US Army issue weapons

[Abbott Shaull]

You can use the bayonet with the M16/M203 combo weapon, you just won't be able to use the 203 while you have the bayonet mounted. With that said, the old proverbial order to fix bayonets with the modern Platoon/Squad set up would mean as much as 1/4 to 1/6 of the force wouldn't have little more than a knife to bring to the fight. When I was the M7 only fitted to the M16s leaving the SAW and M60 gunners as well as those issued only pistol didn't have a weapon to fix the said bayonet too.

Interesting if they are close for the order to fix bayonets, the enemy that was a major concern were too close to use the M203 anyways for arming issues IIRC.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This is one of the reasons I prefer 7.62 over 5.56 and both (as well as just about any other round) over 9mm. They give you the range and hitting power you need to take them down before they can get close enough to take you down.

Way back in my very, very first game we had three PC's, all from the Black Watch (who had somehow managed to attach themselves to the 5th ID) and they were all armed with SLR's. As well as the added damage dice, the SLR just had an iconic look that the SA80 has never, ever managed to attain.

We all picked up AK's early on figuring that it would be easier to pick up additional Pact ammo than NATO but kept our SLR's (we had a GAZ jeep, so easy to horde a small amount of stuff).

Moving on to other campaigns, we always tried to have as few calibres as possible in my groups so characters could easily swap ammo amongst themselves. Where possible groups usually finished up with assault rifles of the same calibre (either 5.56N or 5.45B) as their primary weapons, plus one guy with an automatic rifle (of the same calibre as the assault rifles) and one with a machine gun (which was obviously of a different calibre).

[headquarters]

dont bother deleting names ,I always think I can debate from what I posted Eddie!


And no offense from a little factual information could possibly be percieved.

as for you claiming to finally bring logic and or common sense to the thread ..well you arent the first Yankee serviceman to come across a little on the strong side ...so whatever.

But I read the initial post more like a GM thinking "I want to arm the guys like this -or is that not doable ..? "

I still think the pick and mix approach has merit gamewise .I also think that the battlefield pick up variety has merit gamewise -and quite possibly in RL too,especially if talking a T2K enviroment .You will use whatever is more convenient -and from the first wars on record to the last ones we have had ,enemy gear and weapons have been used a great deal or just some -but still -its used.

The textbook example is most logical as agreed on -everyone with the standard rifle or carbine for their national service.Being sent overseas with a hodgepodge of weapons doesnt seem likely from a US POV.

Still,the other examples strike me as more interesting in game terms.Firstly , the weaponry can help outline the PC .The big strong MG gunner,the careful and skinny young guy with only a pistol ,the deadly and silent sniper rifle guy that is probably a psycho etc etc .

When the players have different ranges,damage stats and firepower - the game dynamics also change so that combat becomes different than if everyone has the same .Also having a little less than the enemy can be interesting .Players have to choose their terrain and posistions more carefully,and assign roles suited to their gear etc -good for cooperation in the party.Having the players slightly outgunned makes for great sessions -imho.Hence - some sidearms and shotguns will weaken the firepower considerably compared to an all carbine armed group.

I latch on to the battlefield pick up /captured weapons theory as well - depending on circumstances in game of course - any break or dealy in the supply chain might give results from soldiers eating enemy supplies and burning enemy fuel in their vehicles, to soldiers having to use enemy weapons and other gear to keep up effectiveness of the unit.

To make this "realistic" or "edible to some" will take a varying degree of stretch to make happen .As an example I guess the party can be met by a sour quartermasters detachment at the dock when they land in Europe and have all their shiny factory new carbines and gore tex gear taken away and given to hardened veterans ,and be issued a more hodgepodgy collection after .

After all -in the T2K game you can allow yourself to deviate from regulations..even more so than IRL

Originally Posted by Eddie

Okay...I gotta go on a logic rant here. I still consider myself new to these forums because I primarily lurk, so let me apologize to the regulars here in advance that I know I'm about to offend in some unintended way. I'm not attacking anyone, just the idea of scavenging odd-ball weaponry in the Twilight environment that everyone seems to latch onto "because it's T2K, anything goes". As such, I will remove names in any quotes I take.



It's absolutely textbook. It's also logic and common sense. You have a 50m range with a 9mm, a 75-100m range with a shotgun or a 300m range with a rifle...which would you prefer to be armed with? I absolutely love the cool factor of walking around with my M9 on a FOB and during training, but when rounds were coming at me, I was grateful for standoff. That takes care of the common sense part.

"But you take what you can find...it's Twilight, after all..."

Yeah, exactly, but stop and think about it. NATO sent all these troops into the fight at the start of the conflict. How were they armed when they were sent? Was there a shortage of "textbook" weaponry? I mean after all, a unit doesn't get sent to combat unless they have the majority of their MTOE equipment, and specifically they won't go unless they have all of what is called their "pacing items" (I can talk more about pacing items if you wish, but really it's more real-world information than necessary at this point). MTOE gives the majority of combat soldiers a rifle or machinegun (light or otherwise, and yes, an M249 is a machinegun by definition) as their primary weapon, with a few special jobs receiving an additional pistol as a backup or in some extreme cases as the primary.

Then people start dying.

What do you think the most excess, lying-around weapons are going to be? The few thousand backup weapons spread throughout the theater, or the primary combat weapon of whatever nation the troops deployed from? And what nations sent the most troops into a theater? Has the largest supply chains? The US and Russia, right?

Now then, because the nation in question was the US and the Army was specifically named, I have personally sat in Brigade-level meetings on a monthly basis since June because up until last week I was a company commander for an Infantry company, and believe me...no COL or LTC is going to send a unit to a combat theater understrength on rifles. They'll do what is called a "lateral transfer" from rear-echelon units or better yet non-deployable units and trade out all pistols if nothing else. Or an Operational Needs Statement (ONS) before deploying to buy enough weapons for everyone to deploy with.

Now battle damage and casualties will wear down the availability of rifles, but most of the casualties will be meat damage, not metal damage, but even if a single Army Battalion bought every single M4 in existence, all of them died, and the weapons had to be coded out, there are still hundreds of thousands of M16s in the inventory and I'd say tens of thousands of M14s (which would be an even cooler game-twist in my opinion), which will be the subject of those lateral transfers for combat. How long does it take? When I was stationed at Ft. Drum in 1999 and we gave up all of our M16s to the NY NG and we received M4s, it took one day for them to pick up the weapons and less than a week for our supply guy to complete all of the paperwork transactions. As a company commander now, when I laterally transferred my four SAWs for M4s in August, it took three days to get the weapons and close out with the Property Book Office.

As for the shotguns, there are 16-28 per battalion (less than M9s) based on type of Infantry unit...other types of units filling in the Infantry role typically have less than 50% of Infantry-assigned weaponry according to the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

Now all of this takes into the Original Posters comment:



I fully acknowledge once in theater, away from the flagpole trying to survive, PC instinct takes over and they raid every single body they come across. I fully acknowledge that if the OP is starting in media res, they could have acquired other weaponry. I fully acknowledge that having all US weaponry limits them to only NATO ammunition. I'm just answering the question asked by the Original Poster in the parameters that he gave us.

[General Pain]

Using captured enemy weapons might put you in the scopes of a friendly sniper.....

"Ahh...another one with a RPK...say goodbye to your comrades ...."
(crazy sniper talking to himself while picking off friendlies using captured weapons)

[Targan]

Originally Posted by headquarters

as for you claiming to finally bring logic and or common sense to the thread ..well you arent the first marine to come across a little on the strong side ...so whatever.

Eddie is a US Army officer, not a Marine.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Targan

Eddie is a US Army officer, not a Marine.

edited to serviceman - should also be readable as army officer

[jester]

Another issue with using captured enemy equipment other than FRATRICIDE. But also the issue of familiarity. Most troops are familiar with their nations equipment and to a degree allied equipment from cross training and joint operations. Some, may have some familiarization with enemy gear. But, will it be as intimate as it is with their own? So, is it impossible to learn the ins and outs and proper employment of an enemies gear? Of course not, but it will take time, and it will also take trial and error both of which could be costly.

Just some ideas on the subject.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

Another issue with using captured enemy equipment other than FRATRICIDE. But also the issue of familiarity. Most troops are familiar with their nations equipment and to a degree allied equipment from cross training and joint operations. Some, may have some familiarization with enemy gear. But, will it be as intimate as it is with their own? So, is it impossible to learn the ins and outs and proper employment of an enemies gear? Of course not, but it will take time, and it will also take trial and error both of which could be costly.

Let me note that I think post-nuke reinforcements will be of significantly lower quality than the soldiers that started the war and by 2000 their quality and training will be extremely poor. In such a situation, the "crude" AK series would be quite useful, as it requires less training to use or maintain than an M16.If you are going to stick a rifle in a fat 50-year old accountant's hands and shove him towards the front, better an AK 74 than an M16A2. Yes, this does ignore Warsaw Pact forces getting NATO weapons ...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

You can use the bayonet with the M16/M203 combo weapon, you just won't be able to use the 203 while you have the bayonet mounted.

Must depend on the actual type of bayonet. The ones we were issued with could not be fitted to the M16 while the M203 was fitted. The launchers barrel extended too far foward and there wasn't enough space between it and the rifle barrel for the bayonet to fit into.

[Abbott Shaull]

Okay I stand corrected. It been twenty years since I used one and seen one up close and personal. Forgot it connected as far back as they did.

If that is indeed the case, it takes away that many more trooper who can fix bayonets.... Which I have always found ironic in some books where the command has been given, in book written by various authors... But it always make the book more interesting.

But then again for the average player who doesn't have prior experience in such things in real life. I can several Player and GMs overlooking as many authors have seem to overlook.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by General Pain

Using captured enemy weapons might put you in the scopes of a friendly sniper.....

"Ahh...another one with a RPK...say goodbye to your comrades ...."
(crazy sniper talking to himself while picking off friendlies using captured weapons)

Yes that is always a possibility. Yet, if I was sniper and seen someone wearing the same type of uniform that I was wearing, I would have second thoughts of pulling the trigger on them no matter what weapon they carried. On the other hand if there was like 'civil war', knowing enemy troop had access to same uniforms, or reports of enemy Special Operation units who were disguised.

What it comes down to is the situation that one finds themselves in. If I was tank crew and were on foot due to our tank being taken out. We had only 2 M3 for the four of us, I would be looking something for the other two of us, and possibly something to give the two with M3 something with more stopping power. Especially if there was no telling when and where we would get another Tank for us to continue to fight the war.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by copeab

Let me note that I think post-nuke reinforcements will be of significantly lower quality than the soldiers that started the war and by 2000 their quality and training will be extremely poor. In such a situation, the "crude" AK series would be quite useful, as it requires less training to use or maintain than an M16.If you are going to stick a rifle in a fat 50-year old accountant's hands and shove him towards the front, better an AK 74 than an M16A2. Yes, this does ignore Warsaw Pact forces getting NATO weapons ...

Honestly, I don't see many pact soldier willingly switch weapons. I mean you know weapons works functionally. You have been told that the enemy weapons are unreliable, and you would believe so. Once ammo becomes an issue with re-supplying, then you will see them doing the same thing.

Now on the other hand, any units that have work behind the front lines. They will grab up anything NATO they can lay their greedy hands on.

Besides during the Great War the Soviet would send units into combat with one soldier with weapon and the next one with a clip(s) of ammo who was suppose to grab the weapon from someone who wasn't in need of the weapon anymore. If they were lucky enough find one to use the ammo before they ended up without being able to use the ammo themselves.

One of the interesting things is, if one looks at what the standard Infantry Platoon from WWII was equipped with. Compare it to what the modern Infantry Platoon, we are closer to having a Standardization of weapons and ammo since before WWI. Even then a Regiment/Battalion would have standardized, but Rifle/Carbines would be different in many cases. It is one of those elusive things, one never has as many arm of single weapon than they need for the next war, but have tried to secure what they believe would be needed within reason based on the previous war.

[jester]

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

As for the M16A2 verses the AK, I personaly would stick with a 16 over an AK unless there were no amo, then sure the AK would be taken as a working weapon over a useless weapon is always preferable. The 16 is much better when it comes to precision and distance than the AK. And I personaly would rather engage an enemy at a distance where I have the advantage over them. And that distance is 500m for the 16 verses 300m for the AK. And even at 300 and 200m, I will be able to put a round where I want it. For an AK I may hit the target but putting it in the head, the chest, or in a limited area that maybe all that is exposed which could be no more than 8 or 12 inches <think of the Death of Cowboy in Full Metal Jacket> well an AK doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Next, the training that was mentioned.

And would there be enough AKs back in the US to equip units to train them with before they go overseas? Would there be enough in the UK, Canada or Oz? For troops in theater the weapons would be there, but at home, who were raised after everything has fallen apart but sent to bolster the troops abroad, that doesn't seem likely.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by jester

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo...

It could be the rifle, we had M16A1's and there was absolutely no way a bayonet was going to fit between the two barrels.
Attachment 840
Attachment 841
Attachment 842

However, as can be clearly seen, there's not even enough space for the sling swivel.... I have to say based on the US Army docs these are taken from and my own experience with the M7 and M16A1/M203, the bayonet cannot physically be fitted while the launcher is in place. This is even more impossible if the base weapon is a carbine.

HOWEVER!

If the M203 barrel was cut shorter by about an inch, it could be fitted. It wouldn't be particularly safe though as the launcher could be fired (but not reloaded) while the bayonet was in place and it is EXTREMELY likely the grenade would strike the bayonet.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

However, as can be clearly seen, there's not even enough space for the sling swivel....

The sling swivel is on the right side of the modified handguard, below the leaf sight for the GL. It can be moved to the left side, but is normally found on the right side.

I just noticed something...the second picture you have there is a newer model, mounted via a MIL-STD-1913 rail to the M-4.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by jester

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

I've never seen an M-16A1 or A2 that could mount a bayonet. (OK, technically, that's wrong -- you can do it, but you DEFINITELY had better NOT fire a grenade with the bayonet mounted, as it sticks down in front of the M-203s barrel.) As far as the SAW -- the Minimi can still be gotten by the buying country with the ability to mount a bayonet. Consequently, early LRIP versions of the M-249 could mount a bayonet. Very few were actually made like that, though.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by jester

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

As for the M16A2 verses the AK, I personaly would stick with a 16 over an AK unless there were no amo, then sure the AK would be taken as a working weapon over a useless weapon is always preferable. The 16 is much better when it comes to precision and distance than the AK. And I personaly would rather engage an enemy at a distance where I have the advantage over them. And that distance is 500m for the 16 verses 300m for the AK. And even at 300 and 200m, I will be able to put a round where I want it. For an AK I may hit the target but putting it in the head, the chest, or in a limited area that maybe all that is exposed which could be no more than 8 or 12 inches <think of the Death of Cowboy in Full Metal Jacket> well an AK doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Next, the training that was mentioned.

And would there be enough AKs back in the US to equip units to train them with before they go overseas? Would there be enough in the UK, Canada or Oz? For troops in theater the weapons would be there, but at home, who were raised after everything has fallen apart but sent to bolster the troops abroad, that doesn't seem likely.

If I recall the early SAWs were able to bayonet.

As a matter of fact I think many NATO troop would stick with their national issue weapon over the Pact AKs. You know I see units picking up and storing AKs, RPKs, and PKs only after out running their supply chain had become issue, or like I have noted troops such as those in armor units where after having to leave the tank with the entire crew surviving and being equipped with 2 M3s and pistols. I can see many tank commanders acquiring what rifles they could so if they had to abandon their tank, they would be of some use as Infantry role.

I think the US and many of the others listed have enough of their older equipment they would start to use that first. I know the US still has WWII stock they would issue.

Now for Germans using the AKs and what not for new troops. Yes, they would take the bulk, even with the West German industrial base, they wouldn't have the ability to equip all new troops. They don't have left stockpiles of weapons either that others would have.

Next is the ammo for these weapons that would become issue. Would we set up industrial sites to manufacture ammo. Yes, for a small scale compare to the ammo being produced for 5.56N and 7.62N ammo and such. Even larger rounds there wouldn't be much urgency to make rounds for the enemy weapons until things start to break down and by then it would be too late.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The sling swivel is on the right side of the modified handguard, below the leaf sight for the GL. It can be moved to the left side, but is normally found on the right side.

I just noticed something...the second picture you have there is a newer model, mounted via a MIL-STD-1913 rail to the M-4.

Minor nitpick, normally the swivel is on the left hand side due to the majority of firers being right-handed. The right-handed swivels are the oddball, but it takes all of 2 minutes to change with a mallet and a punch. About five minutes with a Gerber and a dental pick.

[jester]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Minor nitpick, normally the swivel is on the left hand side due to the majority of firers being right-handed. The right-handed swivels are the oddball, but it takes all of 2 minutes to change with a mallet and a punch. About five minutes with a Gerber and a dental pick.

We would just thread the sling through the front sight. Or 550 cord with out modified thai slings.

[jester]

AMMO:

here is one problem with taking AKs.

What are you going to reload? The majority of PACT forces use soft steel cases that can not be reloaded. Whereas most Nato forces use brass cases that can be reloaded.

So, in the end AK ammo is going to run out with reloadable ammo being scarce.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes that will be a problem later in the war, after 1998 when many of the facilities that produce said ammo have been heavily damage and for all purposes been put of business.

It is part of the reason why by 2000 unit that were motorized/mechanized and had room to store extra weapon would have of each on hand. Many local the militia were equipped with mix using what ammo that could be found.

Even with reloadable cartridges, they NATO rounds could only be reload so many times. So by 2000 any round types are becoming rare.

[Webstral]

Forces in CONUS generally aren't going to have to luxury of choosing between the AK and the M16 series. In the Southwest, there will be some FN FAL rifles available. However, sufficient FN rifles for the purpose of equipping a battalion-sized formation probably won't be available in very many locations. US forces in Texas may have captured a few AK series weapons, but we should bear in mind that Fifth US Army lost the big fight in 1999. If anything, Division Cuba, Fourth Mexican Army, and the local bandits are going to have the luxury of using or not using US equipment.

As a rule, I think CONUS-based forces are going to have to use whatever comes to hand. Although 111th Brigade captures a fair number of FN FAL in June 1998, along with other Mexican gear, the senior leadership tells Thomason to stick with the M16. He listens. The FALs go to 3rd AZSTAG Brigade.

SAMAD copes with the maintenance issues with a combination of training and lubrication. A chemist at University of Arizona at Tucson perfects a workable means of producing a silicone-type of lubricant to replace petroleum-based lubricants. Local gunsmiths working at Fort Huachuca devise a rather labor-intensive means of manufactuting new rifle barrels and other parts. Since Fort Huachuca has the luxury of training new recruits properly, thanks to a) all the dead people in Phoenix who won't be eating the food the federal government set aside for them and b) the victory over the Mexicans in the Battle of Southern Arizona and subsequent back-burner status enjoyed by SAMAD, the troops learn how to use and maintain their M16 rifles properly in the desert environment.

Not everyone has this luxury, of course. By early 2001, the M16s being used by the Shogun's army in Nevada are getting long in the tooth. Most of their small arms, though, are shotguns and hunting rifles.

It should be borne in mind, though, that a fair number of Bloc-style weapons were in civilian hands in the United States by the end of 1997. I read in 1996 or so that 10 million SKS rifles had come in from China before the trade was shut down. I bought one. It's not a prom queen, but it works well. SKS and AK-47/MAK-90 rifles probably would be prized for their durability. Standardizing them in any large unit might be a bit of a problem, though. Hm. I wonder if New America would have been in the market for scads of inexpensive SKS rifles. With new stocks for larger users, the SKS could make a veruy serviceable standard rifle for a New American cell. Food for thought...

Webstral

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by jester

We would just thread the sling through the front sight. Or 550 cord with out modified thai slings.

That's what I did as well. Until one of my guys gave me his extra single-point sling. I'll never go back now.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Webstral

... SAMAD copes with the maintenance issues with a combination of training and lubrication. A chemist at University of Arizona at Tucson perfects a workable means of producing a silicone-type of lubricant to replace petroleum-based lubricants.

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.
Plus there are several regions where it's mined in North America. This page has a map right at the bottom showing localities for graphite deposits http://www.mindat.org/min-1740.html Zooming in shows a number of sites in Arizona so graphite mining may be extra food for thought for you?

[copeab]

If you're really desperate to put a bayonet on an M16/M203, you could always modify the lug mount so it was on the side of the barrel rather than underneath .

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.
Plus there are several regions where it's mined in North America. This page has a map right at the bottom showing localities for graphite deposits http://www.mindat.org/min-1740.html Zooming in shows a number of sites in Arizona so graphite mining may be extra food for thought for you?

Thanks for the link. SAMAD may find itself obliged to go with graphite for at least some applications, but my initial instinct has been to shy away from it for the wear issues. My very limited experience with graphite as a lube in Iraq has been that by about 75 rounds, the graphite has been blown out of the chamber of an M16 and needs to be replenished. This isn't the end of the world, but it does mean that jams and misfeeds can become likely at an uncomfortable time. I'm not keen at all on grahpite for machine guns. We tried some under non-combat conditions and discovered that jams happen quite quickly unless there's a LOT of graphite in there. I never had a chance to observe graphite lube in the machine guns under combat conditions.

Still, if graphite is readily available, it's hard to see it being turned away. I suspect that over the long haul, there may be some sort of wear-and-tear trade-off between the tendency of sand and grit to become mixed into a liquid lubricant and the abrasiveness of wet graphite. Perhaps a seasonal variation is in order: no graphite during the monsoon or during the winter rainy season.

Thanks for the feedback. Even if I don't use graphite for the small arms, there are many industrial processes that will require lubricants. Better yet, as I look ahead to the (inevitable) reconciliation between Fort Huachuca and Colorado Springs, the way will be smoothed by greater amounts and types of vital products coming from SAMAD. Lubricants certainly count as vital products.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

If you're really desperate to put a bayonet on an M16/M203, you could always modify the lug mount so it was on the side of the barrel rather than underneath .

With the new mounts, you can't even do that -- the standard bayonet lug is used as part of the mount for grenade launcher. You'd have to add a second bayonet lug.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.

Just a little while ago, I was watching an episode of How's it Made? in which they were making graphite fishing rods. That makes me wonder -- could you make lubrication-quality graphite from such items?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by jester

AMMO:

here is one problem with taking AKs.

What are you going to reload? The majority of PACT forces use soft steel cases that can not be reloaded. Whereas most Nato forces use brass cases that can be reloaded.

So, in the end AK ammo is going to run out with reloadable ammo being scarce.

Steel cases can be reloaded. I've done it with 7.62x39mm ammunition for my SKS. The drawback with the steel casings is that they are much harder on the reloading equipment, if you use run-of-the-mill gear. You have to have carbide tools that are harder than the casings. Not everyone has them. I used an associate's reloading equipment when I reloaded used steel casings. In effect, reloaded 7.62x39mm ammunition is going to come from only those sources that have the right equipment to cope with the steel casings. Also, as steel is less malleable than brass, steel casings can be reloaded fewer times than brass casings of the same caliber.

In the US, on the other hand, you can find 7.62x39mm ammunition in brass. It's more expensive, but it's easier to reload. Cheaper Bloc 7.62x39mm ammunition flooded the market in the 1990's; I bought a bunch. However, anyone with a mind for reloading probably bought the more expensive brass. Certainly, anyone looking to keep a field force equipped for the long haul would give serious consideration to stocking up on brass as opposed to steel casings. Again, I'm thinking of a New America cell for which I have been developing ideas as I have been watching programs on the Holocaust and various White supremist movements in the US. (One must remain aware of the enemy's state.)

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I suspect that over the long haul, there may be some sort of wear-and-tear trade-off between the tendency of sand and grit to become mixed into a liquid lubricant and the abrasiveness of wet graphite. Perhaps a seasonal variation is in order: no graphite during the monsoon or during the winter rainy season.

That makes a lot of sense Web.