Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother in Arms
It's much easier to fix broken M16s or anything in the US arsenal than to make an SKS from scratch. AR-18 makes more sese but still quite difficult to manufacture things like barrels and bolts. One armorer can refurbish many many M16's in one day if they have the parts.
|
The availability of parts is the elephant in the room. At the risk of reopening the discussion on an assault rifle assembly line in Colorado before I've finished writing a proper contribution, the issue is much more complex than putting new parts into a damaged rifle. I know you know that, Brother, but it's worth stating as much.
At some point, pre-war stocks of spare parts are going to be exhausted. Speaking in terms of cantonments, large and small, this phenomenon will affect different cantonments at different times on a per-weapon (model) basis. Like every other machine, firearms have an average rate at which their parts wear out, depending on variables like use, maintenance, climate, and so forth. All things being equal, a firearm that fires more ammunition wears out more quickly than an identical firearm firing less ammunition. One can go down the list of variables this way. The point is that firearms break down over time. Firearms being used, exposed to the elements, and subjected to poor maintenance wear out the quickest, as we all know. Some firearms are more tolerant of abuse than others, which is one of the selling points of the AK-47. We should look at the M16, though, since the M16 is the American service rifle. I’m not deliberately excluding the allies; I’m picking the weapon closest to home for me.
I agree that installing spare parts in an existing rifle is going to be much easier than fabricating a new one. The availability of spare parts isn’t inexhaustible, though. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to make more parts if the stock of M16s in a given locale is to be kept serviceable. We can quibble about the timing, but inevitably more parts have to be manufactured. This includes items like barrels and bolts.
Of course, there are other alternatives. One can swap out inoperable M16s for other rifles. In some locations, comparable rifles will be available. In other locations, comparable rifles will not be available. For a time, working M16s can be consolidated into the highest priority units. Many possibilities can be imagined, but they are all rearguard measures against the advancing decay of the stock of M16s (and other firearms) in the US.
The real issue is cost effectiveness. Assuming that one has the capability of manufacturing things like bolts and barrels, what is the relative value of the total effort expended to fabricate bolts and barrels when compared to the need? It’s easier to put numbers to the former than the latter. The total effort expended to fabricate barrels would include acquisition of materials, labor in the factory, and so forth. The need is a bit more difficult to estimate. Clearly, there’s a value to having a standard assault rifle for the troops. Obviously, combat effectiveness diminishes when the troops are using a grab bag of bolt action hunting rifles of different calibers. But how does one relate the expenditure of effort to fabricate barrels, bolts, and other parts to the needs of the troops in the field in post-Exchange America? On a case-by-case basis seems to be about the only way.
At any rate, I’m increasingly inclined to agree that having SAMAD fabricate fresh SKS probably is not plausible in 2001. The manufacturing effort probably is better invested in making spare parts for the existing stock of M16s, plus captured Mexican rifles, liberated civilian rifles, and so forth.