Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Webstral]

I’ve been thinking while driving (the only time I can actually devote to thinking about Twilight: 2000 these days) about the long-term decisions regarding service rifles in the US after 2002. In the past, I’ve invested a good deal of electronic ink in the reunification of the United States as part of a strategic plan by Colorado Springs. Rather than belabor the details for everyone here who has read the applicable material many times, I’ll summarize by saying that I’ve never bought into the deus ex machina of drought in 2001. I’ve fairly consistently advocated a vision in which the food situation largely stabilizes in the US by early 2001 (with plenty of latitude for local phenomena). From that point onward, Milgov makes use of a growing fleet of airships to reconnect the loyal cantonments across the continental distances.

Given the circumstances, what decision does Milgov make about its standard service rifle? There are some good reasons to direct resources towards the manufacture of M16s, and there are some very good reasons not to. Several alternatives exist, each with strengths and weaknesses. The AK-47 recommends itself, as does the SKS, the M1, the Springfield ’03, or even the Winchester Model 94—among others. The decision Milgov makes about its service rifle at the beginning of Operation Manifest Destiny will be one of the most important ones Milgov makes at this juncture in American history. The ideal rifle will be easy to manufacture, robust, easy to maintain, accurate, serviceable, provide a satisfactory rate of fire, provide adequate firepower, and be easy and inexpensive to train on. Ammunition should be easy and inexpensive to manufacture, too. Since every available design of rifle meets these standards to varying degrees, Milgov’s choice for a standard service rifle will reflect a compromise that will no doubt be agonizing for the Joint Chiefs.

Commentary?

Webstral

[Panther Al]

Honestly, as much as I loathe the 5.56, I have to say it would make far too much sense not to focus on anything other than the M16.

Number of reasons: One, its something that all the troops know: Kit, ammo, all that is out there, and don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the infrastructure (well, ok, what isn't glowing in the dark) is set up to support it. But thats not the big reason. Legitimacy. By focusing on the M16 they can argue that they are trying to pick up from before the war, a link to a better past when all was sunny and bright. That they are not trying to start a new thing based on new ideas: After all, they can say "Well, we went with the M16 because that was the last rifle authorised by the legitimate government, and as soon as we get another, then we can decide on something new in a proper, legal, methodical way. Now if only we can get proper legally constituted civilian governance back in a legal and proper way, not this gangland style method used by those other people."

[95th Rifleman]

From what I understand of the American pyschology, they have a very "America-first" attitude. An all-american weapon like the M-16 would appeal to the national psyche. Switching to a foreighn weapon like the AK-47 or SKS would be counter-productive I think.

The choice of rifle would be as much political as practical.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

All the infrastructure (well, ok, what isn't glowing in the dark) is set up to support it.

This. Much as I agree with the political reasons, it'll come down to logistics. No other rifle design would have the available tooling, blueprints/TDP, and base of recruitable/draftable civilian gunsmiths that the AR-15 platform has. Even with all available supplies being shipped to deployed troops aboard all available transport, you're still going to have significant quantities of 5.56x45mm in stockpiles that couldn't be moved for lack of fuel, personnel, or vehicles.

I also don't see a switch to a heavier or different caliber. A cartridge of 5.56x45mm simply takes a smaller physical quantity of resources to produce than a heavier round.

Now, moving past the standard service rifle, I can see a lot more variance in designated marksman and sniper weaponry. It may not entirely work from a strict prewar regulatory perspective, but I can see a general attitude (or even a change to regs) of "if you can qualify with it and keep it reliable and fed, you can use it" for troops in that role. From a gaming perspective, that opens the door for a lot of sniper or hunting rifles that aren't standard issue but players might like to use anyway.

- C.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Well there is always the Armalite AR-18, or the Stoner System. With lessons learned from the field, and some of the civilian adaptations of the those weapons.
The fact that they use mostly steel which is more plentiful then aluminum. The Are Mostly of a stamped construction making them easier to manufacture. I could see that the Stoner system if there are any of the old school left from the USMC and the Navy (SEALS) that were in Vietnam and remember the Liking of that weapon. With some light refinements and corrections they could both be viable weapons.

AR-18 Easy to maintain, mags, ammo, sights, and changing mags drill would be the same if you adopted the civilian AR-180 lower designs to it.

Stoner M22 and M23 Rifle and Carbine if you used the magwell from the Robinson Arms M-96 rifle, or heck yet, just fully develope the Robinson arms M96 to the full kit that the Stoner sytem was.
That way as with the AR-18 Mags, ammo, sights, and changing mag drills are the same.

I would likely see the Stoner/Robinson being the one. The parts commonality with the carbine/rifle/automatic rifle(Bren top mag fed version)/LMG/MMG. It would be easy to add a designated marksman model to this bunch.

Actually it might even carry the designation for the system as SR for the Stoner Robinson.

Carbine SR-1C
Rifle SR-1R
Auto Rifle SR-1A
Light Machine gun SR-1L
Medium Machine gun SR-1M
Marksman Rifle SR-1D

Either the AR-18 or the Stoner/Robinson could become the future United States AK

[Twilight2000v3MM]

I couldn't agree more. Even if we change the time to "Twilight: 2020" I dont see the M-16/M-4 family being replaced. There are multiple calibers on the market (6.8, 6.5, 6mm, .30 shadow (?), ect.) that have varying degrees of potential but I dont see 5.56 getting replaced. I do not see anything significant in the future to replace the platform. The FN SCAR and the Remington/Bushmaster weapons are not that much of an evolution to warrant replacing the M-16/M-4. Even the gas inpingment system of the M-16/M-4 still works. Sure its dirty but with proper care it works fine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

This. Much as I agree with the political reasons, it'll come down to logistics. No other rifle design would have the available tooling, blueprints/TDP, and base of recruitable/draftable civilian gunsmiths that the AR-15 platform has. Even with all available supplies being shipped to deployed troops aboard all available transport, you're still going to have significant quantities of 5.56x45mm in stockpiles that couldn't be moved for lack of fuel, personnel, or vehicles.

I also don't see a switch to a heavier or different caliber. A cartridge of 5.56x45mm simply takes a smaller physical quantity of resources to produce than a heavier round.

Now, moving past the standard service rifle, I can see a lot more variance in designated marksman and sniper weaponry. It may not entirely work from a strict prewar regulatory perspective, but I can see a general attitude (or even a change to regs) of "if you can qualify with it and keep it reliable and fed, you can use it" for troops in that role. From a gaming perspective, that opens the door for a lot of sniper or hunting rifles that aren't standard issue but players might like to use anyway.

- C.

[Raellus]

There are about a dozen companies cranking out various iterations of the AR-15 in the U.S. at the moment for the civilian market. I think that this well-established manufacturing base lends itself to continued production of the M-16 family as the standard service rifle for all U.S. gov./military forces after the TDM, and for the forseeable future.

The domestic companies that "manufacture" AKs and SKSs mostly use imported parts to basically kit build their rifles. These parts wouldn't be available in the Twilight timeline as the former PACT nations that currently sell those parts to American companies would not have done so if the Cold War had continued.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Twilight2000v3MM

I couldn't agree more. Even if we change the time to "Twilight: 2020" I dont see the M-16/M-4 family being replaced. There are multiple calibers on the market (6.8, 6.5, 6mm, .30 shadow (?), ect.) that have varying degrees of potential but I dont see 5.56 getting replaced. I do not see anything significant in the future to replace the platform. The FN SCAR and the Remington/Bushmaster weapons are not that much of an evolution to warrant replacing the M-16/M-4. Even the gas inpingment system of the M-16/M-4 still works. Sure its dirty but with proper care it works fine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

Indeed, between this and the aforementioned post regarding the massive numbers of secondary suppliers of black rifles, there is little to no reason I can see that would allow MilGov to do anything else but to push the AR, to do anything else would require too much effort. I could see some of the resources diverted to make a small percentage of the AR's in 7.62, but other than that, not really seeing anything else but.

As to TW2020 - the game I have pretty much been running on a very off and on basis is based in that year. Did a very basic overview to reason out some the reasons for things, and to provide excuses for some of the choices, but not much more than that.

[Arrissen]

American-made M16/ M4 series depending on local logistical requirements etc. Civgov are a bunch of pussies though I reckon! Yeah you heard right people, I mean what self-respecting military man would want to work for them anyway? Especially post-WWIII when the nukes have rained down and martial law is in effect? Sure some fellas would be stuck wherever and caught up in unit and/ or regional politics blah blah blah. IMO, they should rebel first chance they get and tear Civgov a new one so as not to be shot for being traitors. And if they were using the same ammo as Milgov then all the better. Just sayin.

[Brother in Arms]

In my opinion the MILGOV would use the M16 series until they ran out then they would use the M14 until those ran out then they would use the M1 until those ran out (although .30-06 ammo would be harder to find in military storage then 5.56 or 7.62)...I don't think they would start up weapon production simply because its just too dificult espensive resource and time constraining. The Military even in the 1980's had 10000's of M16A1,M16a2 rifle and thousands more M14's in storage. Infact you can go to anniston depot today as a civillian join the CMP and buy an M1 .30-06 for $500 they still haven't ran out of those yet... So my feeling is they would use the m16 series rifle as long as possible. And supplement with older weapons as needed.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

I don't think they would start up weapon production simply because its just too dificult espensive resource and time constraining.

Why do you think it so difficult? Tribal groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa are making their own copies of many rifles. Production will drop along with quality but why would it cease? Pre-nukes rifles will be reliable, post-nuke rifles will kill you from time to time.

[Legbreaker]

This is true, however they've been doing it for years while the rest of the world generally don't have the knowledge or the tools.
I think (and could well be wrong) that the barrel is likely the hardest part to fabricate, specifically the rifling. Smoothbores such as shotguns should be relatively simple affairs and likely to make a bit of a comeback in the decade after the war.

Long term though (over a decade) anything is possible and really depends on how much the region in question has recovered. My guess is that from about 2010-2015 whole new designs will see the light of day, completely different to what we are seeing now IRL. Generally they're likely to be a lot simpler and use materials more in common to mid 20th century designs. Aluminium for example requires a LOT of energy to work (electricity specifically) so it is unlikely to be seen in early 21st century designs.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This is true, however they've been doing it for years while the rest of the world generally don't have the knowledge or the tools.

Good point, I didn't think of that.

[95th Rifleman]

The first rifle was made in the 15th century, the first real military application was in the early 19th.

The first true machine gun was made in 1884 (Gatling was earlier but Hiram Maxim made the first truly automatic MG).

Post-nuke America will still have at least 19th century technology. They won't be blasted into the stone age. Sure weapons will become much cruder, less shiny but essentilay they will be weapons desighned to make the other guy stop breathing.

When you get down to it, the Human race has a singular talent for developing methods of killing each other. This will not change post-exchange and I doubt rifles and automatic weapons will disappear. They may become a bit rarer, allot cruder but it's not exactly dificult to develop since the concept is already proven and the science is known. All you have to do is adapt it to available technology.

Look at the Sten SMG for a classic example of what ypu can do with a scrapyard and some time.

[Legbreaker]

The average person in the late 20th century had little to no practical technical or mechanical knowledge, unlike the 19th and early 20th century. How many office workers, computer techs, sales girls or cafe workers know anything about fixing their own car, let alone building a useful weapon or even growing a field of corn?
There are still a few people with the ability of course, but as a percentage of the total population, it's significantly less than a hundred years before.