Expensive to manufacture correctly, with a limited market. "Bring back the ABC 123, I'll buy one!" "What? There's no way I'm paying that much for an ABC 123!"
Yeah it's always that way with the concept of reproducing old technology now. I've seen it in firearm, car and camera communities all; "I'd so buy a reproduction blah blah blah" but then they don't realise how insanely fast it adds up to manufacture these things especially if they are only being made in small quantities for a niche market. It would take some serious oil baron money to be able to fund those kinds of projects enough just to get off the ground even. So many people including myself would love to be able to buy a brand new fresh off the line Corolla AE86 or Canon F1 or [insert rare historical firearm], but unfortunately so many people including myself could never afford them in the unlikely event the were being made and sold.
Yeah, and it's tricky too because everywhere you could... not cut a corner, exactly, but change anything, maybe use an off-the-shelf spring instead of the original (which has the same specs but is a slightly thicker wire tempered slightly differently and which you'd have to make yourself). Well, you split your market even farther: if there were 15,000 people who wanted an ABC 123, maybe there are 10,000 who would want to pay $3k for the new-spring design, but 5,000 people absolutely wouldn't accept that change even if it means they pay $4000. So your market just shrank even more either way you make that call.
For Non-commercial reproductions, there’s a decent community here making guns throughout early history (12th century - 16th century), but of course it’s not profitable to make it commercial as the market is too niche.
@@zhangtony3372 I own a fire lance for home defense, since that's what the Song dynasty intended. Four nomadic raiders break into my house. "By Buddha's belly!" as I grab my spread-horn head cover and Huochong hand cannon. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my hand grenade on the second man, miss him entirely because my agrarian arms and detonate the neighbor's dog. I have to resort to the pneumatic flamethrower mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with fierce fire oil, "人生如同白駒過隙!" the fire oil incinerates two men in the blast, the smoke and screams set off fire alarms. Fix halberd and charge the last terrified barbarian. He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since halberd bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the Song dynasty intended.
I would feel like the production requirements for such a period of firearms would also make it a little easier - as you wont be seeing the same chamber pressures (etc)
Yep. Excellent firearm business analysis, and he's practically the only person who can speak about the business aspect of firearm topics in this manner.
I am totally in awe about how Ian gets through this without stopping or cutting. There was this one video where he was talking and you could see the reflection of his setup in the glass behind him, and it really just was a camera on a tripod and Ian talking twenty minutes, no stops, no Er Ehm, no nothing. Impressive.
The result of literal years of scripting, speaking whilst recording and researching, as well as his built and demonstrated knowledge of firearms. We're lucky to have this fellow for certain.
You might not believe me Mr. McCollum but Avtomat Fyodorova is one of the reason I got into gunsmithing and successfully finished studying gunsmithing in CZ Uherský Brod. Also part of it is because of you and your older video on Fedorov from 2011 and than 2018. It is my dream to make small reproduction of this gun and reason to keep working as a gunsmith. Btw I was in one of the classes that wisited you while you were filming in CZ UB, It was awesome to talk with you ! J.P.
Fingers crossed! Legendary if not that well known gun, produced in small quantity so yeah, a fresh batch would be quite something. When it comes to such historical guns I'd love to see reproduced Bergmann MP18 with its original WWI magasine. Again, a historical gun that was produced in small numbers.
@@Calm_Plier Depends on used material and design of the custom part. You can use these basic materials and their combination: Plastic, wood and various metals. -There are many methods to shape plastic into a certain things. Injection molding or similar are cost effective for mass production so I would went with 3D printing since it is one of the best ways to make prototype/custom parts. -Than there is wood. I was thought how to process and shape wood in nice stock, pistol grip or handguard, but it takes much greater amount of time to finish it. There are different kinds of wood that varies in strength and their behaviour, not to mention that good piece of wood is expensive. -Last one of them is metal (usually some kind of aluminum alloy). The design of the part plays a big role because you need to know what methods to use. Complexity is your greatest enemy. Lots of operation, nearly all of them you could do ,,manually,, on milling machine or lathe. Now, that takes extreme amount time. Everything changes once you have expensive CNC machines and know how to program. In the end I would personally go with 3D printing and place metal heat shielding inside (like it is done on lots of AR-15 plastic handguards)
The obvious exception of course being the Colt SAA. Mechanically simple enough, and iconic enough that many people don't even care if it is chambered in a different caliber, and lots of companies sell reproduction/clones of it.
PSA has recreated the Chinese "spiker" AK. I'm not a huge fan of AKs, but it seems to me that they can't keep them in stock. Anyway, I think close recreations of classic guns in modern calibers with modern mags are a neat idea. I'm glad PSA is doing it!
I know it won't happen, and i'd probably be the only one to buy it, but i'd like to see atleast some kind of attempt at a modern Mars or Lahti pistol. The Mars, cuz it's big caliber and it's basically a Deagle without the ugly looks, the Lahti, cuz it's just a nice gun. Or hell, if someone started making working reproductions of Chinese Mystery Pistols, that'd be something i'd be interested in. But yeah, not everyone wants a CB-1913M5 reproduction, and that's fair.
@@ridiculousrandy1401 I don't like most pistols with Slides, the original M1911 is an exception but only if it's the original 1911 model, not the 1911A1, the original one.
One thing I think gets overlooked is it is probably a lot easier to make reproductions of popular designs like the M-16, Colt 1911 or Winchester 1894 because you don't have to educate the customer on why it is cool or worry about availability of accessories and parts. I think a FAMAS G2 would be awesome, but that is because I watched Ian use a FAMAS in Desert Brutality.
you can have 100 people say yes they'd buy it, but you're lucky to get 20 people out of the 100 that actually have the money to buy them, and maybe less than half that actually buys
Example: Currently there are many people saying if Ruger brings back the Marlin 39A to the original standards they would buy one. No, most of them wouldn't, not at the price Ruger would need to charge.
Yep, I'm one of the folks who would love to have PSAs STG, but am pretty sure I won't get one till I find it used being sold by someone who just lost their job, or some other rotten scenario.
This is why the Street Performer Protocol exists, aka Kickstarter. People's word that they would buy is worthless; a prepaid pledge at a reward tier that includes one unit of the item is a guaranteed sale. And if a manufacturer sees 10,000 people say they will buy one, but only 500 people actually pledge, they can safely just refund the pledges and refuse to tool up. And none of those 9,500 no-shows can complain at all, because their choice was to put up or shut up, and they sure as hell didn't put up.
That's the same with any product brought to market. Manufacturer shows off new thing at trade show. Everyone oohs and aahs says "I really want one." Some people will put down a deposit with 100% certainty they'll buy one. Life happens, tastes change, specs of new thing change slightly and they end up not buying.
The whitney wolverine reproductions were a good example of going so far from the original no one wanted them. I’d love an original or one that looks like one. That 50’s scifi look.
That, or the new FN "Faux-power". Not original enough to speak to enthusiasts (no parts compatibility, not even magazines), but not modernized enough for the mainstream market either (steel frame, no optics or accessory mounting). On top of that the pictures I've seen of them have been horribly for together, major misalignments and whatnot. I mean, what were they thinking.
@@Tunkkis almost like the new browning a5’s. The old ones were loved. They were just heavy and got too expensive to make. But 20 years later there was still do much if a demand browning(fn) brought them back modernized them and actually made a good gun in itself. But it doesn’t give the same feeling as shooting an original. Fn also owns winchester and at least brought the lever guns the right way. The 1866,1873 and 1894 are good enough. Just the 1886 and I believe the 1895 have those damn tang safeties.
@@LilPistachiofr they made a whitney wolverine but they were black, had shorter barrels that were threaded or had comps, had optics rail etc. completely took away from the lines of the gun. No one bought them and they malfunctioned like crazy.
I hope that if the STG 44 reproduction goes on the market later this year as planned by PSA, Ian will acquire a test and evaluation model and put a bunch of rounds thru it in front of the camera so the rest of us can see first-hand if it is reliable enough to spend the 2000.00 or more it will cost to buy one.
Honestly if they could get the price down to the 750-1000 dollar range they would have a hot seller. I really hope that it can get separated from the history of the rifle and can be tacticooled without spoiling the lines of the gun.
The other issue that Ian did not mention is that to make a reliable weapon you need the Technical Data Package that specifies the tolerances of each part, type of steel, hardness, etc. You can’t get this but just putting calibers to a few old examples.
The TDP is not enough if the original materials are not available. Also some production techniques require expensive custom machines that only make sense in very high production operations. This was mentioned in one of the PSA STG44 videos. Even so, there was still a lot of hand fitting of older weapons. It was also not uncommon on the production lines to need to try several individual parts combinations to get one that worked well in a particular firearm.
@@jfess1911 We have categorically better production materials and processes now, it’s cheap to overshoot materials qualities requirements. It’s not that difficult to CNC machine pretty much any shape and tolerance. The question is how many do you have to make for testing before you find reliable working tolerance specifications. And even then, how many parts will interchange in the originals with their different details (even if you exactly reproduced the one template original…).
@@Georgewilliamherbert I have worked in factories with both modern and old, even WWII-era equipment (ACME, Davenport and South Bend screw machines). Using a CNC to produce numerous small parts is actually quite slow and expensive compared to dedicated or custom-built but very specialized machines optimized to produce specific parts. Even being able to forge or cold/hot-form parts to near-net shape dramatically reduces machining time and cost at scale. To take advantage of this equipment, though, you need to produce hundreds if not thousands of each part per day. Even though Hill and Mac actually had the TDP for the STG44, it took years to make it reliable. In one of their recent videos they flat out stated that the TDP was not enough and that they had great difficulty replicating the materials and mass production methods used in WWII. In the end, they gave up on some parts and, for example, decided to buy the entire trigger pack from H&K because they could not build it themselves at anywhere the near the same cost.
@@jfess1911 What you hot or cold forge, what you extrude or cast (sand, investment, lost foam, hot die etc) or additively manufacture all is going to depend on materials and volume and materials cost and … yeah. Dedicated machines are great if you’re feeding hundreds to tens of thousands of parts a day through. An ex’es father built and maintained tooling at the Corvette motor factory. Some parts at that volume with dedicated machines, others got CNCed or batch forged intermittently or … all sorts of solutions. CNC means the least tool development in your delivery timelines and cost timelines. But they’re rarely the fastest possible way. Just the fastest flexible way you can buy tooling off the shelf…
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.
Stamping is a problen with low production number items. The dies are extremly expensive and require a lot of knowldedge to manufacture and operate. The big benefit of stamping, the realy cheap unit cost, only applies when large numbers are made witch is unlikley for reproductions. In RnD I have seen people mill pieces out of solid blocks that resemble stampings.
@@lukahierl9857 cnc milling as well as 3d printing is the way on reprodution. Rd would be negligible on these. Think along the lines of 10-22 and stemple clones. A gun in a costume
My initial thought when I saw the title was the video would go like this. Intro* Ian* "they're expensive and don't sell" Outro for the remaining video time with some sort of sad music*
Goddamn man, thought I'd see your channel pop up in Forgotten weapons at some point. Love your content, would love to talk about a Civil defence bunker I've had a look around in SE London
There's a UK dealer working up production loading of 7mm Mk1Z AKA .280/30 British. If you're going to pay an arm and a dick for a one-off reproduction of a rifle nobody has made in 70 years, might as well go the whole hog! 🤣
I think one reproduction that would be a hit on the market would be an M1 Garand. Mike from NodakSpud/PSA said that when they purchased H&R, they also received the TDP for the M1 Garand and digitized them for production. An M1 from the CMP would have greater historical value, but a new production M1 that I don't have to worry about trashing would be awesome too. Plus, none of the ranges around me are with the CMP, and the clubs that are with them are JROTC or high school clubs.
The M1 makes sense. That action is still in production with current M1s and the Mini-14. I'd also love a CNC'd aluminum-receiver BAR that would be legal in pretty much every state lol
Springfield Armory, Inc. already did that, and people bitched about the cast receivers and the price and the non-GI parts etc. And while the CMP continue to sell real ones (which wont go on forever) they can continue to get the ones they really wanted.
@@MkVII Mike has said they’ll be using forged receivers. Personally I don’t care about GI parts on a repro, I’d rather have new production parts that I don’t have to worry about. I don’t care for Springfield armory anyways.
The FAMAS might actually be more viable than at first glance. The rise of multi-jet fusion 3D printing giving anisotropic material qualities means you could create a version one using MJF printed polymer parts (designed for eventual injection molding) and then go forward with acquiring the molds only if the project proves popular enough to justify the expense.
I think one added point- older designs also tend to have some… less than ideal design decisions, from a modern perspective. And TBH, there’s a reason that many of them weren’t selling well enough to maintain production in the first place. So if you’re going to make one, do you keep these things that people will hate, for sake of authenticity? Or do you jettison them to try and make the product more appealing to modern consumers? The Hi-Power is an interesting example of this, with several companies (FN, Springfield, and Girsan/EAA) recently each demonstrating different takes on how to approach doing one (FN going much more modern and really just keeping the aesthetic, Springfield staying mostly traditional, and Girsan kind of splitting the difference). And for a reproduction to sell well enough to be financially viable, you (generally) need to find a way it can operate in one of the other main uses people want for firearms. In the general market that means (in order) home/self defense, hunting, or competition. Range toys are just straight up HARD to sell currently, and I’d imagine because there’s less consensus in that segment of the market on what consumers want. You ask a hundred random gun owners what they’d want in a home defense rifle, you’re probably gonna have some pretty identifiable trends (calibers, features, price point, etc) that people want. But you ask a hundred gun owners what gun they’d love for the range or just for fun, you’re probably gonna have close to a hundred different answers. Good luck appealing to enough people to turn a profit.
If you’re a collector, and you have paid a premium for an original gun. Sure you might take it to the range a couple of times a year. But you, probably would not want to wear out, that prized item. A reproduction would be a good stand-in for practice and weapon proficiency.
@@RealJohnnyDingo: If you are interested in learning how to field strip, shoot, and maintain a valuable antique firearm. You might want to practice on a cheaper reproduction, so as not potentially damage a historically significant antique and degrade its value.
Your market for the production is still the same as the market for the already niche collector's item and a collector would not buy one of each over spending that on a different one for the collection
@@KaitouKaiju look at black powder civil war revolvers - if you could afford an original these days it would not be a daily shooter, but more likely a museum piece. the repros are very popular because they're cheap, fun to shoot, and still have some historical appeal because they are very much like the original articles. they are thoroughly obsolete so you wouldn't equip your army with such weapons, but it's still fun and dare I say educational to shoot one.
I think part of the reason someone would get a reproduction is they don't want to put wear and tear on an original, but they want to shoot it regularly with the original experience.
@matthewswan9419 probably deer mostly. I'm not saying that's what I'm gonna do for sure, but it would be neat. Kill two birds with one stone. A cool piece of history that is also functional.
As an engineer I'd like to point out that a single injection mold, just the part without the engineering costs, is about $36000 USD. These are precisely milled massive chunks of steel that need to also have spouts for excess and to be designed around the constraints of fluid mechanics for the flowing plastic. Even a mold for a press to form polymer parts is going to end up costing a ton due to how long it has to hold up to a metric fuck ton of heating and cooling cycles which means a simple looking part still will cost a lot. In short manufacturing only ends up being profitable once you got a certain scale of production that can off set those start up costs. Also I'd love a FAMAS repro or Federalis repro (make it in 5.56 or 7.62x39 and take ar or so mags).
One thing I'd like Ian to discuss is that PSA isn't just teaming up with HMG for their StG-44 project, but that it's the first an what I've read is an entire line of reproduction firearms, called their Battlefield lineup. As far as I know, it's just the StG-44 for now, but I've heard that they've implied there might be a Garand reproduction in the future.
I think Ian and Karl did interview HMG years ago about the StG44, before the project stalled. It left a bad taste that people paid up front for a gun that might never be produced. I hope it does sell well. If it does come out , I bet Ian would do a video on it.
Another point on purism - the purists are also the ones more likely to pay high prices, since they are typically the most passionate about the gun. So, if you move away from a purist-oriented reproduction, you'll also have to lower the price point in order for it to actually sell.
And the argument, as Ian says, is that making it with more "modern" features allows that price to come down, so it's still a viable choice of picking authentic versus convenience.
The weapon is being produced in several calibers. The "purist" can have his authentic version. I would like one that handles 7.62x39/AK mags. Another would want 5.56/300 BO with AR mags. win, Win, WIN!
The best argument for making reproduction firearms is that it allows more people to experience shooting them. Not many people are able to buy originals, and even fewer people are willing to shoot their historic firearms. The main place where reproductions have done well is in black powder firearms and guns of the old west. There are still many fans of those eras, and there are plenty of shooting competitions built around those guns. I would love to see a company specialize in making reproductions of firearms from every era. From the 1600s through the 1970s. They could make smaller runs and presell them to see what is truly in demand. Then, make additional runs of the most popular firearms. Similar to how high-end movie prop reproductions and models are done. If it is in an obscure caliber, then sell it with 200 rounds as the standard option and have options for it to come with 500 or 1000 rounds. Also sell it with a minimum of 4 magazines if it has detachable magazines.
Coming from the guitar world first and the gun world later I think the major problem is that most people either want the best cool new thing or surplus antiques. Where in the guitar world people will buy a 59' reproduction Les Paul to be like Jimmy Page, I don't think there's as much of a market for that kind of thing in the gun world. Compound this problem with the amount of capital that's required to set up the initial tooling it's just not economically viable. Great video as always Ian!
I think another big thing is how different guitar (and more broader wood) manufacturing operates a fair bit differently than metal goods manufacturing in term of the necessary production steps and tools, seeing how luthiers still happily exist as a trade.
I'm a big fan of inspired designs as opposed to exact remakes, which gives you license to use generic calibers & magazines while focusing on capturing whatever is special about the original mechanism or appearance
A good example is Fulton Armory with their reproduction M1 Garands, it’s cheaper to buy a real one if you can get a deal than buy a new production, although if I’d been hill and Mac I probably would’ve tried partnering with a magazine manufacturer like Magpul for Mecgar to produce the STG 44 mags
It would be a highly lopsided deal to partner with a mag company. As Ian alluded to, the mag takes up most of the development time and a prospective buyer is going to buy, what, less than a dozen mags? While expecting those mags to be affordable?
@@eddietat95 it’s gonna be way easier for a magazine company to replicate a mag then say hill and Mac, because all magazine companies do is make magazines and they have usually decades of experience doing it
@@Scott079 It quickly becomes a "chicken and egg" scenario. Unless the firearm manufacturer coughs up all of the money for production up front, the magazine manufacturer will insist that there is a proven demand for them. The firearm manufacturer needs the magazines to sell the gun in the first place. Getting a magazine to work in a particular firearm is not as simple as many think. Getting a mag to work consistently with every variation of min-max tolerance of both the firearm and the magazine (+ ammo variation) is not a "magazine only" issue.
@@dancortes3062 only scenario I can see is wanting one that runs .308 reliably instead of 30-06. I have photographs of my grandfather using a wartime expedient cut-down of an M1, so I went to fulton to create a replica (the tanker was very close) that won't beat itself to death and eats .308 as it's more readily available.
I'm of the opinion that quite a few of the early, single shot breach loaders (skip all the magazine headaches) could be reproduced quite cheaply with modern CNC machining. Of course, even if you could get the price down to a few hundred bucks, the problem is that there's very little market interest in them. And also originals of quite a few of them survive in surprising numbers.
I keep reading about 3D printed molds for small batch parts being very cost effective. Might eventually help with reproduction firearm polymer parts, given their limited runs. FAMAS lower receiver is pretty big, though, which won't help.
There are different polymer technologies. Injection moulding is expensive to gear up but cheap on the long run. Castable resins, when properly cured, can have superior strength with a lower cost of entry, given 3D printing. Sure, the internals won't necessarily match the injection moulded ones, but how often do they need to? Knowing the market is important for any commercial venture. If you're doing it for the love, then please yourself.
Ian, one of the potential markets you didn't mention are a special niche. That is for WW2 reenactors where appearance is the most important feature. It matters not whether they shoot projectiles is not an issue, as a matter of fact, not shooting a projectile makes them safer for reenactment. So a simple blank/cap firing mechanism, hidden under a realistic outer shell would be a very desirable "toy" that would assist a reenactor to gain a more capable and desirable prop with better performance in that role than being stuck with a lower performance rifle such as a K98k (which prices are rising rapidly) or a Garand, which is also rising quickly. Just an idea, as I was in that position for several years as a reenactor of both sides. Further, if the replica was a noise only replica, then local laws, such as in Washington State, prohibiting full auto weapons, would no longer present a difficulty.
I have a suggestion. A 'generic' ww1/ww2 battle rifle. Customer buys a basic rifle 'innards / mechanism in either (5.56, 7.62x39 or 300blackout) and then you choose a furniture 'kit' which includes wood stocks, sights, fittings in the style you want:- SMLE (including No4 mark1), K98, Mosin Nagant M42, Mannlicher Carcano etc. These would not be clones, but modern rifle kits, 'in the style of...' in a selection of modern, ready available calibers. You could offer a modest selection of stocks, laminated woods and even unfinished stocks. However the mechanisms would be modern bolt-action mechanisms. Just a thought.
Great story Ian. I did not realize the “Magazines” were a big issue to reproduce. Then I thought of what a production line might really look like. There would have be a lot of money invested.If you get an order for something like 10,000 guns to be reproduced I could see building a factory just to make magazines. Not in California.🤔
A friend had a cottage business called Diva Arms. She took HK 93s and dressed them up to look like a Stg44. Reenactors were the primary market. If PSA does a run better snatch one quick. 300 blk or 7.62x39 might be a good option.
I used to think "Oh that'd be cool to have" but Ian's explained enough and looking at reproduction prices and varying quality that I'm happy with the guns I have and if there's something I really want to keep? Well, I'll save up for an original if it's available. Quite a few guns, after Ian did a video was enough for me. He finished my bucket list a year ago via videos. :)
There is an interesting exception: At least in Europe, the market for 19th century cap-and-ball replicas seems to be healthy and thriving. In Poland for example, it's really hard to get a gun permit... but one can walk into a shop and buy a fully functional black powder gun without any paperwork, as long as it's a faithful replica of a pre-1885 gun and uses a separate powder charge and bullet to load. The "Wild West" revolvers seem to be especially popular.
34 years in manufacturing here. Few outside the industry truly understand the expenditures involved for something like this. They see CNC videos on youtube and equate it to replicator levels of magic. Not so. Not at all.
I work in the firearm manufacturing industry. We just spent $8 million for a new automation cell just to make 1 critical component for a gun that isn't even out yet. I run Tsugami Swiss lathes. Just for the machine to sit idle costs $7/hour in electricity. Close to $40/hour when running. We have 7 Tsugami's. One of the custom form drills I use to make the firing pin hole in the bolts is close to $400. We run them until they break. My team lead loaded in the carbide hammers wrong into the hammer forge one night and crash them. $40K turned to dust in 1/2 second. If you scrap a barrel on finish turn its $200 gone. The costs are insane. And then there is an 11% excise tax for every firearm we make. I don't know how we ever make money but we make a lot of it somehow.
In fact if some one want to reproduce STG44, it will not just be a amateur products, because Stg44 is still having its practice use in 21st century, you can make some 5.56 or 7.62*39 or 5.45 version at the same time accelerate its fire frequency. It will be as powerful as AR or AK. Some military group can adopt Stg44 as their primary weapon.
If you want one... make your own in 30-06 or maybe even in 300 Winchester Magnum and rework the trigger from double action to single action because a fifteen pound trigger pull is no good.
@@Henrydbunny that's a simple direct blowback PCC badly cosplaying as an FG42. By that definition, a Ruger 10/22 in a SG2000 conversion kit is a "reproduction" WA2000.
The dimension that Ian didn't mention is the legality of making them. I suspect that a reproduction of any of the SMGs from WWII would be insanely popular in just about any caliber, and most of them would be ridiculously simple to manufacture, but there is just no legal space to produce them in their original automatic form.
That and they have to have obnoxiously long 16” barrels. And stamping isn’t cheap and common anymore. Everyone moved in to cnc machines. So you’d have to do the r&d in stamping and all that. Look how simple mp5’s are. Stamped and welded but cost a shit ton. The bolt and barrel are quality.
@@soylentgreen7074 Yep, no one wants a cool SMG with an ungainly, disproportionately long barrel. Hell, the only reason I built my full-size Uzi is because I could put a fake suppressor over the 16 barrel.
I'm like Ian and usually have interest in these kind guns just to play with. Had the MSAR 5.56 and that kind of fizzled. Have an AUG now and am happy. Picked up the Brownell's Ar-10 and absolutely love it. I have the lightweight one and put on the brown furniture and prong FH. The stock front sight was too low so I had a gunsmith drill and tap the sight post for an AR threaded post to make it shootable. Had the Brownell's 601 and my brother talked me out of that one. I never shot it, but the barrel pin slot in the receiver was out of spec and had to be fixed. But the biggie for me was getting on the HMG list back in November of 2015 for the STG and going through the ringer with that one. So that didn't happen and I was refunded but I'm glad that PSA can back the project now. Maybe they can get them out and see them actually work in the wild.
I’m slightly surprised that Ian didn’t even mention what is probably the largest existing market for reproduction guns- S&W model 3’s. The key to that being a viable business model is the popularity of cowboy action shooting. It’s a niche competition market. At the same time, they’re in the same boat as all the manufacturers making SAA copies (also largely influenced by CAS)- the technical package for those guns was widely disseminated, so they don’t need to reinvent the wheel in order to tool up. And all that being said, as a huge fan of top break revolvers, I ended up buying an old H&R in .32 S&W long to satisfy the itch to own one, because those are a LOT cheaper than the reproduction model 3’s.
What Ian is saying about reproductions is 100% spot on. There are dozens of examples of reproduction firearms that have done well, but for every 1, you have several dozen that don't. I was at a gun shop today, and there was a good spread of guns, and I was talking with someone looking to buy their own gun. The guy behind the counter was more a rifle guy, so I kinda stepped in to help with information. The guy picked up a dagger and a g19 that it was based on, and would rather have the original is you may. He didnt want a knock off. We moved onto Berettas, he liked the 92fs and I recommended he look at the girsan regard. Again, he said he would rather spend the extra $300 and get the original gun than a Turkish Knockoff. We ended at the 1911 cabinet, he picked up a Colt and a RIA and again, he would rather spend a few hundred more for a better built version of the same gun, and he's not wrong. I have a lot of the cheaper guns, and I can admit that the more expensive guns have better appeal, but I get on just fine with my cheaper guns.
Very well said sir. It’s hard to believe that we now have to discuss the issue of not finding ammunition in every caliber made. This is nothing more than a to slowly numb people to the realization that very soon we won’t be able to have any caliber of ammo. Thank you Ian for your always accurate insight.
I was a toolmaker and headermam for a while and people seem to forget how much time amd money goes into setup and working out how to actually make more than one of the things.
@@SurmaSampo This is why I get aggravated when someone says "Just do X or Y. Its easy", in reference to building/fixing/making something. Yeah, its easy b/c you don't have to do it and you've never done it.
@Old Scratch I'm in the process of building a new barn and I figured it would be an "easy" build because it's a basic structure. Little did I know haha.
@@oldscratch3535 and they universally don’t get that you have to start with a, b, c and d WAY before you can do x and y. I’ve had team members say “all you have to do is x and y” to which I’ve called their bluff: ok, if it’s that easy, do it. Fast forward 2 weeks later, when I ask why it’s not done yet: “ummmm”. Thought so.
I think the biggest market of reproduction guns are the muzzle loaders and cowboy action (19th century American) guns, single shots and lever action rifles and single action revolvers. Italian companies did a great job about these categories (Pedersoli, Uberti, Pietta, etc). Also these are much less headache as no separate magazines.
Umberti does a great job with the colt SSA because they bought colts tooling if you buy a SSA from colt today they assemble it from parts they get from Umberti
Im surprised the AR-18/AR-180 wasn't even mentioned in passing. I guess it's not technically a commercial reproduction but it seems like Brownells brought it back from purgatory and modernized it to a pretty high degree of success. So I think that makes it worth at least mentioning
A very good example of NOT COST productive is the company that a reproduction of the M1 Garand in 22 cal. They mad a few hundred and the sales were just not there due to cost of the gun. Why pay the price of a real gun in a reproduced 22 cal version? For that matter the cost of a 30-06 version. Springfield is an example the cost to produce a clip feed M1 verses the magazine feed version. Too many of the original ones available. Everything you stated in this video is very correct. It would be cool but who would buy a reproduction broom handle mouser? Manufacture cost would be prohibitive.
Perhaps you could *print* the polymer parts for the Famas? Assuming you would be doing a relatively small run perhaps that would clear one of your hurdles to simply scan and print the polymer components after doing the materials comparison to see if it would hold up?
Brownells really messed up not continuing their retro models. I guess they could always tool back up, but it seems as if PSA has picked up the slack in the meantime (for a better price).
@@stoptrackingourdata8158 Brownells for their forgings from Nodak Spud from what I understand and Nodak stopped supplying them with those once PSA bought them.
@@TylerHulan I'll be happy to give my money to either company as long as I don't have to gather the parts myself. I turned one of Brownells AR Proto stripped upper/lower packages into a pretty cool little .22 with CMMG parts. It's not authentic to any previous AR models, but I think it's neat; and it was easy to build. No headspacing necessary.
@@TylerHulan Sounds dope! CMMG is another company who needs to get it together though. I used their .22lr AR dedicated barrel and bolt kit (different than the conversion kit) on my build that they no longer manufacture. They need to bring it back. Makes it easy to build your own dedicated .22lr upper which I did with another one of their kits that I found sans front sight post. CMMG used to make two versions; one with a fsp and one without. That way you could have a retro looking .22lr AR or a more modern version. I used the version with the barrel that had the front sight post on the BRN Proto since that had carry handle irons, and used the other style on a more modern .22lr upper with a free float barrel and modern optic.
So, knowing all of these facts, and the claim that PSA is making a “Battlefield” line of weapons, what’s your thoughts on what PSA might be bringing to the market? They already have a Chinese “Spiker” AK for sale. BTW: I’ll be buying an StG44 from PSA, in 8mm Kurz. The ammo is out there and I’m not going to use it for my GTW rifle. Don’t care if it costs $1.20 a round.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an SKS from them in the next few years. It's a common caliber, a simple action that doesn't need special moldings or castings, it's long out of patent, and has a pretty devoted following. I imagine it probably has a wider possible customer base too, since there's some ban states where it's still legal in non-detachable-mag form. I know I'd buy one.
@@leadjunkie5674 But there’s a lot of SKSs out there, correct? I’m thinking PSA is looking at popular guns that aren’t on the market. Sten, maybe. All stamped parts. Uzi. Maybe an FG42. Time will tell.
The purist thing I can understand, like the ongoing STG reproduction debacle, when "cheap escapes" doesn't even make it close to an original except maybe looks. Getting around the infamous one-time STG headspacing, I dont mind, but then they changed trigger group for the universal H&K one which is kind of a cheap escape, but ok the original trigger group had a hundred parts or w/e, and those who own a full auto H&K trigger group that fits the gun = Good for them. But then it seems they just kept making change after change, steering further and further away from other things that mechanically and functionally made the STG the STG, incl recoil, to the point that just about half of the guns exterior seems to be for appearance. And at THAT point I, personally, in my opinion (just to get away from any legal trouble here) would rather just let it slide. Not saying nobody will buy the gun when it does come out for sale, but IMO it won't be an STG.
Reproduction guns is a slippery slope. If you redesign a vintage firearm so that it could take advantage of modern modularity, that chases away the folks who were buying it for the original aesthetics. I think Brownells did a good job with their modern take on the AR-180 .
I just really want to see someone make a cartridge firing repro of the volcanic pistol. Theoretically it shouldn’t be that hard, right? Just a miniaturized lever action, and there’s loads of modern production lever actions on the market right now, so you could easily reapply the tooling and design principles to a volcanic.
A lot of the problem I see is that you get into the "authentic" question... Nobody is going to reproduce actual Volcanic ammunition. So it has to be re-chambered into something different, with a rather different mechanism... (no ejection port on a Volcanic ) So how much is it going to actually look or work like a Volcanic... Bringing a "pretend" Volcanic to an ACW reenactment or a NS-SA match is going to be about as popular as a fart in an elevator.
Another thing I see is a company finding blueprints for these "older" arms. Sure, you can measure an original gun out, but that will take a ton of time and trial and error just to make sure it functions right. Also I would have no clue were to even find schematics on say a C96. Most of the records and tooling were lots to history (just like how Colt pretty much lost their original molds when they sold it to Uberti).
Graduate level knowledge. Thank you. In many conversations with my father, over decades, he would wonder why modern car companies didn't make reproductions of iconic and beautiful cars from the past. With better engines, airbags, etc. Ian nailed it. It is vanity to make something which costs more than it can recoup in the market. My dad and I may buy one, but the market is very small. People with taste, and money.... at the same time?!?? We are all passionate about engineering and history, but the mass market....... not so much.
I'd like to see more early cartridge guns be reproduced. Erma did a repro of the Gallagher carbine from the Civil War a few years back and they are noted as the best variant of the Gallagher. Sadly they are no longer reproduced. There are a lot of cool guns, many without a magazine, that would be awesome as a reproduction. I even enjoy the Kingston Armory Mini Mosin in 22lr. Its one third size is a fun novelty gun.
I would like to see a sharps pepperbox derringer in 22 long rifle. Easy, small, few parts, historic, practical, unique. I am surprised Ian did not mention the old west revolvers and rifle reproductions. Or civil war reproduction weapons. I should also mention that plastic stock weapons could probably be produced with 3d printed molds, hand finished, to create resin/fiber reinforced stocks in low production numbers fairly easily. Not requiring million dollar injection molding dies and a plastic manufacturing company.
@@ElTejon47901 I think the resale prices of the recent Hungarian guns proves there is a market for it. People who could and would pay $1500 for one would rather do that than pay $7k+ for a legit one
I have a recent production PPS 43 semi auto. It is one of my favorite guns. It is chambered in Tokarev which is unfortunate as I can go through $100 in ammo very quickly. Would I consider getting one in 9mm? Only if it's a good deal. So yeah, this video really hit home.
Just a thought. Perhaps forgotten weapons could do an interview with Ruger. And they could go into some detail about what has taken, to produce that magnificent Marlin lever gun.
6:49 Man, that comment about Brownell's discontinuing the AR Proto rifles depresses me because I actually really liked those guns. I didn't care if it was 100% authentic to the original guns, I just liked having an affordable AR with a fixed carry handle and a charging handle in an easy-to-access place. I really hope they'll at least bring back those uppers one day.
Worked at an prototyping injection molding company 8 years ago. 10K for their basic large mold and 4k for the smaller ones. So a FAMAS shell isn't too bad as far as the molds go.
Always thought there was/would be a market for deactivated replicas? All these armchair warriors? Game players and the like? Look at the market for fantasy swords and such?
People only pay about 150$ for a fantasy sword wallhanger and swing it around for Instagram sometimes. Plenty of gamers and cosplayers will get 3D printed inert models of whatever prop guns they want, paint them up, and call it good. Even a deactivated receiver, drilled chamber, and cut bolt pile of scrap from an MP40 or something is still a lot more money than most people would bother with for something to look at and pose with when cheaper options exist. Even for years before 3D printed was a home-viable option, resin cast props weren't unreasonably priced for what you're getting.
I think Airsoft guns have that part of the market cornered. Why buy an overpriced paper-weight when you can have a replica that actually shoots (albeit BBs). They are even made in real steel for those who care about authenticity.
There was this French German company called Reichenbach, that was very active in the early 90's that worked on restorations for firearms, especially WW I & II era but they were perhaps the only known company that would "re-forge" old damaged guns, as in they would small and recast the weapon, it looked exactly at the time in it prime mint condition but they only used modern tools, not really a bad thing, they well credited for they work, but I don't know what happened to them,
I did always wonder why reproduction lever guns and cap n ball revolvers were more popular than a M2 Rising, or Thompson reproductions for example. No magazine and either exiting rounds (44 and 357 come to mind for lever guns) or easy to make and you load with available on market material, especially lead round ball. A questions that finally I got an answer in this video to. Thank you Ian!
I'd also hazard to say the NFA interferes with buying repros of old SMGs. I'd love to have an M1 Thompson, but the modern repros they make all have to come with comically long 16inch barrels, have lackluster reliability, are expensive, and if I want to get it to right length, I have file it as an SBR with the ATF and jump through all those hoops. No thanks, I'll pass.
One of the companies here in Taiwan just tooled up to make a FAMAS GBBR replica for a German company sponsoring the project, having just finished an excellent MP2A1 Uzi and a whole family of STEN replicas beforehand. Knowing how closely they like to replicate things to the original (they had to move a pin position on the STEN to avoid real fire control parts being put into them) you might always be able to get replica polymer furniture made to the same standards as the original (sometimes better, arguably... Airsofters bitch more about colour mismatches in plastics or anodised metal than any normal human being should).
One of the problems with replicating the German StG4 Sturmgewehr is that it was overengineered and is considerably more complicated than an M16 or an AK47 which of course makes it more expensive in spite of it's sheet metal receiver.
I think there was a company making replicas of Eastern Bloc weapons like the Russian Degtvaryov 'Record player' ' - obviously in semi-auto and they struggled to sell even 200 of each model
Very thoughtful answer, Ian. What about a new production semi-only receiver and trigger group, along with a parts kit from surplus FA guns? TNW did this for MG34, for example.
What would happen to 100% authentic newly-manufactured reproductions when those reproductions along with authentic accessories and a reasonable supply of magazines and a case or two of ammunition were delivered to anybody who wished for one? I imagine Ian McCollum taking his new Fedorov and twenty magazines and ten thousand corrosive-primed 6.5x50mm cartridges to every match he could drag his tired body to and firing that rifle in submachine gun matches, rifle matches, three-gun matches, and reenactments.
Is there any possibility that the additive printing processes for plastics and metals would make reproductions more viable? My understanding is that suppressor cores and rocket nozzles are being metal printed now.
Personally, I lean much more towards the “cheap and close enough” camp. I still can’t afford the PSA STG. An AR-15 looks a lot like an STG44 if you squint, so what I always thought would be a good idea would be for a company to make an AR with receivers, stock and furniture that looked like an STG from the outside, but was a stock AR internally. Yeah it would take AR mags, yeah it’d have the AR charging handle, yeah the proportions would be a bit wonky, but for me that would be more than acceptable in order to get something that looks like an STG44 into my hands for under $1000 (without having to resort to the .22 plinker that you just can’t find mags for)
Maybe it's the destiny of cool old guns - when reproduced, if ever, the reproductions themselves have good chances of becoming treasured almost as much due to being produced in small batches. Also we really need to ask ourselves - do we really want to devalue those guns you like by making them widely available? If everyone has access to a cool reproduction of Fedorov you mentioned, it would instantly deprive you of satisfaction of having it in the first place.
A couple case in points as esentially every M1-A is a reproduction even more so now. Springfield also made M1 Garand reproductions which kind of died when imports of lend lease Garands became legal. It was too expensive to compete with that. I managed to find one used and I say used only based on when it was made. It turned out to be made on a Breda made receiver instead of the Springfield investment cast. And had never been fired as far as I could tell as there was absolutely no powder residue anywhere. It had probably a Criterion barrel stamped Springfield and updated parts. Basically a brand new milspec Garand. Another one I encountered was a Yugo made 1903 A1. Beautifal and well made it simply wasn't worth the money asked used. I heard Yugo and maybe Norinco made Garand reproductions? Never seen either. Probably the same problem that plagued Springfield.
12:00 to be clear, for Ian and anyone else who might be interested in reproducing the G2, the molds would probably cost less than 100 thousand. My company's done some similar work (albeit for modern firearms.) Maybe a little more if the polymer parts are more complicated than what I can see.
Expensive to manufacture correctly, with a limited market.
"Bring back the ABC 123, I'll buy one!"
"What? There's no way I'm paying that much for an ABC 123!"
Precisely.
Yeah it's always that way with the concept of reproducing old technology now. I've seen it in firearm, car and camera communities all; "I'd so buy a reproduction blah blah blah" but then they don't realise how insanely fast it adds up to manufacture these things especially if they are only being made in small quantities for a niche market. It would take some serious oil baron money to be able to fund those kinds of projects enough just to get off the ground even.
So many people including myself would love to be able to buy a brand new fresh off the line Corolla AE86 or Canon F1 or [insert rare historical firearm], but unfortunately so many people including myself could never afford them in the unlikely event the were being made and sold.
And that is the reason that ABC 123's are now so rare.
@@sheerluckholmes5468 yeah..the Elbonians didn't look after the originals...lol
Yeah, and it's tricky too because everywhere you could... not cut a corner, exactly, but change anything, maybe use an off-the-shelf spring instead of the original (which has the same specs but is a slightly thicker wire tempered slightly differently and which you'd have to make yourself). Well, you split your market even farther: if there were 15,000 people who wanted an ABC 123, maybe there are 10,000 who would want to pay $3k for the new-spring design, but 5,000 people absolutely wouldn't accept that change even if it means they pay $4000. So your market just shrank even more either way you make that call.
I think the real reason Ian answered this question is to let gun manufacturers know that he need famas g2.😂
This is exactly why lol
Springfield's VHS import is as close as we're gonna get.
And he really need and I really want to see he using it on a match.
I’d buy one just to pair with my MK23.
As soon as he started to suggest a gun I new it was going to be french
For Non-commercial reproductions, there’s a decent community here making guns throughout early history (12th century - 16th century), but of course it’s not profitable to make it commercial as the market is too niche.
How can a bamboo tube filled with gunpowder be a commercially viable option?
@@zhangtony3372 not enough customers
@@zhangtony3372 I own a fire lance for home defense, since that's what the Song dynasty intended. Four nomadic raiders break into my house. "By Buddha's belly!" as I grab my spread-horn head cover and Huochong hand cannon. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my hand grenade on the second man, miss him entirely because my agrarian arms and detonate the neighbor's dog. I have to resort to the pneumatic flamethrower mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with fierce fire oil, "人生如同白駒過隙!" the fire oil incinerates two men in the blast, the smoke and screams set off fire alarms. Fix halberd and charge the last terrified barbarian. He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since halberd bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the Song dynasty intended.
I would feel like the production requirements for such a period of firearms would also make it a little easier - as you wont be seeing the same chamber pressures (etc)
Layman's term: Not a lot of people want a matchlock musket.
I'm always amazed by how eloquently Ian can answer a question.
Yep. Excellent firearm business analysis, and he's practically the only person who can speak about the business aspect of firearm topics in this manner.
I am totally in awe about how Ian gets through this without stopping or cutting. There was this one video where he was talking and you could see the reflection of his setup in the glass behind him, and it really just was a camera on a tripod and Ian talking twenty minutes, no stops, no Er Ehm, no nothing. Impressive.
The result of literal years of scripting, speaking whilst recording and researching, as well as his built and demonstrated knowledge of firearms. We're lucky to have this fellow for certain.
You can tell how passionate he is about his research, so great to see tbh
@@AdamOwenBrowning exactly
You might not believe me Mr. McCollum but Avtomat Fyodorova is one of the reason I got into gunsmithing and successfully finished studying gunsmithing in CZ Uherský Brod. Also part of it is because of you and your older video on Fedorov from 2011 and than 2018. It is my dream to make small reproduction of this gun and reason to keep working as a gunsmith. Btw I was in one of the classes that wisited you while you were filming in CZ UB, It was awesome to talk with you ! J.P.
I truly hope you succeed. I'd love to buy one from you someday.
yooo, I hope we can see "WeaselArmorer Fedorov Avtomat" one day
Fingers crossed! Legendary if not that well known gun, produced in small quantity so yeah, a fresh batch would be quite something.
When it comes to such historical guns I'd love to see reproduced Bergmann MP18 with its original WWI magasine. Again, a historical gun that was produced in small numbers.
An actual gunsmith? Can you make gun parts like a custom handguard for AR-15? Just asking, I don't even own a weapon.
@@Calm_Plier Depends on used material and design of the custom part. You can use these basic materials and their combination: Plastic, wood and various metals.
-There are many methods to shape plastic into a certain things. Injection molding or similar are cost effective for mass production so I would went with 3D printing since it is one of the best ways to make prototype/custom parts.
-Than there is wood. I was thought how to process and shape wood in nice stock, pistol grip or handguard, but it takes much greater amount of time to finish it. There are different kinds of wood that varies in strength and their behaviour, not to mention that good piece of wood is expensive.
-Last one of them is metal (usually some kind of aluminum alloy). The design of the part plays a big role because you need to know what methods to use. Complexity is your greatest enemy. Lots of operation, nearly all of them you could do ,,manually,, on milling machine or lathe. Now, that takes extreme amount time. Everything changes once you have expensive CNC machines and know how to program.
In the end I would personally go with 3D printing and place metal heat shielding inside (like it is done on lots of AR-15 plastic handguards)
The obvious exception of course being the Colt SAA. Mechanically simple enough, and iconic enough that many people don't even care if it is chambered in a different caliber, and lots of companies sell reproduction/clones of it.
1850's-1914 new production guns and parts or just different caliber's
Lots of cowboy era guns. LeMatt, Griswold, Walker...
PSA has recreated the Chinese "spiker" AK. I'm not a huge fan of AKs, but it seems to me that they can't keep them in stock. Anyway, I think close recreations of classic guns in modern calibers with modern mags are a neat idea. I'm glad PSA is doing it!
I know it won't happen, and i'd probably be the only one to buy it, but i'd like to see atleast some kind of attempt at a modern Mars or Lahti pistol. The Mars, cuz it's big caliber and it's basically a Deagle without the ugly looks, the Lahti, cuz it's just a nice gun. Or hell, if someone started making working reproductions of Chinese Mystery Pistols, that'd be something i'd be interested in. But yeah, not everyone wants a CB-1913M5 reproduction, and that's fair.
@@ukaszwalczak1154 you think the Deagle is ugly? Usually I say to each their own, but that just sounds wrong.
@@ukaszwalczak1154 BLASPHEMY! The deagle is beautiful
@@entitygames9751 The Deagle is just a swollen M1911 with the slide of a Chinese Mystery Pistol. The Mars is actually, something original.
@@ridiculousrandy1401 I don't like most pistols with Slides, the original M1911 is an exception but only if it's the original 1911 model, not the 1911A1, the original one.
He speaks wisdom even if it isn't what my heart wants to hear.
One thing I think gets overlooked is it is probably a lot easier to make reproductions of popular designs like the M-16, Colt 1911 or Winchester 1894 because you don't have to educate the customer on why it is cool or worry about availability of accessories and parts. I think a FAMAS G2 would be awesome, but that is because I watched Ian use a FAMAS in Desert Brutality.
A company doesn’t HAVE to make reproductions of any of those. They’re still made today and an M16 can easily be done with a parts kit.
I think a good example of modern reproductions being commercially viable are the Auto-Ordinance m1 carbines.
Yeah except their QC is virtually non existent
Cool reproduction carbines but terribly made...ripped cases, double feeds, unreliable magazines, all that mess.
@@hjp14 all the parts they use are out of spec, they use whatever junk they get from their shell companies overseas.. It's a shit show
@@hjp14 not all of us can afford a fulton
Which speaks to what Ian says here about quality - it better be pretty perfect or everyone is walking away
you can have 100 people say yes they'd buy it, but you're lucky to get 20 people out of the 100 that actually have the money to buy them, and maybe less than half that actually buys
Example: Currently there are many people saying if Ruger brings back the Marlin 39A to the original standards they would buy one. No, most of them wouldn't, not at the price Ruger would need to charge.
Yep, I'm one of the folks who would love to have PSAs STG, but am pretty sure I won't get one till I find it used being sold by someone who just lost their job, or some other rotten scenario.
This is why the Street Performer Protocol exists, aka Kickstarter. People's word that they would buy is worthless; a prepaid pledge at a reward tier that includes one unit of the item is a guaranteed sale. And if a manufacturer sees 10,000 people say they will buy one, but only 500 people actually pledge, they can safely just refund the pledges and refuse to tool up. And none of those 9,500 no-shows can complain at all, because their choice was to put up or shut up, and they sure as hell didn't put up.
That's the same with any product brought to market. Manufacturer shows off new thing at trade show. Everyone oohs and aahs says "I really want one." Some people will put down a deposit with 100% certainty they'll buy one. Life happens, tastes change, specs of new thing change slightly and they end up not buying.
The whitney wolverine reproductions were a good example of going so far from the original no one wanted them. I’d love an original or one that looks like one. That 50’s scifi look.
That, or the new FN "Faux-power". Not original enough to speak to enthusiasts (no parts compatibility, not even magazines), but not modernized enough for the mainstream market either (steel frame, no optics or accessory mounting).
On top of that the pictures I've seen of them have been horribly for together, major misalignments and whatnot.
I mean, what were they thinking.
@@Tunkkis almost like the new browning a5’s. The old ones were loved. They were just heavy and got too expensive to make. But 20 years later there was still do much if a demand browning(fn) brought them back modernized them and actually made a good gun in itself. But it doesn’t give the same feeling as shooting an original. Fn also owns winchester and at least brought the lever guns the right way. The 1866,1873 and 1894 are good enough. Just the 1886 and I believe the 1895 have those damn tang safeties.
Sorry what gun did they try to make?
@@LilPistachiofr they made a whitney wolverine but they were black, had shorter barrels that were threaded or had comps, had optics rail etc. completely took away from the lines of the gun. No one bought them and they malfunctioned like crazy.
Or the 'new and improved' Remington 51!
"New and Improved" really means "cheaper and easier to manufacturer"!
I hope that if the STG 44 reproduction goes on the market later this year as planned by PSA, Ian will acquire a test and evaluation model and put a bunch of rounds thru it in front of the camera so the rest of us can see first-hand if it is reliable enough to spend the 2000.00 or more it will cost to buy one.
Honestly if they could get the price down to the 750-1000 dollar range they would have a hot seller. I really hope that it can get separated from the history of the rifle and can be tacticooled without spoiling the lines of the gun.
The other issue that Ian did not mention is that to make a reliable weapon you need the Technical Data Package that specifies the tolerances of each part, type of steel, hardness, etc. You can’t get this but just putting calibers to a few old examples.
The TDP is not enough if the original materials are not available. Also some production techniques require expensive custom machines that only make sense in very high production operations. This was mentioned in one of the PSA STG44 videos. Even so, there was still a lot of hand fitting of older weapons. It was also not uncommon on the production lines to need to try several individual parts combinations to get one that worked well in a particular firearm.
@@jfess1911 We have categorically better production materials and processes now, it’s cheap to overshoot materials qualities requirements. It’s not that difficult to CNC machine pretty much any shape and tolerance. The question is how many do you have to make for testing before you find reliable working tolerance specifications. And even then, how many parts will interchange in the originals with their different details (even if you exactly reproduced the one template original…).
@@Georgewilliamherbert I have worked in factories with both modern and old, even WWII-era equipment (ACME, Davenport and South Bend screw machines). Using a CNC to produce numerous small parts is actually quite slow and expensive compared to dedicated or custom-built but very specialized machines optimized to produce specific parts. Even being able to forge or cold/hot-form parts to near-net shape dramatically reduces machining time and cost at scale. To take advantage of this equipment, though, you need to produce hundreds if not thousands of each part per day.
Even though Hill and Mac actually had the TDP for the STG44, it took years to make it reliable. In one of their recent videos they flat out stated that the TDP was not enough and that they had great difficulty replicating the materials and mass production methods used in WWII. In the end, they gave up on some parts and, for example, decided to buy the entire trigger pack from H&K because they could not build it themselves at anywhere the near the same cost.
@@jfess1911 What you hot or cold forge, what you extrude or cast (sand, investment, lost foam, hot die etc) or additively manufacture all is going to depend on materials and volume and materials cost and … yeah. Dedicated machines are great if you’re feeding hundreds to tens of thousands of parts a day through. An ex’es father built and maintained tooling at the Corvette motor factory. Some parts at that volume with dedicated machines, others got CNCed or batch forged intermittently or … all sorts of solutions.
CNC means the least tool development in your delivery timelines and cost timelines. But they’re rarely the fastest possible way. Just the fastest flexible way you can buy tooling off the shelf…
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.
.22 and 9x19 cosmetic replicas seem the most cost effective options. Good look, simple internals and cheap ammo.
The Sten! The Uzi! Both stamped parts and very few parts. They wouldn’t be full auto but still cool.
Same thought. Can hide a cheap reliable mag in an original looking cover
Stamping is a problen with low production number items. The dies are extremly expensive and require a lot of knowldedge to manufacture and operate. The big benefit of stamping, the realy cheap unit cost, only applies when large numbers are made witch is unlikley for reproductions. In RnD I have seen people mill pieces out of solid blocks that resemble stampings.
@@lukahierl9857 cnc milling as well as 3d printing is the way on reprodution. Rd would be negligible on these. Think along the lines of 10-22 and stemple clones. A gun in a costume
You can't keep a .22 to run reliability enough. A buddy of mine has a repo 22lr STG, while it's nice to have it isn't worth it when it won't shoot.
My initial thought when I saw the title was the video would go like this.
Intro*
Ian* "they're expensive and don't sell"
Outro for the remaining video time with some sort of sad music*
I'm in the UK so it wouldn't matter anyway but a repro EM2 in a standard calibre like 5.56 would be awesome, and I mean an actual EM2 not an L85 lol.
Could it not be a straight pull to be UK legal?
Goddamn man, thought I'd see your channel pop up in Forgotten weapons at some point. Love your content, would love to talk about a Civil defence bunker I've had a look around in SE London
There's a UK dealer working up production loading of 7mm Mk1Z AKA .280/30 British. If you're going to pay an arm and a dick for a one-off reproduction of a rifle nobody has made in 70 years, might as well go the whole hog! 🤣
I think one reproduction that would be a hit on the market would be an M1 Garand. Mike from NodakSpud/PSA said that when they purchased H&R, they also received the TDP for the M1 Garand and digitized them for production. An M1 from the CMP would have greater historical value, but a new production M1 that I don't have to worry about trashing would be awesome too. Plus, none of the ranges around me are with the CMP, and the clubs that are with them are JROTC or high school clubs.
The M1 makes sense. That action is still in production with current M1s and the Mini-14. I'd also love a CNC'd aluminum-receiver BAR that would be legal in pretty much every state lol
Springfield Armory, Inc. already did that, and people bitched about the cast receivers and the price and the non-GI parts etc. And while the CMP continue to sell real ones (which wont go on forever) they can continue to get the ones they really wanted.
@@MkVII Mike has said they’ll be using forged receivers. Personally I don’t care about GI parts on a repro, I’d rather have new production parts that I don’t have to worry about.
I don’t care for Springfield armory anyways.
The FAMAS might actually be more viable than at first glance. The rise of multi-jet fusion 3D printing giving anisotropic material qualities means you could create a version one using MJF printed polymer parts (designed for eventual injection molding) and then go forward with acquiring the molds only if the project proves popular enough to justify the expense.
Ditto! but go with the 3D printing.
@Paul Thompson there's already a 3d printable one out there rn.
I think one added point- older designs also tend to have some… less than ideal design decisions, from a modern perspective. And TBH, there’s a reason that many of them weren’t selling well enough to maintain production in the first place. So if you’re going to make one, do you keep these things that people will hate, for sake of authenticity? Or do you jettison them to try and make the product more appealing to modern consumers? The Hi-Power is an interesting example of this, with several companies (FN, Springfield, and Girsan/EAA) recently each demonstrating different takes on how to approach doing one (FN going much more modern and really just keeping the aesthetic, Springfield staying mostly traditional, and Girsan kind of splitting the difference).
And for a reproduction to sell well enough to be financially viable, you (generally) need to find a way it can operate in one of the other main uses people want for firearms. In the general market that means (in order) home/self defense, hunting, or competition. Range toys are just straight up HARD to sell currently, and I’d imagine because there’s less consensus in that segment of the market on what consumers want. You ask a hundred random gun owners what they’d want in a home defense rifle, you’re probably gonna have some pretty identifiable trends (calibers, features, price point, etc) that people want. But you ask a hundred gun owners what gun they’d love for the range or just for fun, you’re probably gonna have close to a hundred different answers. Good luck appealing to enough people to turn a profit.
If you’re a collector, and you have paid a premium for an original gun. Sure you might take it to the range a couple of times a year. But you, probably would not want to wear out, that prized item. A reproduction would be a good stand-in for practice and weapon proficiency.
Very well put
not sure what the case is for being proficient with a rare and obsolete firearm... but I'm totally with you for fun 😁
@@RealJohnnyDingo: If you are interested in learning how to field strip, shoot, and maintain a valuable antique firearm. You might want to practice on a cheaper reproduction, so as not potentially damage a historically significant antique and degrade its value.
Your market for the production is still the same as the market for the already niche collector's item and a collector would not buy one of each over spending that on a different one for the collection
@@KaitouKaiju look at black powder civil war revolvers - if you could afford an original these days it would not be a daily shooter, but more likely a museum piece. the repros are very popular because they're cheap, fun to shoot, and still have some historical appeal because they are very much like the original articles. they are thoroughly obsolete so you wouldn't equip your army with such weapons, but it's still fun and dare I say educational to shoot one.
I think part of the reason someone would get a reproduction is they don't want to put wear and tear on an original, but they want to shoot it regularly with the original experience.
That's why I want an affordable repro, so I can go larp at matches and not worry about tearing up an original
@@kennetic9196 shit I was thinking about even getting a repro trenchgun as a hunting shotgun.
@@aboveaveragebayleaf9216what are we hunting?
@@matthewswan9419 krouts
@matthewswan9419 probably deer mostly. I'm not saying that's what I'm gonna do for sure, but it would be neat. Kill two birds with one stone. A cool piece of history that is also functional.
As an engineer I'd like to point out that a single injection mold, just the part without the engineering costs, is about $36000 USD. These are precisely milled massive chunks of steel that need to also have spouts for excess and to be designed around the constraints of fluid mechanics for the flowing plastic.
Even a mold for a press to form polymer parts is going to end up costing a ton due to how long it has to hold up to a metric fuck ton of heating and cooling cycles which means a simple looking part still will cost a lot.
In short manufacturing only ends up being profitable once you got a certain scale of production that can off set those start up costs.
Also I'd love a FAMAS repro or Federalis repro (make it in 5.56 or 7.62x39 and take ar or so mags).
One thing I'd like Ian to discuss is that PSA isn't just teaming up with HMG for their StG-44 project, but that it's the first an what I've read is an entire line of reproduction firearms, called their Battlefield lineup. As far as I know, it's just the StG-44 for now, but I've heard that they've implied there might be a Garand reproduction in the future.
Psa has become the best gun company we have. They actually want to make customers happy and have what they need to defend themselves and the country
Will you make a video on the PSA StG-44? Would be interested in hearing you talk about it, it’s differences, and reproduction firearms in general.
I think Ian and Karl did interview HMG years ago about the StG44, before the project stalled. It left a bad taste that people paid up front for a gun that might never be produced. I hope it does sell well. If it does come out , I bet Ian would do a video on it.
Yes, definitely
Another point on purism - the purists are also the ones more likely to pay high prices, since they are typically the most passionate about the gun. So, if you move away from a purist-oriented reproduction, you'll also have to lower the price point in order for it to actually sell.
TRUTH!
And, purists with loaded pockets are so few that it would not offset R&D costs.
Purists want unobtainium because they are unobtainable.
And the argument, as Ian says, is that making it with more "modern" features allows that price to come down, so it's still a viable choice of picking authentic versus convenience.
The weapon is being produced in several calibers. The "purist" can have his authentic version. I would like one that handles 7.62x39/AK mags. Another would want 5.56/300 BO with AR mags. win, Win, WIN!
The best argument for making reproduction firearms is that it allows more people to experience shooting them. Not many people are able to buy originals, and even fewer people are willing to shoot their historic firearms. The main place where reproductions have done well is in black powder firearms and guns of the old west. There are still many fans of those eras, and there are plenty of shooting competitions built around those guns. I would love to see a company specialize in making reproductions of firearms from every era. From the 1600s through the 1970s. They could make smaller runs and presell them to see what is truly in demand. Then, make additional runs of the most popular firearms. Similar to how high-end movie prop reproductions and models are done. If it is in an obscure caliber, then sell it with 200 rounds as the standard option and have options for it to come with 500 or 1000 rounds. Also sell it with a minimum of 4 magazines if it has detachable magazines.
Coming from the guitar world first and the gun world later I think the major problem is that most people either want the best cool new thing or surplus antiques. Where in the guitar world people will buy a 59' reproduction Les Paul to be like Jimmy Page, I don't think there's as much of a market for that kind of thing in the gun world. Compound this problem with the amount of capital that's required to set up the initial tooling it's just not economically viable. Great video as always Ian!
I think another big thing is how different guitar (and more broader wood) manufacturing operates a fair bit differently than metal goods manufacturing in term of the necessary production steps and tools, seeing how luthiers still happily exist as a trade.
@@cubasfidelcastro 100% was just using it as an example. Machining raw metal is a whole different ball game. Son of a carpenter and welder by trade.
I'm a big fan of inspired designs as opposed to exact remakes, which gives you license to use generic calibers & magazines while focusing on capturing whatever is special about the original mechanism or appearance
Ian: nice work, as always!
I think the most valuable part of the presentation was the section on magazines, which frankly I had not considered.
A version of an STG-44 in 7.62x39, using AK mags. Lots of AK platform people would consider that... Or 5.56x45 using AR mags.
A good example is Fulton Armory with their reproduction M1 Garands, it’s cheaper to buy a real one if you can get a deal than buy a new production, although if I’d been hill and Mac I probably would’ve tried partnering with a magazine manufacturer like Magpul for Mecgar to produce the STG 44 mags
I wouldn't want to meet the guy who would buy a Fulton M1 Garand over a GI M1 Garand.
It would be a highly lopsided deal to partner with a mag company. As Ian alluded to, the mag takes up most of the development time and a prospective buyer is going to buy, what, less than a dozen mags? While expecting those mags to be affordable?
@@eddietat95 it’s gonna be way easier for a magazine company to replicate a mag then say hill and Mac, because all magazine companies do is make magazines and they have usually decades of experience doing it
@@Scott079 It quickly becomes a "chicken and egg" scenario. Unless the firearm manufacturer coughs up all of the money for production up front, the magazine manufacturer will insist that there is a proven demand for them. The firearm manufacturer needs the magazines to sell the gun in the first place. Getting a magazine to work in a particular firearm is not as simple as many think. Getting a mag to work consistently with every variation of min-max tolerance of both the firearm and the magazine (+ ammo variation) is not a "magazine only" issue.
@@dancortes3062 only scenario I can see is wanting one that runs .308 reliably instead of 30-06. I have photographs of my grandfather using a wartime expedient cut-down of an M1, so I went to fulton to create a replica (the tanker was very close) that won't beat itself to death and eats .308 as it's more readily available.
One thing is that I'm Suprised we don't see more 22lr replicas, say a c96 that's just a straight blowback 22, or something of the like
I'm of the opinion that quite a few of the early, single shot breach loaders (skip all the magazine headaches) could be reproduced quite cheaply with modern CNC machining. Of course, even if you could get the price down to a few hundred bucks, the problem is that there's very little market interest in them. And also originals of quite a few of them survive in surprising numbers.
And some of those, like the Sharps, are already on the market, for those that want them.
GSG makes stg and mp40 (as well as 1911
) in .22 lr. Umarex makes blank versions.
I have two of their STG44's. Love them! Only problem is the magazines. Not many around, and they're expensive. They are fun shooters though!
@@davidturcotte5677 it is american bais 45 € (in Germany) is almost like an Airsoft Gas magazin. But sure american prices are awesome.
I have their mp40 in 9mm and it works just great. Haven’t had a problem with the magazines either.
I keep reading about 3D printed molds for small batch parts being very cost effective. Might eventually help with reproduction firearm polymer parts, given their limited runs. FAMAS lower receiver is pretty big, though, which won't help.
There are different polymer technologies. Injection moulding is expensive to gear up but cheap on the long run.
Castable resins, when properly cured, can have superior strength with a lower cost of entry, given 3D printing. Sure, the internals won't necessarily match the injection moulded ones, but how often do they need to?
Knowing the market is important for any commercial venture. If you're doing it for the love, then please yourself.
Really looking forward to the HMG Sturmgewehr!
At this rate you should probably go for the PSA repro of the STG
@Arcturus it's the same thing, PSA bought out Hill and Mac
Been looking forward to it for 5? 6? Years now!
Ian, one of the potential markets you didn't mention are a special niche. That is for WW2 reenactors where appearance is the most important feature. It matters not whether they shoot projectiles is not an issue, as a matter of fact, not shooting a projectile makes them safer for reenactment. So a simple blank/cap firing mechanism, hidden under a realistic outer shell would be a very desirable "toy" that would assist a reenactor to gain a more capable and desirable prop with better performance in that role than being stuck with a lower performance rifle such as a K98k (which prices are rising rapidly) or a Garand, which is also rising quickly. Just an idea, as I was in that position for several years as a reenactor of both sides. Further, if the replica was a noise only replica, then local laws, such as in Washington State, prohibiting full auto weapons, would no longer present a difficulty.
I have a suggestion. A 'generic' ww1/ww2 battle rifle. Customer buys a basic rifle 'innards / mechanism in either (5.56, 7.62x39 or 300blackout) and then you choose a furniture 'kit' which includes wood stocks, sights, fittings in the style you want:- SMLE (including No4 mark1), K98, Mosin Nagant M42, Mannlicher Carcano etc.
These would not be clones, but modern rifle kits, 'in the style of...' in a selection of modern, ready available calibers.
You could offer a modest selection of stocks, laminated woods and even unfinished stocks. However the mechanisms would be modern bolt-action mechanisms.
Just a thought.
Never forget the Bren Ten and the Dornhaus and Dixon magazines.
Great story Ian. I did not realize the “Magazines” were a big issue to reproduce. Then I thought of what a production line might really look like. There would have be a lot of money invested.If you get an order for something like 10,000 guns to be reproduced I could see building a factory just to make magazines. Not in California.🤔
Nodak Spud doing a lot of the leg work for the Brownell guns probably helped the retro rifle project get off the ground.
A friend had a cottage business called Diva Arms. She took HK 93s and dressed them up to look like a Stg44. Reenactors were the primary market. If PSA does a run better snatch one quick. 300 blk or 7.62x39 might be a good option.
Pretty excited about the STG44 coming out in 7.62x39
I used to think "Oh that'd be cool to have" but Ian's explained enough and looking at reproduction prices and varying quality that I'm happy with the guns I have and if there's something I really want to keep? Well, I'll save up for an original if it's available.
Quite a few guns, after Ian did a video was enough for me. He finished my bucket list a year ago via videos. :)
There is an interesting exception: At least in Europe, the market for 19th century cap-and-ball replicas seems to be healthy and thriving.
In Poland for example, it's really hard to get a gun permit... but one can walk into a shop and buy a fully functional black powder gun without any paperwork, as long as it's a faithful replica of a pre-1885 gun and uses a separate powder charge and bullet to load. The "Wild West" revolvers seem to be especially popular.
Cheaper to shoot than a cartridge gun too.
34 years in manufacturing here. Few outside the industry truly understand the expenditures involved for something like this. They see CNC videos on youtube and equate it to replicator levels of magic. Not so. Not at all.
Yep, not to mention the cost of re-engineering the firearm to be made with modern techniques.
I work in the firearm manufacturing industry. We just spent $8 million for a new automation cell just to make 1 critical component for a gun that isn't even out yet.
I run Tsugami Swiss lathes. Just for the machine to sit idle costs $7/hour in electricity. Close to $40/hour when running. We have 7 Tsugami's. One of the custom form drills I use to make the firing pin hole in the bolts is close to $400. We run them until they break. My team lead loaded in the carbide hammers wrong into the hammer forge one night and crash them. $40K turned to dust in 1/2 second. If you scrap a barrel on finish turn its $200 gone. The costs are insane. And then there is an 11% excise tax for every firearm we make. I don't know how we ever make money but we make a lot of it somehow.
I hope Ian does a review and comparison of the stg 44 to the psa version to come out soon.
I asked Pedersoli for the chance of reproing an 1851 Minie Rifle and they said about what the argument was, tooling and market issues.
In fact if some one want to reproduce STG44, it will not just be a amateur products, because Stg44 is still having its practice use in 21st century, you can make some 5.56 or 7.62*39 or 5.45 version at the same time accelerate its fire frequency. It will be as powerful as AR or AK. Some military group can adopt Stg44 as their primary weapon.
God, I dream of getting an affordable FG-42. Mind as well buy a .50 cal rifle with the prices I've seen.
Rhineland Arms makes a 9mm one
If you want one... make your own in 30-06 or maybe even in 300 Winchester Magnum and rework the trigger from double action to single action because a fifteen pound trigger pull is no good.
@@Henrydbunny that's a simple direct blowback PCC badly cosplaying as an FG42.
By that definition, a Ruger 10/22 in a SG2000 conversion kit is a "reproduction" WA2000.
I can’t wait to see completely modernized STGs
The dimension that Ian didn't mention is the legality of making them. I suspect that a reproduction of any of the SMGs from WWII would be insanely popular in just about any caliber, and most of them would be ridiculously simple to manufacture, but there is just no legal space to produce them in their original automatic form.
That and they have to have obnoxiously long 16” barrels. And stamping isn’t cheap and common anymore. Everyone moved in to cnc machines. So you’d have to do the r&d in stamping and all that. Look how simple mp5’s are. Stamped and welded but cost a shit ton. The bolt and barrel are quality.
@@soylentgreen7074 Yep, no one wants a cool SMG with an ungainly, disproportionately long barrel. Hell, the only reason I built my full-size Uzi is because I could put a fake suppressor over the 16 barrel.
I'm like Ian and usually have interest in these kind guns just to play with. Had the MSAR 5.56 and that kind of fizzled. Have an AUG now and am happy. Picked up the Brownell's Ar-10 and absolutely love it. I have the lightweight one and put on the brown furniture and prong FH. The stock front sight was too low so I had a gunsmith drill and tap the sight post for an AR threaded post to make it shootable. Had the Brownell's 601 and my brother talked me out of that one. I never shot it, but the barrel pin slot in the receiver was out of spec and had to be fixed. But the biggie for me was getting on the HMG list back in November of 2015 for the STG and going through the ringer with that one. So that didn't happen and I was refunded but I'm glad that PSA can back the project now. Maybe they can get them out and see them actually work in the wild.
I’m slightly surprised that Ian didn’t even mention what is probably the largest existing market for reproduction guns- S&W model 3’s.
The key to that being a viable business model is the popularity of cowboy action shooting. It’s a niche competition market.
At the same time, they’re in the same boat as all the manufacturers making SAA copies (also largely influenced by CAS)- the technical package for those guns was widely disseminated, so they don’t need to reinvent the wheel in order to tool up.
And all that being said, as a huge fan of top break revolvers, I ended up buying an old H&R in .32 S&W long to satisfy the itch to own one, because those are a LOT cheaper than the reproduction model 3’s.
I feel like a line from Top Gear is applicable here "...how hard can it be?" Then the project fails spectacularly.
This channel has covered a few weapons that look exactly like top gear went off to a shed and made them. 🤣
@@neilmackay5655 ambitious but rubbish.
A company could make a C96 reproduction, and also set some up as Han Solos blaster, with the muzzle device being a compensator and those would sell.
What's funny is that billet machined versions of some of these weapons may be cheaper than stampings in the quantities they would sell.
What Ian is saying about reproductions is 100% spot on. There are dozens of examples of reproduction firearms that have done well, but for every 1, you have several dozen that don't. I was at a gun shop today, and there was a good spread of guns, and I was talking with someone looking to buy their own gun. The guy behind the counter was more a rifle guy, so I kinda stepped in to help with information. The guy picked up a dagger and a g19 that it was based on, and would rather have the original is you may. He didnt want a knock off. We moved onto Berettas, he liked the 92fs and I recommended he look at the girsan regard. Again, he said he would rather spend the extra $300 and get the original gun than a Turkish Knockoff. We ended at the 1911 cabinet, he picked up a Colt and a RIA and again, he would rather spend a few hundred more for a better built version of the same gun, and he's not wrong. I have a lot of the cheaper guns, and I can admit that the more expensive guns have better appeal, but I get on just fine with my cheaper guns.
Very well said sir. It’s hard to believe that we now have to discuss the issue of not finding ammunition in every caliber made. This is nothing more than a to slowly numb people to the realization that very soon we won’t be able to have any caliber of ammo. Thank you Ian for your always accurate insight.
I was a toolmaker and headermam for a while and people seem to forget how much time amd money goes into setup and working out how to actually make more than one of the things.
They don't forget, rather, they don't have a clue to begin with. They are consumers not manufacturers.
Truthfully most people have never fabricated nor repaired anything in their lives in the first world.
@@SurmaSampo This is why I get aggravated when someone says "Just do X or Y. Its easy", in reference to building/fixing/making something.
Yeah, its easy b/c you don't have to do it and you've never done it.
@Old Scratch I'm in the process of building a new barn and I figured it would be an "easy" build because it's a basic structure.
Little did I know haha.
@@oldscratch3535 and they universally don’t get that you have to start with a, b, c and d WAY before you can do x and y. I’ve had team members say “all you have to do is x and y” to which I’ve called their bluff: ok, if it’s that easy, do it. Fast forward 2 weeks later, when I ask why it’s not done yet: “ummmm”. Thought so.
I think the biggest market of reproduction guns are the muzzle loaders and cowboy action (19th century American) guns, single shots and lever action rifles and single action revolvers. Italian companies did a great job about these categories (Pedersoli, Uberti, Pietta, etc). Also these are much less headache as no separate magazines.
Umberti does a great job with the colt SSA because they bought colts tooling if you buy a SSA from colt today they assemble it from parts they get from Umberti
Im surprised the AR-18/AR-180 wasn't even mentioned in passing. I guess it's not technically a commercial reproduction but it seems like Brownells brought it back from purgatory and modernized it to a pretty high degree of success. So I think that makes it worth at least mentioning
This kills my hopes of someone someday making a scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56. En bloc clips and all. Would be a fun one to shoot, though.
This should be a mandatory watch for all guntube viewers. Would help eliminate a lot of silly "they should make XYZ again" comments.
I'm not so sure about making xyz again, but I would totally buy an abc reproduction.
but they should
Once the NFA falls I could see doing a repro grease gun or pretty much any open bolt tube gun.
A very good example of NOT COST productive is the company that a reproduction of the M1 Garand in 22 cal. They mad a few hundred and the sales were just not there due to cost of the gun. Why pay the price of a real gun in a reproduced 22 cal version? For that matter the cost of a 30-06 version. Springfield is an example the cost to produce a clip feed M1 verses the magazine feed version. Too many of the original ones available. Everything you stated in this video is very correct.
It would be cool but who would buy a reproduction broom handle mouser? Manufacture cost would be prohibitive.
Forgotten weapons, did they ever try and scale up the automatic mauser c96 mauser action for a full sized rifle ?
I swear he's answered this before; no, that exact action isn't up to it, but there are short recoil rifles (EG: Barrett M82)
@@NM-wd7kx i didnt think it would be, i was more curious if it was tried
@@joshuanugentfitnessjourney3342 I know Paul Mauser certainly didn't think it was possible, but that was the turn of the century
Perhaps you could *print* the polymer parts for the Famas? Assuming you would be doing a relatively small run perhaps that would clear one of your hurdles to simply scan and print the polymer components after doing the materials comparison to see if it would hold up?
I'm glad I bought my Brownells rifles when I did. Their retro line was really high quality. I love my BRN16A1 and my BRN10
Brownells really messed up not continuing their retro models. I guess they could always tool back up, but it seems as if PSA has picked up the slack in the meantime (for a better price).
@@stoptrackingourdata8158 Brownells for their forgings from Nodak Spud from what I understand and Nodak stopped supplying them with those once PSA bought them.
@@TylerHulan I'll be happy to give my money to either company as long as I don't have to gather the parts myself.
I turned one of Brownells AR Proto stripped upper/lower packages into a pretty cool little .22 with CMMG parts. It's not authentic to any previous AR models, but I think it's neat; and it was easy to build. No headspacing necessary.
@@stoptrackingourdata8158 sounds cool. I built an A2 Clone with a CMMG conversion kit and a Franklin trigger. Fun little set up.
@@TylerHulan Sounds dope!
CMMG is another company who needs to get it together though. I used their .22lr AR dedicated barrel and bolt kit (different than the conversion kit) on my build that they no longer manufacture. They need to bring it back. Makes it easy to build your own dedicated .22lr upper which I did with another one of their kits that I found sans front sight post.
CMMG used to make two versions; one with a fsp and one without. That way you could have a retro looking .22lr AR or a more modern version. I used the version with the barrel that had the front sight post on the BRN Proto since that had carry handle irons, and used the other style on a more modern .22lr upper with a free float barrel and modern optic.
So, knowing all of these facts, and the claim that PSA is making a “Battlefield” line of weapons, what’s your thoughts on what PSA might be bringing to the market? They already have a Chinese “Spiker” AK for sale.
BTW: I’ll be buying an StG44 from PSA, in 8mm Kurz. The ammo is out there and I’m not going to use it for my GTW rifle. Don’t care if it costs $1.20 a round.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an SKS from them in the next few years. It's a common caliber, a simple action that doesn't need special moldings or castings, it's long out of patent, and has a pretty devoted following. I imagine it probably has a wider possible customer base too, since there's some ban states where it's still legal in non-detachable-mag form. I know I'd buy one.
I think it would be cool if they did the SVD or something like that
@@leadjunkie5674 But there’s a lot of SKSs out there, correct? I’m thinking PSA is looking at popular guns that aren’t on the market. Sten, maybe. All stamped parts. Uzi. Maybe an FG42. Time will tell.
They're not making one in 8mm kurtz from everything I've seen
@@leadjunkie5674 SKS is a Soviet design. No patent there Comrade.
The purist thing I can understand, like the ongoing STG reproduction debacle, when "cheap escapes" doesn't even make it close to an original except maybe looks.
Getting around the infamous one-time STG headspacing, I dont mind, but then they changed trigger group for the universal H&K one which is kind of a cheap escape, but ok the original trigger group had a hundred parts or w/e, and those who own a full auto H&K trigger group that fits the gun = Good for them.
But then it seems they just kept making change after change, steering further and further away from other things that mechanically and functionally made the STG the STG, incl recoil, to the point that just about half of the guns exterior seems to be for appearance.
And at THAT point I, personally, in my opinion (just to get away from any legal trouble here) would rather just let it slide.
Not saying nobody will buy the gun when it does come out for sale, but IMO it won't be an STG.
Reproduction guns is a slippery slope. If you redesign a vintage firearm so that it could take advantage of modern modularity, that chases away the folks who were buying it for the original aesthetics. I think Brownells did a good job with their modern take on the AR-180 .
I just really want to see someone make a cartridge firing repro of the volcanic pistol. Theoretically it shouldn’t be that hard, right? Just a miniaturized lever action, and there’s loads of modern production lever actions on the market right now, so you could easily reapply the tooling and design principles to a volcanic.
Yep - that or a Volcanic rifle, not chambered for the rocket ball but some short stubby pistol cartridge. I keep hoping Henry will do one.
A lot of the problem I see is that you get into the "authentic" question... Nobody is going to reproduce actual Volcanic ammunition. So it has to be re-chambered into something different, with a rather different mechanism... (no ejection port on a Volcanic ) So how much is it going to actually look or work like a Volcanic... Bringing a "pretend" Volcanic to an ACW reenactment or a NS-SA match is going to be about as popular as a fart in an elevator.
Another thing I see is a company finding blueprints for these "older" arms. Sure, you can measure an original gun out, but that will take a ton of time and trial and error just to make sure it functions right. Also I would have no clue were to even find schematics on say a C96. Most of the records and tooling were lots to history (just like how Colt pretty much lost their original molds when they sold it to Uberti).
Graduate level knowledge. Thank you.
In many conversations with my father, over decades, he would wonder why modern car companies didn't make reproductions of iconic and beautiful cars from the past. With better engines, airbags, etc. Ian nailed it. It is vanity to make something which costs more than it can recoup in the market.
My dad and I may buy one, but the market is very small.
People with taste, and money.... at the same time?!?? We are all passionate about engineering and history, but the mass market....... not so much.
I'd like to see more early cartridge guns be reproduced. Erma did a repro of the Gallagher carbine from the Civil War a few years back and they are noted as the best variant of the Gallagher. Sadly they are no longer reproduced. There are a lot of cool guns, many without a magazine, that would be awesome as a reproduction. I even enjoy the Kingston Armory Mini Mosin in 22lr. Its one third size is a fun novelty gun.
I would like to see a sharps pepperbox derringer in 22 long rifle. Easy, small, few parts, historic, practical, unique.
I am surprised Ian did not mention the old west revolvers and rifle reproductions. Or civil war reproduction weapons.
I should also mention that plastic stock weapons could probably be produced with 3d printed molds, hand finished, to create resin/fiber reinforced stocks in low production numbers fairly easily. Not requiring million dollar injection molding dies and a plastic manufacturing company.
I saw the title, and already knew the answer: every step is expensive, and it's difficult and complicated to get the technical package.
100% I would buy a reproduction famas valorise. It's my favorite variation, and I loved using it in video games it made appearances in.
I would absolutely love for psa to make a svd clone
FEG is making them. I think Atlantic firearms just imported them. But they are 7500. Not cheap but a bargain vs a 28-30k original russian one.
@@ElTejon47901 I think the resale prices of the recent Hungarian guns proves there is a market for it. People who could and would pay $1500 for one would rather do that than pay $7k+ for a legit one
Perfect timing Ian! I just happened to be thinking of this question in connection with the Luger earlier this morning.
Palmetto is finally bringing the stg to market and they announced they plan on releasing the M1 Garand
I have a recent production PPS 43 semi auto. It is one of my favorite guns. It is chambered in Tokarev which is unfortunate as I can go through $100 in ammo very quickly. Would I consider getting one in 9mm? Only if it's a good deal.
So yeah, this video really hit home.
Just a thought. Perhaps forgotten weapons could do an interview with Ruger. And they could go into some detail about what has taken, to produce that magnificent Marlin lever gun.
Ian’s smoking jacket is fantastic. I want one so bad
6:49 Man, that comment about Brownell's discontinuing the AR Proto rifles depresses me because I actually really liked those guns. I didn't care if it was 100% authentic to the original guns, I just liked having an affordable AR with a fixed carry handle and a charging handle in an easy-to-access place.
I really hope they'll at least bring back those uppers one day.
Worked at an prototyping injection molding company 8 years ago. 10K for their basic large mold and 4k for the smaller ones. So a FAMAS shell isn't too bad as far as the molds go.
Yea where the hell did Ian get half a million dollars for simple mold injection templates
Always thought there was/would be a market for deactivated replicas? All these armchair warriors? Game players and the like? Look at the market for fantasy swords and such?
People only pay about 150$ for a fantasy sword wallhanger and swing it around for Instagram sometimes. Plenty of gamers and cosplayers will get 3D printed inert models of whatever prop guns they want, paint them up, and call it good. Even a deactivated receiver, drilled chamber, and cut bolt pile of scrap from an MP40 or something is still a lot more money than most people would bother with for something to look at and pose with when cheaper options exist. Even for years before 3D printed was a home-viable option, resin cast props weren't unreasonably priced for what you're getting.
I think Airsoft guns have that part of the market cornered. Why buy an overpriced paper-weight when you can have a replica that actually shoots (albeit BBs). They are even made in real steel for those who care about authenticity.
@@Tallmios havnt kept up on airport offerings, thanks for the input!
There was this French German company called Reichenbach, that was very active in the early 90's that worked on restorations for firearms, especially WW I & II era but they were perhaps the only known company that would "re-forge" old damaged guns, as in they would small and recast the weapon, it looked exactly at the time in it prime mint condition but they only used modern tools, not really a bad thing, they well credited for they work, but I don't know what happened to them,
I did always wonder why reproduction lever guns and cap n ball revolvers were more popular than a M2 Rising, or Thompson reproductions for example. No magazine and either exiting rounds (44 and 357 come to mind for lever guns) or easy to make and you load with available on market material, especially lead round ball. A questions that finally I got an answer in this video to. Thank you Ian!
I'd also hazard to say the NFA interferes with buying repros of old SMGs. I'd love to have an M1 Thompson, but the modern repros they make all have to come with comically long 16inch barrels, have lackluster reliability, are expensive, and if I want to get it to right length, I have file it as an SBR with the ATF and jump through all those hoops.
No thanks, I'll pass.
@@Sreven199 If you think the long barrel Thompson looks goofy, try the repro M3 grease gun carbine! not any cheaper than the Tommy either.
Personally, I believe the Kolibri should have a reproduction
One of the companies here in Taiwan just tooled up to make a FAMAS GBBR replica for a German company sponsoring the project, having just finished an excellent MP2A1 Uzi and a whole family of STEN replicas beforehand. Knowing how closely they like to replicate things to the original (they had to move a pin position on the STEN to avoid real fire control parts being put into them) you might always be able to get replica polymer furniture made to the same standards as the original (sometimes better, arguably... Airsofters bitch more about colour mismatches in plastics or anodised metal than any normal human being should).
One of the problems with replicating the German StG4 Sturmgewehr is that it was overengineered and is considerably more complicated than an M16 or an AK47 which of course makes it more expensive in spite of it's sheet metal receiver.
I think there was a company making replicas of Eastern Bloc weapons like the Russian Degtvaryov 'Record player' ' - obviously in semi-auto and they struggled to sell even 200 of each model
Very thoughtful answer, Ian.
What about a new production semi-only receiver and trigger group, along with a parts kit from surplus FA guns?
TNW did this for MG34, for example.
What would happen to 100% authentic newly-manufactured reproductions when those reproductions along with authentic accessories and a reasonable supply of magazines and a case or two of ammunition were delivered to anybody who wished for one? I imagine Ian McCollum taking his new Fedorov and twenty magazines and ten thousand corrosive-primed 6.5x50mm cartridges to every match he could drag his tired body to and firing that rifle in submachine gun matches, rifle matches, three-gun matches, and reenactments.
Is there any possibility that the additive printing processes for plastics and metals would make reproductions more viable? My understanding is that suppressor cores and rocket nozzles are being metal printed now.
Personally, I lean much more towards the “cheap and close enough” camp. I still can’t afford the PSA STG. An AR-15 looks a lot like an STG44 if you squint, so what I always thought would be a good idea would be for a company to make an AR with receivers, stock and furniture that looked like an STG from the outside, but was a stock AR internally. Yeah it would take AR mags, yeah it’d have the AR charging handle, yeah the proportions would be a bit wonky, but for me that would be more than acceptable in order to get something that looks like an STG44 into my hands for under $1000 (without having to resort to the .22 plinker that you just can’t find mags for)
Maybe it's the destiny of cool old guns - when reproduced, if ever, the reproductions themselves have good chances of becoming treasured almost as much due to being produced in small batches.
Also we really need to ask ourselves - do we really want to devalue those guns you like by making them widely available? If everyone has access to a cool reproduction of Fedorov you mentioned, it would instantly deprive you of satisfaction of having it in the first place.
A couple case in points as esentially every M1-A is a reproduction even more so now. Springfield also made M1 Garand reproductions which kind of died when imports of lend lease Garands became legal. It was too expensive to compete with that. I managed to find one used and I say used only based on when it was made. It turned out to be made on a Breda made receiver instead of the Springfield investment cast. And had never been fired as far as I could tell as there was absolutely no powder residue anywhere. It had probably a Criterion barrel stamped Springfield and updated parts. Basically a brand new milspec Garand. Another one I encountered was a Yugo made 1903 A1. Beautifal and well made it simply wasn't worth the money asked used. I heard Yugo and maybe Norinco made Garand reproductions? Never seen either. Probably the same problem that plagued Springfield.
12:00 to be clear, for Ian and anyone else who might be interested in reproducing the G2, the molds would probably cost less than 100 thousand. My company's done some similar work (albeit for modern firearms.) Maybe a little more if the polymer parts are more complicated than what I can see.