Long Term Rifle Decisions

[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.

[Mohoender]

At the time of T2K, you could find at least one person with these kind of knowledges in about every village. That must come from outstanding French superiority, LOL.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

At the time of T2K, you could find at least one person with these kind of knowledges in about every village. That must come from outstanding French superiority, LOL.

If by village you mean country town or rural community you'd be right, in France and here and no doubt the USA. But Leg is talking about the vast majority of the population who live cozy suburban lives in big cities. Most of them wouldn't know sh*t from clay when it comes to useful survival skills let alone how to maintain a firearm or service a vehicle.

Well maybe our American urban-dweller friends would have a good chance of knowing how to maintain firearms

[Legbreaker]

That's right. Here in Australia about 80% of the population live in cities and have rarely left the concrete jungle let alone been out into the bush and handled a firearm. My understanding is that in other countries, in particular the older and more urban Europe, this percentage is likely to be even higher.
Here in Australia you can go for hundreds of kilometres before reaching the next settlement of more than half a dozen people. In Europe I believe that's more like hundreds of metres and (in comparison) not a real rural area.

[Mohoender]

You are right of course but not entirely when it comes to Europe. Of course it is true for the vast majority of city dwellers but many people own small businesses and you'll be surprised of the various skills (and small corresponding businesses) you would find. At least this would be true for France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal... (I'm not so sure about other countries but I would expect this to be the case in many european cities). Then, the Twilight war would have occured 20 years ago and it means that plenty of elder people would still have interesting skills.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Targan

If by village you mean country town or rural community you'd be right, in France and here and no doubt the USA. But Leg is talking about the vast majority of the population who live cozy suburban lives in big cities. Most of them wouldn't know sh*t from clay when it comes to useful survival skills let alone how to maintain a firearm or service a vehicle.

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

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Mohoender]

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Mohoender]

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

[Bullet Magnet]

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.

[James Langham]

"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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

[Legbreaker]

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...).

[dragoon500ly]

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!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage…

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

(although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).

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

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Panther Al]

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.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

[Mohoender]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Raellus]

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.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy.

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.

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.

Originally Posted by James Langham

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.

Thus, the M16EZ.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bullet Magnet

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.

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