Silver Shogun Technical Question

[Webstral]

Development for Silver Shogun proceeds apace. I thought of a question I would run by folks here with more gun smithing knowledge than I have. Is it practical to rebore an AK-74 barrel (5.45mm) so that the barrel will fire 5.56N? I thought that one way the US could help pay for WW3 would be the sale of curios. By the end of December, 1996 there will be hundreds of thousands of AK-47 and AK-74 in NATO hands. It occurred to me that gathering these, shipping them back to the US, altering them so that they can’t fire on full auto, and selling them on the civilian market would be a good way to rake in some useful cash and get Americans excited. It then occurred to me that an American market with very limited access to 5.45B ammunition might be more inclined to purchase an AK-74 rebored and rechambered for 5.56N. The US government might sell them to enterprising individuals, who would then rebore the barrel, make the necessary alterations to the bolt, perhaps modify the magazine well so that the rifle would accept standard M-16 magazines, and eliminate the full auto feature.

A shop for doing this kind of work might very well appear in Las Vegas. Perhaps—perhaps—the market exists from 1995 onward. The PRC sells some of its captured Soviet equipment to the US, who then auctions off rifles for modification to appropriately licensed shops here in the US. That way when a flood of AK-74 falls into NATO hands in the last quarter of 1996, there is already a thriving industry for reboring and selling AK-74.

The question is whether reboring from 5.45B to 5.56N is practical. Any ideas?

[SionEwig]

Probably a lot more work than it's worth. Rebore the barrel, resize/replace the chamber, replace the bolt, and changes to the magazine (it's probably easier to make new magazines that will hold 5.56x45 than modify the magazine well and mechanism). In addition thaere would be possible problems with the 89 import ban and the 94 AWB.

[rcaf_777]

I am thinking this process would labour instense as you have modify the barrel and chamber or worst re-designed a new one mags would also have to modifed.

FN SCAR-H Mk 17 can take AK-47 ammo and mags if your looking for current weapons to compare too.

[unkated]

Wouldn't it make more sense to...

- sell the things in Europe, closer to any number of ready sources of 5.45x39 WP ammo (If not captured, then from most nations close at hand across Africa)?

- Just retool a factory in the US to manufacture 5.45x39mm WP? Not as labor intensive. I know there's a war on but manufacturing ammo is easer than manufacturing new weapons. The Germans did something similar in WW2 - making 76.2mm AT shells for a crap load of Russian AT guns captured in 1941 (re-tooling a factory was easier than manufacturing the same number of German 75mm AT guns, which used different ammo).

Put the factory in Seattle and you almost have a reason for the Russians to want to advance down the coast from Alaska - "400 more kilometers, comrades, and you will have more ammo than you can shoot off in your lifetime!"


Uncle Ted

[SionEwig]

If you decide to go with your idea, the weapons would certainly be sold through the DCM.

On the other hand, it might not be too much of a stretch for loads of the captured arms to be shipped back to the states in otherwise empty shipping space on freighters. At least before things start getting really hot.

[pmulcahy11b]

That's a really tight tolerance you'd have to have.

Actual dimensions of a 5.56x45mm round: 5.69x44.7mm

For 5.45mm: 5.61x39.65mm

You have a bit less than 0.08mm to work with...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Webstral

... Is it practical to rebore an AK-74 barrel (5.45mm) so that the barrel will fire 5.56N?

Short answer: No, it'd be more practical to make brand new barrels bored for 5.56mm (and probably a whole lot safer, as Paul mentioned, if you rebore the 5.45mm barrel to 5.56mm, you'll be left with a much thinner barrel).

Originally Posted by Webstral

...perhaps modify the magazine well so that the rifle would accept standard M-16 magazines, and eliminate the full auto feature.

Magazine well change.
The AK series use a very different magazine release catch to the AR15 series and as such has a very short magazine well. The AK mag catch would have to be totally removed and the magazine well would have to be "rebuilt" so the AR15 style catch could be installed (primarily because the barrels on the two rifles sit at different heights to each other relative to their triggers and magazine wells). However, it can be done and some companies in the USA have produced AR15 mag wells for AK series rifles. The following link has some images of such a conversion done by a Florida-based company.
http://www.armyparatrooper.org/dropz...g-well-and-BHO

Removing full auto.
I think this would be the least "practical" change to make.
The AK series is designed with a very different methodology with regards to automatic weapons fire. The selector switch in the majority of rifles goes SAFE - SEMI - AUTO (or some variation of this theme) but the AK series goes SAFE - AUTO - SEMI. You'd probably have to fabricate new parts to allow the selector to move pass the AUTO position without engaging it. I would think it would be more practical to manufacture a brand new semi-auto only trigger group or totally rebuild the original - otherwise you'd have some enterprising individuals changing the modified original trigger group back to full auto capacity.

In the image of an AKM receiver below, the AB is Cyrillic for "av", shorthand for avtomaticheskaya (automatic). The second symbol is Cyrillic for "od", shorthand for odin (single). The image also shows the magazine release ahead of the triggerguard and illustrates the almost non-existent magazine well


For comparison purposes, this is the AR15/M16 setup. For those unfamiliar with the rifle, the black "paddle" lever directly above the trigger is the release catch for the bolt hold-open device while the black button diagonally above the trigger is the magazine release catch. The purpose of that other black lever should be kinda obvious - although in this case it's the ambidextrous version, normally it's only present on the lefthand side.

[bobcat]

its not too much of a stretch to repeal the NFA in the games timeline. particularly considering it almost got thrown out by SCOTUS shortly after it was enacted. all you'd need is a case like US v Miller with the right judges sitting on the bench. that would allow the transfer of automatic weapons without the $200 tax stamp.

[SionEwig]

Originally Posted by bobcat

its not too much of a stretch to repeal the NFA in the games timeline. particularly considering it almost got thrown out by SCOTUS shortly after it was enacted. all you'd need is a case like US v Miller with the right judges sitting on the bench. that would allow the transfer of automatic weapons without the $200 tax stamp.

The NFA isn't really the problem here. The $200 transfer tax is quite low in the mid to late 90s. Import, for transfer to individuals, would have to be allowed. Plus, while the Hughs amendment to the FOPA of 86 only concerns the domestically manufactured items, I'm sure it would be brought up in any court case as to intent.

[Webstral]

I greatly appreciate the feedback, gentlemen. I especially appreciate the subject matter expertise on gun smithing.

I don’t think I did a good job of explaining the mechanism and thought process I see behind bringing AK-74 (possibly among other rifles) to the US for resale on the civilian market. The two principal goals would be a modest revenue stream that could be used to support US allies (albeit very modestly) and building some domestic involvement in the war among people not involved in the arms industry. By the end of October, 1995 the PRC should find herself in possession of a significant stock of AK-74, among other weapons. By this point in the real world, the AK-101 had been introduced. I’m not yet prepared to comment on whether this system would have been introduced in the Twilight v1 chronology. However, I’m imagining that some enterprising individual suggests buying some of these rifles from the PRC and modifying them for sale on the US civilian market. I’m imagining, perhaps fancifully, that someone would have crunched the numbers on costs to figure out whether these reworked rifles could have turned a profit.

Congress could be convinced to allow the rifles into the country for sale on the civilian market as a special effort to support our Chinese comrades. China gets some money from selling the rifles to the US, which the PRC promptly spends on materiel from the US. The US government taxes the rifles at every step in their transition from China to the hands of eager buyers in the US. The tax revenues, though comparatively modest, can be earmarked for something or other that will get Congressmen who haven’t bought into the idea on board.

So what I’m gathering from the commentary above is that the reboring job would be difficult because the tolerances would be very tight. How difficult is difficult? On the other hand, what does it cost to make a new 5.56 barrel when you’re making 50,000? I honestly don’t know. One thing I’m not understanding is why increasing the diameter of the bore by 0.08mm makes the barrel much thinner such that thinness would be an issue.

I see from the link provided that the magazine compatibility issue can be overcome. This, and a new trigger group, would enable a rebuilt AK-74 to enter the civilian market. At what cost? Would it be cheaper to rebore or cheaper to replace the barrel? How much support would the civilian market show for AK-74 at various cost options? Would the civilian market accept a new barrel? Would they accept a rebored barrel? Would one see both options at different prices? I am assuming that a certain segment of the American populace would be eager consumers of rifles formerly owned by Soviet troops. I’m sure a range of opinion would exist regarding the virtues and evils of converting the rifles to fire 5.56N, as well as replacing other features like the hand guard, etc. My concern comes back to what the costs of the minimum rebuilding necessary for the rifles to fire 5.56N, use M16 magazines, and fire on semi only would be and whether the US market would be sufficiently robust at this level of expense to justify the investment on the part of the firms doing the work and resale. I don’t know the answer, but I’d like to. Having a shop doing this work someplace in Nevada would help equip the Shogun’s forces with rifles well suited for the environment.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regard to a rebore of the barrel, it probably isn't a big problem in the short term for a semi-auto, casual-use rifle (e.g. a plinking gun) but for any rifle that was firing auto or rapid semi-auto or something you needed to rely on to put meat on the table, it's going to have a negative effect on accuracy and precision.
Keep in mind I'm not a gunsmith or armourer so this is from my own understanding of things (I know some of the guys here are gunsmiths/armourers so please step in and correct any dumb mistakes I make!)

Apologies in advance for telling everyone how to suck eggs but a little exposition is going to be helpful
Two simplified definitions for the non-gun people: -
Accuracy - the ability to hit the target where you want to hit it.
Precision - the ability to consistently hit the target with accuracy.

Because the barrel works as a heatsink, rapid firing can build up enough heat to cause the metal to soften and in extreme cases the rifling can be worn out much faster than normal and reduce the rifles accuracy over time. As I said, not a big problem if it's not firing full-auto or firing hundreds of rounds in rapid semi-auto in a short space of time.
The primary safety issue at this point would be that obviously, a thinner barrel will heat up faster than a thicker barrel and in the long term, this could wear the barrel to the point where weak spots develop. Should something like a blocked/clogged barrel or double-loading occur during firing, it might cause the barrel to split/burst at these weak spots with the potential to send metal fragments into the face and arms of the shooter.

The second issue with the barrel heating up is that it can affect the barrel harmonics. Harmonics describes the vibration of the barrel during firing and is important for longarms as the effects are related to the square of the barrel length.
Way back, people used to call this "barrel whip" but that's misleading because the greatest vibrations don't occur up and down like the motion of a horse whip (although there are smaller vibrations that do), they move in a circular pattern. Obviously, this has a very strong negative effect on precision and a thinner barrel is not going to be as rigid and therefore as resistant to barrel vibration as a thicker barrel.
Manufacturers will typically find a specific barrel thickness that makes the best compromise between weight and cost without negatively affecting accuracy and precision.
You often see precision target competition rifles with heavy or "bull" barrels specifically because they are trying to minimize the affect of vibration on precision but you don't necessarily want a heavy barrel on a hunting or military rifle.

By reboring a 5.45mm barrel to 5.56mm, you will probably screw up the harmonics severely because 1. the barrel thickness was optimized for 5.45mm ammo and 2. the barrel is a little less useful as a heatsink which in turn, interferes with the harmonics. As far as I can find, a typical 5.45mm AK barrel has a diameter of about 0.57 inches (approx 1.447mm) while a typical 5.56mm AK barrel has a diameter of about 0.59 inches (approx 1.498mm) so you're already starting with a barrel thickness that is not optimized for 5.56mm and by boring that extra 0.08mm out of it, you're reducing it's diameter from 0.57 inches (1.447mm) to 0.53 inches (1.367mm) taking it even further from it's optimum thickness-to-ammunition calibre ratio.

[Raellus]

By reboring the barrels, you'd also probably not be able to chrome them, which, over the lifetime of the weapon, would contribute to faster wear and corrosion, especially if substandard propellants are being used. I suppose one could chrome them, but that would mean increasing the diameter of the bore even more (albeit ever so slightly). First, this would be quite tricky, and doing so would further weaken the barrel.

It would probably take a long time for a small-scale gunsmithing operation to rebore and rechamber significant numbers of AK-74s. Most of the well-respected companies that assemble former East-bloc AKs here in the States do so in relatively small batches and, AFAIK, they don't have to do anything quite as complex as modifying the bore/chamber. As I understand it, they manufacture a few of the components and then mate them with imported parts (some companies then trick them out quite extensively). Apparently, not every bit of the foreign made, military-grade AK is legal to import and/or sell here; obviously, the fully-automatic capability has to be dropped but there could be other required mods as well. There are waiting lists for online purchases. But, there's not a lot of machining or remanufacturing of the major components done before the rifles are assembled. If reliable power was an issue, this sort of remodding would take even longer. This all was true a couple of years ago, at least. I was researching the purchase of a mostly Polish Tantal AK-74 clone (I didn't go through with it because of the complexity of the transaction). I settled on a AR-15 instead.

I can see why the PRC would want to get some cash from captured rifles, but they could probably put them to use themselves. In the v1.0 timeline, most of the PLA would still be equipped with domestically produced 7.62mm x 39 AK-47 clones but at some point in there, IRL at least, they began transitioning to a smaller caliber rifle round (5.8mm IIRC). Perhaps the Chinese would have issued their captured stocks of 74s to reservists, militia, paramilitary forces, or even SOF.

Maybe the U.S. did buy a bunch of captured AK-74s from China but political/legal wrangling meant that they never hit the civilian market. Maybe they sat in a couple of shipping containers in impound somewhere. Maybe they were stopped and impounded just on the Nevada side of the Cali-Nevada border, and stayed there in legal limbo until the U.S. got dragged into WWIII. Getting ahold of a few hundred or thousand AK-74s would make a cool mission for a CONUS-based game, especially if someone else (another local warlord, the U.S. military, Mexican elements) was also trying to get a hold of them.

Lastly, and I know this has already been mentioned, but it seems like it would be waaaay easier to manufacture 5.45mm ammunition for AK-74s than to rechamber/rebore etc. the rifles to fire 5.56mm. IRL, 74 clones are on the domestic market today and ammo for them is available. I'm not sure where it all comes from (I suspect a lot of it is imported from Eastern Europe) but I don't doubt that at least some of it is manufactured here in the States.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I can see why the PRC would want to get some cash from captured rifles, but they could probably put them to use themselves. In the v1.0 timeline, most of the PLA would still be equipped with domestically produced 7.62mm x 39 AK-47 clones but at some point in there, IRL at least, they began transitioning to a smaller caliber rifle round (5.8mm IIRC). Perhaps the Chinese would have issued their captured stocks of 74s to reservists, militia, paramilitary forces, or even SOF.

I am with Rae on this point. When a single potential militia man (out of a possible 200 million of them) is unarmed I don't see the rifles coming here to our civilian market.

My first thought on how a couple of ISO containers of such weapons and ammo could end up in the US, is that they were sent here for testing by the DoD. They would be interested in how durable the weapons are and if there are any manufacturing issues. Same goes with ammunition. Honestly depending on the size of the testing facility (which makes sense to be in the desert) you could have all sorts of Warsaw Pact equipment there.

[Webstral]

As always, thank for taking the time to share thoughts, gentlemen.

SSC, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, even though I didn't realize it when I asked the question. Assuming that reboring is cheaper than buying a new barrel, this option provides me with a gateway into a characterization and plot development issue. If, as you point out, a rebored barrel is okay for plinking but not hard service, some distributor might decide that the cheapest possible rebuild for AK-74s is the way to go. The existing barrels get rebored and not chromed. A shop doing work of this type is operating in Nevada. (I'll have to figure out why 99th Wing doesn't take or destroy them on the way out of Nevada in early 1998.) The Shogun obtains the remaining stock of these rifles for his motorized army. The quality issues begin to show up, adding to his problems.

Regarding the issues of getting AK-74 from China to the US and onto the market, I think some good points have been raised. Regarding whether China keeps the AK-74s or issues them to troops, I think we would have to ask ourselves what the Chinese bean counters are going to say about equipping their troops or millions of militiamen. I am inclined to think that the militia are going to get SKS rifles manufactured in the PRC. If the sale of a single AK-74 using a non-standard type of ammunition can pay for 2 or more SKS for the militia, the Chinese bean counters may find this a desirable course of action.

Regarding the manufacture of 5.45B ammunition in the US, there are some political considerations. If there is a shortage of 5.56N ammunition, which may be the case once the war scare arising from events in the Far East takes effect domestically and globally, Congress may be convinced that an additional production of small arms ammunition suitable for assault rifles ought to be in 5.56N. On the other hand, it may be possible to convince Congress that a 5.45B line could provide some export revenues.

Were I a bean counter addressing the board of a major 5.56N producer, I would tell them that our lobbyists should be telling Congress to mandate all 5.45B weapons be standardized for 5.56N. If they are allowed onto the market firing another ammunition type, then either the company has to invest in tools and fixtures for producing that ammunition (assuming no one in the US produces 5.45B in 1995 or 1996), or the company has to forgo the profits of selling that ammunition. Neither option is attractive. Therefore, a lesser sum of money ought to be disbursed to ensure that Congress passes the right law governing the import of AK-74 from China for sale on the civilian market. And if the same company manufactures 5.56N barrels already, then the position of the company is a no brainer. The question then becomes how influential that company can be regarding the attitude of the right members of Congress.

The equation changes yet again when the war spreads to Europe. Whereas I have postulated that the PRC might be willing to endure some logistical headaches in order to get as many Western countries invested in Chinese victory as possible, West Germany might not be as tolerant. They aren't going to reequip the Bundeswehr with weapons firing 5.45B. They might want to keep some AK-74 around to equip East German units that need spares, but the long term goal will be to standardize equipment to West German norms. By the time NATO has pushed the Pact back across the Oder in December, 1996 the FRG will be swimming in captured AK-74--and war debt. The motive to sell a quarter million to the US at $100 each will be very, very strong. Now that the US is involved in the shooting war, the motive to sell captured AK-74 to civilian distributors at $225 each (just picking a figure of $25 per rifle for shipping and handling back to CONUS) will be very strong. Given that the labor for reworking the rifles and selling them will be taxed, as will the sale itself, there is a tidy and useful sum to be gathered from private hands in the US without raising taxes or selling bonds. If the pattern for mandating 5.56N standards for selling AK-74 has been established already, then the only that might need to change is the scale.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Happy to be of some help Webstral.
I like firearms and military firearms in particular and this forum is one of the few places I can use the information I've picked up without me being called a "gun nut --> potential psycho" by the people who aren't interested in weapons

[SionEwig]

If you want to have 5.56 AK-74s available near Vegas for a narrative purpose, then just do so. Don't worry about a justification more than just perhaps, there they were. But your economic reasoning is just, sorry, implausible. The political hurdles of importing military grade weaponry and that it's more "evil assault weapons" (going with the proposed conversion to semi-auto) in civilian hands is much larger and harder than I think anyone is considering. But like I said, if you want to have it for a narrative purpose, then just do it, don't worry about a justification.

[mpipes]

The US if anything would be PRODUCING Type 56 and 81 rifles as well as ammo for the PRC.

As for the AWB...never happened in my opinion in the T2k timelines. Congress would have had to many other things going on, and I don't think Bush would have lost to Clinton. We would have been hard pressed to produce enough M-16s, but in any event, most states serious about preparing to face nukes would have been passing out M-16s to State Guards (the militia) like crazy. At a minimum, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Alaska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee would (I think) have been buying and issuing M-16s to civilians. You would have a HUGE run on available AR-15s that would have been unreal.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by SionEwig

But your economic reasoning is just, sorry, implausible. The political hurdles of importing military grade weaponry and that it's more "evil assault weapons" (going with the proposed conversion to semi-auto) in civilian hands is much larger and harder than I think anyone is considering.

What is plausible and implausible depends a great deal on what is going on at the time. All kinds of unthinkable things become reality when there is a war on. If anything, we have a tendency to underestimate just what kinds of variations from the norm can be found once the shooting starts. Isolationist USA was duking it out with Nazi submarines in the Atlantic months before Pearl Harbor; and very soon after Pearl Harbor we rounded up more than 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry, citizens and otherwise, without due process and threw them in concentration camps deep in the interior. We effectively robbed them of their property, then asked them to volunteer to help us win the war--which they did with an uncommon valor while their parents were behind barbed wire. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Were certain gun-averse members of Congress to raise objections to the sale of 50-100,000 units of rifles on the domestic market, more pro-gun members of Congress could simply counter with "Why are you opposed to helping our gallant Chinese allies?" Then, behind closed doors, the same pro-gun members of Congress could say, "Business is booming, thanks to the war in the Far East. If you don't want a piece of the action in your district, just say so and we'll find someone else's district for expansion."

A lot depends, of course, on the personalities and how they play their cards. One thing to be borne in mind, though, is that less plausible things than the an exception to the import of civilianized military grade rifles during a Sino-Soviet War have come out of the US Congress before and since in real life.

Originally Posted by SionEwig

If you want to have 5.56 AK-74s available near Vegas for a narrative purpose, then just do so. Don't worry about a justification more than just perhaps, there they were. But like I said, if you want to have it for a narrative purpose, then just do it, don't worry about a justification.

I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree about the chances of such a thing happening if the various parties are willing to suspend as much disbelief as necessary.

[rcaf_777]

I thinking, there are a lot of good points but, I don't think the US would sell the AK-47 on the open market. They are just too much in demand by the CIA to equip anti soviet forces ie the free polish legion, and by the military for testing and behind the lines missions and special ops folks. They would also be used in training so troops know how the weapons work and how to unload them ect.

If you want to have in the game, then have the pc's find a container of them somewhere like a shipment in transport. Then a gunship could convert them for use, this would be done due to a shortage of pact ammo in the area

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I greatly appreciate the feedback, gentlemen. I especially appreciate the subject matter expertise on gun smithing.

I don’t think I did a good job of explaining the mechanism and thought process I see behind bringing AK-74 (possibly among other rifles) to the US for resale on the civilian market. The two principal goals would be a modest revenue stream that could be used to support US allies (albeit very modestly) and building some domestic involvement in the war among people not involved in the arms industry.

By selling them over-priced (multiply taxed as you said below) used weapons?

• People who don't generally buy weapons will be disinterested.
• People who are interested in weapons for use will not be interested in expensive worn weapons when better can be had (read as Galil) at the same or better price.
• There will be some who will buy them for the cachet of a weapon used in combat. But see below.

By the end of October, 1995 the PRC should find herself in possession of a significant stock of AK-74, among other weapons. By this point in the real world, the AK-101 had been introduced. I’m not yet prepared to comment on whether this system would have been introduced in the Twilight v1 chronology.

Real-world introduction of the QBZ-95, QBZ-95B & QBB-95B (Assault Rifle, carbine & LMG chinese weapons that fire the Chinese 5.8mm cartridge) were introduced in 1997. In the midst of war, wishing to ramp up production and to not complicate munitions needs at the front, I'd suggest that they would most likely stick to the Type 81 asslt rifle and LMG, that fire 7.62mm S.

So, AK-74s hold no immediate interest for the Chinese, unless they captured a lot of ammo also. Of course, the US could retool factories and sell 5.45mm WP to china (export! or at least pay down our trade deficit) and domestically. Better revenue stream.

However, I’m imagining that some enterprising individual suggests buying some of these rifles from the PRC and modifying them for sale on the US civilian market. I’m imagining, perhaps fancifully, that someone would have crunched the numbers on costs to figure out whether these reworked rifles could have turned a profit.

Congress could be convinced to allow the rifles into the country for sale on the civilian market as a special effort to support our Chinese comrades. China gets some money from selling the rifles to the US, which the PRC promptly spends on materiel from the US. The US government taxes the rifles at every step in their transition from China to the hands of eager buyers in the US. The tax revenues, though comparatively modest, can be earmarked for something or other that will get Congressmen who haven’t bought into the idea on board.

So what I’m gathering from the commentary above is that the reboring job would be difficult because the tolerances would be very tight.

Beyond the barrels, don't you also need to replace the receiver? NATO case is significantly (~5mm). The rounds are close to the same length (.4mm difference), but the shoulders on a NATO round are much taller than the WP round. Will it fit in an AK-74 receiver, or does that need to be replaced too?

So, now you're reboring or replacing the barrel, the receiver, the trigger and the magazine feed. How much of this is still an actual war weapon?

Why not just have a 5.45 WP factory in Nevada?

The equation changes yet again when the war spreads to Europe. Whereas I have postulated that the PRC might be willing to endure some logistical headaches in order to get as many Western countries invested in Chinese victory as possible, West Germany might not be as tolerant. They aren't going to reequip the Bundeswehr with weapons firing 5.45B. They might want to keep some AK-74 around to equip East German units that need spares, but the long term goal will be to standardize equipment to West German norms.

While true for the long run, during the war I wouldn't think the Heer would want to take East German units out of the line to re-equip; and also the E Germans already have ammo factories producing 5.45 ammo

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

Web, I think the way you end up answering this question really depends on whether it is more about world-building or storytelling.

With that in mind, which of the proffered scenarios best furthers your desired end? Go with that one.

My advice, for what it's worth, is keep it simple. If you're telling a story, too much complicated, esoteric exposition can lose a general audience pretty quickly. You can solve that with a hand-wave, but then you risk losing some versimilitude. If this is world-building for an RPG, some people really appreciate a high degree of "chunkiness" and those that don't can gloss over it.

I think that all of the approaches presented in this thread so far can be made to work, although, IMO, some require a slightly greater disbelief than others.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by unkated

Beyond the barrels, don't you also need to replace the receiver? NATO case is significantly (~5mm). The rounds are close to the same length (.4mm difference), but the shoulders on a NATO round are much taller than the WP round. Will it fit in an AK-74 receiver, or does that need to be replaced too?

So, now you're reboring or replacing the barrel, the receiver, the trigger and the magazine feed. How much of this is still an actual war weapon?

While you may have to make some adjustments to the receiver (particularly for the new magazine well), you won't have to replace it as the potential problem you're indicating is related to the chamber.
Because the chamber is part of the barrel, it would be part of overall conversion to 5.56mm by the rebore.
The changes to make it use 5.56mm will typically be confined to magazines, sights, bolt/extractor and barrel (which as mentioned before, includes the chamber).

[headquarters]

Several manufacturers big and small ou there.
Why not have someone place an order for a few thousand with mags etc on account of the war effort and then have them being shipped here an d there due to logistical quirks ending up as spoils of war for the shogun - in short - just say so.

A local businessman could have set up a production line using a preexisting stock of parts and new barrels?

Could even be the Mexicans doing it and Us troops capturing them. Or a PMC. Or a cold war stockpile.

or the more fanciful
A PRC special project to invade the US meant building 100 000 thousand sample AK rifles in 5,56 ( to facilitate access to ammo for their guys if the supply lines to the US are cut - but the invasion doesnt happen of course and the containers with the rifles are stashed in China more or less unused but then get taken by allied troops and end up carted of the US to be supplied to allies or what not.)

On that note there are 5,45 and 7,62x39 ARs aplenty out there too.

Like the level of detail in the campaign. Have a good weekend!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by unkated

By selling them over-priced (multiply taxed as you said below) used weapons?

Everything taxed is taxed every time it changes hands. The more times a taxable item changes hands, the more times it’s taxed by one level of government or another. This affects all taxable firearms sales in the US proportionately.

Originally Posted by unkated

People who don't generally buy weapons will be disinterested.

While it’s true that people who don’t generally buy weapons will be disinterested, the observation is a tautology in that everything sold is put onto a market in which some potential consumers will be disinterested. Depending on whose figures you believe, many as 1 American household in 3 or as few as 1 in 6 have a gun in the household. This means that at least half of American households are disinterested. As many as 83% are disinterested. Yet manufacturers of AR-15 style rifles don’t seem to be throwing up their hands because their market is less than universal.

Originally Posted by unkated

People who are interested in weapons for use will not be interested in expensive worn weapons when better can be had (read as Galil) at the same or better price.

Consumers are not as rational as this universally. Some are, to be sure. You may be, and my hat is off to you for that if you spend your money based solely on logic. But people with money to spend also buy for coolness factors that have nothing to do with good sense. Back in the mid-90’s, marketers observed a distinct uptick in sales of Chinese-made SKS carbines when someone smart started marketing them as “cowboy carbines”. Same rifle, increased sales. While a perfectly rational consumer looking to buy a very serviceable rifle like the AK-74 or the Galil may pick the Galil for good reasons, the United States has literally millions of gun owners who buy firearms just to have them. Their money is just as good as the money of the gun owner who is going to purchase a single rifle for an identified need.
One only needs spend a brief period looking at US auto sales trends to realize that the strictly rational is at best one factor driving consumer choices in automobiles, to carry the idea of consumer spending based on values other than sheer serviceability a step further. For example, when I got back from Iraq, I bought a used 2000 Toyota Echo for $7,000. I bought a standard so I could get the best fuel efficiency, plus power when I needed it. The safety rating is perfectly adequate. I have two car seats in the back for my children, though the car is a 2-door. The inconvenience of folding the passenger seat forward is modest, and I’m still fit enough to lift a young child into the car seat behind the driver’s side. Depending on how much highway driving I am doing, I get 37-39 mpg. This is in line with the fuel efficiency of some hybrids that cost a lot more. I have as much carrying capacity as a more prestigious and more expensive automobile would give me. So why aren’t the roads filled with Toyota Echos? Market research shows that men want pickup trucks, regardless of fuel efficiency or whether they ever end up transporting light cargo. Not all men, of course. The point is that American consumers will happily pay more to get less based on factors quite aside from practical concerns like fuel efficiency. This thinking can be found among consumers buying all sorts of consumer goods.
Also, point of order: no prices have been posted anywhere in this thread, so a claim that Galil is cheaper than a rebuilt AK-74 is pure speculation. You may be right, but at the moment there are no figures on the table to prove such an assertion one way or the other.

Originally Posted by unkated

There will be some who will buy them for the cachet of a weapon used in combat.

Agreed completely. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you have identified the principal sales appeal.

Originally Posted by unkated

Real-world introduction of the QBZ-95, QBZ-95B & QBB-95B (Assault Rifle, carbine & LMG chinese weapons that fire the Chinese 5.8mm cartridge) were introduced in 1997. In the midst of war, wishing to ramp up production and to not complicate munitions needs at the front, I'd suggest that they would most likely stick to the Type 81 asslt rifle and LMG, that fire 7.62mm S.

All the more reason to get rid of captured AK-74; i.e, sell them to the United States or anyone else who will pay cash for them, provided a little common sense regarding Chinese interests is applied. They aren’t going to leave any captured equipment lying around. The PRC is in a fight for her life because the Politburo won’t personally survive if China is forced to come to the bargaining table by defeat on the battlefield. What is captured must be reissued or exchanged for something the Chinese want more (not necessarily more rifles of a different caliber).

Originally Posted by unkated

Why not just have a 5.45 WP factory in Nevada?

For the reasons I outlined in previous posts. Now, if a case can be made that there’s more money for US defense contractors in paying for tools, fixtures, training, and possibly new facilities than in not constructing a 5.45B factory, then we should expect suitable factories to appear. However, your observation about Chinese choices in weapons suggests that the bean counters of the potential investing corporations will point out that there isn’t a big market for 5.45B in China. The market, then, is going to be the US civilian market based on the AK-74 and anyone overseas who is not inclined to buy from the Soviet Bloc. Not having any numbers in front of me, I can’t develop an ROI for a new 5.45B ammunition line in CONUS. I do know that corporate investors are skittish creatures who like to have some assurance that tools and fixtures will be used to their maximum capacity until they break. I’m not sure any such assurance can be made for a 5.45B line in CONUS in 1995 or 1996. The bean counters probably would tell their respective boards that leveraging Congress into mandating that the incoming AK-74s be retooled for 5.56N is a more cost effective solution for the corporation than paying for a new assembly line.

Originally Posted by unkated

Of course, the US could retool factories and sell 5.45mm WP to china (export! or at least pay down our trade deficit) and domestically. Better revenue stream.

By the time there are serious conversations about opening a 5.45B line in the US, there will be no US trade deficit with China. China will be buying as much American materiel as possible in the interests of getting the US solidly behind Chinese victory. Whatever the US is willing to sell, China will buy with cash and then on credit because the Chinese understand that the US, driven by the logic of capitalism, will gleefully lend and sell until it’s too late to back out. All will be coming up roses until we realize with a start that China falling will result in China defaulting, which will cause very serious losses to US lenders. Quite naturally, the bankers will be the first ones to realize this problem. Having stampeded into selling China on credit enough stuff to explode the dreams of avarice, the US will find itself chained to China’s fate. Suddenly, buying Chinese will become necessary so that China can repay her debts. Unfortunately, Chinese industry will be either retooling for the war effort, behind enemy lines in Manchuria, or getting flattened by Soviet strategic air power from the beginning of 1996 onwards. In this light, buying anything the Chinese can sell for hard currency takes on a logic of its own. Since the Chinese probably aren’t going to use AK-74 themselves, nor will they be inclined to leave them lying around, selling them to American collectors makes a certain sense.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Web, I think the way you end up answering this question really depends on whether it is more about world-building or storytelling.

This is a very valid point. To some degree, it’s about building scenarios in my own head. In my mind, the ridiculous makes for good storytelling provided the ridiculous is not a deus ex machina. “They came across a container of captured Soviet weapons and, by happy coincidence, a usable assembly line for ammunition nobody but the Soviets use” requires more suspension of my disbelief than “They came across a warehouse of captured Soviet weapons being reworked to fire the most common assault rifle ammunition in the US”. The former is just silly. The latter is merely far-fetched. I can work with far-fetched.

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

I thinking, there are a lot of good points but, I don't think the US would sell the AK-47 on the open market. They are just too much in demand by the CIA to equip anti soviet forces ie the free polish legion, and by the military for testing and behind the lines missions and special ops folks.

That’s food for thought.

[kato13]

Since you mentioned ROI, I'm having trouble working out the economics of this.

How many rifles do you think were captured? What is the percentage that would be able to make it back to collection points (not held at the front, not lost or damaged, etc)?

I am putting the number at 200,000 at the end of 1996. This seems high to me as the Soviets are generally not losing territory, but as it amounts to 75% of 20 divisions worth of rifles it might be possible.

What is the profit per rifle for the Chinese? $500? . I think this is very high estimate given all the costs and the desire for the American side of the deal to make a profit. The Americans would desire a huge slice of the pie as they are taking a huge risk. They are depending on a tenuous source and supply chain for their raw materials and are building the infrastructure to process the rifles.

So if I go with high estimates all around the Chinese get 100 million out of this.

Real world The US trade deficit with China in 1996 was 39 Billion Dollars. New war trade is supposed to equal that number. So the sale of all the rifles at maximum profits represents 0.26% of what we are sending to China. Would this be a huge motivator politically, militarily, or economically?

It terms of being some assets to offset against a potential default, I was going to say it is a drop in a bucket, but technically it is 1000 drops (50ml) in a standard us bucket (18.9 liters). The fact that the numbers matched nearly perfectly made me mention that. (50ml x 2 => $100 mil / 18.9l x 2 ~=> $39bil)

[NanbanJim]

Vaguely reminds me of the Beryl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kbs_wz._1996_Beryl

Vaguely. But seemed somewhat relevant.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

For example, when I got back from Iraq, I bought a used 2000 Toyota Echo for $7,000. I bought a standard so I could get the best fuel efficiency, plus power when I needed it. The safety rating is perfectly adequate. I have two car seats in the back for my children, though the car is a 2-door. The inconvenience of folding the passenger seat forward is modest, and I’m still fit enough to lift a young child into the car seat behind the driver’s side. Depending on how much highway driving I am doing, I get 37-39 mpg. This is in line with the fuel efficiency of some hybrids that cost a lot more. I have as much carrying capacity as a more prestigious and more expensive automobile would give me. So why aren’t the roads filled with Toyota Echos?

My wife's car is a Toyota Echo (4-door sedan). Great little car. Excellent fuel economy, zippy, very mechanically reliable. We'll probably keep driving it until it dies.

[rcaf_777]

We have a Toyota Corolla four door with 300 k on it no mechanical issues so far

[Webstral]

Kato, allow me to propose a very different scale of thinking when it comes to ROI regarding sales of AK-74 to the US and their resale domestically.

First, the PRC finds herself in possession of 100,000 of these rifles. They aren’t going to let them lie around on the battlefield for someone to pick up. They aren’t especially useful to the Chinese without the right ammunition. Someone with a bit of business acumen remembers that up through 1994 the PRC sold several million SKS rifles to civilian dealers in the US. Profits weren’t huge (I bought my first SKS retail for $99 in Macon, GA in late 1994), but profit is profit. If the PRC can sell these 100,000 rifles for $100 each to a US distributor, the proceeds amount to $10 million. This is not big money when compared to the trade deficit the US has with the PRC prior to the start of the war; nor is it big money compared to the debt the PRC is accumulating by buying everything that isn’t nailed down. But it is $10 million to be made by moving a few shipping containers of captured materiel to the US. Double the price to the US distributor, and we’re talking $20 million. Again, it’s not big money on the scale of Sino-Soviet trade. It doesn’t have to be. Not every profitable idea has to be worth the gross domestic product of the Netherlands to be worth doing to the participants.

Getting this idea passed in Congress in the context of the Sino-Soviet War shouldn't be that much more difficult, really. The US distributor contacts his Congressman, arranges a luncheon, and appears with a briefcase with $25,000 and a request to let American collectors show their patriotism and help the Chinese war effort by buying genuine Soviet AK-74s. The Congressman pockets his bribe and goes back to Congress to get the import of captured AK-74s into the US attached as a rider to any of the bills now moving through the subcommittee(s) overseeing US involvement in the Sino-Soviet War; i.e. arranging to have as much US gear sold to China as China is willing to buy and arranging to lend China more money lest the Chinese coffers empty before US arms manufacturers have supped their fill. Someone who is not in on the deal notices that the rider involves weapons that fire on automatic and puts the kibosh on it. US arms manufacturers get wind of this matter through their representatives in the respective subcommittees, and further negotiations ensue over golf. The various parties agree that the best thing to do is mandate removal of the auto fire capacity and rebuilding the weapons to fire 5.56 NATO. If the rifles don’t sell, then the distributor eats the loss. In the end, a few more palms are greased to the tune of a paltry sum by the standards of arms deals but which is meaningful enough to individuals, and the rider is attached to a high priority bill.

On the floor of both Houses, the rider is defended as a means of helping the Chinese offset their growing debt and as a means of helping Americans own a piece of Soviet setback. When someone with a head for figures points out that the total profit to China of selling these rifles is a veritable drop in the bucket, the retort is that any debt repayment is good, and why is the Congressman from California opposed to helping our Chinese friends pay down their debt to us by selling whatever they have to sell? Because it is a small sum on the scale of arms trade, the debate over the rider is brief. There are, after all, tens of thousands of ATGM to be sold and delivered with proceeds to US manufacturers measured in the billions of dollars. Surely, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we’re not going to fail to pass this important bill because the Chinese are selling us military curios captured from the Soviet Union to the tune of 5% of the value of our sales to the Chinese in this one bill alone. The BATF has already signed off on the modifications mandated in the bill, so can we get a vote on this already?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

We have a Toyota Corolla four door with 300 k on it no mechanical issues so far

I have a 2005 Kia Sedona Minivan. I've only needed a minor AC repair and new brakes. Most of where I need to go is less than 10 miles away, and I only have about 37,000 miles on it. I don't plan to get a new car until I pay off the house in about 6 years, and I don't think my Sedona will have any problem making it.

Stop making jokes about Kias! They don't deserve it!