).
And yes, getting industry running again is a good thing, but there's got to be plenty of other items with a higher priority than weapons which may not even really be needed in the early 2000s. For example, plows which can be drawn by animals or even humans in preference to tractors which no longer have fuel.

Yes, so manufacturing the AR18, slightly modified to accept STANAGs, would be a really good move. You've got ammo and magazine commonality with the large number of M16s floating around, and you're manufacturing new rifles- rifles easier to make and maintain than the M16- to keep up with M16 attrition, wear, damage, etc. If ammo usage is a concern, you could manufacture them in semi-auto only. The AR-18 is a win-win.

I couldn’t disagree more. By no means is 2001 too early for such an important decision to be undertaken. Given the reduced means and the long lead time necessary for getting an AR-18 assembly line up-to-speed in the post-Exchange environment, 2001 is a great time to make decisions about what rifle to produce.

Given your predilection for the almost disintegration of society—particularly the US—you’re surprisingly sanguine about the condition of weapons three years on from the nuclear exchange, Leg. Soldiers break equipment. Poorly-trained soldiers, which describes troops in many of the regular units as well as the majority of militia troops, break their equipment at an even greater rate. Neglect, the lack of proper lubricants, and so on will consume huge numbers of otherwise serviceable rifles during the years immediately following the nuclear attacks. Civilians will be even harder on their rifles than the military types. Yes, there will those who take good care of their equipment. Nonetheless, in the post-nuke world attrition of firearms will be high.

The fact that bandits don’t stand and fight when a larger military force appears doesn’t mean there isn’t an ongoing need to deal with them. Like guerillas, marauders will strike under conditions they feel are favorable to them. They may not take on a company-sized element from the 78th Infantry Division, but they will more willing to take on a local militia. The local militias will need weapons like the AR-18 that deliver a high volume of fire so that marauder attempts to use light infantry tactics can be countered by smaller numbers of militia troops.

By the same token, warlords not associated with New America are going to want to expand their territory. There’s never enough farmland; there’s never enough labor. While Milgov can’t directly affect the training of cantonments it wants to support, Milgov can make decisions to provide cantonments with vital equipment the cantonments cannot manufacture for themselves in a cost-effective fashion.

I completely agree with the political aspect of the decision. Three years on from the nuclear strikes, morale is going to be a critical issue. GDW agrees. In Howling Wilderness, Milgov is considering reopening the US Mint in Denver to demonstrate how good things are in Colorado. We should ask whether Milgov is also going to start manufacturing BDUs or some other type of uniform in the name of making military forces look (and FEEL) more like a professional military force.

Thus, the M16EZ.

30,000 M16s is a decent start. 300,000 would be better. Three million would be better than that. We should bear in mind that in April 2001 the US still has some 120-140 million people. Putting a mere 1% of the population under arms means putting 1.2-1.4 people under arms. Eliminating marauders, liberating Americans controlled by warlords, destroying New America, driving the invaders off American soil—all of these will require troops with good service rifles. Since the ability of Milgov to move combat formations long distances is in question, the other alternative is to make sure that local forces have the right equipment to undertake local actions. Ensuring that troops intended to go into the lions’ dens, so to speak, have rifles at least as good as the enemy’s best rifles is a must. We can argue about whether the AR-18 is a better choice than the M1, but we’d be acknowledging that the kind of rifle used by US infantry from WW2 onward is the best choice.

Rifles and plows are apples and oranges. Both require some labor to fabricate, but the shortage of labor experienced everywhere across the US is an argument in favor of Milgov’s investment in an assembly line for a post-Exchange service rifle. A relative handful of factory workers in Colorado can displace many times their number of workers in cantonments throughout the country. If fewer gunsmiths are needed to maintain the cantonment’s stocks of weapons, more labor can be invested in manufacturing to meet local needs. Serviceable plows can be fabricated locally. Displacing the manufacture of rifles to Colorado actually increases the labor available for making plows, or whatever other non-precision, low-tech tools and implements are required for local needs.

My point exactly. The Industrial Revolution supports the establishment of assembly lines for the manufacture of weapons—especially where labor and expertise are in short supply.


Webstral

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

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.

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.

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...

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).

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 we’ve 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.

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

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

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.

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.

(Emphasis added by me)

Once again I point to the Challenge magazine mini module 'Rifle River'. Anyone contributing to this debate who hasn't read it really should. GDW had obviously given some thought to some of the issues we are debating here.

Anyone who does not have access to 'Rifle River' and would like to read it, feel free to PM me and we'll work something out.

Swell. So you have personal experience. Great. Except the thread is not about Leg's personal experience with the M16 or anyone's personal experience with the M16. The thread is about discussing candidates for post-Exchange manufacture in the US--hopefully on a basis more sophisticated than personal bias. Since you have stated emphatically that you don't believe any rifle is a candidate, your feedback on the quality of the M16 has no useful context. By the way, Legbreaker's personal experience doesn't add up to facts--not that you've actually given any in your tidy summation of the quality of the rifle.

Are they? Well, that's generous of you. Thanks for granting the rest of us the right to express ourselves on the forum.

Time for me to get down from the parapet, looks like the shootin's about to start, and me without a flameproof vest...
:p

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs?

@Web
Whoa! Calm down there, please. There's no attacking going on here. My statement about the M16 is not intended to insult anyone, it's a simple observation that every M16 I've had in hand has been crap. This may just be due to age and wear and tear in which case perhaps I've got some insight on what T2K soldiers may be dealing with? Or it may be personal bias against a weapon that had sights and barrels bent out of alignment, loose furniture that would rattle with each shot further throwing off the aim, magazines which would fail on a regular basis, and were generally just rubbish and probably should have seen the inside of a furnace a decade before. Take your pick...

And as for "letting" others post, I thought this was an open forum where we are supposed to encourage participation? I certainly don't agree with many things that are said, but I'm not about to stop anyone saying it. Who knows, with a decent, open and honest discussion, opinions and positions may be changed...on both sides.

Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, those M16s I mentioned are, at least in my opinion, what is the result of hard wear and tear (about 20 years worth IRL). They weren't all that accurate and they had their problems, but they could still kill almost as effectively as a rifle still hot from the factory. With a decent gunsmith, a tool box, and a supply of basic parts, they could have been refurbished at a fraction of the cost and difficulty an organisation in T2K would face in constructing a whole new weapon.

Now assuming those rifles are an example of T2K weaponry, and remembering that the vast bulk of weapons in T2K aren't anywhere near as old, can't we agree refurbishment should be the preferred T2K option over designing a new weapon, constructing the factory, sourcing and gathering the materials, supplying the energy requirements, feeding the workforce, etc, etc, etc? Leave producing a new rifle until the country can afford it, financially, industrially, and agriculturally. To do otherwise dooms the recovery from nuclear war and it's aftermath to a very bad end.