What If: World War II SHTF automatic carbines/rifles (1 Viewer)

This is for if a semi-auto carbine or even a select fire machine carbine/automatic carbine/automatic rifle (remember, the term assault rifle/strumgewher hasn't been invented until 1944 reportedly), and I know that even for infantry weapons a lot changed between 1939 and 1945. This applies to both Allies and Axis, though for Germany late war assault rifle development is fairly well documented and is thus not a huge "what if" unless we get into speculation like what I'm posing here.

But let's say that one, the Germans took the assault rifle concept more seriously earlier in the war, and that the Allies (namely western Allies) took it seriously as well. But what's desired is a cheap, simple carbine/assault rifle that can be made on basic tooling and machinery, so stampings and minimal machine time are the word of the day.

There was a rifle that FN started working on in the late 1940s that supposidly was some kind of proof of concept weapon or an R&D project. I has a few elements that were on the FN Universal Carbine (forerunner to the FN FAL) and even the FAL itself, but not many. This weapon was made mostly out of stampings, and used a rear-locking rotating bolt. Only one has been confirmed to exist, and is currently keep in FN"s historical collection at their main plant in Herstal, Belgium:


But if we want to take somewhat more "modern" rifles built along the lines I laid out above, there's the Armalite AR-18/-180:


And the even allegedly simpler SAR-80 and Leader Dynamics T2, which are modified AR-18 derivatives:



Now, going back to World War II, what changes would/should be made to make any of these weapons viable (like for instance, I know that polymer wasn't a huge thing back then, so things like stocks and handguards would have to be likely made out of wood or sheet metal)? Also, unless you want to play the SCHV (Small Caliber, High Velocity) intermediate rifle round card 15-20 or so years early, what caliber should they be made in given the time, such as things that were available back then (.30 Carbine, 7.92x33mm Short/Kurz, .351 Winchester SL, for example) or something original or obscure, or even later, up to I guess .30 Carbine being necked down to .22 caliber (which was done I believe shortly after the Korean War first at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in a M2 Carbine, as well as when Melvin Johnson created the 5.7mm MMJ/.22 Spitfire round for M1/M2 Carbine type weapons).

The .351 necked down to .25 would've been just fine, IMO. The 'metric' people might've opted for a shortened 6.5mm catridge, something like 6.5x35 to x40.
A more adventurous .30 Carbine that is made to be close to the Soviet 7.62x39 would've worked great, too.
The .25 Remington, but a bit shortened and hotter loaded should've also been good IMO.

BarnOwlLover said:

Also, unless you want to play the SCHV (Small Caliber, High Velocity) intermediate rifle round card 15-20 or so years early,

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the .22 calibre was popular in many countries for the training rifles, meaning that the bore making tooling is available. So up the game, and make a more substantial cartridge than the .22 LR was, and there it is.

Or how about (though we may be crossing into non-SHTF territory--I'll explain) something like a Beretta AR70 or AR70/90, or a Sig 540 or 550? Not as crude as the other examples that I mentioned, and def. less cheap and crude feeling. And though the Beretta AR70 was far cheaper to make than say an AR-15 back in the early 1970s for those who didn't have CNC machines and not accustomed to working with aluminum forgings, it was more durable and substantive than the AR-18 and many of it's derivatives (though the SAR-80 doesn't seem as cheap or crude as the AR-18 or the T2). But it's probably a fair bit more expensive than say the AR-18/T2.

But then again, one of the reasons it seems that the AR-18 didn't find favor with the US Army during Vietnam, in addition to the AR-15/M16 getting most of it's bugs worked out by the time the AR-18 was ready, was that the AR-18 was probably deemed too cheap and nasty, much like the British Army with the Sten SMG during World War II.

And with the Sig 540 and 550, well, it's still Swiss, and cheap for the Swiss often means well above average price for many others. I didn't include the newer (recently launched) Sig 560 rifles, since those have aluminum lower receivers I think, and that's a tech that's a bit out there for World War II.

IMO, keeping with the basic StG-44 design would've been both affordable and would've gave a very good weapon. Or, if the cartridge selected is a bit weaker, the M1 Carbine design and go from there.

Different countries had different abilities to make stamped sheet metal guns.
Most countries could make stamped sheet metal (or steel tubing) blow-back submachine guns.
The Problem was scaling them up to take higher powered ammunition.
You could make sort of a super 9mm (like a 9mm Mauser export or a 9 X 23/25 mm).
You need a heavier bolt and/or stronger recoil spring.
Once you start getting into a locked breech you need a lot more machining and tighter tolerances.
The AR gets away with an Aluminum receiver (or sheet metal AR-180) because the receiver doesn't handle the strain of firing, unlike most bolt action rifles or the the US M-1/M-1 carbine.

This is the barrel extension for an AR-15. The actual barrel screws into the threads. The bolt locks into the locking recesses. The aluminum or sheet metal receiver just held everything in alignment. In the US M-1s (both) the barrel screwed into the receiver and the bolt locked into the locking recesses in the receiver.

A lot of the assault rifle cartridges use smaller cartridge that full power rifles BUT the cartridges often operate at pressures that are just as high or close.

Now in WW II how good was the ability of a particular country to make a strong, durable sheet metal receiver that could precisely hold all the needed parts in alignment?
Submachine gun just needed the bolt to go back and forth. No twisting or turning or tipping up or down. Later submachine guns didn't even have a firing pin. They just machined a lump on the face of the bolt and the gun fired when the cartridge was jammed into the end of the chamber and stopped while the bolt traveled that short distance further to crush the cap.

Maybe the Soviets and the Japanese cared about the bore size of their guns to save tooling. Most other large countries did not. The bore drills, reamers and rifling cutters all wear out and need to be replaced parodically. If your machine tool industry is up to snuff, they can make what you want.
The other side is manufacturing the ammunition. And at some point somebody has to decide if a smaller diameter bullet takes less raw material and the savings pays for the changes in tooling. You can use a lot but not all of the tooling to make a short 7.9mm bullet compared to a long 7.9mm bullet. But even steel dies working copper alloy jackets will wear (slowly) and need to be replaced.

One possibility if the butterflies had flapped their wings slightly differently would be the US army adopting the M1 Garand in .276 Pedersen.

Add in a box magazine and you could have something assault rifle-like already in service before the war breaks out.

French 1918 prototype

25 round magazine in 8 X 35 mm (necked down .351 Winchester?)
Pure blowback and as a result the gun, empty, weighed 5.1kg. It also had a MV of 570m/s which means a shorter than desired combat range for a rifle.
If you use a locked breech the cost of the gun (due to machining) goes up and the weight of the gun (lighter bolt, spring and receiver) goes down.
Where you are as far as raw material goes ????

You still need a full power LMG in the squad or at least several in a MG section in the platoon. Unless you KNOW that that you will not be operating in open spaces.

Shortround6 said:

French 1918 prototype
View attachment 815488
25 round magazine in 8 X 35 mm (necked down .351 Winchester?)
Pure blowback and as a result the gun, empty, weighed 5.1kg. It also had a MV of 570m/s which means a shorter than desired combat range for a rifle.
If you use a locked breech the cost of the gun (due to machining) goes up and the weight of the gun (lighter bolt, spring and receiver) goes down.
Where you are as far as raw material goes ????

You still need a full power LMG in the squad or at least several in a MG section in the platoon. Unless you KNOW that that you will not be operating in open spaces.

Click to expand...

The 8 X 35 SR for this Ribeyrolles M1918 prototype was a neck down Winchester .351 SL case with the same 8 mm ball as for the Lebel rifle. The .351 and .401 SL were known to the French Ordance as these Winchester carbines were used by the French air Force.

Shortround6 said:

Different countries had different abilities to make stamped sheet metal guns.
Most countries could make stamped sheet metal (or steel tubing) blow-back submachine guns.
The Problem was scaling them up to take higher powered ammunition.
You could make sort of a super 9mm (like a 9mm Mauser export or a 9 X 23/25 mm).
You need a heavier bolt and/or stronger recoil spring.
Once you start getting into a locked breech you need a lot more machining and tighter tolerances.
The AR gets away with an Aluminum receiver (or sheet metal AR-180) because the receiver doesn't handle the strain of firing, unlike most bolt action rifles or the the US M-1/M-1 carbine.
View attachment 815463
This is the barrel extension for an AR-15. The actual barrel screws into the threads. The bolt locks into the locking recesses. The aluminum or sheet metal receiver just held everything in alignment. In the US M-1s (both) the barrel screwed into the receiver and the bolt locked into the locking recesses in the receiver.

A lot of the assault rifle cartridges use smaller cartridge that full power rifles BUT the cartridges often operate at pressures that are just as high or close.

Now in WW II how good was the ability of a particular country to make a strong, durable sheet metal receiver that could precisely hold all the needed parts in alignment?
Submachine gun just needed the bolt to go back and forth. No twisting or turning or tipping up or down. Later submachine guns didn't even have a firing pin. They just machined a lump on the face of the bolt and the gun fired when the cartridge was jammed into the end of the chamber and stopped while the bolt traveled that short distance further to crush the cap.

Maybe the Soviets and the Japanese cared about the bore size of their guns to save tooling. Most other large countries did not. The bore drills, reamers and rifling cutters all wear out and need to be replaced parodically. If your machine tool industry is up to snuff, they can make what you want.
The other side is manufacturing the ammunition. And at some point somebody has to decide if a smaller diameter bullet takes less raw material and the savings pays for the changes in tooling. You can use a lot but not all of the tooling to make a short 7.9mm bullet compared to a long 7.9mm bullet. But even steel dies working copper alloy jackets will wear (slowly) and need to be replaced.

Click to expand...

As a cheap US contender : the T29 adaptation of the M3 SMG to fire the .30 carbine round with a longer barrel.

One could go as far as to say why not use select fire versions of the Remington Model 8 or 81 (81s were made with detachable mags) in something less powerful than .30 Remington (basically an auto-loading equivalent to .30-30 Winchester in dimensions and power), or even select fire, extended mag versions of the Winchester M1907 or even M1910. Though I'd argue that maybe .401 WSL is a bit too much for an intermediate round (not ballistically, but it's bullet is pretty heavy). It's been alleged that some 1907s were made to be select fire for the French during World War I (though never officially verified).

Of course, it's been commonly said that 7.62x39mm produces ballistics similar to .30 Remington or .30-30. And the same has been said at times of the .351 WSL. I've also seen arguments that the M1 and especially M2 carbines were early assault rifles. Well, not really, if we take into account of most standards such as what NATO uses, which are based on the US Army's definition there of, where the main features are:

1: Select fire (semi and full auto)
2: Fires a round less powerful than a full power rifle round and more powerful than a pistol or PDW round (stuff like the 4.6x30mm HK or the 5.7x28mm FN)
3: Has an effective range of at least 300 yards or meters.

The M1 is semi-auto only, and the M2 may be select fire, but both carbines have an effective range of only about 200 yards. I sort of doubt that the .22 Spitfire has much more range than .30 Carbine, given that Johnson marketed rifles that fired it as short range hunting rifles and survival rifles.

Granted, rounds like the .32 WSL (which inspired the .30 Carbine) and .35 WSL were even worse than .30 Carbine as far as being assault rifle rounds. Not to mention the whole US carbine program was for basically a PDW rather than an "assault rifle".

As far as things like the StG 44 and the M1/M2 carbines suggested above, the Germans were looking for something for something cheaper, simpler and lighter than the StG 44. The StG 44 weighed more than the Thompson SMG, and quite a bit more than the M1 Garand. The result was the Mauser Gerat 06/06H, which became famous as the forerunner to the HK G3 and CETME rifles (though the latter 2 fired much more powerful rounds than the StG 45--7.62mm NATO/.308 Win. vs 7.92x33mm). Granted, though the StG 45 was way cheaper than the StG 44 (which is why the Germans were looking at it as at least a substitute standard issue rifle to be issued and built along side the StG 44).

However, ironically, both the FN FAL (which used a forged receiver assembly and a rear-locking tilting bolt) and the HK G3 and especially the G41 (NATO-spec HK33, basically a scaled down 5.56mm G3, all of which ware roller-delayed blowback) were ultimately determined to be too expensive to mass produce down the road. Hence FN designed the CAL (mostly stamped, but a complicated bolt system) and FNC (stamped upper, forged aluminum lower, used a modified AK-bolt) and HK designed the G36 (mostly polymer receiver, AR-18 inspired bolt and gas system). Of course, the FNC's lower (forged aluminum) and the G36 (polymer receiver) aren't really practical for World War II production.

But I guess that I'm asking do we need a true SHTF rifle that's ultra crude to make (like the AR-18 was originally), or something simple but more substantive (Beretta AR70)? Mind you, it also probably depends on how things are going as well (desperate times, or needing/wanting a simple weapon to keep up with wastage and losses, but still be decent for say maybe post war use at least short term).

Is there anything wrong with the M1 Carbine design that picked up a kilo (~2 lbs) in order to fire more powerful .30 round than it is the .30 carbine?

from original post.

BarnOwlLover said:

But what's desired is a cheap, simple carbine/assault rifle that can be made on basic tooling and machinery, so stampings and minimal machine time are the word of the day.

Click to expand...

When you get into locked breech guns and gas systems (like even the M-1 carbine) the cheap and simple starts to go away. It may be a better gun or a better weapon than a machined bolt action rifle but it is not going to be a cheap, high power Sten gun.

Stampings can cheap, but that often means uncomplicated or needed further 'assembly' or both.

Part of a US M3 Grease gun. Note the combination of welding and riveting. They could be cheap to produce but all of the parts could not be made in small machine shops in garages.
A lot of parts could but not all.

I would also note that the older American commercial guns, the Remington and the Winchesters were not popular because of their recoil. They were also not light. The Remingtons were recoil operated and the barrel moved inside the outer shroud. A lot of weight moving around from shot to shot. The Winchesters used a huge weight hiding in the forend attached to bolt to keep the bolt closed until the pressure dropped. Large weight is cheap.
Light weight and cheap are often in conflict.

My father once worked on a project at Colt for a belt feed grenade launcher with a stamped sheet metal receiver. He was a production engineer (figure out how to make what the gun designers drew up). I don't know how it worked out but they were having trouble spot welding the guide rails into the receiver. The heat of the spot welding warped the guide rails and made them go out of spec/tolerance. Slightly bent guide rails means jams.
You can often farm out (subcontract) parts and assemblies, but you need really good engineering to start with for everything to fit together at final assembley.

It does have to be remembered that the AR-18/180 was marketed by Armalite as being capable of being made on simple screw machines for it's machined parts and simple stamping dies (though that's probably simple marketing--you're not going to make a barrel, even for a SMG, on a simple screw machine, for example). Not to mention (though not a World War II manufacturing technique) that there's cheap AK rifles that use MIM cast parts that break and crumble after a few hundred shots.

And yes, I obviously know that with move from a simple blowback SMG firing pistol rounds to an assault rifle with a locked breach and firing more powerful rounds, concessions have to be made. Just look at the issues the first AK-47s had when they were made with stamped receivers--issues with QC and heat treating meant that a lot of receivers got scrapped or had to be sent back down the line for repairs, which meant that the rifle was modified to use forged/machined receivers until the AKM was able to revert back to using a stamped receiver.

Though the BSA Besal LMG was designed to be built, or at least assembled, in just about any basic machine shop. The Besal was intended to be a SHTF substitute standard LMG for if damage at RSAF Enfield (the main place making Bren LMGs at the time) impaired or delayed Bren production. Though by the time the Besal was built, Luftwaffe attacks against the Enfield area was no longer a major threat, Bren production was dispersed, and the Besal, though it did everything basically that was intended for it to do, was no longer needed.

Maybe I should start a different thread asking about "practical" assault rifles for World War II as far as caliber and manufacturing.

So maybe the Mauser Gerat 06/06H was about as crude as one could make an assault rifle by World War II standards vs say something like an AR-18 or T2 modified to use a AK-type bolt?

My father also worked for Colt and went to both Korea and the Philippines to set up factories, he missed the Singapore project. We did not discuss it in detail but there were differences between the projects. I think the Korean factory was supposed to make 10,000 rifles and month and the other 2500? Both factories were supposed to build other products after the rifle contracts were complete. Colt was not the owner or in fact a "real" partner. They were a contractor paid to set up the factory and get it running. There were different educational standards in both countries at the time which also affected which machines could be selected (late 70s) for the machine operators. I don't know the extent of subcontracting used. Colt did use subcontracting in their domestic production.
Both projects had US government approval to the extent that in Korea all the US Colt employee's had access to US military housing, PX privilege's and could use the base golf course.
A real rats nest of private industry and government programs to help industrialize the countries involved.
Goal may not have been the cheapest gun they could make but a more capable manufacturing plant/factory. I have no idea (or can't remember) where the Aluminum castings/forgings came from.

I do have my doubts about the roller locking system as used by the Gerat 06/06H and the later post war guns.
The MG 42 used a moving barrel and the pressure had dropped by the time the bolt head unlocked and started extracting.
The Gerat 06/06H and later used a fixed barrel and used the cam surfaces as a 'delay' as the bolt head started to move back. This lead to the grooved chamber to prevent case sticking.
This highlights the difference between guns that have primary extraction and guns that don't. Even an AK 47 had primary extraction, the bolt opens slowly at first and with a twisting motion (helpful but not essential) and then speeds up as the locking lugs unlock. Some guns (like WW I machine guns with oil reservoirs) do not have primary extraction and if things are not going well, their cases stick in the chamber jamming the gun and/or the case head rips off leading the front of the case stuck in the chamber and/or the extractor pulls a chunk out of rim leaving 98% of the case stuck in the chamber.
Squirting a drop of oil on each case work, right up until it didn't (desert sand, mud, etc). Fluted chambers meant you didn't need oil (but extra machining of the chamber) and meant you needed good quality control of your cartridge cases.
IN WW II US 30-06 ammo came in 3 grades, all depending on the quality of the brass in the cartridge case. Best quality was Aircraft machine gun. 2nd quality was ground machine gun. lowest quality was rifle. If a rifle jammed because of a broken case you were out one rifle in the squad/platoon/company. If you jammed a BAR things got more serious. If you jammed up one of the two 1919s in the company things got a lot more serious but they had remedies, like spare barrels and broken shell extractors in the gun team.
And in the 1950s Spain could probably get better cartridge cases than WW II Germany, let alone when HK got into production.
The roller delayed blowback shifts some of the reliability over to the cartridge case manufacture in order to make gun manufacture cheaper/easier. This may or may not be a good idea depending on the state of art of the metallurgy in a given country.
It is not a one size fits all situation.

Shortround6 said:

When you get into locked breech guns and gas systems (like even the M-1 carbine) the cheap and simple starts to go away.

Click to expand...

Thread is about the 'ww2 STHF automatic carbines-rifles'. Locked breech is the name of the game by default.
A bit bigger and heavier Carbine will still be very cheap and simple to make.

If you took the FG-42 and scaled it down to fit an intermediate cartridge like the 7.92x33 you could have something in the 3kg weight range that would still be useful to 300 meters. It should use less material and might be cheaper to produce also.

The original FG-42 was insanely expensive, and trying to scale it down as it to make it weight about 3kg and fire intermediate rounds probably won't reduce cost. The CZ Bren 2 weights between 2.9kg (8" barrel) to 3.1 kg (14" barrel), but those are "short barreled rifles" per the US NFA (minimum 16" barrel for civilians without a tax stamp) or what most countries even now see as short rifles/carbines (again, 16" is usually the cut off there), not to mention that they're made out of forged aluminum (upper) and polymer (lower). Even then, though, a Bren 2 is probably still much cheaper to make than an intermediate caliber FG-42.

Also, the Swiss tried it post-war, and it didn't get far, either.

tomo pauk said:

Thread is about the 'ww2 STHF automatic carbines-rifles'.

Click to expand...

That is what the title says but in paragraph 2 he says

BarnOwlLover said:

But what's desired is a cheap, simple carbine/assault rifle that can be made on basic tooling and machinery, so stampings and minimal machine time are the word of the day.

Click to expand...

So there is some confusion or several different paths.

We are back to designing a rifle/carbine and trying to fit it into a slot (role/mission) or figuring out a role/mission and then designing a weapon to fit the role/mission.

Now just about every army could have used more rapid fire guns in their squads/platoons/companies. Perhaps a longer ranged submachine gun would have been advantageous.
Or a few intermediate ranged rifles/carbines.
But can they afford to replace all the bolt action rifles? or just some? should the squad automatic use lower powered ammo than the existing machineguns? Do you want a more complicated ammo supply?

A lot of things to juggle aside from the actual size/shape of the rifle.

Shortround6 said:

Now just about every army could have used more rapid fire guns in their squads/platoons/companies. Perhaps a longer ranged submachine gun would have been advantageous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps something like the .22 TCM would've moved the range towards the 300m, vs. 200m for the better SMGs? Recoil comparable to the 9mm?

Shortround6 said:

But can they afford to replace all the bolt action rifles? or just some? should the squad automatic use lower powered ammo than the existing machineguns?

Click to expand...

Nobody will replace all the bolt action rifles by a flick of the switch, or even in 5, or perhaps in 10 years.

Shortround6 said:

Do you want a more complicated ammo supply?

Click to expand...

Let's not make the mountain from the mole hill.

We do also have to remember that it was discovered in World War II (and even World War I) that most combat (something like 90%) happened at ranges of at max 400 yards or meters, often less. You don't need like a .308 Win/7.62mm NATO, .30-06, .303 British, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54mmR, 7.7mm Arisaka, or even rounds like 6.5mm Carcano or 6.5mm Arisaka for those ranges.

Also, SMGs, which fire pistol rounds, are generally just about useless beyond a 100 yards range, if that. Not to mention that until the HK54/MP5, most SMGs fired from an open bolt, which spoiled single shot accuracy even more (only SMGs prior to the MP5 I know of that fired from a closed bolt as standard were the Reising M50/55, FNA-B 43, and the Auto Ordinance/Thompson T2).

And the M1 and even M2 carbines, though issued more widely as front line weapons, were intended basically as PDWs--such as things like the HK MP7 and the FN P90 were originally designed to be (though only the German Army and Belgian Army respectively really use them in the original PDW role, where they replaced SMGs, such as the Uzi in German and maybe Belgian service). And the MP7 and P90 have the same effective range that's given for the M1/M2 carbines--about 200 yards/meters.

Also, as far as the carbine, a HK G36C--a G36 with about a 9" barrel and is about the same size dimensionally as a MP5--can accurately hit human sized targets out to 300+ yards or meters, and 5.56mm NATO even then still produced more hitting power and penetration than .30 Carbine can. Granted, considering what's known now about how gunshot wounds work (blunt force energy is only a part of the equation--more often actual blunt force trauma and blood loss is what kills or incapacitates).

Mind you, I'm not asking for a PDW-sized assault rifle like what's common today. Cool, yes, but outside of the scope of what would've been accepted or desired by World War II standards.

Maybe I should've been more specific with what I was looking for. If we're going by likely World War II standards, something the size of like a M16 or AK-47 would suffice (AKs are 34-37 inches long depending on muzzle device with a 16.3" barrel, M16s are 39" long with a 20" barrel) as far as something in common use. To take into account production realities, machining should be kept to a minimum and cheap production methods (stampings or castings) should be used where it can be gotten away with, even if it and other features (like sights and such) are of the "last ditch" levels of crudity. Also said weapon should also be simple to use, repair if needed, reliable and be capable of accepting a crude or folding stock.

Granted, unlike the other thread I just started that's asking for a more refined version of this concept (not SHTF/last ditch type weapons), this does verge into the "last ditch" area of the spectrum instead of "simple and not too expensive, but not crude almost beyond belief".

We also have to remember for a minute, that even post war for a time that there was questions over how best to deploy or use assault rifles. Germany late in World War II (though they left it too late), the Soviets, and the British saw assault rifles as viable general issue weapons that could replace the SMG and bolt action or full power semi auto rifles for most (though not 100% all) roles. Granted, you'll still need sniper rifles/DMRs and GMPGs that fire a reasonably powerful round. Naturally, I'm in favor of taking on another sniper or designated marksman with a sniper or designated marksman of your own. Or taking on a GMPG gunner with one of your own. Apples to apples. Or blast them with air dropped munitions or artillery in a combined arms deal.

The French, on the other hand, initially thought of just issuing assault rifles to SOF units and such, before deciding it was a good idea to issue them as widely as they could prior to NATO not adopting a true assault rifle round until the US adopted 5.56mm and the M16 in time for Vietnam.

But for here (sorry for the run-on post, but I felt I needed to explain/clarify a lot here), I'm obviously not asking for like say the latest or greatest of today to get just transplanted back about 80-85 years ago. At worst, maybe World War II-ised Cold War era rifles, I guess. For example, here's a photo of a H&K HK433 rifle disassembled, as issued to some Ukrainian intelligence directorate troops as of the winter of 2024/25. You'll notice a lot of stuff that's neat--but not suited one way or another for World War II era production (materials, cost, production tooling, often a combination), and many modern modular rifles along similar lines (FN SCAR, CZ Bren 2/3, FB Radom Grot, etc, let alone most AR-15 derivatives such as the HK416 for example) are no less complicated to make on WWII era machinery or materials:



Now you'll probably see why at the worst I want to take a Cold War stamped receiver rifle and simplify it to World War II standards. Hence like an "AR-18 or SAR-80" with an AK mechanism, or something similar or even simpler.