Did the technology to produce M16 rifles exist during WW1?

Nope.

>>33869533
Yes. But not the knowledge that became the 50 years of fuck that was the M4/M16 platform.

File: tumblr_nfw28sB62x1s71q1zo1_1280.png (1MB, 850x850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 850x850px

>>33869533
Nope. How much aluminum working do you think there was in 1914?

>>33869558
>Nope. How much aluminum working do you think there was in 1914?
Or how much plastic.

>>33869533

an M16 would've kicked ass in trench warfare

>>33869555

Where are you going to get all that aluminum, polymer, and powder that won't jam it to hell?

>>33869542

Did the various materials used to compose the rifle exist in commercial use during that time? And did they have the capability to produce a rifle to tight tolerances required? Or more simply, if you sent an M16 (along with blueprints) back to 1914, would they be able to reverse engineer it?

>>33869558

That's basically what I'm asking.

>>33869570

I recently started watching the Great War channel on YouTube and as I'm going through it, I'm wondering why none of the nations involved used M16-style rifles during the conflict. What prevented them from using better weapons?

>>33869575

You could make the gun out of steel and wood, but they would have very shitty lifespans due to inferior hardening techniques of the time, which guns of the era were designed around. (see M1911)
You'd also have the problem of the ball powder fouling them up horrendously, like when they were first used in Vietnam. The powder an M16 requires hadn't been developed yet.

>>33869600

Would an AK-style rifle be more practical for that time period?

>>33869593

An M16 made using period methods would fall apart.
The tiny pieces required for it would not stand up to the stress that unhardened, or poorly hardened metal, would put on them.

Do you know why the 1911 was designed with a barrel bushing?
It's to create a wear part between the barrel and slide so that it gets beaten and worn after a couple thousand rounds instead of the slide.
Even WW2 1911s only had a service life of like 6,000 rounds.

>>33869613

You might want to beef up some of the pieces, but it would be much more suitable, yes.
AKs are pretty famous for being able to be cobbled together with scrap iron.

>>33869533
Well, if it is made by horologist, yes

Those polymers could be substituted by Bakelite or even wood

>>33869646

But WW1 had tons of mud and we all know AK's can't survive in muddy conditions.

>>33869654

Making the furniture is hardly even a consideration compared to the larger issues.

>>33869662

Guess you better go tell the Vietnamese.
They've been laboring under that delusion for decades.

>>33869570
Inertia. They did start using SMGs and other assorted small arm innovations. so it's not like as if they did nothing.

>>33869533
Metallurgy, chemistry, manufacturing, none of that which was necessary for making an AR15 was available, even if you made it wood and steel with just two locking lugs.

An intermediate carbine feeding from detachable box mags was certainly plausible but it wasn't seriously considered, pistol cartridges, full sized rifle cartridges, or go fuck yourself.

>>33869570
It absolutely would, but that's also like saying helicopter gunships and electronically aimed artillery would rule for trench warfare.

>>33869533
No, but the capability to produce an assault rifle was completely possible. It was well within their grasp to make an M16 copy out of wood and steel instead of plastic and aluminium

>>33869570
HOLY SHIT! THis got me thinking I think the Leopard II would've been great for blitzkrieg and the b2 for bombing berlin

Probably not, it used aircraft grade aluminum that just wasn't a thing. An AK or AR-18 was certainly doable though.

>>33869558
>How much aluminum working do you think there was in 1914?
Depends. How many zeppelins were in service at that time?

>>33869811
Why didn't they just fucking nuke the krauts?

>>33869573
>>33869555
I don't know about the alluminum, but the powder issue was solved by making the buffer heavier, so there's that... at least in part. plastics were around... I think. Then again a lot of AR-15 furniture these days is just metal because free floating handguard tubes. What I REALLY want to know is if MILLING was around back then.

>>33870189
>I want to know if milling was around back then
How the fuck do you think they made guns?

You couldn't make the aluminum or polymer, but you could make a forged steel AR.

It'd weigh more, and the conscripts might fuck it up, but it'd be doable.

>>33870189
Milling was around.

Hence how they were producing fighter airplanes, which are mechanically much more complex than a rifle.

>>33869573
>>33869600
5.56 doesn't use a special powder. It uses the same WC844 that's always been used.

>>33869558
The 12 Cylinder Liberty Aircraft Engine was in production at the time, so you're dealing with aluminum alloy casting, but I don't know how advanced the machining processes would have been.

>>33869600
You could substitute Bakelite for plastics, they would be making telephones out of it at the time.

>>33869533
They could've made one out of all steel, but it would've taken a mind even more powerful than our lord and saviour, John Moses Browning to get it done. And it wouldn't have been light enough to matter anyway, and would've had a much longer R&D period, and been a worse overall weapon in all likelihood. Aluminum existed, but was only like 40 years old itself at that point, the polymer did not exist.

>>33870189
>I want to know if Milling was around.

Nigger machining has been a thing since the 1860's.

>>33870176
You serious?

There's several things to consider here. In no particular order:
Ballistics were poorly understood. The bigger = better meme was accepted as scientific fact, despite the use of pistol rounds and shotguns for some reason. Most people would not trust an intermediate round to kill, and thought good trajectories at extreme range an absolute requirement, instead of suppression/move.
Then there's the logistics; better rifles and designs existed, but don't forget just how fucking massive WWI actually was. Factories were cranking out as many rifles as fast as they could manage, and stretching economies to the brink to do it with simple bolt guns. Developing a new weapon to replace the millions of guns you already have would require retooling factories, retraining workers, new machinery, et al, and why do that when your rifles are already nice and killy, and much cheaper?
Reliability would also be a concern. As much as we like to joke about mud tests not being representative of reality, you more or less lived in those conditions innatrench.
There was also the lack of understanding about gas capture - submachine guns were much easier to make because they can just be blowback with the much lower power rounds.
Then take into consideration that artillery was the #1 lifetaker in the war by a ridiculously huge margin, and small arms development takes a massive backseat to better field guns, artillery, tanks and aircraft.

Though, I would like to point out that the US literally built a flying aircraft carrier in the 30s.

>>33869533
I'm sure that you could make M16s during WW1, but they'd be expensive. Definitely would be better off just designing something around 5.56 and taking into account what could be done fairly well mass-produced during that time.

>>33870605
>Ballistics were poorly understood. The bigger = better meme was accepted as scientific fact,

Powders were not as potent as they are now by volume, 6.5mm cartridges were widely common by the turn of the century. Ballistic development was well on it's way by 1900, even more so by 1910 compared to how mediocre things were in the 1880's.

>Most people would not trust an intermediate round to kill, and thought good trajectories at extreme range an absolute requirement, instead of suppression/move.

Because the ranges common military doctrine assumed engagements would occur often at ranges that would be out of the league of intermediate calibers if they were loaded with powder grades from that era.

>>33870605

I'd be willing to bet that a single rifleman, properly trained with an M16 rifle, would be able equal to 5 equally skilled riflemen armed with bolt-action guns. A company of such riflemen would be a terror for the enemy to engage.

>>33869593
>I'm wondering why none of the nations involved used M16-style rifles during the conflict. What prevented them from using better weapons?

You can't actually be that retarded.

Practically none of the industries or industrial methods necessary for producing the AR platform were anywhere near ready for concept or production in the 1910s. Not to mention actually selling militaries on a weapon that, hypothetically, had never seen combat and was far more complex and expensive to build, equip troops with, and train with

>>33870693

>Practically none of the industries or industrial methods necessary for producing the AR platform were anywhere near ready for concept or production in the 1910s.

All I wanted was to know if it was possible. Now I know better. This has been a good thread, so far. Keep it up.

unrelated question thats always been on my mind, how were bolt lugs cut on old bolt actions before CNC and live tooling? did they do it by hand with a file or?

>>33869630
nice info man, i like learning things on /k/.

>>33870189
>plastics were around... I think.
They were not in any sort of form you would recognize. It was mostly organic polymers that sucked at pretty much everything.

>>33869533
Magazines.

So yes for masterwork weapons that would cost alot and take alot of time individually with alot of handwork.

No on the mass-produced scale.

Guns of the South is btfo too if they were making those guns in the 19th century instead of teletimeporting them.

>>33870735
He's bullshitting.

>>33870669
I'm sure it was tested on field at the time. (Trying to rig up some legend spoop stories.) Some story about field testing a lightweight small arms rifle on japs, the platoon that did use the tech had all survivors killed in a setup enemy ambush to cover up the tech; and the officers on the enemy side had an agreement to kill the survivors who witnessed the new tech.

Family connections I guess.

File: 1438299597795.png (158KB, 672x808px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 672x808px

>>33871181

>>33869600
yeah , because my Mauser M98 made from steel and wood is all worn out and doesn't work anymore.


Jesus guys , really ?

>>33871256
Logic doesn't belong on /k/

>>33869533
The ar was developed because of the surplus of aluminum from the aircraft industry.

And since ars are actually super simple, I'd say yes the ability to make it existed. But the circumstances to actually make it did not.

>>33869946
The action would be too complex and powder would make for too much heat and fouling.

A two lugged or three lugged rotating bolt is plausible, but the only gas system I see working well at the time is a long stroke piston, the only gun I can think of at the time is the BAR and that came at the end.

But suppose you modified and scaled back a BAR greatly for some shortened .30-06, like at around 30 to 40 mm long, then maybe simplified the gun and made it fire semi auto with a closed bolt.

>>33871401
The AR is simple with current understanding of metallurgy, machining and gunpowder.

>>33869600
Cracking issues on old 1911s largely come down to some manufacturers doing a shitty job, Colts from the era hold up pretty well still.

As for ball powder, the issue was that it was repurposed from I think powder intended for 7.62x51mm ammunition, causing higher pressures and higher cyclic speed, in turn leading to spotty timing and increased wear. The M16A1 had a heavier buffer to rectify this.

It was dirtier than typical .223, but not enough to matter, people underestimate how much carbon buildup an AR can stand, it really is obscene, the legend that the AR is sensitive to dirt, even early Nam rifles, is absolute falsehood.

>>33871512
A 1914 mill and lathe will work aluminum and steel just fine. The rest is up to operator skill.

What specific advances in metullergy machining and powder does an Ar need?

>>33869646
>AKs are pretty famous for being able to be cobbled together with scrap iron.
You know Abdul and Klickclack shovel special AKs fucking explode from normal smokeless gunpowder, right? They basically need shit similar to blackpowder, and furthermore they batter themselves horrendously from full auto fire.

The mechanics are easy to understand and copy, metallurgy and production is the hard part.

This has nothing to do with WW1, I just hate LE MADE FROM SHOVEL INNASHED meme.

>>33871602
I'm thinking the forging part, didn't Springfield unknowingly ruin numerous 1903 because they basically eyeballed the color of the hot steel and this wouldn't work right in bright light conditions?

I guess not so much metallurgy then, more manufacturing. Would it be even remotely cost effective to machine a radial bolt head like on a Stoner with 1910s tooling? Moreover what about the bolt in relation to it's carrier, the gas sealing, and the gas tube? I'm thinking this might become extremely expensive for the time.

>>33870605
>The bigger = better meme was accepted as scientific fact
Yes and no, fudds in the brass was a thing, and many begrudginly went along with .30 caliber smokeless rifles, when .40 and .45 caliber blackpowder repeaters were the hot thing when they were privates.
I do think they all would just about shit themselves if you came to them suggesting a service rifle in .22 caliber, much less a select-fire one that looked like it came from a science fiction piece.

>.22 caliber isn't deadly enough, on top of that, every soldier would waste ammunition with an automatic, think about if he runs out too fast, think about cost! And it looks downright disrespectable!

You'd have a greater chance showing them an SKS, and it would be a lot easier to get done for the time.

File: Burton-LMR.png (557KB, 645x643px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 645x643px

When we consider that gas piston operated weapons were already around by the start of The War, (Lewis, Hotchkiss M1914), I think it's safe to say that it would be theoretically possible to create a form of "assault rifle" with WW1 tech.
After all, you'd just have to downsize an existing LMG design for a smaller cartridge.

The closest one that actually existed is pic related.

>>33871827
Wasn't that blowback?

>>33869976
Interesting that you say that "; i. A few ways the machine guns of the Great War are superior to designs today in that they can fire nonstop for literally DAYS. Modern machinfuns can't, but they're lighter don't need water, have quick change barrels and people aren't stupid enough to human wave mg posts anymore

>>33871710
>heat treating
Honestly, any competent machinist can eye ball heat treating pretty close. I know cos I'm a student machinist, and my prof can be within like 5 on rhs with O1. Either way, they had methods of checking exact hardness.

>expense
DING DING DING
This is a SIGNIFICANT component in any machining application.

Because of the late 50s cnc technology, the ar is honesty made (minus memes) with tighter Tolerances. It's not so much you can't make an Ar, it's the associated price with the tooling and jigs needed to make that.

>>33869533
Even if the tech existed, it's doubtful soldiers would be able to use it. Consider 1914 was a long time ago, before the invention of multivitamins, the food pyramid or energy drinks, humans at the time were still more chimp than man.

File: Merkava_Trench.jpg (51KB, 489x379px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 489x379px

>>33869976

Modern tanks are poor in trench warfare and would get stuck.

>>33872356
Illiterate slav conscripts can work an AK just fine, less illiterate burger conscripts could likely learn to manage a dumbed down AR, an M16 is super easy to shoot and carry, compare to an M1 Garand just a couple of decades later.

>>33870918
Guns of the South were imported from the future. It had Confederates scratching there heads over where Yugoslavia is /was. Though they also mad cruder black powder copies.

>>33870910
Bakelite if im not so drunk im retarded.

>>33869533
It's made of plastic, retard, whaddaya think?

>>33873069

Are you suggesting that they didn't have plastic back then?

>>33873069
What is an entire wood assault rifle?

Do you think it would be possible to convince a major nation to adopt the AR15 as their main service weapon, say in 1904 so they have time before the great war? I'm thinking showing them future conflicts like WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both US and Soviet wars)
And if so, how much of a difference would it make?

>>33873076
SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS FOR ME it was Bakelite back then right?

>>33873089
Mostly. That and stuff like Perspex, which is also shit for the sort of polymer you'd need for an AR.

>>33869558
.303 bullets had aluminum in them during WW1.

>>33869565
>Or how much plastic.
they used Bakelite back then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite

>>33869593
long story short the idea of a semi automatic firearms was around but not perfected yet by any means plus it would take another 30 years before development of intermediate cartridge. basically thinking at the time and limitations in firearms design would never seen development of said rifle, something closer to a M1 if the war carried on

>>33869570
You can't hide from us, Ian.

>>33871710
Iirc they discovered that the poor heat treating occured on cloudy days, since the metal would appear slightly brighter on darker days

no. they couldn't even properly heat treat steel.

the first half million or so M1917 rifles had receivers prone to catastrophic failure. because they didn't heat treat them right.

>>33869573
>Where are you going to get all that aluminum, polymer, and powder that won't jam it to hell?

You can build an AR-15 from steel.
You can use wood instead of polymer.
You can use regular powder.

The trouble is more likely going to be with trying to find a suitable steel for the bolt. so it doesn't shed lugs like a dog sheds hair. Carpenter 158 was pretty fancy stuff back in the 60s.

>>33870622
You would basically end up with a mini-14

>>33873080
M14 built in a variety of calibers sold to the British , German , French , Italians & Russians would be better.

>>33869533

No, closest we got to the tech was the BAR and the Chauchat and the MP-18

>>33875291
Y'all forgot about the Federov ?

File: IMG_4329.jpg (29KB, 258x389px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 258x389px

>>33869593
>I'm wondering why none of the nations involved used M16-style rifles during the conflict.
Because it didn't fucking exist

>>33873700
>M1917
You're thinking the M1903, didn't affect all rifles within that range of serials.

>>33875295

Going off plain memory after work so it's not 100%

>>33869573
>aluminum, polymer, and powder
Not OP, just curious.
So most of the internals of the receiver/upper are Aluminium?

Is the outer of the upper the polymer bit of the AR?

How is the powder different from regular smokeless?

Not really due to lack of tech on several levels.

Open-bolt tube SMGs would have been perfect if the concept was understood.

>>33875308

1917s made at Eddystone had issues, but it was due to way over-torqued barrels.

It amazes me how many fucking children are on here... Learn how to use a Bridgeport or similar milling machine and a lathe, then build literally anything. Also napoleon the 3rd ate with aluminum utensils in 1855, so it's been around.

The only issue i see is cartridge technology would have a difficult time supplying bottle neck small cartagesin the supply and with the accuracy needed to run a automatic rifle but in that era, but i think if we are throwing out costs we can use 1890's tooling and be fine.

BTW a few of my daily used machinist tools are pre ww1 and still running strong. (well now that i'm a boss, i dont use them daily anymore)

>>33875716
Napoleon might have had aluminum utensils but were they 7075-T6?

>The only issue i see is cartridge technology would have a difficult time supplying bottle neck small cartagesin the supply and with the accuracy needed to run a automatic rifle but in that era,

The problem isn't the cartridges but the powder itself. WW1 era smokeless powder is nowhere near as clean burning as modern smokeless is. Large amounts of fouling and getting consistent pressure generated from the cartridge was consistently a major design hurdle for early semi-automatic rifles. Even the M16 when first introduced using WW2 era ball powder experienced excessive fouling which adversely affected reliability. It also had the side effect of gas port pressure being incorrect which would result in even more failures.

There's plenty of other issues but they've already been pointed out in the thread.

>>33875625
No, all internals are made out of special steels that didn't exist at that time.
No, the only parts in an regular AR made out of polymer are the handguards and sometimes the stock.
There is no such thing as regular smokeless, there are thousands of formulations, each with its own characteristics - those of that time were quite crude and simplistic.

>>33875756
On weaponsguild a guy made a black powder cetme. Dirty powder will run, not well but good enough with an expectable field usage time before cleaning. Besides the powder of the era wasnt too bad, maxims for example had little issue in normal combat. As for the alloy, we make AR's out of plastic these days...... I think an ar out of Bakelite is possible with reinforcement(real Bakelite, not the brown russian stuff) It's no different than building a 1938 ford distributor cap(divers helmet) considering it needs metal to be bonded to it to work

What's with all this meming about powder and steel tempering quality?

Springfield fucking up the 1903 was due to incompetence, not the technology a the time. Millions of Enfields, Mausers Lebels and Springfields that worked right prove you idiots wrong.

As for the ball powder, gas operated automatic weapons were around in WW1. You dont see people complaining about the powder used in the BAR and yet they were the same.

>>33870591
No, really, think about it. Uranium has existed for millions of years. They absolutely could have built a nuke. Unfortunately, due to Wilson's incompetence, this never ended up happening.

>>33875298

Of course they didn't exist. But why not?

>>33869630
Um, NO.

A barrel bushing is to support the barrel so you can achieve some degree of accuracy.

What small parts wouldn't stand up?

Seriously, alot of WW2 1911's were refurbished for Nam and the Korean conflict and are still used in basic training today.

>>33869787
Are you implying that metallurgy, chemistry, and manufacturing were invented after WW2.

O shit all of my pre 1900's winchester model 94's are maybe a figment of my imagination?

>>33870203
Aluminum has been in production since the civil war.

>>33870893

Machines way back when would have been set up in a series, and a part would be passed from station to station. Each machine wasn't a free-hand knee mill, it would be a custom fixture, and a tool that moved on a set path and made just one of the cuts needed. Each machine would need to be tweaked and maintained by a skilled tool maker, and partially completed parts passed along in batches.

This is why cnc is so fucking cheap, you needed a warehouse and a staff of 100 people to make something like a garand.

>>33869533
Aluminium casting, polymers etc. didn't.

There's also small amount of welding involved here and there and it would also be a problem(welding is 1920's tech).

Finally - the magazine. While the concept of double-stacked double-feed magazines wasn't new back then(Lee Enfield had one), they wouldn't be able to give every soldier more than 2, really. Springs were more expensive, harder to make and easier to break back then, the reason why majority of militaries went for internal magazine is exactly that you can put expensive, good quality spring inside of internal magazine.
>>33869613
In mass numbers - no. Russians had troubles making stamped receivers in late 40's.
>>33869662
Because bolt-action rifles do great in mud, as we all know...


If the question would be broader as in - are there some assault rifles that could've been made using their technology - yes. The problem is that issuing another type of ammo for them wasn't going to happen, even if the militaries would get through their thick brain that typical rifle round is overkill for the average infantryman.

>>33875264
>M14
>better than anything, ever

>>33876629
>>33869630
>>33870605
>>33871583
>>33871499
>>33871822
>>33871827
>>33875716
>>33875920
>>33875763
>>33875756
>>33876614
>>33876629

Good high quality posting. Keep up the good work.

>>33876698
kys

Cba to read it all but
>all this discussion about aluminum
You can make the M16 out of steel, you guys know that? Aluminum is a non factor.

Anyways it would have not been possible due to the fact that WW1 industry didn't have the necessary equipment to mass produce such rifles with any reasonable tolerances. Remember than in WW1 there were still a ton of guns around with non interchangeable parts due to huge tolerance variances, meaning that each gun was hand fitted with its own numbered parts.

It wasn't the case for ALL guns, quite the contrary, but it still means that an M16 would be too complex to mass produce without overly simplifying it.

>>33869533
You go to war with what you have not with what you can make.

>>33869565
Phenolic plastics existed.

>>33876819
Bullshit.

>>33876855
Not.
There's a reason semi auto rifles were a reality but weren't widespread, while big machineguns were. In WW1 making the parts for an automatic firearm was much harder, as the technology to make tiny springs and moving parts wasn't QUITE there to ensure mass production, on the other hand it was good enough to produce bigger and heavier parts that could be used to produce weapons that weren't supposed to be carried around from one man all the time. Shit was heavy because building smaller while mantaining tolerances wasn't easily feasible.

So the M16 could have not been mass produced. I know there are SOME semi auto rifles and light machineguns, but they were the few exceptions and an M16 would have been overly complex.

>>33876875
> the technology to make tiny springs and moving parts wasn't QUITE there to ensure mass production
Nope, springs are wound heat treated metal wires, it's dead simple to make no matter how small. 1914 technology had very good tolerances, the gun industries were the first users of mass production of interchangeable parts. For example, the the Ford Model T was 100% interchangeable, and it was only possible because it used techniques from the gun industry. In short, you're full of crap.

>>33876577
No, I'm saying that making a Winchester 94 by the tooling of the day is affordable and easy enough (the machining is simple, and the mechanism and philosophy of use is well understood), while trying to do the complex machining for an AR with the logistics of the era would make for an absolutely insanely expensive rifle, it would cost more than a typical Maxim MG, which costed about $10000 to make back then (not adjusted for inflation).

Then there's the fact that smokeless powder was still pretty young, a .30-06 cartridge from the era compared to a typical modern off the shelf .30-06 cartridge will not be the same.

>>33876875
What the fuck even is this post.
What even is this thread.

An m16 and ar style bolt and design is actually pretty fucking simple.

File: 1444238810486.png (51KB, 324x246px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 324x246px

>>33877145
>complex machining for an AR

>>33870893
Rotary table or indexer. You crank to the first position, make your cut. Crank to the next position. make your cur. etc. I would like to point out that we went to the moon on things made by slide rules and manual machining.

>>33871256
Or to expand on your example, all the machine guns laying willy nilly around during that period that were very successful and durable.

>>33871499
The action is not particularly complex from the manufacturing standpoint though. It is easily producible on all manual machines (M16's are a relatively old design, and were likely originally produced on all manual machines). And if you think that is complex, wait till you see interrupted step threads on an artillery breech, which was an invention from 1890. Welin breech block is the name of this type if you want to image search.

>>33870605
Bolt actions actually arent more reliable than you would think in muddy conditions

>>33877145

>Maxim gun costed the equal of $208,000 in 2017 bux
I demand a source on that statistic, because even the most expensive small arm of WWII doesn't even come close to that.

>>33871583
>the legend that the AR is sensitive to dirt, even early Nam rifles, is absolute falsehood.

Atleast today, anyway. As you said with the powder which didn't jive correctly with the original M16. I've read other articles online and in print that point out specific flaws of the original M16's that spurred all the bullshit fuddlore we have to deal with today. The Army testing ran into significant issues with the original buffer design (either too heavy or too light I forget which) that led to feeding issues and the call for the forward assist, if I remember right.

File: automoton writing machine .jpg (122KB, 800x704px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x704px

>>33877178
>>complex machining for an AR

Pic related was built several decades before Napoleon waged war on Europe. It was an automated scripe that could (slowly) produce handwritten documents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY_wfKVjuJM

Europe has been capable of precision machining for centuries. Machinests in the 18th century could produce stunning precision. The question is how accurate mass production could be. For a one-off product they could build something far,far more complex hudnreds of years earlier.

The issue was lack of aluminum. Only 200 tons of aluminum were produced from 1855-1890 when the process was refined and it was more valuable than gold.

With that said they could have easily stamped out all steel AKs with WW1 manufacturing.

>>33877808
You could do a steel receiver AR couldnt you?

>>33877760

In fact I know for a fact they didn't cost that much, because the Vickers Machine company was sued by the British government for war profiteering, and reduced the price of Vicekrs guns from £175 to £80, about £8480, or $11,010 USD in 2017 dollars/pounds.

>>33877796
I've read that ball powder was not that dirty compared to IMR, but that it initially produced a higher cyclic rate. It was the additives they then added to reduce the cyclic rate that produced excessive fouling, and it was the lack of cleaning that was the problem in any case.

>>33869593
>What prevented them from using better weapons?
Generals been retarded mouth-breathing idiots.

>>33876559
I know this gotta be bait, but come on, they just figured out how a semi-auto pistol is supposed to look like and you already want them to build single man portable machineguns with over 300 rpm, under 40lb AND it doesn't need a shitload of water to not overheat?

What's next? Why didn't the Nazis land on the Moon in 1935?

>>33878319
You mean like the BAR? What's it like being retarded?

>>33878454
>BAR
>not xbox hueg
>not heavy as fuck

>>33878496
Nice goalposts

>>33876819

You missed the time frame. Interchangeable parts was fully in play by ww1.

>>33878545
>what is exaggeration for comedic purposes?

Fucks sake.

Could a nuke be manufactured with WWI technology? I imagine the hardest part would be centrifuges.

>>33877808
So what you're saying is that a clockmaker could've worked up kraut space magic in 1800s?

File: Ar180 R set w-scope.jpg (86KB, 1325x486px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1325x486px

I bet the AR180 developed alongside for countries without advanced aluminium manufacturing could have been

>>33878058

Most bolt rifles of the time still had magazine cut offs for single loading and 2k yard battle sights for volley fire

Would the German Empire have possessed the technology to produce an AKM, assuming one were to skip things like Parkerizing for traditional blueing? I have to assume they would have hit a wall trying to use stamp metal, just like the Soviets did.

Would they even have had the means of producing an AK-47?

File: ZXC10-Z-F2-L.jpg (116KB, 1800x656px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1800x656px

>>33878708
Wasn't the STG tech stolen by the Russians and developed into the ak?

File: image.jpg (295KB, 1024x1301px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1024x1301px

>>33878779
No, it was stolen by the Western Europeans and Italians. There were already prototypes for the Kalashnikov way before the Stg became a thing. Pick related is what it evolved to become under the Italians

>>33878718
The stamping problem seemed to be about welding. At a pinch they could just use rivets.

>>33876875
Because the Browning BAR , Thompson SubMachine Gun & even Mauser C96 SchnellFeuer full auto weapons did not exist in the time period of The Great War did they ?

Oh wait.

Hmm seems that manufacturing was possible it was just that the designs were too expensive or too late.

The production capacity during the early 1900s COULD have built all steel & wood M16 style rifles.

>>33878718
>I have to assume they would have hit a wall trying to use stamp metal, just like the Soviets did.
Fun fact: it was Germans who developed AKM.
>Schmeisser was one of 16 Germans for which a special department (no. 58) was created at factory number 74, later known as Izmash. Schmeisser was appointed as one of the five designers of the group, together with Kurt Horn and Werner Gruner (both from Grossfuss) and Oscar Schink (from Gustloff), under the formal leadership of Karl Barnitske (also from Gustloff). There is some evidence that Schmeisser was uncooperative with the Soviets because he received the most negative review by his Soviet handlers in this group of five German designers. In these Soviet reviews, Schmeisser was described as a "practical man", whose lack of formal training showed whenever he was presented with any design problems.
>Schmeisser worked in Izhevsk until 1952 when he and other German specialists returned home to Germany. With short notice, his stay in the Soviet Union was extended beyond that of the other weapon specialists by a half year. He finally returned home on 9 June 1952. Schmeisser died on 12 September 1953, and was buried in Suhl. The 50th anniversary of his death was honored by a ceremony held in Suhl, as he is recognized as one of the most important technical designers of infantry weapons of the 20th century.[8]

File: STG44StrippedSpringfieldArmory.jpg (76KB, 1023x794px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1023x794px

>>33878897
>Fun fact: it was Germans who developed AKM.

Noooooooooooooooooope

>>33878862
>Because the Browning BAR , Thompson SubMachine Gun & even Mauser C96 SchnellFeuer full auto weapons did not exist in the time period of The Great War did they ?

>Browning Browning Automatic Rifle
Yes. Barely made it to any front line just as the war ended.

>Thompson SMG
>WW1
Wot m8?

>C96 Schnellfeuer
Wasn't a thing until the 1930s

>>33878941
You think that is about legend that AK-47 was a copy STG44. Of course this is wrong. AK-47 was developed by Kalashnikov. But it had technological problem. Intial AK with stamped receiver was disaster. Milled receiver AK worked and but it was extremely costly for USSR and weighted a ton.

Hugo Schmeisser group (among many others engineers, practically entire USSR worked to solve this problem) got task to mate AK with stamped production. What they been masters of stamped technology eventually did and result of their work AKM became that famous Kalashnikov.

>>33875920
>CETME
It wouldn't have an issue because its recoil operated via delayed blowback, anon. If it was a gas operated firearm it would have jammed badly

>>33878986
>Barely made it to any front line just as the war ended.
What's your point? It was there, and it proves that there was no technological limitation to producing an assault rifle.

>>33869533

Polymers of that era where very brittle, aluminum forging was prohibitively expensive and the ball powder used in the AR series is vastly different from the propellant used back then. In theory it would be possible to make a handful of them, but mass production and issues with reliability will be an issue.

>>33879077
>Intial AK with stamped receiver was disaster.

In that it couldn't be constructed in significant numbers, yeah.

>>33873724
Congrats, you now have a 4 kg rifle where you wanted a 2.5-3kg rifle. It'll work though.

>The trouble is more likely going to be with trying to find a suitable steel for the bolt.
>>33873700 >>33871710

This honestly is huge. Other part is that designs required trial and error, and guys were still working out what worked best. If you look at a lot of early semiauto rifles, they're bulky as hell and awkward but also suffer reliability issues. The AK and AR had the benefit of building on 30 years of SMG and semiauto designs. Of course, the AR's bolt design came from the Johnson rifle and the AK's came straight off the M1 Garand.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x427px

>All this MUH ALUMINUM crap
Steel stills exist. Even then, its much easier to introduce them to an FN49, Hakim, Ag m/42, or a MAS 49/56. Or just introduce them an AR15 via the Fitelight SCR build.
>Traditional appeal to fudd
>make it in some 7.62mm or above available intermediate caliber (likr that French 8mm Reiberroylles) or full size caliber
>muh wood

>>33879111
>BAR
>assault rifle
>weighting about the same as a fucking M249

>>33879186
It would still be lighter than most designs available, more reliable against foreign objects (sealed system), be much simpler, and have way less recoil with an inline design

>>33869533

Yes and no.

An intermediate caliber automatic rifle could have been produced. But probably not with the same metallurgy and certainly not with the plastic.

>>33879237
We're talking technology here buddy.

>>33872013
No, they're not superior, they were just used for a different purposes. If we wanted MG's that could fire thousands of rounds for hours, we could do it easily. But we don't need to so we don't.
It's nothing to do with superiority.

>>33869533
yes my da works at area 51 man

>>33877796
>As you said with the powder which didn't jive correctly with the original M16
I never said that, I said the ammo used was too hot for pre-A1 rifles to run reliably.

The fact that the ammo was dirty doesn't matter, you can shoot an M16 for tens of thousands of rounds and it will never be stopped by carbon fouling.

>>33877808
Yeah and mechanics like those weren't unique, widely expensive works of art or anything.

Lets take that fucking guy to an assembly line and see what he costs to make.

>>33877828
That might be the number I'm thinking of.

File: Best I could find for purpose of discussion.jpg (778KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 2592x1944px

>>33869533
what about if every nation in The Great War had their own variant of the M14 ?

The technology and industrial capacity to build such a firearm existed in all of the major nations pre-WW1.

British .303 Enfield Automatic Rifle
German 8mm Mauser Krieg Gewehr
French 8mm Lebel Automatique Legere
Russian 7.62X54r Automat Federov
and so on.

all basically the same rifle with different chamberings , sight configurations and different wooden stock layouts.

Anyone else think that a collection of such M14 variants would be boss ?

>>33881430
*Why doesn't a company in the US make a .30-06 M14 pattern rifle.

I know there are outfits still making the M1 Garand , but I just don't like enbloc clips ok.

and .30-06 is a superior round to .308.

>>33881430
Basically what I am saying is that this thread is gay and the M16 is inferior to the M14.

>>33875716
>>>33869565
He ate with aluminum utensils because it was worth more per ounce than gold was at the time.

>>33870189
>was milling around

The only reason assault rifles didnt exist in ww1 and most of ww2 was because no one thought an intermediate rifle cart would be a good idea. Sub and mag fed light machine guns existed in the war and chambering them in 5.56 or whatever would essentially be an assault rifle.

>>33877828
You are completely off your rocker if you think governments of that era were paying the equivalent of 11 grand per machine gun. This equivalent money shit going around is total b.s.

>>33881430

>M14
>Good

>>33882468
You lack argumentation.

Argument or go to bed.

>>33870189
>if MILLING was around back then.
What's it like going through life complete retarded? I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think cartridges are made by elves because they are small?

>>33879121
>different poweder
Aren't they same smokeless powder?

File: 6471937_01_semi_auto_madsen_lmg_from_part_640.jpg (30KB, 640x451px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x451px

>>33870605
>The bigger = better meme was accepted as scientific fact
not true, compare the various .30 cal rounds used by most countries to the xbox hueg black powder calibers they had been using not long before

File: IMG_2383.jpg (28KB, 227x225px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 227x225px

>>33871827
ehem

>>33876698
Who the fuck are you, you stupid cunt? I don't need to be told how to think. Go fuck yourself.

>>33882699
You don't mill cases though.

>>33873588
I laughed at this more then I should have.

>>33869976
oh christ leave him alone bud he's just having a little fun

>>33869565
You could put wood handguards on an AR. The bolt is really similar to Johnson. I'm not sure about the quantity of aluminum, but I imagine one could make a milled steel AR-15 receiver.

>>33869558
>>33869565
Lots and lots

You do know that things existed before 1960, right?

>>33870910
PVC was invented in the 1800s

>>33878319
>implying they didn't

>>33877808
>With that said they could have easily stamped out all steel AKs with WW1 manufacturing.
But that's bullshit. The Russians had access to the world's leading lights in stamped steel technology and still couldn't produce a stamped AK until the 50's.

>>33885469
Which is strange because people can crank out AKs in their garages with equipment much less complicated or older than what they had then. I guess it was a design problem.

This thread gave me a minor chub imagining an intermediate "Mini-Madsen"

>>33885469
From what I understand, Russian stamping tech was a bit behind the curve compared to the WW2 Germans. The Krauts had been using stampings for all sorts of shit before the war.

>>33882498
The M14 is the Garand but better, which is amazing from a pre 1950s context but actually fucking awful in a post 1950s context.

>>33885127
>The bolt is really similar to Johnson
The locking lugs are, the way the gas is taken into the carrier to unlock the action and move the carrier backwards (after venting out the ejection port), is a completely new idea Stoner came up with, the Johnson did nothing like that and worked on a short-recoil action.

Honestly, an intermediate rifle with like 3 locking lugs and a short recoil action would probably have been the most feasible for WW1

>>33885127
>You could put wood handguards on an AR.
God DAMN do I want to see that.

File: 1470541017317.jpg (102KB, 873x598px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 873x598px

>>33887170
Closest I have for you to see

>>33873076
I'd say he's implying. He's implying right in you face. You gonna take that, anon?