Future of Assault Rifles

[mattyem]

Originally Posted by Vajt

Here's a thought...if you are a country trying to make a decision of what to do for a future assault rifle, which would make more sense:
-Stay with current weapons (maybe make some modifications to it) and wait until the next major enhancement comes out (either caseless or other significant change)
-Invest in one of the new weapons (e.g. FN SCAR, HK 416/417) for the next 20 or so years even though it is more of an incremental improvement

-----JT-----

The NZDF faced this question and opted to upgrade the current weapons and wait for the next major enhancement of the assualt rifle. I think defence spending also played its part in the decision too

[p.l.rue]

Sorry to butt in.
5.5/223 is dead official the US of A is going 6.8mm we're nearly back to .303 where have I heard that caliber before. The UK opted after 303 for 7.62 long for the SLR or L1A1. It was to powerful for NI as one ball could pass through five or six people in line. The caliber was at the insistence of the US for a unified nato round. The 223 would have ideal in NI as its energy was lost in its target due to low grain load. The AK is the preferred weapon of choice for todays irregular forces as the working parts are interchangable from one weapon to the next. The weapon has excellent handling quallities and extremely accurate. Where weapons develope inaccuracies is constant firing strips out the rifling and barrel pitting (internal) due to lack of cleaning care and maintenance. Over zealous cleaning where the pull through has scored the barrel oriface will cause irratic target footprint. Fully auto should be limited to a class one target. On the basis bullets dont have brains each round should be sighted conserve ammunition you have to carry it. The Nato 762 can cut through a wall killing an occupant NI again where 223 will backstop. The 5.5 or 223 has a distinctive sound as does the AK and this can cause tactical field problems as to burning a lot of rounds can attract unwelcome visitors. L-Rue

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by p.l.rue

The 5.55 or 223 has a distinctive sound as does the AK and this can cause tactical field problems as to burning a lot of rounds can attract unwelcome visitors. L-Rue

Yeah both weapons make very distinctive sounds.

The .223 cartridge could be termed a 'high impulse' cartridge and since it has a very high velocity you get a combination of the report of the gas escaping the muzzle and the projectile exceeding the speed of sound so you get a very intense report- similar results come from .243 Winchester cartridges- loud SOB.

With the M16/M4/AR-15 you get a high pitched and very hard and sharp report: CRACK!!!

The AK-47 you get a lower pitch sound and a more dull and drawn out Crraacck!

The 5.56 NATO has a much higher gas pressure(62,000 psi to be exact) leaving the barrel at almost 1000 feet per second faster than the 7.62X39 which is much slower, has a lot less gas pressure(only 45,000 psi) and a lower powder charge.

I think the M16/M4 is a little bit louder than the AK-47 for those reasons but their both loud as hell and it would be stupid to fire ether of them both without ear plugs.

Wear ear plugs every time when you shoot with any gun.

[Vajt]

Here's a future assault rifle I would like to see...

Seeing the prototype rifle from AAI's LSAT program, (check out the second page of their brochure) you can appreciate just how much smaller case-telescoped, or even better caseless, rounds are. Look at the size of the magazine clip.

Products

Seeing the potential for these smaller magazine clips and new bullets, why not get a little creative and design the next assault rifle to be a case-telescoped/caseless 6.5mm or 6.8mm round, highly modular to change barrels and accessories, use of lightweight materials and small lightweight magazine clips. The new weapon could be an upgraded Super Kriss V type of weapon that greatly reduces recoil, thereby increasing accuracy. Alternatively, include the magazine clip in the pistol grip similar to the Uzi or Swedish CBJ-MS. Would also be interesting if they create a high-capacity clip (with 50, 75 or 100 rounds) which combined with a heavier and longer barrel, could be the squad support weapon.

Super Kriss V:
http://www.codmodernwarfare2.co.uk/w.../kriss_super_v

Swedish CBJ-MS:
http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/images/sweedishsupersmg.jpg

-----JT-----

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm wondering how much powder does these caseless round hold compared to the regular such as the powder capacity of the regular 6.8/6.5 vs the caseless 6.8/6.5?

[Cadredave]

Please provide a link for the fol;

"5.5/223 is dead official the US of A is going 6.8mm we're nearly back to .303 where have I heard that caliber before".

As some one who has been a part of the upgrade to the IW Steyr no where have we come across that the US was moving to 6.8mm if so the IW project would be a dead duck right now both in Aussie & NZ .

"The AK is the preferred weapon of choice for todays irregular forces as the working parts are interchangable from one weapon to the next. The weapon has excellent handling quallities and extremely accurate".

as part of the testing for the IW it has been fired against the AK 47 it consistantley comes last in accuracy against all modern asslt rifles, it came last against the L1A1 back in the 1980's, I do agree that it is a very rugged & the most reliable wpn on this planet but it does have one fault and accuracy is it,

The NZ Army like all other western nations is looking at two different calibres 5.56 & 7.62 one for asslt & the other as the marksman weapon what the new weapon will be in the NZ Army is still in trial.

Personally the next generation of asslt wpns must have a quantum leap in capability over todays current weapons from sights to kinetic punch thru to range this will be the driving force for the USA to introduce a new asslt wpn and from there the other will follow.

[Gremlin29]

I'd like to interject a couple of things. For starters an "assault rifle" by definition utilizes and intermediate cartridge, that means between traditional rifle ammo ala 30-06, .303, 8mm or 7.62x54R and handgun ammo .45, .380, 9mm para etc, which were the battle rifle and pistol rounds du jour when the assault rifle was invented. 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO are intermediate cartridges, while the 7.62 x 51 NATO round is for Battle Rifles like the M14, CETME, G3, FAL etc.

Everyone in the world has moved away from battle rifles, range capabilites are not needed for basic riflemen/infantrymen and the smaller rounds means more rounds carried per pound. Why do you need 800m accuracy if your engagements occur at 300m or less? There's certainly a place for 7.62 ala designated marksmen but truely, a smaller cartridge will continue to be the preferred route to go.

AK's are not as accurate as the M16, but I'd put them up against a GI issue M4 which sacrifices accuracy and range due to the short barrel.

If you look at the current "modern" rifles such as the G36 and Steyr, what more could you want from a rifle? The bullpup debate could go on forever, personally I'm not jazzed about them but that's just a personal prejudice because I've not trained and carried one and I haver years experience carrying traditional type weapons. My point is personally, I see the big advances occuring in metalurgy and more high tech barrels allowing higher volumes of fire without overheating and higher volumes of fire that wont affect accuracy.

[Defence IQ]

[Mod edit]

Your post appeared to have been made for the sole purpose of providing a link to your website. The reply did not relate to the quoted post. It is therefore being treated as potential spam.

If you wish to advertise your site here, I advise you to contact the Webmaster.

pji[/mod edit]

[Tavarisch]

I know this sounds a wee bit too futuristic and optimistic, but I think lasers would be an interesting solution to infantry fire arms.

Think about it, the range is almost theoretically nearly limitless, and definitely higher than whatever conventional rounds can offer today. You'd be able to drop the same target at 100 meters as you would at 1000 meters, because technically since it does not operate on a theory of kinetic energy, it wouldn't lose energy over distance. There would be no recoil in theory, since all you're really doing is shining an intense beam of light. No moving parts, since you don't have to insert a cartridge into a chamber. Completely ambidextrous as you wouldn't have to cock the weapon in any manner. Oh, and it will rarely jam! No need to eject those nasty shell casings! No need to worry about dirt entering the gun, since the only part of the gun that would be open is pretty much the barrel that houses the lensing.

Of course, at most this technology would be available in the future, and by future I mean probably in a few hundred to thousand years. Lasers emit radiation, and I'm sure if you've got more than 8 laser guns firing at the same time you'll probably emit so much lethal radiation. Not to mention overheating the weapon, since we're talking about a lot of energy. The current biggest disadvantage currently would be these two factors, next to the probably high production costs (lenses of the laser probably have to be very very precise).

[StevoJH]

Light bends and refracts. Also, extremely long range without projectiles following a ballistic trajectory brings its own problems. What happens when the little kid 3km down the road gets hit by the shots that miss? Or when you shoot a friendly fighter or passenger aircraft out of the sky?

[The Swordman]

IMHO the 5,56x45 (.223) will stay on the market and on the arsenals for at least ten years from now. Too much pressure from the manifacturers, too slow the NATO bureocracy to get a change in a small amount of time.

Evolution of assault rifle will be "limited" to materials (more plastic, less metal) and to all the add-ons (pointers, optics, ecc.) plus the integration with 40mm grenade launchers, stun guns, tasers et similia.
Look at the FAMAS, the next version for the FELIN project (future soldier) is quite the same as before, with a bit of modern tech for the optics.
In Italy Beretta has developed ARX-160, quite a good assault rifle in my opinion but without any real innovation.

Caseless ammo is quite promising but still unstable, different calibers (FN 5,7x28mm, H&K 4.6x30mm) are interesting but I can't see a technological jump here.

[GimpGump]

Originally Posted by momo

i like the masada magpul, it has the capability of changing the barrels. I also heard that the sig 556 is prettie good

Ive fired the SIG 550 and i have to say its extremely solid and extremely accurate. Its also pretty short and has a foldable butt stock. Sadly it has a comparatively high recoil and is almost impossible to fire accurately in full-auto.

The Magpul or the Bushmaster ACR as it is known is the best choice. It can be modified in seconds to take any ammo from 5.56 to 7.62x48mm. Plus the changing barrels, as you mentioned.
And unlike the AR family, plus a few others like the H&K416/417, Barett 468, etc, you can easely operate all of the weapon even when resting against you shoulder. (Try to cock a M4 in that position..)

[Rythm]

I was a triggerpuller for years, and here is what i always missed and what i want in a future rifle:

1) what i always wanted was a much biger ammo-capacity. I would like something like 70-round magazines as standard, more would of course be better. Time spent switching mags is time that is wasted (effectivenes-wise). Obviously not really possible with todays technology, but with future technology it perhaps would be possible.

2) The one big negative aspect with bullpups is their inability to be fired effectivly from the weaker shoulder. Something i often used with classic-designed rifles. Something for the future to solve, if succesfull, i would advocate bullpups always.

3) Lower recoil & weight. ideally one would want a recoil equal to 7,62mm blanks or something. And the total weight of the loaded weapon with reflex and thermal sights no higher than 3 kg.

4) silence is golden! Give me something that doesnt make so much noise! From a tactical point of view this is very, very important. Think of how easy it would be to command a small unit in a firefight if you didnt have the constant noise. Also something that eliminates muzzleflash.

5) more reliable. Caseles or similar technology is a good step forward. But needed is also something that prevents dust and dirt to enter the weapon via the barrel, magazinewell and other openings.

6) obviously all that is available today; bolt hold-open devices, thermalsights, monopods etc.

Give me all of the above, and you have a perfect future rifle.

[GimpGump]

Originally Posted by Rythm

I was a triggerpuller for years, and here is what i always missed and what i want in a future rifle:

1) what i always wanted was a much biger ammo-capacity. I would like something like 70-round magazines as standard, more would of course be better. Time spent switching mags is time that is wasted (effectivenes-wise). Obviously not really possible with todays technology, but with future technology it perhaps would be possible.

2) The one big negative aspect with bullpups is their inability to be fired effectivly from the weaker shoulder. Something i often used with classic-designed rifles. Something for the future to solve, if succesfull, i would advocate bullpups always.

3) Lower recoil & weight. ideally one would want a recoil equal to 7,62mm blanks or something. And the total weight of the loaded weapon with reflex and thermal sights no higher than 3 kg.

4) silence is golden! Give me something that doesnt make so much noise! From a tactical point of view this is very, very important. Think of how easy it would be to command a small unit in a firefight if you didnt have the constant noise. Also something that eliminates muzzleflash.

5) more reliable. Caseles or similar technology is a good step forward. But needed is also something that prevents dust and dirt to enter the weapon via the barrel, magazinewell and other openings.

6) obviously all that is available today; bolt hold-open devices, thermalsights, monopods etc.

Give me all of the above, and you have a perfect future rifle.

I've only ever been on the range, so I obviously just can talk "theoretically"..so thank you for make me look in the right direction.

1) what about c-mags? of course you cant have one on a bullpup but i saw some on AR17 series rifles. I hear the newest ones take 100rds..and that some M16A3 LSW uses it..
What is it like? (handling, reliability,weight, reloading, price, availability... )

3) what about the system found on the AN-94? the muzzle retracts, just like on some larger calibre weapons, to absorb some of the recoil..good or bad?

5) i suppose with the conventional rounds we use today, youll never get 100% reliability. What do you think about the Metalstorm principal?

thx

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by Rythm

I was a triggerpuller for years, and here is what i always missed and what i want in a future rifle:

1) what i always wanted was a much biger ammo-capacity. I would like something like 70-round magazines as standard, more would of course be better. Time spent switching mags is time that is wasted (effectivenes-wise). Obviously not really possible with todays technology, but with future technology it perhaps would be possible.

2) The one big negative aspect with bullpups is their inability to be fired effectivly from the weaker shoulder. Something i often used with classic-designed rifles. Something for the future to solve, if succesfull, i would advocate bullpups always.

3) Lower recoil & weight. ideally one would want a recoil equal to 7,62mm blanks or something. And the total weight of the loaded weapon with reflex and thermal sights no higher than 3 kg.

4) silence is golden! Give me something that doesnt make so much noise! From a tactical point of view this is very, very important. Think of how easy it would be to command a small unit in a firefight if you didnt have the constant noise. Also something that eliminates muzzleflash.

5) more reliable. Caseles or similar technology is a good step forward. But needed is also something that prevents dust and dirt to enter the weapon via the barrel, magazinewell and other openings.

6) obviously all that is available today; bolt hold-open devices, thermalsights, monopods etc.

Give me all of the above, and you have a perfect future rifle.

Response to 1, 4, and 5.

1. They could build 45 round mags or a lightweight and reliable 100 round mag for the current M4/M16 assault rifle. Some solders say they want something larger than a 30 round mag for their assault rifles. Machine guns on the other hand are just fine the way they are.

4. Most Modern day assault rifles have flash hiders and/or muzzle brakes and that can help reduce the amount of muzzle flash for the shooter position, but downrange it is still easily visible. But they do not effect noise in anyway. The only way to completely reduce noise and get rid of the flash is to add a suppressor, which can come in handy to reduce the loud noise of a 5.56 NATO round but reduces range accuracy and muzzle velocity at the same time. Pretty much the entire U.S. military never saw carrying suppressors would be with much benefit.

5. Its not really the round thats can be unreliable, its the weapon. I'm sure we have all heard about the M4s and M249s jamming recently in Afghanistan but they do have the H&K416(with AK-47 like reliability) or the SCAR-H/L and the MK46 LMG which are much more reliable and far superior to the current weapons used.

This is just my 2 cents.