User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:00:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that surplus WWI 30 -06 ammo ran out in the late 1930''s, just as the Garand went into full production. It would have been the perfect time to switch to 276 Pederson. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, they didn't even get the M1 right when they re-chambered it for .30-06 to be able to shoot surplus WW1 ammo. It was well known post WW1, and ESPECIALLY after WW2 that smaller lighter rounds (bullet and over all weight) were better. There's MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:05:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They blew it before then. The Navy was on the right track back in the 1890s. Take the 6mm Lee Navy, develop a nice 100-120gr spitzer bullet,. As gun development continues lose the semi-rim, as propellants get better shorten the case. The tech and knowledge was around to develop a fighting cartridge 100 years ago that would equal or better anything available right now. The cult of the .30 fucked it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, they didn't even get the M1 right when they re-chambered it for .30-06 to be able to shoot surplus WW1 ammo. It was well known post WW1, and ESPECIALLY after WW2 that smaller lighter rounds (bullet and over all weight) were better. There's MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting this. The Navy was on the right track back in the 1890s. Take the 6mm Lee Navy, develop a nice 100-120gr spitzer bullet,. As gun development continues lose the semi-rim, as propellants get better shorten the case. The tech and knowledge was around to develop a fighting cartridge 100 years ago that would equal or better anything available right now. The cult of the .30 fucked it up. Now, rapid fire semi/full auto and short barrels are true game changers thay deserved new solutions, but for Big Ol Battle Rifle needs, 7mm was first and basically the 'average' of all subsequent rounds developed over the next fifty years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:12:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:20:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moose bites can be pretty nasty you know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I know for a fact that an inert 84mm round from a Carl Gustaf doesn't deviate noticeably from its trajectory after passing through a moose.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:31:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... NO SHIT. Then why do people keep saying they were expensive to produce with NO DATA POINTS? Why do they say other production service rifles were cheaper to produce with NO DATA POINTS? People bringing nothing to the table but gunshow hyperbole, don't make for persuasive arguments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:42:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Fewer parts" in this case means a stupidly engineered op-rod scheme and needlessly expensive forgings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Fewer parts" in this case means a stupidly engineered op-rod scheme and needlessly expensive forgings. The only op rods which were actually forged were TRW op rods. The other contractors used 2 pieces and welded them together (which was inferior, but generally held up fine). Casting firearm parts wasn't mainstream back then. The Germans tried it and had success with certain applications. ArmaLite tried it, but Colt favored forgings when the AR went full-scale production. As far as I know, it was Ruger that really perfected investment casting for the firearms industry. It just wasn't as popular in the late 1950's. The forged parts were better anyway, and they had plenty of tax money to fund production. That, and while the Izzies added sand cuts to the FAL so it'd run better, the Garand-pattern is almost uniquely ill-suited to dusty, windy conditions because of the op-rod track being exposed. The M14 is more reliable than the M1 Garand because it has an improved gas system. The BM59 actually did what the M14 was supposed to do...and there's really no debating that. If the plan from the get-go was a clean sheet design, they could have done better than the M14; but the plan was to reuse Garand bits to save money and get something just as good. Neither of those things happened, and the gun was dumped almost immediately. 7 years isn't "almost immediately". As stated by someone else, it was adopted late in the game relative to the technology it used. Small arms were rapidly developing worldwide in that era, and the M16 was significantly better for most applications. It was still kept Standard B and continued to serve until very recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:52:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But nobody cared about it except the silly Spanish. The post-war Bundeswehr wanted the G1 (FAL). The Belgians wouldn't sell it to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Roller locked rifle existed before the FAL. The post-war Bundeswehr wanted the G1 (FAL). The Belgians wouldn't sell it to them. The Bundeswehr got the G1, with NATO approval. The Belgians were happy to sell them all they wanted, but the Germans felt it necessary to produce battle rifles in their own nation in case of invasion or blockade (and NATO agreed). When the Germans asked to license-produce the FAL in Germany, FN told them to pound sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:52:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2047298_-300-AR-thread-for-Fall-.html The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. Milling a large/complex steel part with multiple setups is gonna cost more than a smaller lathe/turning-center made one. Power of US manufacturing efficiency has no bearing on that. The amount of welding on HK guns was crazy, but it was automated to almost Japanese car-maker levels so the end-cost was minimal (and quality consistent). The AR trunnion is even simpler than the G3's. The receivers possibly cheaper than stamped & welded steel because of the magic of high-speed CNC running coated carbide & high pressure coolant (and Al recycling) There's many reasons to think M14 costs are not gonna be lower than an AR today. What'd an AR10 made in the 60's on mechanically-programmed mills using steel cutters run in today's dollars? That's your X-factor cost-deflation caused by tech advances in production, that would also apply to the M14 and possibly double its cost in today's production dollars. Inflation estimates are really bad for this sort of thing, since we make things so much differently than we used to. Hell, we can't afford to drop-forge box wrenches anymore, and we're gonna pay to do funky op-rods? Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:54:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. Make sense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:57:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B/c we don't have price sheets from the era, so we've been extrapolating from the different manufacturing approaches demanded by each design. That defeats your argument, so you keep hopping up and down on your soap box. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
........... NO SHIT. Then why do people keep saying they were expensive to produce with NO DATA POINTS? Why do they say other production service rifles were cheaper to produce with NO DATA POINTS? People bringing nothing to the table but gunshow hyperbole, don't make for persuasive arguments. You've been through military weapons factories right? Shit's NOTHING like what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 11:59:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A simpler design is even cheaper to make in America, than a complicated design is to make in America. Make sense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. Make sense? AND YET, just because it could be done cheaper, doesn't mean it in it's own right is "expensive". (especially when no one has a cost to compare it to). Make sense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:01:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The progenitor FN49 had been heroically denied to the Nazis by engineers taking the plans with them to England before the factory was overrun. Nazis getting a cheaper, better, higher-capacity gun than the M1 early in the war could have been disastrous (likely would not have changed the final outcome, but they may have had a lot more effective full and intermediate power semi autos & assault rifles) The Belgians had a pretty good argument to not simply hand over the product-improved FN49 technology five years after their liberation. Germany also captured many examples of the SVT-40, which is equal to the FN49 in every practical way. They did reissue those to German units on the Eastern Front. The Belgians simply didn't want to license the G1 to Germany because they were still butthurt about the war. I'm not going to say that was a bad reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:04:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3 is among the hardest homebuilds, but with sufficient German Will the amount of automation HK achieved was truly awesome. And while tooling is pricey, I think that old crap is STILL making decent guns in Pakistan and Portugal today. Milling a large/complex steel part with multiple setups is gonna cost more than a smaller lathe/turning-center made one. Power of US manufacturing efficiency has no bearing on that. The amount of welding on HK guns was crazy, but it was automated to almost Japanese car-maker levels so the end-cost was minimal (and quality consistent). The AR trunnion is even simpler than the G3's. The receivers possibly cheaper than stamped & welded steel because of the magic of high-speed CNC running coated carbide & high pressure coolant (and Al recycling) There's many reasons to think M14 costs are not gonna be lower than an AR today. What'd an AR10 made in the 60's on mechanically-programmed mills using steel cutters run in today's dollars? That's your X-factor cost-deflation caused by tech advances in production, that would also apply to the M14 and possibly double its cost in today's production dollars. Inflation estimates are really bad for this sort of thing, since we make things so much differently than we used to. Hell, we can't afford to drop-forge box wrenches anymore, and we're gonna pay to do funky op-rods? Nope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2047298_-300-AR-thread-for-Fall-.html The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. Milling a large/complex steel part with multiple setups is gonna cost more than a smaller lathe/turning-center made one. Power of US manufacturing efficiency has no bearing on that. The amount of welding on HK guns was crazy, but it was automated to almost Japanese car-maker levels so the end-cost was minimal (and quality consistent). The AR trunnion is even simpler than the G3's. The receivers possibly cheaper than stamped & welded steel because of the magic of high-speed CNC running coated carbide & high pressure coolant (and Al recycling) There's many reasons to think M14 costs are not gonna be lower than an AR today. What'd an AR10 made in the 60's on mechanically-programmed mills using steel cutters run in today's dollars? That's your X-factor cost-deflation caused by tech advances in production, that would also apply to the M14 and possibly double its cost in today's production dollars. Inflation estimates are really bad for this sort of thing, since we make things so much differently than we used to. Hell, we can't afford to drop-forge box wrenches anymore, and we're gonna pay to do funky op-rods? Nope. Well, the M-16a2 would have had a a unit replacement cost of $100 bucks to make back when the M-14 cost about the same to make, so up that cost a little for an AR-10. So, with all the modern tech of the 90's for the M-16, it cost about as much-ish as the 1950's brute force machining of the M-14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:04:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The G36 is faster (except for the stock, but that's just a roll pin punch). The G36 can also change barrels (with a wrench) unlike the G3. Yeah I gave ease of manufacture to the G3. Today it's probably the G36 (injection-molded plastic and limited steel castings). The FAL had aluminum mags also (but they never became as common as G3 aluminum mags). Both were originally intended for paratroopers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
G3. Shorter, lighter, modular before that was even a thing. Also, aluminum mags. In fact, nothing to this day is as fast to reconfigure as the G3. I can change stocks, forends and trigger groups in less than a minute. Yeah I gave ease of manufacture to the G3. Today it's probably the G36 (injection-molded plastic and limited steel castings). The FAL had aluminum mags also (but they never became as common as G3 aluminum mags). Both were originally intended for paratroopers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:05:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Extrapolating from modern, low volume manufacturing very divorced from 1950's high volume arsenal and sub contractor production. You've been through military weapons factories right? Shit's NOTHING like what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:10:50 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck, dude, you're arguing that a complex, machined, FORGED receiver is cheaper than one made of folded sheet metal. Think about that for a second. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Extrapolating from modern, low volume manufacturing very divorced from 1950's high volume arsenal and sub contractor production. You've been through military weapons factories right? Shit's NOTHING like what you're talking about. " complex, machined, FORGED " "OMFG FOOOOOOOOOOOORGED!@@!@!!!" The fuck you think stamping out receiver flats to fold takes? "COMPLEX! MACHINED!" Basic machining vs setting up an industrial punch and die facility... Gonna go out on a limb and guess the answer to my question, have you ever been in a military firearms manufacturing facility is a no? Have you ever been in ANY large manufacturing facilities? Or done project management? Or hung out with program managers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:18:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They both clock in at ~20 lbs loaded. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:22:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I need to dig up my half-built kits; that doesn't sound right at all going by memory, but it could just be a weight-distribution thing, too. The BREN seemed both smaller and less dense, by more than a little. It does have much larger steel mags & with ammo maybe that evens them out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior. ETA "weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. " "I need to dig up my half-built kits;" Well, fully built guns DO tend to weigh more than half built guns 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:35:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think is stupid about the op-rod design? It works great. The only op rods which were actually forged were TRW op rods. The other contractors used 2 pieces and welded them together (which was inferior, but generally held up fine). Casting firearm parts wasn't mainstream back then. The Germans tried it and had success with certain applications. ArmaLite tried it, but Colt favored forgings when the AR went full-scale production. As far as I know, it was Ruger that really perfected investment casting for the firearms industry. It just wasn't as popular in the late 1950's. The forged parts were better anyway, and they had plenty of tax money to fund production. I've never heard that. Where did you hear about any problems with the M14 and dust/sand/wind? In the 80's and 90's Navy SEALs were still using the M14, and favored them in arctic and desert conditions, because they are so reliable there. The M14 is more reliable than the M1 Garand because it has an improved gas system. There is debate... The BM59 still used the Garand operating system, whereas the M14 was improved in that area. It also weighs less than the BM59, and the mags are lighter and less expensive. Sure the M14 cost more. The US Government didn't care. They reused a few small Garand parts where they saw fit, and yes that "easier to produce/adapt Garand tooling" line the Ordnance Department spewed was BS. 7 years isn't "almost immediately". As stated by someone else, it was adopted late in the game relative to the technology it used. Small arms were rapidly developing worldwide in that era, and the M16 was significantly better for most applications. It was still kept Standard B and continued to serve until very recently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Fewer parts" in this case means a stupidly engineered op-rod scheme and needlessly expensive forgings. The only op rods which were actually forged were TRW op rods. The other contractors used 2 pieces and welded them together (which was inferior, but generally held up fine). Casting firearm parts wasn't mainstream back then. The Germans tried it and had success with certain applications. ArmaLite tried it, but Colt favored forgings when the AR went full-scale production. As far as I know, it was Ruger that really perfected investment casting for the firearms industry. It just wasn't as popular in the late 1950's. The forged parts were better anyway, and they had plenty of tax money to fund production. That, and while the Izzies added sand cuts to the FAL so it'd run better, the Garand-pattern is almost uniquely ill-suited to dusty, windy conditions because of the op-rod track being exposed. The M14 is more reliable than the M1 Garand because it has an improved gas system. The BM59 actually did what the M14 was supposed to do...and there's really no debating that. If the plan from the get-go was a clean sheet design, they could have done better than the M14; but the plan was to reuse Garand bits to save money and get something just as good. Neither of those things happened, and the gun was dumped almost immediately. 7 years isn't "almost immediately". As stated by someone else, it was adopted late in the game relative to the technology it used. Small arms were rapidly developing worldwide in that era, and the M16 was significantly better for most applications. It was still kept Standard B and continued to serve until very recently. Below-barrel pistons are for LMGs with heavy forked carriers
I already mentioned why the sand issues were issues...and they are issues. The Italians managed to keep Breda 30s running in the desert too; doesn't mean oiled stripper clip things are a good idea there. Really, nothing's a good idea in sand, though, and blocking it is the only real solution (all chambers jam the same if grit gets in them after all) M14 was late in the game because they dicked around in development too long. But it was antiquated from the get-go, not hugely different or superior to the FN49 box-mag variant, or especially the BM59 (yes I know about the amazing White gas system; it really isn't that big a difference in practice, both systems work fine in a properly built gun within their design range of ammo) I need to see a lightweight M1A some time too; my folding stock BM59 build is very handy, much more so than the target-style M1A's I've handled. They *shouldn't* be much different since the guts are so similar, apart from small differences in mag or stock construction (or the huge but effective comp on the Beretta, lol) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:37:45 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea no shit, which is why the AR-10 should have been gone to, vs a rehashed garand. AND YET, just because it could be done cheaper, doesn't mean it in it's own right is "expensive". (especially when no one has a cost to compare it to). Make sense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. Make sense? AND YET, just because it could be done cheaper, doesn't mean it in it's own right is "expensive". (especially when no one has a cost to compare it to). Make sense? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:37:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Slow your roll turbo, I'm saying that, and showing with real numbers, not feelings, than M-14's were not expensive to make, converse to the people who keep saying "But muh stamped receiver I taco'ed in a basement after someone else stamped it for me means the M-14 was expensive to make". " complex, machined, FORGED " "OMFG FOOOOOOOOOOOORGED!@@!@!!!" The fuck you think stamping out receiver flats to fold takes? "COMPLEX! MACHINED!" Basic machining vs setting up an industrial punch and die facility... Gonna go out on a limb and guess the answer to my question, have you ever been in a military firearms manufacturing facility is a no? Have you ever been in ANY large manufacturing facilities? Or done project management? Or hung out with program managers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:39:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, the G36 has gotta be up there. I would say the BREN 2 is everything it should, have been, but CZ did ditch the modular magwell and go with a sleeve adapter solution, so the G36 is still king for now. Shame they made the plastic optics rail so shitty where it counted (my theory for the accuracy problems vs the trunnion hokem) As far as the accuracy problems, I've researched this a great deal, and I don't believe it has anything to do with the optics rail mounting interface(s). The trunnion hokem is real. When the plastic receiver around the steel trunnion soaks up too much heat, it cooks and warps. The tunnion will then shift axis in a random direction (and continue shifting around until the temperature of the receiver stabilizes). Once it cools down, it can be re-zeroed, but it's subject to happening again (in another random direction). Everything points to the plastic being more susceptible to heat damage after reaching the burning point the first time. It's never the same again (because the molecular structure changes when cooked). I've never gotten mine that hot (and don't plan to) but if you accept that limitation and work around it, that's not the worst flaw an infantry weapon has ever had. I mean if you have to break contact or pour out FPF, so what if your rifle will never shoot 3 MOA again? Turn it in and get a new one. I've seen the HK test video where they melted and burned down a G36 with like 25 mags non-stop, and it was still working until the flames finally melted it into multiple pieces. So it'll still run, the heat just destroys the accuracy. Of course that'll happen slower in a cold environment (like Germany). HK's new king and queen are the 416 and the 433 (which is also SCAR tech). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 12:58:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, pal, I've worked in one of the larger steel mills in the South. Tell us about the military firearms manufacturing facility you've worked in, and how you figure with a single number that M-14s were cheaper to make than FALs and G3s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Slow your roll turbo, I'm saying that, and showing with real numbers, not feelings, than M-14's were not expensive to make, converse to the people who keep saying "But muh stamped receiver I taco'ed in a basement after someone else stamped it for me means the M-14 was expensive to make". " complex, machined, FORGED " "OMFG FOOOOOOOOOOOORGED!@@!@!!!" The fuck you think stamping out receiver flats to fold takes? "COMPLEX! MACHINED!" Basic machining vs setting up an industrial punch and die facility... Gonna go out on a limb and guess the answer to my question, have you ever been in a military firearms manufacturing facility is a no? Have you ever been in ANY large manufacturing facilities? Or done project management? Or hung out with program managers? I got to go through a few weapons manufacturing facilities overseas, the layout is common to pretty much all pre CNC machining facilities, you get rows of stations, and carts of parts, everything goes step by step. Just like the FAL, just like the G3, which, besides the receiver all take the same processes. As mentioned the G3 had tons of spot welding as well. Just like the Garand was made, the STG-44, the FN-49, the 1911. Shit's all made the same. It's not some rocket science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:01:45 AM EDT
[#24]
What making a simple rifle looks like (also, why it's so funny people get hung up on receivers being the expensive part, when the rifles undergo so much QA/QC
 Classix: Gewehr G3 wird gebaut (1970) - Bundeswehr |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:05:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, it's a good idea to deny the enemy a TDP (during the war) but the FN49 was not a factor at all. The Germans already had workable designs in the G43, FG42, StG45, etc. They could've had all the battle rifles and assault rifles they allocated the resources to produce, but they didn't care too much about replacing the K98k for everyone. They produced enough badass guns to arm elite units and that was it. If they had wanted to make more, they would have. Germany also captured many examples of the SVT-40, which is equal to the FN49 in every practical way. They did reissue those to German units on the Eastern Front. The Belgians simply didn't want to license the G1 to Germany because they were still butthurt about the war. I'm not going to say that was a bad reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The progenitor FN49 had been heroically denied to the Nazis by engineers taking the plans with them to England before the factory was overrun. Nazis getting a cheaper, better, higher-capacity gun than the M1 early in the war could have been disastrous (likely would not have changed the final outcome, but they may have had a lot more effective full and intermediate power semi autos & assault rifles) The Belgians had a pretty good argument to not simply hand over the product-improved FN49 technology five years after their liberation. Germany also captured many examples of the SVT-40, which is equal to the FN49 in every practical way. They did reissue those to German units on the Eastern Front. The Belgians simply didn't want to license the G1 to Germany because they were still butthurt about the war. I'm not going to say that was a bad reason. G43 had some problems for sure (slave labor quality being one of them, but also locking flap control reliability) and was only pursued because of borrowed SVT gas system tech that made the G41 usable FG42 had some longevity issues as well (peening/galling at the cam pin groove) but mostly was ludicrously expensive STG45 never got past prototype so who knows... They supposedly copied some Garands IIRC, but I bet they were unable to do so affordably in the short time available STG44 was really their best path forward, as far as being a mature, working design, whose production had been optimized...but they simply didn't finish it before they ran out of time/resources/money (and Hitler was an idiot, too). A scaled-up 8x57 version could have been a viable option. FN49 was *supposedly* a very mature design by that point, from arguably the most tehnologically modern firearms design center in operation at the time, and as we learned in hindsight from the later FAL, a design that is far more forgiving, durable, and also cheaper than anything the Germans were seriously looking into. The "mature design" part is what I think was the most dangerous. Germans were still figuring out anti-pre-engagement tech and gas systems; here's a ready design with all that and the tolerancing & mass-fabrication techniques to boot. Could have led to much higher output of all small arms, for all we know. Though they had workarounds, the Treaty ending WWI really had stunted certain areas of their domestic arms industries, and autoloading rifles was definitely one of them (they had gone all-in on SMGs & LMGs for small-arms tech development, which was very limiting when stuff like the ZH29 was coming out) Of course, being German, they would be equally likely to dick around and 'improve' the finished design until it had none of its virtues and five years were wasted, with only three non-functioning prototypes to show for it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:17:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
bren gets listed at 21-23 lbs, the BAR has a lightest weight of 13 lbs for the Colt Moniter, up to 24. ETA "weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. " "I need to dig up my half-built kits;" Well, fully built guns DO tend to weigh more than half built guns Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior. ETA "weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. " "I need to dig up my half-built kits;" Well, fully built guns DO tend to weigh more than half built guns Still though; BREN has 50% more ammo of similar power class, and a swappable barrel (and can be shot prone, and can change mags more easily during non-existent "walking fire") and said barrel wasn't attached to the bipod. The BAR was a quick gap-filling measure that should have transitioned to something like the FND by the 20s. The US would have had their own 30-06 MAG58 by WWII (with a 1919 top cover) and avoided a ton of MMG development thereafter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:33:42 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, just "stupid" as in it's an inefficient load path that necessitates close fitted guide rails, careful attention to gas pressure loading/regulation, and the wee little roller to reduce contact wear. It's an odd, organic-looking part reminsicient of steam-era bolt rifle conversion contraptions. The more modern above-barrel in line op-rod scheme used everywhere subsequently is overall simpler & more efficient. Not saying the Garand dogleg doesn't work, it's just less efficient/antiquated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, just "stupid" as in it's an inefficient load path that necessitates close fitted guide rails, careful attention to gas pressure loading/regulation, and the wee little roller to reduce contact wear. It's an odd, organic-looking part reminsicient of steam-era bolt rifle conversion contraptions. The more modern above-barrel in line op-rod scheme used everywhere subsequently is overall simpler & more efficient. Not saying the Garand dogleg doesn't work, it's just less efficient/antiquated. Of course in-line systems are simpler, but it worked fine. They even worked when the op rod tabs got worn and caused a sloppy fit. Unlike the Garand, a worn op rod couldn't dismount from the track of the M14 receiver. They had improved it. The little bolt roller wasn't necessary. The M1 worked fine without one. It was there because they improved it. Below-barrel pistons are for LMGs with heavy forked carriers
I already mentioned why the sand issues were issues...and they are issues. The Italians managed to keep Breda 30s running in the desert too; doesn't mean oiled stripper clip things are a good idea there. Really, nothing's a good idea in sand, though, and blocking it is the only real solution (all chambers jam the same if grit gets in them after all) M14 was late in the game because they dicked around in development too long. But it was antiquated from the get-go, not hugely different or superior to the FN49 box-mag variant, or especially the BM59 (yes I know about the amazing White gas system; it really isn't that big a difference in practice, both systems work fine in a properly built gun within their design range of ammo) The G3 needed a plethora of locking pieces, depending on the ammunition used. The FAL required manual adjustment for the same reason. The M14 regulated itself, almost like it was designed for an even wider range of ammo. Amazing. 
The M14 was superior to the FN49 (and the FAL) because it didn't use a tilting bolt (which always leads to vertical stringing). Yes, Army Ordnance dicked around far too long with the T44, but Russia and China were still dicking around with the SKS while the US was finalizing the design. I need to see a lightweight M1A some time too; my folding stock BM59 build is very handy, much more so than the target-style M1A's I've handled. They *shouldn't* be much different since the guts are so similar, apart from small differences in mag or stock construction (or the huge but effective comp on the Beretta, lol) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:37:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not when all the pieces are there (minus an ounce or so for torch cuts). I think it may just be the extremely heavy bipod out at the extreme muzzle on the BAR is what I'm "sensing." Lack of pistol grip also makes it a good bit longer, more front-heavy, and harder to counteract tilt. Balance does play a big role on something as cumbersome as these. Still though; BREN has 50% more ammo of similar power class, and a swappable barrel (and can be shot prone, and can change mags more easily during non-existent "walking fire") and said barrel wasn't attached to the bipod. The BAR was a quick gap-filling measure that should have transitioned to something like the FND by the 20s. The US would have had their own 30-06 MAG58 by WWII (with a 1919 top cover) and avoided a ton of MMG development thereafter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior. ETA "weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower. " "I need to dig up my half-built kits;" Well, fully built guns DO tend to weigh more than half built guns Still though; BREN has 50% more ammo of similar power class, and a swappable barrel (and can be shot prone, and can change mags more easily during non-existent "walking fire") and said barrel wasn't attached to the bipod. The BAR was a quick gap-filling measure that should have transitioned to something like the FND by the 20s. The US would have had their own 30-06 MAG58 by WWII (with a 1919 top cover) and avoided a ton of MMG development thereafter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:43:16 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What making a simple rifle looks like (also, why it's so funny people get hung up on receivers being the expensive part, when the rifles undergo so much QA/QC
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFALN8D8t0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:53:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can get an M14 to shoot for a while, but keeping them shooting accurately is a fool's errand, not that this discussion has anything to do with battle rifles. When you take incoming fire at realistic distances, it's very common to not even see the enemy. The most important discussion for me regarding the M14 is the classified Fort Benning studies done in the early 1960s, where they took an OPFOR Platoon with AKs and pitted them against a Platoon equipped with M14s. The adoption of the AR15 and export of the M14 to several 3rd world countries (who couldn't really afford to make their own rifles) happened right after that, as M14s were purged from the US armories, with a few exceptions for the National Match rifles and ceremonial rifles for The Old Guard. The biggest failure on the US side was refusing to learn the lessons of the Sturmgewehr. Everyone else took note and started to develop their small arms accordingly, including our allies, who were eventually sucked into the mistake of the 7.62x51 cartridge. Then out of left field, the private sector answered the solicitation for SCHV demonstrators, and a minority .224 nerd group from within Army Ordnance got the USAF's attention with the AR15, and the rest is history. The AR15 was so ahead of its time, that it continues to be the go-to service rifle today, and a viable replacement for nations who held onto the FAL and G3, or even AKM for half a century. We still haven't realized the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr though, namely constant recoil and its fire control group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 1:56:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That music was grooooovy, baby! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What making a simple rifle looks like (also, why it's so funny people get hung up on receivers being the expensive part, when the rifles undergo so much QA/QC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFALN8D8t0
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 6:49:47 AM EDT
[#32]
"Ordnance" probably gets a little too much criticism since hindsight is 20/20. Also they needed to be very conservative by nature since if they screwed up and approved something that didn't work they'd get blamed. They took the feedback they got on the Garand, (it works great, but it needs to be lighter and have a 20 round mag) and they executed on that. 1.3 million were produced by 1963.
If you've ever read "Shots Fired in Anger" by John George, you start to wonder about the 1903 Springfield. He was on Guadalcanal and the book is just an analysis of almost every weapon used there. His argument is that they made a bunch of needless changes to the Mauser (93), and would have been better off just adopting a Mauser (98) exactly as-is. He said 1903s gave soldiers and Marines more trouble than Garands did due to parts breakages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 8:55:04 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not that bad. Essentially it's an FG42 with the feed mechanism from the MG42. The prototypes make this more obvious. The worst flaws are the bolt lug peening issue (which is completely inexcusable from an engineering standpoint), and the fact that a barrel-mounted bipod left the poor gunner with no way to support a hot weapon while replacing the (even hotter) barrel. It's like they were trying to make replacement barrel assemblies have the highest possible unit cost for their contractor buddies, with no benefit to the military whatsoever. The MAG 58 (M240) is definitely the better gun. It just weighs more. The designs for both were finalized around 1957. It's based on concepts from the BAR and the MG42 The Minimi (M249) was inspired by the Stoner 63 and the AK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 8:55:45 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For $1,440 they can keep it. Find a $900 Chinese M14S and swap out whatever parts you don't like. The only crap parts they come with are the stock and rear sight elevation pinion assembly. (Never buy one marked WCE because that's the marking China copied). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Parts kit. Find a $900 Chinese M14S and swap out whatever parts you don't like. The only crap parts they come with are the stock and rear sight elevation pinion assembly. (Never buy one marked WCE because that's the marking China copied). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 8:56:25 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Before the Stoner patents were sold to Colt, ArmaLite licensed the AR10 to the Dutch, who then made the finest battle rifle samples I've ever seen for the era. Norway and Sweden licensed the G3 from Hk and made their own versions, the Norsk AG-3 from 1967-1974, and Swedish AK 4 from 1965-1970. Many other nations licensed production of the G3, including Denmark, Luxembourg, Myanmar, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran. https://www.hkpro.com/plugins/editors/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/action2norway2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/SDF/AK4_stor.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ak_4_Swedish_Army_Museum_006.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVhf0uKhfdsColumbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s. https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2018/08/1541250copy-1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/D5kbYlV.jpg https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/philipino-marine-2007-w-m14-and-selector-switch.jpg http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130909125838-philippines-lock-down-horizontal-gallery.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's. Norway and Sweden licensed the G3 from Hk and made their own versions, the Norsk AG-3 from 1967-1974, and Swedish AK 4 from 1965-1970. Many other nations licensed production of the G3, including Denmark, Luxembourg, Myanmar, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran. https://www.hkpro.com/plugins/editors/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/action2norway2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/SDF/AK4_stor.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ak_4_Swedish_Army_Museum_006.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVhf0uKhfdsColumbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s. https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2018/08/1541250copy-1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/D5kbYlV.jpg https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/philipino-marine-2007-w-m14-and-selector-switch.jpg http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130909125838-philippines-lock-down-horizontal-gallery.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:00:29 AM EDT
[#36]
The M14 wasn’t as clumsy or random as an AK. An elegant weapon, of a more civilized age.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:04:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slow your roll turbo, I'm saying that, and showing with real numbers, not feelings, than M-14's were not expensive to make, converse to the people who keep saying "But muh stamped receiver I taco'ed in a basement after someone else stamped it for me means the M-14 was expensive to make". " complex, machined, FORGED " "OMFG FOOOOOOOOOOOORGED!@@!@!!!" The fuck you think stamping out receiver flats to fold takes? "COMPLEX! MACHINED!" Basic machining vs setting up an industrial punch and die facility... Gonna go out on a limb and guess the answer to my question, have you ever been in a military firearms manufacturing facility is a no? Have you ever been in ANY large manufacturing facilities? Or done project management? Or hung out with program managers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:05:11 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
A lot of trigger time being 249's and using tracer mags to mark targets from my M-16 would say that tracer's work well under 30 cal... And I agree, until I see a unit cost on a G3 or a FAL to compare against the unit cost of a M14.... the age old argument of (it cost too much to make) is not holding a lot of water at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:09:10 AM EDT
[#39]
one thing this thread (and most other M14 threads) get stuck on is this concept that if the M14 isn't the GREATEST rifle of all time, then it's automatically the WORST rifle of all time. It's still a great rifle in many ways (scoping is NOT one of them
), it's just been superseded by more modern technology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:20:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do and I have. Fact is that even today, an AR receiver costs $40 and an M14 receiver costs nearly $1000 and still needs gunsmithing. I think you are on pretty shaky ground here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:23:26 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me how with ZERO numbers, M-14's were more expensive to make than FAL's or G3's. At least I'm making an attempt to come up with data. I got to go through a few weapons manufacturing facilities overseas, the layout is common to pretty much all pre CNC machining facilities, you get rows of stations, and carts of parts, everything goes step by step. Just like the FAL, just like the G3, which, besides the receiver all take the same processes. As mentioned the G3 had tons of spot welding as well. Just like the Garand was made, the STG-44, the FN-49, the 1911. Shit's all made the same. It's not some rocket science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:30:59 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
one thing this thread (and most other M14 threads) get stuck on is this concept that if the M14 isn't the GREATEST rifle of all time, then it's automatically the WORST rifle of all time. It's still a great rifle in many ways (scoping is NOT one of them ), it's just been superseded by more modern technology.The M14 is simply a product-improved M1 rifle of which six million were made, with very successful-if not legendary-employment in two different theaters of operation during WWII and later on in Korea, along with other minor operations (not to mention other nations that have used the rifle). That the M14 is still being used successfully to this day isn't surprising, subjective opinions expressed here in GD notwithstanding. It's a robust design and works at least as well if not better as the prolific M1 did, and the rifleman who carries it doesn't care one iota what it costs to manufacture because that's completely irrelevant in the field. ETA: Second Contract awarded to TRW 09 OCT 1962: Uncle Sam paid $79.45 USD per rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:50:27 AM EDT
[#43]
T-28. Roller locked copy of the Gerat 03. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:53:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Nope.
Fuckers adopted a short lived platform with an outdated cartridge. Could have had the EM2, or the FN FAL in .280 or similar ....BUT too much investment in tooling around .30-cal plumbing & Garland parts/t.o.e. Wankers!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 9:57:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rows of stations, with everything going through step by step, is how Springfield made $150 M14s and H&R made $116 rifles of shit quality. Winchester made $116 rifles of acceptable quality by using Gorton lateral transfer machines to make 32 cuts on the receiver at one station, while TRW rethought the manufacture from the ground up in order to make the only reasonably priced and the highest quality M14s. The truth is that manufacturing the M14 was an expensive debacle. Your next post talks about QA/QC; a completely new form of QA/QC had to be invented for the M14 because early production rifles had a tendency to explode. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tell me how with ZERO numbers, M-14's were more expensive to make than FAL's or G3's. At least I'm making an attempt to come up with data. I got to go through a few weapons manufacturing facilities overseas, the layout is common to pretty much all pre CNC machining facilities, you get rows of stations, and carts of parts, everything goes step by step. Just like the FAL, just like the G3, which, besides the receiver all take the same processes. As mentioned the G3 had tons of spot welding as well. Just like the Garand was made, the STG-44, the FN-49, the 1911. Shit's all made the same. It's not some rocket science. H&R fabricated a then-unknown number of receivers with AISA 1330 steel instead of 8620H due to a lack of proper process control for materials in the supply line at the factory. Three of them suffered catastrophic failures at Ft Benning during extended firing trials in December of 1960. After investigation, it was found that 33,808 receivers were potentially manufactured with the incorrect steel. Of those, 1,784 were analyzed and found to be defective at Raritan Arsenal and removed from service. Additionally, 6,960 bolts were found to be improperly heat treated and were scrapped. This was the only case of a major problem with the receiver or bolts that I've read of that caused rifles to "explode" during testing. H&R made the most rifles; 537,512 between 1959-1963, and to say they were "shit quality" isn't accurate. While they may have had a few problems in very early production, those problems were addressed and the rifles met quality standards. 1.3 million rifles were produced for fielding in just six years before production was cancelled by McNamara. Like any weapon produced under contract, there were challenges early on that were corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 10:00:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/7120-SA1.jpg T-28. Roller locked copy of the Gerat 03. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 10:25:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really? That’s a poor cost comparison. The market is drowned with ars and m14 are a very small calling for. I understand the machining cost should be lower on an ar. It’s aluminum. Feeds and speeds. Been there done that. Ar receiver is cheaper to manufacture. But $40 vs 1000 is what the market will support. Not direct cost. IMO wardawg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 10:46:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much this. 7.62 Nato was a mistake. The Army was full of fudds. In the 1930s, John C. Garand wanted to chamber the M1 rifle in .276 Pedersen. The Ordnance Corps & Douglas MacArthur forced a change to the Caliber .30, Model of 1906, due to the stockpiles of .30-06 ammunition left over from WW1. That slowed introduction of the rifle since it had to have some redesign for the new old caliber. Fast forward to the 1950s. Army logistics forced the 7.62 NATO due to the commonality of parts for manufacture of the cartridge, same bullet, same powder, same primer, only a case change. Then, in the 1960s, as the M16 began to be fielded, the Army changed the powder from the original specification to the same powder they were using for the 7.62 NATO due to having large stockpiles of it on hand. Using the incorrect powder in the M16 turned out to be one of the causes of the legendary poor reliability of the M16. The Army feels like it needs to exhaust the existing supplies of ammunition before changing to another caliber. It's kind of short-sighted, but that's bean counters. Think of how things would have been if we'd just done what Mr. Garand wanted to do in the 1930s and adopted the .276 Pedersen then. Talking to the stupid cleaning, I had a supply sergeant once who looked down the flash hider of my M16 and told me the muzzle crown was dirty and I needed to go back outside and scrape it with the end of a cleaning rod until it was shiny. You do some pretty foolish stuff in the Army because some people have risen to the level of their incompetence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 11:01:07 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, this mostly came down to logistics. The Army feels like it needs to exhaust the existing supplies of ammunition before changing to another caliber. It's kind of short-sighted, but that's bean counters.
The Brits tried to get NATO to adopt their intermediate .280 cartridge but the US wasn't having it. Supposedly there was a "gentleman's agreement" that if they adopted our 7.62 NATO cartridge, we'd adopt their (T48) rifle. Obviously that didn't happen either. I'm not at all surprised McNamara gutted Army Ordnance. They had a long history of screwing things up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2018 11:02:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, this mostly came down to logistics. In the 1930s, John C. Garand wanted to chamber the M1 rifle in .276 Pedersen. The Ordnance Corps & Douglas MacArthur forced a change to the Caliber .30, Model of 1906, due to the stockpiles of .30-06 ammunition left over from WW1. That slowed introduction of the rifle since it had to have some redesign for the new old caliber. Fast forward to the 1950s. Army logistics forced the 7.62 NATO due to the commonality of parts for manufacture of the cartridge, same bullet, same powder, same primer, only a case change. Then, in the 1960s, as the M16 began to be fielded, the Army changed the powder from the original specification to the same powder they were using for the 7.62 NATO due to having large stockpiles of it on hand. Using the incorrect powder in the M16 turned out to be one of the causes of the legendary poor reliability of the M16. The Army feels like it needs to exhaust the existing supplies of ammunition before changing to another caliber. It's kind of short-sighted, but that's bean counters. Think of how things would have been if we'd just done what Mr. Garand wanted to do in the 1930s and adopted the .276 Pedersen then. Talking to the stupid cleaning, I had a supply sergeant once who looked down the flash hider of my M16 and told me the muzzle crown was dirty and I needed to go back outside and scrape it with the end of a cleaning rod until it was shiny. You do some pretty foolish stuff in the Army because some people have risen to the level of their incompetence. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
