Silver Shogun Technical Question

[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.

[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!