User Panel
Quoted:
Well. It would be wood grips, wood furniture. Parkerized steel receivers. Chambered in 30-06. Weigh about 15 pounds. 15-20 round capacity. Box magazines doubling as a kudgle to bludgeon Japanese and Germans to death with. Damn thing would be quite robust. No rapid fire. Hand guard would spontaneously combust. Maybe not. They'd probably use asbestos back then... View Quote |
|
Quoted: Cost cutting measures fucking with not having a chrome lined barrel probably played as huge a role in fucked up M16 reliability as did powder selection. The select fire Armalite AR15s fielded BEFORE Vietnam actually kicked off seemed to have worked well enough in the hands of SOG. It took actually getting adopted and type classed the M16 to get properly ficked by Nader. Replace some uniquely AR parts that are aluminum with steel and 1940s era weapons makers likely would have done just fine. Look at the M3 Grease gun in terms of what kind of furniture an AR could wear. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Too late. I've just finished copywriting the Johnson Automatic Rifle bolt face. Pay up MF'rs! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh oh. Copyright infringement.
Damnit. Beat by a minute. We will be all known as Jarcommers. |
|
Quoted:
Okay, so? Receiver can be made of other materials than 7075-T6, albeit with a cost to weight or durability, depending on what you specifically select. But stainless for gas tubes existed (ref. the problems keeping the M1's gas cylinder darkened and non-shiny in the field) and the lack of 7075-series aluminum really isn't a big deal for the receivers. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AR-15 with corrosive primers and nasty powder.... It might have been doable, but it wouldn't have been good. What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. |
|
As complicated as many of the weapons were back then and the massive amount of machining required I'd say easily.
|
|
I see this more as a question of "Why is the AR-15/M-16 superior to previous small arms" rather than "Could it be done, albeit with different materials and certain sacrifices, earlier in history?"
If it could be done, but it would lack the very attributes that made it better, why would it be worth doing? |
|
Quoted:
It would have failed miserably. But it could have been built. remember all the sub standard powder that fucked with the early m16s in the 60s? Where do you think the pencil pushers found it? that and " aircraft aluminum" is a pretty wide term mettalurgically. IIRC we did not have the quality that we have now. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
What would have been the point of a cast steel receiver AR-15? What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AR-15 with corrosive primers and nasty powder.... It might have been doable, but it wouldn't have been good. What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. Heat-shielded Bakelite stocks, pistol grips, and handguards were already possible (indeed, the techniques were already in use for some weapons), and could be made lighter and more weather-resistant than wood. The composite BAR stock is an example, only Ordnance specified it had to weigh the same as the wood version, which meant it was actually quite a bit stronger. |
|
Quoted:
What would have been the point of a cast steel receiver AR-15? What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AR-15 with corrosive primers and nasty powder.... It might have been doable, but it wouldn't have been good. What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. Small caliber high velocity ammo had been available since the .250-3000 savage came along in 1915. As far as the specific aluminum alloy, I'm sure a different readily available alloy would suffice, just like un-heat treated steel, or spot treated steel did in other small arms. Bakelite, the original stock material for the AR was designed in 1907. Your arguments are not well rooted in the historical record of what was available and when. ALso... 6061 a popular alloy to make AR's out of had been around since 1935. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6061_aluminium_alloy#Forgings |
|
Quoted:
easily, tolerances would be looser compared to stuff now, might be more finicky, oh and most likely have wood instead of plastic. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1cae2f3370254a753b59d5a1b80dd34b View Quote That is pretty neat looking, thanks for posting! |
|
Parts would have to be redesigned due to metallurgy constraints. I believe 8620 had not been invented yet and thus the bolt and barrel extension would have to be redesigned.
|
|
Quoted:
The first 7075 was developed in 1943 in Japan. Even if the allies had access to the Japanese process, it was rather late in the war effort to invent the AR, tool up manufacturing for it (in a material that was brand new), and get it out to the front lines. Nevermind having to develop a new cartridge, or the problems we faced during Vietnam associated with poorly selected powders being used to load 5.56. View Quote ETA: and it worked fine, too, though 7075 was apparently less prone to corrosion issues in the jungles of Nam. |
|
Quoted:
Again, the overall design could still be lighter and more shooter-friendly in recoil, plus more resistant to adverse conditions (mud, sand, etc) even if in .30-06 and with the receiver machined from 8620 steel forgings instead of aluminum (US weapons out of castings? Not likely). With .276 Pedersen still in recent memory, you have lighter, relatively small-caliber ammunition. M1913 rails aren't germane because, as you noted, they didn't exist when the real-world AR family was actually designed so that's a red herring. Upper/lower modularity still exists, so there's some room to accommodate future iterations and improvements without having to re-arsenal each weapon. Heat-shielded Bakelite stocks, pistol grips, and handguards were already possible (indeed, the techniques were already in use for some weapons), and could be made lighter and more weather-resistant than wood. The composite BAR stock is an example, only Ordnance specified it had to weigh the same as the wood version, which meant it was actually quite a bit stronger. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AR-15 with corrosive primers and nasty powder.... It might have been doable, but it wouldn't have been good. What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. Heat-shielded Bakelite stocks, pistol grips, and handguards were already possible (indeed, the techniques were already in use for some weapons), and could be made lighter and more weather-resistant than wood. The composite BAR stock is an example, only Ordnance specified it had to weigh the same as the wood version, which meant it was actually quite a bit stronger. Once again.... what makes a steel receiver AR15 better than a M1/M2? 30 carbine isn't exactly hard in terms of recoil. WWII was fought by men that could handle a M1 (or flame thrower). |
|
Quoted:
M1 was made out of machined casting. Once again.... what makes a steel receiver AR15 better than a M1/M2? 30 carbine isn't exactly hard in terms of recoil. WWII was fought by men that could handle a M1 (or flame thrower). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
AR-15 with corrosive primers and nasty powder.... It might have been doable, but it wouldn't have been good. What makes the AR-15 useful and an improvement over previous weapon systems is a combination of design features and technological advancements. 1. 7075 aluminum receiver (not developed until 1943, in Japan of all places) 2. Sub-30 caliber ammunition - the .223 wasn't developed until the early 1960's 3. Modular design - 1913 rails were not developed in 1913.... they were developed in the 1980's 4. Lightweight - dependent upon aluminum receiver set, plastics, and lightweight varmint cartridge I'm not including things like red dots and ACOGs, or IR lasers, to try to make it somewhat fair. The bottom line is would an AR-15 variant based on a steel receiver set, wood furniture, no rails, steel mags, and questionable powder / primers / ammo be superior to a M1 Garand or M1/M2 Carbine? Personally, I'd take the M2. Heat-shielded Bakelite stocks, pistol grips, and handguards were already possible (indeed, the techniques were already in use for some weapons), and could be made lighter and more weather-resistant than wood. The composite BAR stock is an example, only Ordnance specified it had to weigh the same as the wood version, which meant it was actually quite a bit stronger. Once again.... what makes a steel receiver AR15 better than a M1/M2? 30 carbine isn't exactly hard in terms of recoil. WWII was fought by men that could handle a M1 (or flame thrower). 30 Carbine is okay as a pistol replacement or early "PDW" but the biggest problem it has is the lack of reach. A spitzer-bullet, bottlenecked cartridge (like, say, .276 Pedersen aka 7x51mm) is going to have much better external and terminal ballistics. |
|
|
Nope.
Because Mr. Stoner was only 20 years old and had not yet started his design engineering career. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know how much plastic was around in those days, but I'm sure that bakelite or something similar could be used for the furniture. I'd imagine that it would have been chambered in something more intermediate back then, like .30 carbine or .351 Winchester. View Quote Fuck yeah. |
|
The AR-18 would be a better choice for WWII era manufacturing. The aluminum forgings for the AR-15 were pretty advanced even by the standards of the late '50s, but stamped steel was standard fare in the '40s.
|
|
No 1913 rails? No problem! What would you have hung on them anyway? No practical lasers. Flashlights huge and barely bright enough to give your position away. No logistics for enough batteries. Vertical forward grip? The Army specified straight forends on Thompson SMGs rather than the civilian VFG saying they were too easily broken. Bipod? Who wants to carry that weight?
The forend could be ventilated steel tube, like some other weapons of the day. Pistol grip and stock could be wood or stamped sheetmetal. Possibly the receiver could be stamped sheetmetal? Our other rifles/SMGs didn’t have chrome bores so that might not be a huge deal. Given the cult of .30 caliber the cartridge might have resembled the 7.62 X 39 but in ‘merican numbers of course! |
|
No, the AR15 as we know it today couldn't have been mass produced back then. Could it have been designed back then? Of course. Browning is generally credited with using gas from a gunshot (via a hole in the barrel) being used to cycle a firearm circa 1885. The concept of an intermediate sized cartridge that filled the gap between pistol bullets and rifle bullets goes back to the end of the first world war. It was dismissed. The M1 Carbine round was kinda, sorta, but not really in this class of thinking. David Williams was still thinking in terms of caliber over velocity as were firearms designers of that era.
The AR15 started life as an AR10 firing a 308 Winchester round (some Vietnam vets called this the 30-06 Short). It ripped off the Browning design of 1885, ripped off Melvin Johnson's bolt head design and added a gas pipe (rather than a forward piston or operating rod system) to actuate the weapon upon firing. Additionally the AR15 ripped off the STG 44 dust cover and reversed it to come down instead of up. Direct impingement was already being used in 1940, but not exactly as Stoner/Sullivan used it. The AR10/15 basically moved the piston system all the way back to the bolt (thus introducing filthy gasses DIRECTLY into the major moving component of the weapon system). The same reasons that caused the rejection of the AR10 when it was introduced would have caused the rejection of the AR15 in 1942. It would have had to be made from steel, because aluminum would not have truly been considered. In those days it was steel and wood, not aluminum. It would have had to fire the 30-06 round. Ten pound full auto 30-06 would have suffered from the same disease that full auto 308 AR10's did when tested in the 50s. The M14 full auto was a failure as a true combat weapons system. The intermediate cartridge just hadn't come of age yet in 1942. Even Hitler refused to accept it and his designers were the first to think it up. So it could have been designed, but its highly unlikely it would have been accepted. Additionally getting a 22 caliber weapon accepted as a combat rifle would have been laughed out of the building at that time. It was laughed out of the building when it was introduced later on. There is still plenty of debate today as to the effectiveness of the 5.56 vs the 7.62mm. Small arm military combat calibers have shrunk considerably since the late 1870's. In the American Civil War we generally used 58 caliber Minie balls and now we are shooting 22 caliber high velocity rounds. People figured out that penetrating a vital organ is what it take to kill or incapacitate an enemy combatant. War costs money and its far more effective to give a solder 240 rounds of killing power than it is to give a soldier half that capacity of a larger caliber to do the same job. Firepower counts in a firefight. |
|
Quoted:
It's got to be easier than building an atomic bomb. View Quote Eta: Of course we could have. This is the United States of America, WW2 version. If we needed it, it would have been delivered. |
|
Quoted:
It would have failed miserably. But it could have been built. remember all the sub standard powder that fucked with the early m16s in the 60s? Where do you think the pencil pushers found it? that and " aircraft aluminum" is a pretty wide term mettalurgically. IIRC we did not have the quality that we have now. View Quote Attached File |
|
Two people have previously mentioned it, but not in detail.
Yes, not only could a direct impingement rifle be made in 1942, a direct impingement rifle WAS made in 1942. Specifically, the weapon in question is the Swedish AG-42B Ljungman. Dominion posted a photo of one above. I have one in my safe. I can't say how well it shoots because it is so LONG, (And I mean like, muskets used to form square against cavalry long) that I can bearly get it in my car. Sweden was neutral, but feared they might be forced into the war. They very rapidly developed a semi automatic battle rifle and issued it more or less as a designated marksman rifle. The AG-42B is by no means an AR-15, it's not even an AR-10, but it is a direct impingement gas system that was fielded during the correct time period. So yes, the know-how to design something like the AR-15 was certainly around. It might have been made out of steel and used 30-06 with a much larger gastube and be open topped to allow excess powder to escape, but they certainly 'could have' had something like the AR-15, because the Swedish did. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know how much plastic was around in those days, but I'm sure that bakelite or something similar could be used for the furniture. I'd imagine that it would have been chambered in something more intermediate back then, like .30 carbine or .351 Winchester. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
It would have failed miserably. But it could have been built. remember all the sub standard powder that fucked with the early m16s in the 60s? Where do you think the pencil pushers found it? that and " aircraft aluminum" is a pretty wide term mettalurgically. IIRC we did not have the quality that we have now. View Quote And before some yahoo chimes in with, "... cnc, derp", an AR does not require processing with cnc machining. |
|
|
Quoted:
Johnson Automatic Rifle bolt: http://www.practicallyshooting.com/wppshp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IMG_1467.jpg https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/273471097828_/Model-1941-JOHNSON-SEMI-AUTOMATIC-RIFLE-BOLT-%C2%A0.jpg View Quote No chrome lined bore. If I remember there was a problem getting the 223 bore coated at tat time |
|
It is possible. I would guess it would had been steel and wood firearm than a plastic and aluminum combo.
|
|
They might have cast the upper receivers in Brass or Bronze, which isn't a huge diversion of war materials (Aluminum was an issue because of aircraft use, bronze and brass was munitions and marine, and we didn't have a shortage of those materials). They could have made a stamped steel lower like an AR18. At that point it might have been cheaper then either M1 rifles or carbines... (think - no need to tie up forging equipment on receivers, less wood used, less steel). The thing with all the BS on the cartridge development was sort of pathetic, basically they ego stroked themselves into refusing to adopt an existing cartridge, like the 7x57 Mauser, the 300 Savage, or the 250-3000 Savage.
|
|
In this thread I learned the Japanese developed 7075.
I did not know that. I spend a little time around some WW2 aircraft that are still flying and I can tell you that some of the engine components are very complex. We would have had no problem building/mass producing an AR15 in the early 1940's. Doubt anyone would have wanted to forthe reasons already mentioned. |
|
So little actual knowledge being used to make erroneous statements.
Something to think about that contributes to the technology of the M16. America's Iron Giants - The World's Most Powerful Metalworkers |
|
Quoted:
Oh hell no! We didn't have the advanced technology needed back then for such complicated weapons systems. OP, you're being foolish. On a completely different subject, I'm a big fan of some of rudimentary and archaic 3,500 horsepower supercharged engines they used during the war. Amazing that any of those planes even got off the ground if you think about it. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/3c/1b/903c1b12f47d81e6afbf745faf9fd6d0.jpg View Quote Its a damn good thing those 1940's jet airplanes were just cartoons on the covers of Popular Science. Derp. |
|
Quoted:
Could one be built? Sure. Could they be mass manufactured to equip an army? Probably not. Forged 7075 aluminum receivers isn't something our industry was really geared up to make in WWII. Likewise 7075 impact extrusions for the buffer tube. Lots of advanced polymers and composites too. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Oh hell no! We didn't have the advanced technology needed back then for such complicated weapons systems. OP, you're being foolish. On a completely different subject, I'm a big fan of some of rudimentary and archaic 3,500 horsepower supercharged engines they used during the war. Amazing that any of those planes even got off the ground if you think about it. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/3c/1b/903c1b12f47d81e6afbf745faf9fd6d0.jpg View Quote ETA Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major made in 1944 I love engine sectioned views. My university was getting rid of one and I could ahve had it for free, just had no clue how to get moved or stored in my upstairs apartment at the time. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Nope. Even if it had been designed, it never would have been adopted and no major manufacturing firm would have been able to get a contract to sell it to the government. And most likely wouldn't have been allowed to sell it to foreign governments. People don't think the 1942 war economy be like it was, but it did. View Quote |
|
Could it have been made? Yes, most likely, although as said with pressed steel versus aluminum and some other materials substitution.
Would it have been made? Almost certainly not. America was standardized on the 30-06 round for ground combat. We were making billions of rounds per month by 1943 and with that scale of production, the idea that we would convert over to another caliber is ludicrous. As the Italians and Japanese found out, changing such things during wartime is a Very Bad Idea. Could the AR have been made in 30-06? Yes, of course, although again, it would require some serious materials substitution. Also remember that when the M1 Garand was being tested, a lot of people didn't like it, considering it a "Buck Rogers piece of shit" that was wasteful of ammunition and inaccurate as shit (compared to the M1903). The idea that something like the AR could have been considered, let alone adopted is just silly. |
|
One of the most complicated but still functional guns ever produced is the Remington Model 8, patented in 1900 and first produced in 1905.
Yeah an AR would have been easy... However, cost would have been high due to materials and production methods. Also, as stated, it needs more modern and cleaner powder for high use between cleanings. |
|
Quoted:
The first 7075 was developed in 1943 in Japan. Even if the allies had access to the Japanese process, it was rather late in the war effort to invent the AR, tool up manufacturing for it (in a material that was brand new), and get it out to the front lines. Nevermind having to develop a new cartridge, or the problems we faced during Vietnam associated with poorly selected powders being used to load 5.56. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: M1 was made out of machined casting. Once again.... what makes a steel receiver AR15 better than a M1/M2? 30 carbine isn't exactly hard in terms of recoil. WWII was fought by men that could handle a M1 (or flame thrower). View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Oh hell no! We didn't have the advanced technology needed back then for such complicated weapons systems. OP, you're being foolish. On a completely different subject, I'm a big fan of some of rudimentary and archaic 3,500 horsepower supercharged engines they used during the war. Amazing that any of those planes even got off the ground if you think about it. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/3c/1b/903c1b12f47d81e6afbf745faf9fd6d0.jpg View Quote More cylinders |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.