Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Ask Ian: Why So Few Reproduction Historic Guns?" video.

  1. Actually that would be the most useless part. Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG. Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances. Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium. The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME. But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!". For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't chose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so". That's why modern repros mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
    9
  2. The FAMAS g2 is one of the few designs that really can be made, since it's modern enough (so with modern tolerances and reliability) that the manufacturer has not to completely redesign it to make it work. It only has to make the parts with the right dimensions.
    3
  3. It's one of those that probably will never be made. First, it's quite complicate, second, Fedorov himself admitted it had reliability issues. But the purchaser of a modern repro would want MODERN reliability (not even 1917 reliability) from it. He wouldn't accept "it seldomly work because the originals were like that too". For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't choose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he knows work "so-so".
    1
  4. This is a visit to the Pietta factory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdnbNJKJ9ZE As you can see, they use the same tooling to make their repro revolvers and their modern line of semiauto rifles and shotguns. They work in batches. "today revolvers, tomorrow semiauto rifles". It's obvious that those machines can make anything in between. A Fyodorov Avtomat like a M1 Carbine. They only need the right imput. They can make them BETTER actually. With more consistent tolerances than the originals EVER had. So why they don't do it? Because, while manufacturing is not really a problem, designing is. Manual repeaters (revolvers, lever actions...) solve a lot of problems, because timing is decided and force is applied by the shooter. In a semiauto/auto weapon there are a lot of bits that have to work togheter for the weapon to work. Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG. Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances. Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium. The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, just to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME. But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!". It doesn't exist "it seldomly work because the originals were like that too". For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't choose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so". That's why modern repros, even when existing, mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
    1
  5. This is a visit to the Pietta factory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdnbNJKJ9ZE As you can see, they use the same tooling to make their repro revolvers and their modern line of semiauto rifles and shotguns. They work in batches. "today revolvers, tomorrow semiauto rifles". It's obvious that those machines can make anything in between. A Fyodorov Avtomat like a M1 Carbine. They only need the right imput. They can make them BETTER actually. With more consistent tolerances than the originals EVER had. So why they don't do it? Because, while manufacturing is not really a problem, designing is. Manual repeaters (revolvers, lever actions...) solve a lot of problems, because timing is decided and force is applied by the shooter. In a semiauto/auto weapon there are a lot of bits that have to work togheter for the weapon to work. Much of those old designs required handfitting, because the admitted tolerances were so that, in a batch of supposedly identical parts, the right ones had to be chosen and coupled for the weapon to work. Worse, there was the "cascade matching" problem. When you took, IE, three parts that matched toghether, because they were all at one end of the tolerance scale, and then there was no fourth part that matched with them, because it should have been beyond the scale. It was a so common issue that, for the Winchester .224 prototype (the competitor of the AR15 in the CONARC competition) Winchester explicitly stated that they designed their rifle so that it couldn't happen. And we were in the late '50s. It was still a severe problem for the M60 MG. Modern CNC machines can't work like that. so the modern designer has to come out with his own completely different, set of admitted tolerances. Not to say that steel of the original composition is often unobtanium. The REAL problem is that most of those designs were not that great to begin with. Even the most successful ones, (IE, the M1 Carbine, to say one) were good FOR THEIR TIME. But the eventual purchaser of a modern repro would expect form it MODERN reliability and durability, otherwise "This is shit! The manufcturer scammed me!". For the designer of the repro, it's like a nightmare. To him is like designing a completely new weapon, with the adjunctive constraint that he can't choose the solutions he KNOWS will work flawlessly. He has to keep it consistent with original solutions that he know work "so-so". That's why modern repros, even when existing, mostly dont' have part interchangeability with the originals.
    1