Could a Version of the AR15 Be Mass-Produced Using WW2 Tec

[RC20]

You don't need a round better suited for moose hunting to do that. The 223 isn't perfect for every situation and having each unit supplied with a variety of weapons suited for different situations may be a better idea. But I'd not support a larger caliber weapon as general issue unless they can do it without limiting capacity and increasing recoil.

6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creed and 6.5 Lapua would all give vastly improved performance with little loss of carrying rounds.

Having shot AK, AR, and the RA XCR, the AR and AK rank low as a ergonomic deigns and the AR in all points.

The 223 was not adapted as proven better, it was forced and the world followed suit.

M1 was originally a 270 caliber gun, a lot of studies have confirmed its the ideal caliber.

Subsequent development shows the 6.5 seems to match it.

When you have to arm a lot of troops with a 308 to get decent range, you have a problem with your standard issue.

6.5 with a changeable barrel system that would allow tailoring to a theater or a mission set would be vastly better (and per WWII, a mix of short barrel ala a Sub Machine gun and longer barrel M1 for the longer down street shots was a good mix. ) .

[TheDevilThatYouKnow]

I think HiBC's post nailed it.
While the technology might have been there, there were more strategic uses for aluminum than making some grunt's basic load lighter. Change the AR15 to an AR16 complete with stamped steel and spot welds (standard tech at the time) and you'd achieve have the same standard 7.62 caliber at a much lower cost than a rifle with a milled receiver.


The only change I'd make to an AR16 would be to either eliminate the fragile, folding stock, or redesign it to be more like the FAL that came around later.

[brian33x51]

As noted above the ar18 is the answer to your question. And the ar18 design has had far more impact on modern weapons design than the ar15 has.

[RC20]

Agreed.

DGI is not what anyone is going to other than US.

[HiBC]

funnelcake:

Aluminum AR15 receivers are forged, billet, or extruded (upper only)...never seen a cast upper or lower.

You are absolutely right. I even knew that. Brain is getting old. Thanks.

FWIW,(I'm NOT a Veteran) I mentioned this discussion to a Iraq Vet Platoon Sergeant.
He gave me an intense look,and said "You all leave my M-4 alone! EVERY time I needed it,it worked and got the job done. "

RC20: IMO,the cartridge debate can go on forever.

6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creed and 6.5 Lapua would all give vastly improved performance with little loss of carrying rounds.

I don't question,those are good cartridges.
But I'll say again,if this thread was about the cartridge debate,why wasn't the question "Could the Mini-14 have been made in WW2" ?
And we can give slight scale adjustments to any particular cartridge.

The answer is obviously "Yes" between the Garand and the M-1 Carbine.
The Germans had the 7.92 Kurz. The 50,000 cup bottleneck cartridge was a reality. When did the 250 Savage come out? The 220 Swift?

The .30 Remington and family were out in the Rem model 8/81 pre WW2.

For whatever reason,I think the "look" of the FAL,AR-10,AR-16,was just too "far out" for the US Curmudgeon School of Military Rifle Aesthetics"
And it simple had to be a more elegant bayonet handle of forged steel and walnut,30 caliber,with trench warfare long range volley fire capability.

[44 AMP]

There is a significant difference between "could it have been built" and "would it have been adopted" in WWII?

Like the difference between yes, and no.

[James K]

Could it have been built? Yes.

Could it have been adopted? No, partly because it did not fit the picture of a "traditional" military rifle. Garand had a lot of problems getting his semi-auto adopted because it was too bulky for a neat military manual of arms. (Who cared about killing enemies? In the minds of some generals, the main purpose of a rifle was to look good on parade. That attitude changed later in the war, but it was a common view in the 1939-1940 era.)

Another problem, still with us, is that the small caliber would have been a lot less effective. Can you imagine the outcry if the American public heard that the German 8mm and Japanese 7.7mm outranged and out-powered the US 5.56 mm?

Jim

[emcon5]

but I believe the machining for parts such as the bolt is fairly complicated, so I would consider it a "no" for wartime production for certain heavily-affected countries such as England.

Do a google image search for "mg34 bolt"

Germany was much more "heavily-affected" than England, and they kept the MG34 in production to the end of the war.

[Scorch]

The technology to make an AR existed and was in full use during WW2.
* Broach machines were used for many, many parts, so making the barrel extension would have been easy.
* Reciprocating parts were common, so buffer springs and tubes would have been understood.
* Aluminum metallurgy may not have been as advanced as today, but it wasn't in 1953 when Stoner designed the AR, either. The AR probably would have been steel if it had been made in 1942 because steel was king and they needed aluminum for airplanes.
* Fiberglass was invented in the 1930s, so butt stocks and hand guards could have been produced.
* It's not that the technology was not there, it's that no one had actually invented the AR yet. The AR design used available technology and materials to produce the design, there was nothing in the AR that was not already in use at the time of its design (unlike jet engines and atomic bombs).
* Engineers still thought of gears, cams, actuators, machined raceways, etc. No one wanted to be associated with a cheap throwaway gun design. We still make fun of GM for the Liberator pistol!
* The M1 Carbine, M3, the Sten, the MP42, and the PPHs all were weapons designed as war expedients until they could go back to machining and finishing "real guns", not long-term service weapons. We think they are cool, but at the time people hated them. After all, real guns had machined parts and operated like clockwork, not like a trip hammer.

I personally think it comes down to timing! When Curtis May saw the first ARs, he was fascinated by them, and his troops needed a lightweight carbine. He ordered them, he issued them, and the cat was out of the bag, so to speak.

[Slamfire]

I think Scorch has it.

What makes anyone think that Stoner was not using WW2 technology when he designed and built the first AR rifles? What do you think he had, stone and copper axes in 1953?

The firearm designs that came out of WW2 are substantially different from the firearms that went into WW1 and were used through out WW2 in terms of manufacturing. Those Lugers, M1903’s, M98’s, etc, were all made of expensive forgings and not only were expensive to build, it took skilled workers to make them. That does not work out well in total war, especially when your skilled work force is on the front lines and the replacements are “slave laborer’s”. Those fun loving Germans had a habit of enslaving people for their factory work. Both the Germans and Russians advanced firearms designs by designing guns that were easy to build. The Americans went into WW2 with rifles that were closer to WW1 designs in terms of manufacturing effort and requiring a high skill level for the workers. Because we had not been bombed unto ashes at the end of WW2, our Ordnance Department did not learn the manufacturing lessons that the Germans and Russians learned, so our Armies were fielded with very expensive to make M14’s. If anyone has noticed, even with castings for the receivers, M1a’s are much more expensive than AR’s.

Stoner did a great job in using existing tooling and processes for his AR, but it was too different from the Garand for the Army to accept. Baby likes what he has, wants something better, but only a little different, and totally rejects revolutionary change. For example, Baby did not like magazines: Baby was familiar with stripper clips and en block clips. So, to keep Baby from puking out the rifle, the M14 magazine was called “semi detachable” and the M14 came with a stripper clip guide on top. Ever tried reloading a M1a with stripper clips? It is a thumb buster, but Baby would have no other. Baby certainly did not like pistol grip guns, plastic stocks, or much of anything about the AR15.

[hdwhit]

HiBC wrote:
Change just to change merely generates chaos that ultimately costs lives.

You misunderstood the post. As a platform, the AR is only a shade younger then the Garand, M1 Carbine and M-14. Nobody is suggesting change for the sake of change, but we're all collective fools to not take advantage of the technological advancements that have been made in the intervening six decades.

[hdwhit]

HiBC wrote:
FWIW,(I'm NOT a Veteran) I mentioned this discussion to a Iraq Vet Platoon Sergeant.
He gave me an intense look,and said "You all leave my M-4 alone! EVERY time I needed it,it worked and got the job done. "

Yes, and when the M-16 was new, Platoon Sargents in Vietnam were asking to have their M-14s and M2 Carbines back. Everyone is comfortable with a tool they have and know to work even when something better is available.

[Double Naught Spy]

Remember, the M-16/AR-15 is a scaled down AR-10 and the first AR-10 prototypes were made in 1955; the manufacturing technology of that day was not all that advanced over that was available a decade earlier. So, whether you wanted an AR-10 or AR-15 in 1943, you could have had them made had you had a set of blueprints.

Aluminum AR15 receivers are forged, billet, or extruded (upper only)...never seen a cast upper or lower.

Really? Maybe you just didn't know the difference when you looked at one because you could not see any actual difference in the finished product.


https://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/ar-...#axzz53VaydLZ2

[HiBC]

hdwhit,,I think your editing of my statement significantly altered what I had to say...seems almost customary these days. Again,here is the full quote:

Maybe.
Change just to change merely generates chaos that ultimately costs lives.

Begin with a clear, definable problem that needs to be solved. "60 year old design" is not such a problem.

Envision ,execute and test/prove a solution to the problem.

I did not reject change,I gave it a "Maybe"
My 30 year career in manufacturing was in R+D. I made what the engineers needed.That included working on project teams as a key player.
I was driving Pro-Engineer,Pro-Manufacturing,and rapid prototyping way back in the 90's,and utilizing laser digitization.
I've also worked in limited production and production in a plant that has both the latest tech and old school,like gang drills and the amazing broach.

I know my way around manufacturing methods,and utilizing R+D process to upgrade product.

Back to my "Maybe"

Begin with a clear and specific definition of a shortcoming or problem.
I'm not saying there are none,but tell me WHAT you want to change and Why,based on data.

Study,brainstorm,and present a vision of the ideal,and resources available,and make it happen. Test,etc,etc,etc.

Tell me specifically what it is you want to do with what technology.

Remember this is NOT about the driving forces of Capitalism.Its not about Marketing creating a perception of the need for a newest,latest,greatest I-phone.

From the elastomeric O-ring that improves the M-4 extractor reliability,downsizing to work with the Hum-Vee,rails,optics,slings,mission specific options such as SDMR,SR-25/M-110, the weapon is hardly the same as it was in the early 60's.

And if you,or I,or WE,come up with new tech (like those red dots and ACOGS,etc,lets try them! On a pilot program basis,and ultimately let the CUSTOMERS in the chain,from troops to taxpayers,determine where the benefits of change are.

Give me one specific improvement you think the M-4 needs that can be addressed by newer technology,and I say "Maybe"

If a new platform is the answer,maybe.

You can rest assured that folks who actually spent decades in every SOCOM theatre go to work every day to develop a better spear.

One of them is "in my circle" I don't talk about him or his work.

Odds are good,what we think is the latest and coolest is something they have already evaluated.

[44 AMP]

I personally think it comes down to timing! When Curtis May saw the first ARs, he was fascinated by them, and his troops needed a lightweight carbine. He ordered them, he issued them, and the cat was out of the bag, so to speak.

Gen LeMay (and yes, the auto correct mangles that one) NEEDED a lightweight carbine for his airbase security troops. They were using M1 Carbines, and were happy enough with them, but the Air Force got its small arms, and repair parts for them, from the Army, and the Army was phasing out the M1 carbine.

It was the MacNamara defense dept (the "whiz kids") that decided the AR would be the "perfect" rifle for general use. And, they shoved it down the Army's throat, despite objections.

The AR/M16 wasn't the perfect infantry rifle, still isn't, but 50+years of "tinkering" with the gun and its ammo have given us a usable arm. It's nice when our equipment is technically superior to what it fights, but we have a long history of still winning, even when its not.

Sometimes, we have even deliberately chosen not to field the "best" in order to be able to field "the most".

We had the technical capability to build an AR type weapon during WWII. But even if someone had shown up with the plans, AND convinced the right people that it actually was a "better mousetrap", we still would not have adopted it. Probably. The only weapon we used, I know of, that wasn't at least in the design stages before the war was the M3 Grease gun.

A case can be argued that had the AR design showed up before the war, it MIGHT have been chosen over the .30 Carbine, but if it showed up after the .30 carbine was in production, it wouldn't have even been considered, despite its advantages.

If you are winning the war, you don't NEED new designs, no matter how good they have the potential to be. You're WINNING!
If you're not winning, you do NEED new designs and their potential benefits, but you might not be able to make them (or enough of them), which is something the Axis powers learned the hard way.

[HiBC]

With the weapon comes supply chain,tactics,training,etc.
Wartime amounts to being "Up to one's hip pockets in alligators"

Not to start a major argument about the details,but in spending the strategic dollar,MAYBE our troops in Korea would have benefited as much from GoreTex,PolarTec,Thinsulate,etc as a new weapon.(I'm not making a claim.I'm saying in the total scheme,there is more to think about than only the weapon)