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.

  • 3256
    MEMBERS
  • 184794
    MESSAGES
  • 12
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

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

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 35339 views.
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.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

18/1/21

Mustrakrakis said:

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

Well, its a tough one to pin down.

I suspect the bolt is the most complex part, but not necessarily a bottle neck. 

For example, during the first 3 years reign of the God Emperor, complete BCG's were readily available for ~$70 in a nitride finish. I think they may have been hitting $60 in phosphate. That was only slightly more money then a basic lower receiver, despite being a more complex part.  

Whats interesting is that most of these BCG's are only made by one company - Toolcraft. I believe some other companies make bolts, and some other companies make different bolt carrier styles, but Toolcraft was the OEM for the majority of complete milspec BCG's used by both firearms manufacturers and also sold as parts to home builders.  

What that means is that a single company was able to produce the majority of the US AR15 markets bolts. 

By comparison, 10+ companies made receivers and barrels, and then when it gets into smaller parts, dozens of companies. 

So in theory at least, for 'total war production,' having a single plastics company producing complete poly Receivers (stock, buffer tube, lower, grip, hardware) would free up enough production energy to allow a increase in BCG manufacture.  

At which point the increase in assembly speed, and mass production of the poly lowers, would result in a net increase in production. 

Just from an assembly standpoint, not having to assemble the lower and properly stake the buffer tube to the castle nut, would be a pretty substantial increase in speed, and also lower the overall skill needed to assemble the rifle. At that point the only 'skilled gunsmith' step would really be the proper mounting of the AR15 barrel to the upper receiver. 

Logistically, there would also be the befit of having to ship and inventory a single part to the assembly factory, vs various OEM's sending in receivers + buffer tubes + grips + stocks + hardware. 

In reply toRe: msg 91
tidusyuki

From: tidusyuki

14/2/21

So i just noticed that apparently there were two different models of HK433. This one was the one and only model in the official HK website

And this one was i believe the earlier model.

You can see that both have many differences, mainly in the receiver design. The one shown in the official website has a lower that pretty much resembles the HK416 minus the HK style selector while the other, earlier model has a more original lower and upper receiver design.

  • Edited 14 February 2021 10:54  by  tidusyuki
In reply toRe: msg 92
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

3/3/21

Shitshow continues, now Heckler is to be awarded the contract to supply HK416A8, of course, Haenel will fight it in courts. No new tender is planed

https://www.bmvg.de/de/presse/sturmgewehr-c-g-haenel-vom-vergabeverfahren-ausgeschlossen-5037318

BUNDESWEHR: GERMANY’S NEXT TOPMODEL

TOP