AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/12/2023 8:24:39 PM EDT
Ian recently put out a video on what a 'WW3' AR15 design might look like, which would be a rifle that has been simplified to allow for faster+cheaper production during wartime. This is similar to how many rifle and LMG designs were simplified to speed up production during WW2. Ask Ian: "Last Ditch" Rifles for World War III? Ian's answer, and I think was a solid beginning, was basically: -Polymer AR lower ala GWACS/KE (takes 65 seconds to make; replaces multiple parts, speeds assembly) -Reduce barrel machining (reduces machining time) -Simplified Iron sights (cheaper / faster to build; likely shortage of optics) What he describes sounds very much like the older CAV-15 Trooper MKII, which is basically a M4 without barrel cuts for the M203, a polymer lower, and a fixed rear iron sight.  My question is, what other steps could be taken to simplify production without reducing reliability? What would the ultimate 'Weapon of Mass Production' (WMP15) look like? For our WW3 Scenario: The whole Taiwan Crisis has been a ruse, and instead, China decides to move on South East Asia, with the goal conquering all the way down to Singapore in order to control the Malacca straight. Where they go from there is anyones guess, but it doesn't look good, with signs other parts of the world will soon also descend into warfare...  Now the US needs to rapidly arm resistance fighters and Allies across Asia, on very short notice. It needs to be able to pump out at least 4 Million rifles a year, ideally more. Where do we go from here? While this is mostly a theoretical question, I'm hoping we can come up with an ultimate simplified AR15 design and build some for ourselves, as I think that would make for a fun project. |
|
To begin with, Ian mentioned barrels, and deleting the M203 cuts to speed production. However, changing barrel profiles from pencil/govt to a more SOCOM/HBAR design looks like it would also greatly reduce machine time. Something like a version of the bottom 2-3 barrel profiles?  There's also the question of optimal barrel length for mass production. 14.5" is standard, but would a slight change help improve material use? For example, what is the standard length of steel bar that barrel blanks are cut from? If the standard 4150 rod is 12' long: 144" / 14.5" = 9.93 barrel blanks per 12' bar of steel However dropping down to 14" 144" / 14" = 10.29 barrel blanks per 12' bar of steel --> a 0.5" change in barrel length could add +1 barrel per bar Does anyone know what the standard length is for steel bars used for making barrels? |
|
I was told that one companies AR15 barrel blanks were 30" long. They could make one 20" or 16" barrel. They could make two 11.5" barrels, so right before the AWB, they were pumping out 11.5s to have 5.5" flash hiders pinned on to get as many rifles out as possible. I'm trying to add pics, but the ARFCOM upload doesnt seem to be working right now.   The XM8 we have at home: 
|
|
Quoted: Std length for round bar is 20', some specialty mills can roll longer lengths. ^ this. Rifled blanks for finishing, often come in 30" lengths but raw bar stock comes in much longer lengths. Frank Green of Barlien Barrels mentioned buying bar stock in 16' lengths. Some other ways to cut machine time/production time/costs could be - Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials. - Delete pic rail/machine only enough to mount crude fixed sight or just weld sight on to unmachined flat top. - Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers. - Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps. - Simplified FSB/GB secured with straight pin v.s. tapered. - Delete bolt catch. - Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all. - Delete take down pin detent machining and use cotter pins to retain pins instead. As one poster above said, simplifying the barrel contour certainly would cut machine time. You could go further and skip chrome lining as well to save time, materials and cost. |
|
Polymer lowers are a non-starter. They sound great, but the reality is that the US is littered with machine shops which could take a TDP and make a lower more or less to spec on little notice. Polymer is a pain in the ass to get right and you can't easily take molds and just start production elsewhere. I'm really not sure where Ian got the idea that it would be the path forward - on paper it sounds great but there's a reason mass-produced ARs still use aluminum lowers. Otherwise concur with everything @Veprz said. |
|
Quoted: Polymer lowers are a non-starter. They sound great, but the reality is that the US is littered with machine shops which could take a TDP and make a lower more or less to spec on little notice. Polymer is a pain in the ass to get right and you can't easily take molds and just start production elsewhere. I'm really not sure where Ian got the idea that it would be the path forward - on paper it sounds great but there's a reason mass-produced ARs still use aluminum lowers. Otherwise concur with everything @Veprz said. Polymer AR lowers have been perfected for ~10 years now, first with GWACS and now the updated version from KE arms. It's the single biggest savings for cost / materials use / production time / assembly time, as each mold can pop one out every 65 seconds, and it replaces multiple parts (Lower receiver, buffer tube, castle nut, stock, pistol grip, pistol grip screw.)  The AR already uses a polymer stock, grip, handguard, and magazine, so it's not like polymer is not already heavily in play. For our WW3 scenario, we must also consider that the top countries for Aluminum manufacturing are China, Russia, and India. China and Russia are hostile powers in the WW3 context, and India is likely to have difficulty exporting raw materials in wartime. We could see something similar to WW2, where Aluminum is considered a 'strategic material,' and rationed for top priority defense production (missiles and aircraft.) In which case eliminating the aluminum of the lower receiver and buffer tube would be welcome. https://www.harboraluminum.com/en/top-aluminum-producing-countries |
|
Quoted: I was told that one companies AR15 barrel blanks were 30" long. They could make one 20" or 16" barrel. They could make two 11.5" barrels, so right before the AWB, they were pumping out 11.5s to have 5.5" flash hiders pinned on to get as many rifles out as possible. I'm trying to add pics, but the ARFCOM upload doesnt seem to be working right now. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/4joqyutl9np91__1_-2709014.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/zh0svsyq9np91-2709016.jpg The XM8 we have at home: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/proxy-image-2709018.jpg Both of those builds are awesome. Although first one looks like what we're building if we lose WW3  Is the XM8 at home 3D printed?That 30" blank is very interesting. Do you recall why it had to be a 11.5"? Seems like a 30" could be cut into 2x 14-14.5" pieces with a little left over for wastage. Or is the problem that theres a good bit of wastage when cutting a rifled blank down? |
|
Quoted: Polymer AR lowers have been perfected for ~10 years now, first with GWACS and now the updated version from KE arms. That's one shop, which has the tribal knowledge. Try scaling that up and you run into issues. I dealt with scaling polymer across multiple suppliers on a project which was even simpler. The only requirement was that parts from vendors 'A' 'B' and 'C' all had to match each other. I remain incredibly unconvinced. |
|
Quoted: ^ this. Rifled blanks for finishing, often come in 30" lengths but raw bar stock comes in much longer lengths. Frank Green of Barlien Barrels mentioned buying bar stock in 16' lengths. Some other ways to cut machine time/production time/costs could be - Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials. - Delete pic rail/machine only enough to mount crude fixed sight or just weld sight on to unmachined flat top. - Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers. - Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps. - Simplified FSB/GB secured with straight pin v.s. tapered. - Delete bolt catch. - Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all. - Delete take down pin detent machining and use cotter pins to retain pins instead. As one poster above said, simplifying the barrel contour certainly would cut machine time. You could go further and skip chrome lining as well to save time, materials and cost. Quoted: Quoted: Std length for round bar is 20', some specialty mills can roll longer lengths. ^ this. Rifled blanks for finishing, often come in 30" lengths but raw bar stock comes in much longer lengths. Frank Green of Barlien Barrels mentioned buying bar stock in 16' lengths. Some other ways to cut machine time/production time/costs could be - Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials. - Delete pic rail/machine only enough to mount crude fixed sight or just weld sight on to unmachined flat top. - Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers. - Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps. - Simplified FSB/GB secured with straight pin v.s. tapered. - Delete bolt catch. - Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all. - Delete take down pin detent machining and use cotter pins to retain pins instead. As one poster above said, simplifying the barrel contour certainly would cut machine time. You could go further and skip chrome lining as well to save time, materials and cost. Great suggestions. "- Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials...Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers." The slick side upper would be worth pursuing. Not only does this reduce parts and machining, but apparently slick side upper can be Extruded, which should be faster than forging? https://aerospacearms.com/nordic-components-nc15-extruded-stripped-upper-receiver-black-finish/  However I think the pic rail top should be retained, as it would allow say 1/10 rifles to be equipped with optics (say for Squad DMR or sniper) and also offers up chance to use surplus/civilian/captured optics should they become available. "- Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps." This idea I like a lot. Would such a handgaurd be possible with polymer? Whats the simplest polymer HG on the market now? I had kinda been thinking about polymer quadrails, although alas they are only made by Promag. "Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all." Given the flash of 14" 5.56, especially if we end up using cheaper WW3 powders with less flash suppression, I think the FH should be retained. I actually kinda think for WW3 fighting, some of which may be in the jungles of Asia, it might even be worth it to go from the A2 style to the T91 style A2/Compensator ghetto warcomp style, so as to mitigate recoil and muzzle climb in FA. We've seen FA come in handy in the trench raids in Ukraine.  However I like your thoughts on eliminating the threaded barrel. Perhaps a press on FH? That would eliminate the threading of the barrel and the FH. Molot apparently uses press on FH: https://www.legionusa.com/molot-svd-type-flash-suppressor-unthreaded.html |
|
Realistically we have the economy of scale that massive changes to design wouldn't likely to happen. Cheaper finishes, fit and finish, and cutting stuff like chrome lining/anodizing would likely be what would increase production speed the most. If aluminum got hard to get, replace the aluminum parts with steel. What I think would most likely happen is that the dems and GOP would push for a gun buyback/collection to support the war effort. The government asked people to donate guns for the WWIII. How many people would line up to turn over guns? Add a little cash reward(or a warbond), throw in the patriotic spiel, a little propaganda to say how much it is helping. Say it helped so much that the turn in is mandatory. "You're not using them, send them to the people who will them." |
| Also, guns like the SCAR and the B&T223 were designed to be cheaper and easier to mass produce than the AR15. The problem is that we never will likely reach the economy of scale for those. If demand for rifles is driven so very high, extruded tube designs may be the better choice for mass production. |
|
Saving huge cashes of older weapons is a good idea. In The US, we destroy them or give them away - sometimes to allies - Sometimes to future enemies. I found it ironic that the Ukraine had caches since WW1 and still wanted donations of small arms including donated sporting arms from the US. That was likely a propaganda move to help garnish sympathy from masses of "caring" nations and their populations. |
|
Quoted: I was told that one companies AR15 barrel blanks were 30" long. They could make one 20" or 16" barrel. They could make two 11.5" barrels, so right before the AWB, they were pumping out 11.5s to have 5.5" flash hiders pinned on to get as many rifles out as possible. I'm trying to add pics, but the ARFCOM upload doesnt seem to be working right now. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/4joqyutl9np91__1_-2709014.jpg https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/zh0svsyq9np91-2709016.jpg The XM8 we have at home: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/58648/proxy-image-2709018.jpg I love that top improvised AR! Fantastic. That should be a commercial kit! Tattooine-Stoner! |
|
Quoted: Also, guns like the SCAR and the B&T223 were designed to be cheaper and easier to mass produce than the AR15. The problem is that we never will likely reach the economy of scale for those. If demand for rifles is driven so very high, extruded tube designs may be the better choice for mass production. I was going to post something similar but my thoughts changed. One needs to look past gun makers if it ever comes time for wartime level manufacturing. In the past it’s been stampings, extrusions, and forgings. Not many places doing much of that now. However, there’s tens of thousands of machine shops that could make LMT MRP’s all day. CNC technology is much more common in today’s world. If we needed to make that many guns that fast, something billet would likely be the highest production capability IF we had to tap other manufacturing markets. Yes, a 30 foot long U channel extrusion could crank out a lot of receivers, but one file drop and there would be multiple thousands of CNC’s cranking out rifles all over the country. I guess it depends on how desperate of a situation it is, and if it’s us going to war or someone else. |
|
As much as I love the newer KP-15, a unitary mild steel receiver w/ the FCG put in HK style, a simple right side charging handle in the BCG, and add a gas key channel on the top of the buffer tube to slide all that out the back. Heavier, but very simply welded and the only threading you'd need would be on the bbl trunnion. |
|
Quoted: Great suggestions. "- Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials...Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers." The slick side upper would be worth pursuing. Not only does this reduce parts and machining, but apparently slick side upper can be Extruded, which should be faster than forging? https://aerospacearms.com/nordic-components-nc15-extruded-stripped-upper-receiver-black-finish/ https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-r463nwv5z/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/682/2973/NC15-UR-EXT_1__46625.1606196432.jpg?c=2 However I think the pic rail top should be retained, as it would allow say 1/10 rifles to be equipped with optics (say for Squad DMR or sniper) and also offers up chance to use surplus/civilian/captured optics should they become available. "- Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps." This idea I like a lot. Would such a handgaurd be possible with polymer? Whats the simplest polymer HG on the market now? I had kinda been thinking about polymer quadrails, although alas they are only made by Promag. "Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all." Given the flash of 14" 5.56, especially if we end up using cheaper WW3 powders with less flash suppression, I think the FH should be retained. I actually kinda think for WW3 fighting, some of which may be in the jungles of Asia, it might even be worth it to go from the A2 style to the T91 style A2/Compensator ghetto warcomp style, so as to mitigate recoil and muzzle climb in FA. We've seen FA come in handy in the trench raids in Ukraine. https://www.evike.com/images/large/fh-we-t91-3.jpg However I like your thoughts on eliminating the threaded barrel. Perhaps a press on FH? That would eliminate the threading of the barrel and the FH. Molot apparently uses press on FH: https://www.legionusa.com/molot-svd-type-flash-suppressor-unthreaded.html Wraithworks has a monolithic polymer UPPER. Just over 5 lb AR for $800 on a KP-15. |
| Check out the Leader Dynamics T2 for how simply and cheaply a 5.56 rifle can be built from steel. I would guess that a total war wartime M16/M4 would end up looking something like it, because while we have many Mom and Pop machine shops that could turn out uppers and lowers, we only have a few FORGES that can make the raw uppers and lowers. One or two strikes on the forges, and we might be hurting for aluminum forgings. |
|
I'm wondering of the feasibility of a tube style AR upper. Literally the upper is tube stock with internals/trunnion/guiderails pressed or pinned into place. You get the proper dimensions and mating surfaces, but they can be cast, inserted, and pinned. No forward assist to cut down on complexity and the internal 'guides' could just be a 2 part cast to replicate the inside of an AR receiver. Clamp on jig near the muzzle to make sure the barrel is aligned before it's secured as well. Hell, they could just friction weld the barrel extension into the trunnion to secure it. Ugly as fuck but fast and perminantly secure. Despite the ongoing drama with KE Arms on the site, (banned person) stated that they could form a lower every minute or so if pushed. Mold wear is the issue, and replacement molds are time consuming to make. I'd say that one of the weld together steel flat lowers would be the fastest but pretty heavy. It would be ugly as hell, but functional as a rifle. |
|
Quoted: Wraithworks has a monolithic polymer UPPER. Just over 5 lb AR for $800 on a KP-15. Quoted: Quoted: Great suggestions. "- Use slick side/forward assist delete forgings to save machine time and materials...Delete port door as seen on some PCC/big bore uppers." The slick side upper would be worth pursuing. Not only does this reduce parts and machining, but apparently slick side upper can be Extruded, which should be faster than forging? https://aerospacearms.com/nordic-components-nc15-extruded-stripped-upper-receiver-black-finish/ https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-r463nwv5z/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/682/2973/NC15-UR-EXT_1__46625.1606196432.jpg?c=2 However I think the pic rail top should be retained, as it would allow say 1/10 rifles to be equipped with optics (say for Squad DMR or sniper) and also offers up chance to use surplus/civilian/captured optics should they become available. "- Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps." This idea I like a lot. Would such a handgaurd be possible with polymer? Whats the simplest polymer HG on the market now? I had kinda been thinking about polymer quadrails, although alas they are only made by Promag. "Ditch flash hider for thread protector, or better yet just don't thread muzzle at all." Given the flash of 14" 5.56, especially if we end up using cheaper WW3 powders with less flash suppression, I think the FH should be retained. I actually kinda think for WW3 fighting, some of which may be in the jungles of Asia, it might even be worth it to go from the A2 style to the T91 style A2/Compensator ghetto warcomp style, so as to mitigate recoil and muzzle climb in FA. We've seen FA come in handy in the trench raids in Ukraine. https://www.evike.com/images/large/fh-we-t91-3.jpg However I like your thoughts on eliminating the threaded barrel. Perhaps a press on FH? That would eliminate the threading of the barrel and the FH. Molot apparently uses press on FH: https://www.legionusa.com/molot-svd-type-flash-suppressor-unthreaded.html Wraithworks has a monolithic polymer UPPER. Just over 5 lb AR for $800 on a KP-15. Link/Pics? I recall you mentioning that before, but googling has turned up nothing for me. Sounds awesome. |
|
Quoted: Link/Pics? I recall you mentioning that before, but googling has turned up nothing for me. Sounds awesome. https://wraithworks.com/product/wraithworks-warp15-223-wylde-16-rifle/ 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Link/Pics? I recall you mentioning that before, but googling has turned up nothing for me. Sounds awesome. https://wraithworks.com/product/wraithworks-warp15-223-wylde-16-rifle/ https://wraithworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WARP15-BLK.png Awesome, thank you. I really dig that concept, has anyone bought one and reviewed it? The website has criminally poor ad copy / product description. Doesn't even mention that the upper is polymer, or if the barrel is nitride, or any number of other factors. Theres more product info on the soap I buy. |
|
Quoted: Awesome, thank you. I really dig that concept, has anyone bought one and reviewed it? The website has criminally poor ad copy / product description. Doesn't even mention that the upper is polymer, or if the barrel is nitride, or any number of other factors. Theres more product info on the soap I buy. Typical of small production gun shops, they do interesting work but they don't toot their own horn very well. If you come across a new gun manufacturer that is good at tooting their own horn, proceed with caution. |
|
Quoted: We could see something similar to WW2, where Aluminum is considered a 'strategic material,' and rationed for top priority defense production (missiles and aircraft.) Quoted: We could see something similar to WW2, where Aluminum is considered a 'strategic material,' and rationed for top priority defense production (missiles and aircraft.) Good point. Quoted: "- Simplified barrel nut and hand guard. Like old school free float tube style, eliminating delta ring, springs, handguard caps." This idea I like a lot. Would such a handgaurd be possible with polymer? Whats the simplest polymer HG on the market now? All polymer handguards that I am aware of use the delta ring and hanguard cap style mounting, meaning more parts than an extruded aluminum old school tube style. You might be able to replace the aluminum tube with fiberglass, but I don't think polymer will cut it (be rigid enough). Quoted: However I like your thoughts on eliminating the threaded barrel. Perhaps a press on FH? That would eliminate the threading of the barrel and the FH. Molot apparently uses press on FH: https://www.legionusa.com/molot-svd-type-flash-suppressor-unthreaded.html Press on could be a cheaper/faster option, certainly cheaper and easier than cutting precise, concentric threads. Yes the Russians often use press fit barrel components, including some muzzle devices. Some are press fit then dimpled (basically small crimps) to secure them, rather than pinned. Quoted: I thought this was a pretty cool thought exercise Agreed Quoted: Mold wear is the issue, and replacement molds are time consuming to make. Yes and complex in general. Moulds would have to pass test runs before being put into production use. Many would be needed. Quoted: I'd say that one of the weld together steel flat lowers would be the fastest but pretty heavy. It would be ugly as hell, but functional as a rifle. Something like the old "flat spot" brand lowers would be cheap and simple to pump out and could be built in a garage with a battery powered stick welder. |
|
Quoted: Typical of small production gun shops, they do interesting work but they don't toot their own horn very well. If you come across a new gun manufacturer that is good at tooting their own horn, proceed with caution. Quoted: Quoted: Awesome, thank you. I really dig that concept, has anyone bought one and reviewed it? The website has criminally poor ad copy / product description. Doesn't even mention that the upper is polymer, or if the barrel is nitride, or any number of other factors. Theres more product info on the soap I buy. Typical of small production gun shops, they do interesting work but they don't toot their own horn very well. If you come across a new gun manufacturer that is good at tooting their own horn, proceed with caution. Sure, always keep any eye out for Huckster&Charlatan Co firearms incorporated. But even by taciturn small business standards, this is abysmal sales copy. It literally doesn't mention that the upper is polymer - the most relevant aspect of the design - and theres only a single photo with poor contrast. They gotta get some tootin in there. |
|
Quoted: Good point. All polymer handguards that I am aware of use the delta ring and hanguard cap style mounting, meaning more parts than an extruded aluminum old school tube style. You might be able to replace the aluminum tube with fiberglass, but I don't think polymer will cut it (be rigid enough). Press on could be a cheaper/faster option, certainly cheaper and easier than cutting precise, concentric threads. Yes the Russians often use press fit barrel components, including some muzzle devices. Some are press fit then dimpled (basically small crimps) to secure them, rather than pinned. Agreed Yes and complex in general. Moulds would have to pass test runs before being put into production use. Many would be needed. Something like the old "flat spot" brand lowers would be cheap and simple to pump out and could be built in a garage with a battery powered stick welder. See the Wraithworks upper mentioned above. |
|
Wraithworks is pretty much vaporware. They are however crazy forward thinking. Their new carbon fiber rifle addresses a lot of the issues with plastic/carbon AR’s. The stock to the handguard is one piece so that solves breaking the plastic lower at the buffer threads. Inside the carbon upper it has an aluminum frame for the carrier rails and the barrel nut, so the front won’t fall off. He sounds gimmicky about it but he’s on to something. Might even be able to pull this off with a cheaper poly blend.  NEW Style of RIFLE Unlike Anything Seen Before From Wraithworks | SHOT SHOW 2023 |
|
Polymer lower? No length of pull adjustment. Not mil-spec. Why? A standard mil-spec lower with the ability to add whatever stock the mission or individual soldier requires or desires seems like a far better choice. Also, small arms are now labeled "weapons of mass destruction"? This sounds more like a troll thread than an actual serious post. |
|
Quoted: Polymer lower? No length of pull adjustment. Not mil-spec. Why? A standard mil-spec lower with the ability to add whatever stock the mission or individual soldier requires or desires seems like a far better choice. Also, small arms are now labeled "weapons of mass destruction"? This sounds more like a troll thread than an actual serious post. It's 'weapon of mass production,' which is a play on words, as we're optimizing the rifle to speed up production and lower costs in WW3 situation where millions of rifles are needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production Most of the current Ukraine War is being fought with rifles with a fixed length of pull. The US, as recently as the invasion of Iraq, was using rifles with irons and fixed length of pull. Virtually every combatant the US has fought WW1-Syria has had a rifle with a fixed length of pull.... So for a WW3 'weapon of mass production' designed to rapidly arm millions of conscripts, a ~medium length fixed stock should suffice. |
|
Seems like step 0 was you completely commandeer all existing "civilian" production capacity and likely don't have to change the design at all. We are making a million+ per year just in the civilian market and those are probably not fully utilized at full capacity. My thinking in order of changes you would make once you burn through that are: 1) Minimize barrel machining, maybe even go to where you can make 2 barrels from an existing blank. If you are desperate for rifles you likely aren't facing engagements > say 400M and likely in an urban / house to house situation where shorter rifles are better anyway. Likely without a muzzle attachment as again if we're losing rifles at that pace the benefits of flash suppression / compensation are no longer essential. 1.1) Potential redesign of the bolt / barrel extension to fewer lugs. 2) Semi auto only fire control kit 3) Simplified stock, probably a 1 piece thread on buffer tube unit like the A1 or A2, and a plastic stock without any trap door for cleaning kits, etc. Probably has an integral sling loop like the CAV arms version 4) Simplified hand guard, again probably a combination barrel nut / free float tube. 5) Simplified rear iron sighting system. Upper forgings likely don't get the pic rail fully machined and a simple bolt on fixed rear sight used, likely optimized around a 50/200m zero. 6) Simplified front sight. Likely not far off existing A2 since that is a simple forging with minimal machining. Might eliminate the adjustable hooded front post and have a simple post that can be filed down at the factory for a baseline boresight zero. Again, inside of 200 meters it probably needs to be minute of man at that point. 7) If truly desperate, elimination of the gas system and a side charging manual bolt. Something to also think about, there would likely be donation drives and I think ARFCOM alone could provide enough A2 grips from their parts bins to build a couple million rifles. :) I won't even go there on donating other parts, optics, complete uppers, etc. as part of the war effort. |
|
Quoted: Wraithworks is pretty much vaporware. They are however crazy forward thinking. Their new carbon fiber rifle addresses a lot of the issues with plastic/carbon AR’s. The stock to the handguard is one piece so that solves breaking the plastic lower at the buffer threads. Inside the carbon upper it has an aluminum frame for the carrier rails and the barrel nut, so the front won’t fall off. He sounds gimmicky about it but he’s on to something. Might even be able to pull this off with a cheaper poly blend.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHyq1Fwmgr8For vaporware Wraithworks sure got a lot of variance marked KP-15s to market. |
|
Quoted: Also, guns like the SCAR and the B&T223 were designed to be cheaper and easier to mass produce than the AR15. The problem is that we never will likely reach the economy of scale for those. If demand for rifles is driven so very high, extruded tube designs may be the better choice for mass production. Supposedly DPMS and now Nordic have been able to make Extruded Aluminum uppers for the AR: https://www.primaryarms.com/nordic-components-nc15-extruded-stripped-upper-receiver DPMS's 'sportical' used the extruded slick slide upper as part of their budget AR15 design, so in theory these extruded uppers should be cheaper / faster to produce then a forged / cast AR upper. (How much savings, no idea.) But it should make for comparable / faster extrusion then the SCAR upper.  I believe some types of mild steel can also be extruded, should aluminum need to be conserved. Going slick side also eliminates 11 small parts from manufacturing and assembly.  The GWACS/KP15 lower eliminates another 6-7 parts from manufacturing and assembly. Across a 4 Million rifle production run, going with the Slick side upper + KP15 polymer = 68 million parts saved from production and assembly. |
|
For reference here's Russias Cold War era plans for a simplified WW3 AK: https://reaperfeed.com/how-good-was-the-wartime-ak-6p1/  In 1968 the order from Ministry of Defense Industry has ordered to design a wartime AK, which could be manufactured in 10 hours or less. This would make it similar to PPSh-41, which was manufactured in 8 hours time. After the full scale production of AKM started, the number of work hours per one set, which included the rifle, four 30-rd magazines, bayonet and cleaning kit was analyzed and totaled to 16.76 hours per rifle. The folding-stock AKMS required 18.53 hours to be produced. To get anywhere close to the desired result of 10 work hours, the construction of the rifle and/or the production methods had to be changed substantially.... Another half of an hour was saved by swapping four 30-rd magazines with three 40-rd magazines, the exact ones used on RPK machine gun. Overall the engineers achieved the decrease of working time per every rifle. This new, wartime AK could be produced within 12 and a half hours, which is 25% less than the regular one. .... One aspect of their changes that may be worth copying is the use of 40rd mags. 3x40rd = 4x30rd 120rd loadout (1 magazine less needed) 5x40rd 200rd ~ 7x30rd 210rd loadout (2 magazines saved) ---> across 4 Million rifles, this would reduce mag production needs by 4-8 Million Magazines. 40rd mags also give a solid boost in firepower, especially in FA, vs the likely enemies 30rd mags. This could prove valuable in trench clearing and jungle combat. Having fewer magazines may also allow for simplified web gear. If the loadout is reduced to 120rds, they could just have 1x mag in the gun and a 2x40rd mag pouch on a web belt, alongside their bayonet, canteen, and 2 frags, eliminating the need to produce more complex chest rigs. |
In terms of muzzle device, I wonder whether a deep drawn progressive die'd piece steel sheet would be strong enough? Possibly like the gauge used for steel water bottles / steel cups?   Super ghetto sketch of what a press fit combo A2 / Compensator might look like (think ~0.725 ID, 0.45" muzzle hole to provide compensator pressure)  It would obviously need to be thicker steel then those shown; not sure if this process could work with steel thick enough to survive as a FH/Comp? |
|
Quoted: I wonder how simple the BCG could be made. 3-lug triangular bolt? Easier barrel extension too. Pressed & Soldered muzzle device One piece monolithic extruded upper/handguard? Could go two large lugs like an AK, simple and you would likely never have a lug failure. I have never seen a report of a failed (proper forged, mil spec) AK bolt body/lugs personally. |
|
Quoted: Saving huge cashes of older weapons is a good idea. In The US, we destroy them or give them away - sometimes to allies - Sometimes to future enemies. I found it ironic that the Ukraine had caches since WW1 and still wanted donations of small arms including donated sporting arms from the US. That was likely a propaganda move to help garnish sympathy from masses of "caring" nations and their populations. I can see it. The Europeans tend to remember past aggressions against them, something the USA has had to deal with. They are still turning up pristine WW2 weapons that are hidden in barns, attics, farm houses, etc. knowing that it wouldn’t be a stretch to find WW1 weapons. |
|
Quoted: For reference here's Russias Cold War era plans for a simplified WW3 AK: https://reaperfeed.com/how-good-was-the-wartime-ak-6p1/ https://reaperfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/image-3.png In 1968 the order from Ministry of Defense Industry has ordered to design a wartime AK, which could be manufactured in 10 hours or less. This would make it similar to PPSh-41, which was manufactured in 8 hours time. After the full scale production of AKM started, the number of work hours per one set, which included the rifle, four 30-rd magazines, bayonet and cleaning kit was analyzed and totaled to 16.76 hours per rifle. The folding-stock AKMS required 18.53 hours to be produced. To get anywhere close to the desired result of 10 work hours, the construction of the rifle and/or the production methods had to be changed substantially.... Another half of an hour was saved by swapping four 30-rd magazines with three 40-rd magazines, the exact ones used on RPK machine gun. Overall the engineers achieved the decrease of working time per every rifle. This new, wartime AK could be produced within 12 and a half hours, which is 25% less than the regular one. .... One aspect of their changes that may be worth copying is the use of 40rd mags. 3x40rd = 4x30rd 120rd loadout (1 magazine less needed) 5x40rd 200rd ~ 7x30rd 210rd loadout (2 magazines saved) ---> across 4 Million rifles, this would reduce mag production needs by 4-8 Million Magazines. 40rd mags also give a solid boost in firepower, especially in FA, vs the likely enemies 30rd mags. This could prove valuable in trench clearing and jungle combat. Having fewer magazines may also allow for simplified web gear. If the loadout is reduced to 120rds, they could just have 1x mag in the gun and a 2x40rd mag pouch on a web belt, alongside their bayonet, canteen, and 2 frags, eliminating the need to produce more complex chest rigs. We don't use web belts anymore. Everything mounts on the body armor. So you'd have to make all new mag pouches for 40 rounders, which makes the rifle heavier and more difficult to go prone w/. You're saving a tiny bit of plastic, I think Magpul, Lancer, and the other manufacturers can probably keep up. The most efficient thing would probably be to have a substitute standard semi-auto nitride bbl rifle, handguard type immaterial, and just take in 16" commercial ARs - we could probably add a million to US military coffers overnight. |
|
The kp15 lower is a no go, it requires cassette triggers (and anti walk pins) Build a lower out of steel. Semi only, with a standard safety (much quicker to machine vs the FA one) integral trigger guard. Use a standard car spring and weight, loose the retainer pin. Thats 2 parts you don't need. Some type of tube FF handguard Upper, ditch the FA. This also mean you don't have to have the scallops on the carrier. I suggest keeping the case deflector and ejection port dust cover Socom type barrel to reduce machine time, keep it around 14" since you're going to be shooting m855 or m193 at this point You're going to have irons, but it's still not a bad idea to have at least some picatinny slots. A simplified DD A1.5 rear sight would be a great choice. Front sight... I'm thinking you take the standard a2 style, make it completely solid, save for a small hole drilled for a QD cup/ Paracord/BFG Uloop/whatever. Oh and no bayonet lugs. Maybe just have the front sight thread in, like an AK so you wont need the spring and detent. Take the gas tube, make it straight, no bends. I think KAC or LMT already does this. Muzzle device, just simplify the A1 birdcage, so no grooves for BFA's. The A1 doesn't need to be timed, so just thread it on and a drop or 2 of rockset and crank that bitch down, no crush washer. |
|
Quoted: The kp15 lower is a no go, it requires cassette triggers (and anti walk pins) Build a lower out of steel. Semi only, with a standard safety (much quicker to machine vs the FA one) integral trigger guard. Use a standard car spring and weight, loose the retainer pin. Thats 2 parts you don't need. Some type of tube FF handguard Upper, ditch the FA. This also mean you don't have to have the scallops on the carrier. I suggest keeping the case deflector and ejection port dust cover Socom type barrel to reduce machine time, keep it around 14" since you're going to be shooting m855 or m193 at this point You're going to have irons, but it's still not a bad idea to have at least some picatinny slots. A simplified DD A1.5 rear sight would be a great choice. Front sight... I'm thinking you take the standard a2 style, make it completely solid, save for a small hole drilled for a QD cup/ Paracord/BFG Uloop/whatever. Oh and no bayonet lugs. Maybe just have the front sight thread in, like an AK so you wont need the spring and detent. Take the gas tube, make it straight, no bends. I think KAC or LMT already does this. Muzzle device, just simplify the A1 birdcage, so no grooves for BFA's. The A1 doesn't need to be timed, so just thread it on and a drop or 2 of rockset and crank that bitch down, no crush washer. Quoted: The kp15 lower is a no go, it requires cassette triggers (and anti walk pins) Build a lower out of steel. Semi only, with a standard safety (much quicker to machine vs the FA one) integral trigger guard. Use a standard car spring and weight, loose the retainer pin. Thats 2 parts you don't need. Some type of tube FF handguard Upper, ditch the FA. This also mean you don't have to have the scallops on the carrier. I suggest keeping the case deflector and ejection port dust cover Socom type barrel to reduce machine time, keep it around 14" since you're going to be shooting m855 or m193 at this point You're going to have irons, but it's still not a bad idea to have at least some picatinny slots. A simplified DD A1.5 rear sight would be a great choice. Front sight... I'm thinking you take the standard a2 style, make it completely solid, save for a small hole drilled for a QD cup/ Paracord/BFG Uloop/whatever. Oh and no bayonet lugs. Maybe just have the front sight thread in, like an AK so you wont need the spring and detent. Take the gas tube, make it straight, no bends. I think KAC or LMT already does this. Muzzle device, just simplify the A1 birdcage, so no grooves for BFA's. The A1 doesn't need to be timed, so just thread it on and a drop or 2 of rockset and crank that bitch down, no crush washer. Your entire 1st sentence is incorrect. The KP-15 requires neither cassette triggers nor anti-walk pins. https://kearms.americommerce.com/OD-Greeen-kp-15-complete-mil-spec-fcg.aspx  Complete Mil-Spec FCG Lowers Include: Mil-Spec FCG KP-15 Optimized Ambi Selector KP-15 Long Hammer Pin Carbine Buffer and Spring Buffer Detent Assembly Mil-Spec Mag Catch Assembly Bolt Catch Assembly KP-15 Take Down/Pivot Pins Buttplate Technical Information The KP-15 receiver uses a Carbine buffer and spring. Do NOT use anything other than standard carbine buffers and round springs or the JP SCSS in the KP-15. The Take Down and Pivot Pins have the detents built into them; eliminating the spring and detent holes in the lower increases durability. The buffer detent (should you choose to use it) is held in place with a 5/64” Roll Pin The KP-15 is compatible with all Mil-Spec Fire Control Groups The KP-15 is compatible with cassette style match triggers including the KE Arms DMR and SLT units. The retention system of these triggers with D-Clips in the bushings to retain the fire control pins makes them better suited for use in the KP-15 than other designs that require captured pins.* The hammer pin area is wider for durability; Standard AR15 hammer pins can still be used but we offer a longer hammer pin for customers preferring a flush pin for aesthetic reasons. |
|
Quoted: Huh. I could have sworn it did. Disregard the first part then  Quoted: Quoted: Your entire 1st sentence is incorrect. The KP-15 requires neither cassette triggers nor anti-walk pins. Huh. I could have sworn it did. Disregard the first part then KE Arms offers a Kp-15 lower w/ their cassette trigger b/c not all cassette triggers will fit, and some cassette triggers may need KP-15 type anti-walk pins b/c of the lack of pin retention of cassette type trigger assemblies. I absolutely agree w/ deleting the buffer retaining pin - particularly on a polymer lower. Fixed triggerguard, short mild steel one piece tube handguard w/ integral bbl nut, makes your straight gas tube easy to do - though I suspect most of our ideas are a lot more expensive than Wraithworks' polymer upper, particularly since it could probably be printed. I think the idea is to keep parts interchangeability with the existing stock of rifles w/o degrading performance or increasing weight too much. The less machine time on the bbls the better - which adds weight. |
|
Quoted: KE Arms offers a Kp-15 lower w/ their cassette trigger b/c not all cassette triggers will fit, and some cassette triggers may need KP-15 type anti-walk pins b/c of the lack of pin retention of cassette type trigger assemblies. I absolutely agree w/ deleting the buffer retaining pin - particularly on a polymer lower. Fixed triggerguard, short mild steel one piece tube handguard w/ integral bbl nut, makes your straight gas tube easy to do - though I suspect most of our ideas are a lot more expensive than Wraithworks' polymer upper, particularly since it could probably be printed. I think the idea is to keep parts interchangeability with the existing stock of rifles w/o degrading performance or increasing weight too much. The less machine time on the bbls the better - which adds weight. I think if it's WW3, weight isn't too much of a concern, not if we're at the point of needing Volksturm-ized AR's. Is caliber up for debate? Just make them 9mm blowbacks. Can't get any cheaper than that. No gas system, BCG is drastically simpler... Free up 5.56 rifles for guys who really need 5.56's |
|
Quoted: I think if it's WW3, weight isn't too much of a concern, not if we're at the point of needing Volksturm-ized AR's. Is caliber up for debate? Just make them 9mm blowbacks. Can't get any cheaper than that. No gas system, BCG is drastically simpler... Free up 5.56 rifles for guys who really need 5.56's Quoted: Quoted: KE Arms offers a Kp-15 lower w/ their cassette trigger b/c not all cassette triggers will fit, and some cassette triggers may need KP-15 type anti-walk pins b/c of the lack of pin retention of cassette type trigger assemblies. I absolutely agree w/ deleting the buffer retaining pin - particularly on a polymer lower. Fixed triggerguard, short mild steel one piece tube handguard w/ integral bbl nut, makes your straight gas tube easy to do - though I suspect most of our ideas are a lot more expensive than Wraithworks' polymer upper, particularly since it could probably be printed. I think the idea is to keep parts interchangeability with the existing stock of rifles w/o degrading performance or increasing weight too much. The less machine time on the bbls the better - which adds weight. I think if it's WW3, weight isn't too much of a concern, not if we're at the point of needing Volksturm-ized AR's. Is caliber up for debate? Just make them 9mm blowbacks. Can't get any cheaper than that. No gas system, BCG is drastically simpler... Free up 5.56 rifles for guys who really need 5.56's At that point, skip the AR, just make full-auto only STEN Mk 3s. |
|
Quoted: Not in a free country, comrade. Say more. If the US was in full on WW3, just like in WW2 and WW1, much of the civilian manufacturing capacity would likely be converted over to war time needs. In the case of manufacturers that already have the tooling to make essentially what the military needs, why wouldn't that convert over? Are you referencing my use of the word commandeer vs. contract manufacture? I can't imagine a situation where any of the major civilian AR15 manufactures would tell Uncle Sam "sorry, gotta keep my production lines to myself" if we are truly in a war time production need. It actually wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a couple of Colonels out there in charge of small arms that have that as a part of contingency plans. |
AR Sponsor