[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.