depends on what happens.......in 10-20 years we may just be comparing who has the bigger club
With all the electronics coming out I see 12 gauge or smaller EMP or jamming devices making it big. But it all depends on who u r fighting. AK will will still rull most of the world.
* * *
“I don't know what weapons will be used in world war three, but in world war four people will use sticks and stones.”
-- *Albert Einstein
Last edited by Spetsnaz2.0; 04-11-2012 at 01:33 PM.
Note to self: Right NOW you are wasting your time.
depends on what happens.......in 10-20 years we may just be comparing who has the bigger club
IMO, if the world was perfect then an assault rifle will have:
Caliber: 6.5-7x46mm (I like 6.8-7mm for superior terminal performance but I do not have a specific caliber choice b/c ARDEC study showed that 6.5-7mm was ideal for an assault rifle and machine gun caliber. 6.5mm will have a flatter trajectory. I'm not a soldier so I don't know whether enhanced terminal performance or flatter trajectory is more beneficial. I think more testing should be done in this area and let the military and warfighters decide which caliber to select.)
Projectile construction: ATK bonded TOTM (better after barrier performance, esp. after glass terminal effects) or SOST (cheaper, fragmentation for ideal unobstructed shot performance). AP projo should be similar to M995/993.
Barrel: HK or Colt Canada CHF barrel
Gas system: modern op rod gas system for increased service life (ie, HK pusher rod gas system). Modern op rod guns with improved magazines also outperformed DI guns built on old mil specs in side by side testing.
Magazine: polymer full arc magazine(constant curve magazine, no dog leg) with anti-tilt follower for improved reliability (G36 mag service life is listed as 17,000 rounds in G3 kurz's presentation). Have proper dimensions to ensure polymer mag has sufficient durability. Both polymer and steel mags have their advantages but polymer mags are generally cheaper to produce once the mold has been made.
Other features that would be nice: fully supported bolt face (G36), OTB capability, higher cook off rate (240-270), if cyclic rate is high then some form of anti-bolt bounce device would be nice (ie AKM rate reducer, G36 tungsten fill, etc).
Assault rifle could either be an improved version of the M16 FOW (ie a HK416 in 6.5-7mm) so it would be more familiar to troops and testing may be quicker since you are building on a proven platform. Or it can be a new assault rifle so it doesn't have to be reverse engineered so it could have features like the fully supported bolt face, etc.
Also, IMO I think that generous clearances between the moving and stationary parts could be beneficial if you are designing a completely new rifle and not just improving a current design (so the rifle could still function if the rifle is fouled with dirt, sand, etc in it). From my email conversations with Cris Murray I learned that loose tolerances are only one factor that affects accuracy but loose tolerances alone does not make a gun inaccurate and other features like breach lock up are more important to accuracy. Mr. Murray's MStG assault rifle holds 2-3 MOA during rapid fire and it has loose tolerances, AKM style gas system with long stroke piston, bolt carrier that's similar to the Sig 550 and a Stoner style 6 lug bolt. I know that Western small arms with tighter tolerances are still very reliable and can maximize accuracy potential. Just saying that both Western and Russian small arms have their own advantages.
If the problems with the thin walled stainless steel cases are solved, then a 6.5-7mm caliber will get a weight reduction.
Last edited by M995; 04-13-2012 at 11:01 PM.
Also, lightweight 7.62mm machine guns seem like a popular trend right now. USSOCOM has the Mk48, Russia has the PKM and PKP Pecheneg, Germany has the HK121. Mr. Murray's 7x46mm MG42 weighs only around 8kg. Israel has a 7.62mm Negev: Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) Ltd, NEGEV NG7
If the political theater is any indication of future events I am guessing we will be fighting with longbows and slingshots....
Lighter, lighter, lighter... It seems one of the main driving forces in recent weapons/equipment development seems to be on reducing weight. which is a very valid goal. But that seems to be more of a driving force than the perpetual caliber debate.
The reduced weight and modularity of the XM8 seems to be the direction.
USP Tactical .45acp
HK 416 10.5" upper
Hensoldt/Zeiss offering first in having the the ballistic info integrated and available to the shooter. You will notice this technology is somewhere around $8500 considering the scope part of it is around $3500. To me that means we are a hell of a long way off before seeing it being compact and affordable.
If I recall, the DInGO's (or DIG as it should be called to be less redundant) ultimate goal was to have a price point around $600; I simply don't see that happening several decades considering this the above technology applied automatically.
One thing that concerns me to the DInGO's effectiveness in individual small arms (M16/M4) is how little movement is required to be pointing at something 400m down range and the slightest movement can cause point of aim to be on something 800m. Those who have hand-held range finders know what i'm talking about. If you are aiming at something small, and don't hit it, you get the distance to the next thing behind it. So what happens when you are on the move, scanning with your weapon? How does the DInGO interpret this? Stationary, crew-served weapons, it makes more sense. Or the M82 sniper rifle. And why is it needed for the M4? Most people can shoot fixed irons out to the weapon's effective range.
The number one thing our current military needs above any new technologies: more training and education. While we have overwhelmed our recent opponents because of our discipline, skill, and technology, There is a still a LOT of room for improvement. Just because you eat five times a week, compared to your neighbor eating twice, doesn't mean you aren't starving. Our ground level grunts are starving for better information and better training. There are soldiers out there today, using a firearm they don't trust because of problems that occured decades ago and have long been resolved. The military at large doesn't know that those things have been improved or fixed. There are doctrines that are being brushed over but not reinforced, while other doctrines are simply inconsistent. More training and better education on ALL of their equipment would give them a lot more confidence, and make them more effective.
I have my opinions about drawn out missions that allow for insurgency in the first place, but we have it, and need to deal with it. A lot of support troops are support first, fighters .... maybe. There needs to be an entire mindset change, because these people don't have the luxury to hide "in the rear with the gear" on today's insurgent battlefield. The front line is everywhere. For the U.S. military, the changes I've seen in the Air Force of redesignating their police to be "Security Forces" and adapting their doctine and roles is the closest thing to an adaptation to the modern battlefield that I've really seen. My exposure may be limited, though.
Technologically, though, I'm going to suggest the one thing that I'm surprised isn't already running rampant through the firearm industry: Electronic fire control.
Obviously, BATFE (and other governments around the world) would have a poop-storm fit over it from a private sale perspective, because a 12y.o. could hack the circuit board and suddenly turn your SA gun into FA. However, government/military doesn't have that concern, and someone who's ignorant or spiteful of the law could build one now almost as easily as someone hacking one later.
Military components will fear adding the possibility of dead batteries to a primary weapon. However, Logistical changes and policy could relieve a lot of those concerns, by packaging batteries together with ammunition shipments and reloading batteries at the same time as reloading magazines, belts, etc. If anything can be used to disprove this concern, the current abundance of electronic devices should be considered.
I'm really surprised to not even have heard a rumor about it, let alone any testing or experimentation with them.
I've been looking at them from a competition perspective, that could equally apply to Sniper or DM rifles. Imagine how light the trigger can be, if you're only actuating a micro-switch. I'm not talking about new ammunition (although, with success of the trigger system, that could be a possibility later down the road), or anything like that. You'd still have a firing pin and mechanical hammer. But the trigger would actuate a switch, telling the FCG to activate a solenoid as the sear.
How about expanding current technology. Try equipping more of our soldiers with suppressors? There are very obvious tactical advantages to them, such as: Being able to better communicate across a firing line, because commands don't have to be heard over the full report of gunfire. Better hiding of your position than just a flash hider, because flash is contained inside the can along with reduction of noise, recoil, dust from muzzle blast, etc. So why don't we use more of them? Besides that, half of the world seems to think this is already the case. Why not prove them right? Integral, or over-the-barrel style would help offset the added weight by not pushing the balance so far toward the muzzle.
Before someone starts to argue about the cost of suppressors, let me give a little scenario that says otherwise. The long term cost savings make it an extremely worthwhile investment for the government. Take a vet with service connected hearing disability. A 10% disability check for one year for the hearing loss alone would pay the civilian price for a suppresor. My limited exposure to government volume contracts tells me that they should be able to get them for significantly lower. Consider the lifetime expense of paying for the after-service care cost for just one soldier alone is enough to outfit at least an entire platoon with suppressors. Upper levels of command can kid themselves all they want to about providing earplugs and hearing protection training, but the fact remains that when the fat hits the fire, it's too late to put on the fireproof gloves.
Suppressors on individual weapons won't eliminate hearing loss completely, but I would argue that they could reduce them significantly enough to be a long term cost savings.
If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters do?
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
-President Ronald Reagan
I don't mean to be disrespectful but why electronic fire control in place of triggers and selector switches for an infantry rifle?
Last edited by M995; 04-14-2012 at 05:15 AM.