Long Term Rifle Decisions

[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

[Brother in Arms]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Brother in Arms

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

And that is exactly my point too. Where's the NEED? You've got a country overflowing with weapons compared to surviving number of people, yet food and water in T2K is at an extreme premium. The priority MUST be on survival first and producing the next generation weapon second.
The total military strength of Milgov isn't anywhere near what it was prewar either. Most of those soliders will already be armed, and even if only half of the weapons brought back from Europe are available to reissue, that's still more than the requirement. As has been mentioned time and time again, supporting troops can be issued with non-standard weapons, just as the Germans did in WWII. The uniform will in most cases hold more weight than the weapon they carry - a firearm is a firearm to most people and having an M16 pointed at you will hold as much authority as having a mini-14 shoved in your face. A double barrel shotgun commands more respect than an Uzi to many people also when they're staring down the barrel...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Listen to the working gunsmith, people! I think here we have the one member of this forum best qualified to comment on the topic of this thread.

Great to see you posting again Brother. You have been missed. So you're not up in Vermont anymore?

You're definitely not being 'too real for this forum' (and my feelings are a little hurt that you refer to it as a 'fantasy role playing game forum' ). Though we are in the minority there are a number of members who agree with your point of view (myself included).

I think if MILGOV (and maybe CIVGOV) do start large scale production of rifles it will not be until after 2001, maybe not for several years after that, and in my opinion the most likely candidate would be something along the lines of the M16EZ (possibly modified to semi auto only). Don't get me wrong, I recognise and agree with the advantages of the AR18 but it seems to me that putting together a production line for that rifle from scratch would be more difficult than gathering together existing (known) supplies of M16 parts and spares and recovering all that manufacturing equipment described in the 'Rifle River' Challenge mini-module.

Perhaps some of the posters to this thread haven't read 'Rifle River'? It is an important mini module for a number of reasons, chief of which (for me) is that it's canon. It slots in nicely with the first of the 'Last Submarine' modules because it is in a similar geographic area and because if MILGOV was going to be throwing major resources into the area to recover the USS Corpus Christi it makes sense they would try to kill several birds with one stone (attempt to renew contact with the MP brigade in the area, attempt to renew contact with the remnants of the Coast Guard in the area, recover the casts and dies at the Hartford rifle factory, etc).

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

I think Targan already commented that one and I agree with what he said. For my part, I'm glad you answered my question.

[Raellus]

Here are a few questions for our resident gunsmith/s:

Wouldn't existing supplies of M-16s wear out after years of hard use?

After at least 3 years of combat operations, with no significant influx of replacement parts, wouldn't a lot of M16s be breaking down around mid-2000? I mean, barrel wear alone would diminish accuracy, correct? And the M16 is a notoriously complex, hard to maintain weapon, is it not?

I'm under the impression that the U.S. army acquires and issues new rifles at least every decade, if not more often. Why is this, if not because of wear issues? Why not crank out replacement parts/kits instead? At what point does it become more economical to just make a whole replacement weapon?

These are some serious questions that need answering.

Let me reassure the neysayers that I think that the M16 would be around in large numbers for a very long time. There's just so many out there, both in military use and in civilian hands. But, I think that there would be very sound reasons for MilGov (and CivGov) to begin looking at manufacturing a large-scale replacement weapon in the early '00s.

The AR-18 is a good choice because it is easier to make, easier to maintain, and has higher tolerances than the M16 family. It can also use the same, widely available ammo. It would be a much better weapon for the very young and very old conscripts or civilian militias.

I don't see this weapon completely replacing the M16 in U.S. service, but I do see it complimenting the M16 in a big way.

I'm eager to read your responses to these questions.

[HorseSoldier]

Something like the AR-18 or AK would be ideal for the production circumstances MilGov, CivGov, New America and other T2K era governments find themselves in, as well. Both designs are relatively limited in their requirements for skilled machinists and gunsmiths. Nor does either require materials only available in a modern import/export fueled economy.

[Panther Al]

I disagree with the AK for the same reasons as given earlier, Politics.

Last thing MilGov needs is to give the impression to the average person that they like Soviet (You know, those people that nuked grandma and grandpa, and killed uncle Jed and cousin Bill over there?) stuff. An American Design is super critical. It has to be seen as pure 100% US Designed and Made. Yes, it could be argued it is a waste of resources to start up Rifle Production as well as Uniform Production, perhaps even more important than rifle, but in this case public perception is more important. If people believe that things are on the ups, they will work harder, and be more upbeat. They will start taking more care of themselves and the things around them (After all, now that the factories are going, those damned chislers from the cities gonna charge an arm and leg for stuff, just you watch! And taxes! I ain't gonna pay no sales tax less I gotta.), they will start to look for ways to be on top when things really kick off, so they will be working harder, all very positive things: The mindset seeing more uniform soldiers and new rifles being handed out will all lead to this. Which makes getting people thinking that tomorrow will be better regardless is worth the waste of those resources.