gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185565
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

LMAO Germany adopts an AR-15   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 39605 views.
Msg 7720.81 deleted
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

14/1/21

It sounds like you are replying to gatnerd. 

The weight saving is not as much in the lower receiver as it's in barrel then a bit in the integrated stock and pistol grip, but both are in my opinion obsolete features that would be cool decades ago but not today. I also mentioned pencil barrels work well enough in  AK s so should be workable in Ar as well.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

14/1/21

graylion said:

If i was looking for an AR15 style rifle, I'd talk to Ian and Karl about licensing WWSD 2020.

I suspect that Germany is looking for a service rifle, not Karl's favorite two gun setup. 

To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sold on that lower receiver for recreational use, never mind for a duty weapon.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

14/1/21

Mustrakrakis said:

To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sold on that lower receiver for recreational use, never mind for a duty weapon.

I could see the appeal of the polymer receiver for a mass mobilization type weapon, where several million rifles are needed in a hurry. IE the US is serving as a sort of Lend-Lease arsenal of democracy to arm Vietnam, the Phillipines, Taiwan, India, and Japan should China start craving a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. 

Reportedly, each completed receiver can be injection moulded and vibration welded together in the space of 1-2 minutes. And being a 1 piece unit, it removes multiple components with one master component, making the assembly of the rifle faster as well. 

At a rate of 30 per hour, each injection moulding / welding station could produce 720 receivers in a 24hr shift. Running 20 moulding machines x 24hr = 14,400. (Realistically probably like 10k.)

So for mass manufacture in some highly unlikely total global war scenario, it would make sense.

For a more traditional service rifle acquisition, I don't think it makes much sense given the low cost and weight of current adjustable stock receivers. 

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

15/1/21

You're aware that the ar15 itself is already a mass mobilization weapon right? 

Because that's important.

Also the wwsd gun is literally just a shill attempt to sell the revamped cav arms poly receiver groups.

Even worse than that though is the stock is a2 length! 

Unless you're pretty big that's not going to result in ideal conditions once you stack on armor and etc.

It's still inherently workable but no one should kid themselves into thinking it's anything like ideal.

Edit to add, the downside to turning several components into a single piece is that if you break any one part of that monolithic piece the whole thing is trash.

nincomp

From: nincomp

16/1/21

The What Would Stoner Do was partly an exercise to follow the philosophy of Eugene Stoner from the period when the AR10 and AR15 were designed.  In particular, they said that they wanted to make an improved Colt SP1, so I don't recall them including the folding-stock variants as possibilities, even though the later AR18 had one.    Ian and Karl apparently decided that two important tenets were "light with good handling" and "use modern technology and materials".  This led to the polymer stock, pencil barrel with improved stress relief, carbon fiber handguard, captured-spring buffer, etc.   As near as I can tell, "compact for vehicle ingress and egress" did not seem to be as important to them.  I don't think that the Sig MCX or BR180 were around when they had started the project, so that may have had some impact on their decisions.

edited to add: Karl also specified that the WWSD carbine was not optimized for full auto operation, so the "Optimized Bolt-Carrier Group for M4" designed by James Sullivan was not utilized.

  • Edited 16 January 2021 17:46  by  nincomp
Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

16/1/21

gatnerd said:

So for mass manufacture in some highly unlikely total global war scenario, it would make sense.

It might, if the lower receiver is the production bottleneck.  Is manufacturing a lower receiver the slowest part of building a M16?  I honestly don't know, but I'll bet that it isn't.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17/1/21

Mustrakrakis said:

It might, if the lower receiver is the production bottleneck.  Is manufacturing a lower receiver the slowest part of building a M16?  I honestly don't know, but I'll bet that it isn't.

Well its the Lower + Buffer tube  + pistol grip + stock + all the hardware that connects these parts together that is being replaced, not just the receiver.

So its a substantial reduction in both the number of parts that need to be manufactured, plus also the number of parts that need to be assembled. (I think the speed up of assembly time would be almost as important.) Theres also a corresponding decrease in cost that would be attractive if several million needed to be produced.

As far as the bottleneck in production? I'd guess the Bolts/BCG would be the most specialized part in terms of scaling up manufacture. 

But if we look at past weapons programs such as those in WW2, any simplification helps increase production rate and lower cost (as we saw with the increasingly simplified design of the Thompson SMG, for example.) 

That said, I don't expect we'll be seeing this "weapon of mass production" ever being adopted. But I could see it as a plausible service rifle in a WW3 novel. 

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

17/1/21

My understanding is that yes, BCGs are the bottleneck in AR production.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

18/1/21

gatnerd said:

Well its the Lower + Buffer tube  + pistol grip + stock + all the hardware that connects these parts together that is being replaced, not just the receiver.

I understand that.

gatnerd said:

So its a substantial reduction in both the number of parts that need to be manufactured, plus also the number of parts that need to be assembled. (I think the speed up of assembly time would be almost as important.) Theres also a corresponding decrease in cost that would be attractive if several million needed to be produced.

That brings up some other questions, the most important of which is your priority: should the rifle be quicker to produce or cheaper to produce?  What's cheaper may not be faster, and what's faster may not be cheaper.  Assuming that a plastic lower/grip/buttstock all in one solution is cheaper, and faster, would this actually speed up rifle production?  The answer is yes, but only if stocks, lower, grips, and/or the assembly of them was the bottleneck in the production process.  If the bottleneck is something else, we're not making more rifles; we're just making more lowers.

gatnerd said:

As far as the bottleneck in production? I'd guess the Bolts/BCG would be the most specialized part in terms of scaling up manufacture. 

Maybe.  I admittedly don't know.  What I do know is that if it takes longer to manufacture a bolt/BCG than it does to push out a lower more quickly, then pushing out a lower more quickly would not increase production rates for finished rifles.

gatnerd said:

But if we look at past weapons programs such as those in WW2, any simplification helps increase production rate and lower cost (as we saw with the increasingly simplified design of the Thompson SMG, for example.) 

Lower cost is almost always a good thing, as long as the customer's requirements are still being met.  Increasing production rate of a given part is only a good thing if that's the bottleneck, or perhaps if that part can be used elsewhere.  (Of course, if that were the case, it wouldn't actually be a bottleneck.)

I don't want to go all Lean/6 Sigma/TOC here, but unfocused manufacturing improvements often aren't actually improvements if maximizing throughput of the final product is the goal, and when they are, it's by accident.  The mistakes of WWII are largely what got us to our current theories on manufacturing.  It's great when the guy making triggers figures out a way to eliminate a machining step while still providing a trigger that meets specs, but if the barrels were what was slowing us down, then that didn't allow us to make more rifles.  (This is an oversimplification, as in this case we could actually take people off of the trigger station and put them on the barrel station if that would help, but that's also a bit of a simplification because lack of manpower might not be the problem at the barrel station.)

I'm now actually very curious about what the bottlenecks in M-16 production are.  The manufacturers seem close-lipped about it.  My money is on the bolt.

TOP