17 ms·
>I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build
by sbierwagen 4y ago
>I've always found it interesting that AKs are relatively easy to manufacture in rough conditions, but that ARs are easier to manufacture in the US. I can build a working AR lower receiver in the US with tools I have laying around my home (drill press, rotary tool, etc). I can't do the same for an AK because I don't have a spot welder to attach the rails.
Worse than that: AK receivers have to be stamped, rails welded on, then heat treated. A soft AK receiver will run for a while but eventually waller out all the pin holes. The gun will get more and more rattly until it can't completely chamber a round, at which point it will blow up.
The heyday of the stamped sheet metal gun was, of course, WW2. The Sten, MP 36, M3, and postwar AKM, CETME, G3, etc etc. The central planners were staring down the barrel of total war. They were thinking they would have to arm every single man, woman and child in the country. The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each.
For that, you want as few machining operations as possible, but you can spend on the tools themselves, since they'll be amortized over huge production runs. Therefore you see heavy industrial processes with specialized tools: 100 ton presses stamping out 20 receivers at a time, specialized heat treat ovens to make up for the downsides of metal stamping, complex assembly jigs, etc.
The AR pattern rifle is unattractive for super-mass production. Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes. But it's not a stressed component, so you can make the damn thing out of plastic if you want, and none of the dimensions are safety critical, since the barrel is self headspaced with bolt lugs built in. (The US could put complex features into the barrel because they could trust their subcontractors to build interchangeable parts-- the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house)
This means when you shoot out the barrel in an AR, your unit's armorer can put in a new one. If you wear out the barrel in an AK, you throw away the gun-- headspacing is a factory operation, and the Red Army isn't going to waste time transporting trash. Official doctrine on the US M3 was to provide no replacement parts. The whole gun was welded and riveted together. You could clean it, but otherwise it was a disposable unit. Heavy industrial processes are cheap, but not amendable to field repair.
- kazen44 4y ago> the Sten had magazine feed problems the entire war because of contractors going off spec and the Soviets had innumerable problems with QA. If you can't trust outside firms then you have to build everything in house) Another good thing to point out, is that both the sten and especially soviet weapons were being produced in rapid numbers by mainly unskilled workers in semi finished factories behind the ural (in the soviet's case) or in small workshops by local machinists (in the sten's case).
- Ancapistani 4y ago> The Brits made four million Stens, at about $150 each. $11 each, at the time :)
- alamortsubite 4y agoThis was interesting, thanks for taking the time to post. Just to get a little pedantic, I believe it was the MP 36 that was machined and rather the MP 40 that was stamped, the former being more of a prototype for the latter.
- systemvoltage 4y ago> Milled receivers with curved surfaces and finicky blind holes. AR-15 lower receivers are forged and then milled. Of course, referring to mass produced ones for the military. Forged parts are typically stronger than purely machined parts of the same material.
- sbierwagen 4y agoSure, but I've never seen a 20% forging that had holes through the two main stress points, the buffer tube mount and the magazine well. Won't milling down the exterior remove all the aligned crystal boundaries and take you back to billet strength? Looking at that section again, I totally forgot to actually complete my thought there. Large stamping presses have the attractive quality of sublinear scaling: a press that can punch out twice as many parts per cycle is not twice the price. But if you want to double the production of milled parts, you have to buy twice as many milling machines. Worse yet, you need twice as many machinists, who are going to be in desperately short supply in wartime! But the US was not at war in 1956, and making the tradeoff of increased modularity against ease of manufacture has self-evidently paid off for the AR weapons family.