Future of Assault Rifles

[sarabjit singh]

Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle

I think eventually the 5.56 will be replaced by the 6.5mm or 6.8mm and the 3 round burst mode on the M16 and M4 will go back to full auto. The U.S. Army said they were looking at studies to replace the M4 and their not limited to only the 5.56. Though they will still buy M4s for at least 4 more years so the next assault rifle is still a few years away from now.

Whatever i think rifile should have good range it should fire single shot &it should SPRAY Bullets when needed. it should bee not so tetical or complicated basic things should be in the rifile which we dont have
1 no telescope
2 no red spot finder
3 night vision device

every soldier gun should be mounted with these gagetes

[Rythm]

I tested C-mags in the 90s and they had some issues concerning feeding, and i found them to bee rather bulky wich made them unsuitable for close-range work. I have "heard" that these issues might have been resolved since then, but i havent tried them since so i wouldnt know.

Not familiar with the AN-94, but if it works without issues i suppose its good. But then, there is always a lot of sales-pitching going on about the latest revolutionary thing and i have learnt the hard way not to judge until i have tried it myself.

Metalstorm as such is not bad, its just not a revolution of the kind that we are waiting for. If an army buys new grenadelaunchers they should take a closer look at it, but i dont think it warrants the complete phasing-out of current GLs.

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Gremlin29

I disgree slightly. Both weapons eliminated the gas impingement system found on the M16/M4, which has been the achilles heel for that platform from day one. It's a proven bad concept for a battle rifle, that US forces have dealt with for many decades.

There is no such thing as a "direct impingement" system in the M-16. The bolt carrier has a cylinder inside it, the rear of the bolt functions as a piston, complete with sealing rings, and the gas used to function unlocking is vented out of the ejection port through two holes in the side of the bolt. All the external piston systems were tried by the Army Ordinance Command two yearts ago in Fort Collins Colorado, and each failed catastrophically in an embarrassingly short time.

Since the adoption of clean burning powder in the late 1960's, there simply hasn't been a problem with the weapon. At all, any time, ever. Stupid stories to the contrary are from fools who haven't ever used the weapon in combat.

I design rifles for a living. As a Colt engineer on the M-4 contract in the 1990's, I saw sixty thousand weapons go through military testing each year, including several hundred rounds through each rifle and 2 of each 100 rifles fired 6,000 rounds each. We were alowed 5 misfires per 6,000 shots. anything more than that and the entire 100 rifle batch was rejected. We never had more than 4 misfires per rifle, and usually averaged 1 or 2.

In 1990 I saw the Venezuelan Army walk into the factory, chose 3 M-16A2 rifles at random, and fire each rifle, non-stop, 10,000 rounds on full auto. Not one stoppage. Let me repeat that. 30,000 shots fired and not 1 stoppage.

Compare that to the so-called reliable AK-47. Have you ever seen high speed photography of an AKM being fired? Due to the extreme leverage of the highly mounted gas system, the stamped reciever flexes violently with each shot, throwing the rounds vertically over a wide arc.

The far superior Finnish Valmet has a heavy, all milled reciever that doesn't flex, as does the Israeli Galil and the Serbian Zastava, but all are otherwise AK's. They shoot quite accurately, although they weigh more than an M-14 with three to four times their effective range. The weapon still wants to flex, which is why the milled reciever rifles all end up eventually cracking across the front of the magazine well.

The massive tolerances of the AK are supposed to increase reliability, but in actuality they decrease it, as the bolt can cock and increase drag. The better made Israeli, Finnish, and Serbian weapons all have much tighter tolerances than the Chinese and Warsaw Pact weapons, and all are smoother in operation and more reliable.

The primary reason for the massive, sloppy fit of the AK series rifle is so that it can be made on 60 year old machinery by unskilled alcoholics. If it had any real use by professional troops fighting a modern infantry war, why did the Russian Army change to the ABAKAN, a completely new design that essentially mimics the M-16?

For what it's worth, the Russian military claims twice the hir probability with the ABAKAN, compared to the AK, and twice the effective range.

If you would like to see my test results at Smith and Wesson, firing the most common "piston gun", I would be glad to post them. The weapon broke after only a few rounds due to it's over violent action, and could have injured a shooter in an unprotected environment.

An Air Force Captain of my aquaintance teaches the Designated Marksman class at Ft. Benning Georgia, and informs me that he goes days without seeing a stoppage anywhere on the range, and that even the M-4 carbines are putting every shot, every time, in a head sized group at 500 meters. That fits with what I've seen in 3 years of carrying the rifle for a living, and being responsible for the manufature of more than half a million of them in the last 18 years. Don't believe the armchair commandos, or the politicians trying to score points with an ignorant public.

[OPSSG]

Originally Posted by ewen55

I design rifles for a living. As a Colt engineer on the M-4 contract in the 1990's, I saw sixty thousand weapons go through military testing each year, including several hundred rounds through each rifle and 2 of each 100 rifles fired 6,000 rounds each. We were allowed 5 misfires per 6,000 shots. anything more than that and the entire 100 rifle batch was rejected. We never had more than 4 misfires per rifle, and usually averaged 1 or 2.

@ewen55, welcome to DT.

We'll like to get started on the process of acquiring a 'blue handle' for you. If you are currently in the defence industry, the process of verification with regards to your identity should not be too difficult given the industry contacts of the Mod team and we should get started on the process. We'll be contacting you with a request for more information shortly.

[Gremlin29]

Far be it from me to argue with an expert, my understanding has been the M16 uses a gas impingement system, I didn't say "direct" but I certainly can't argue semantics with an engineer in the field. If I may ask, what is the the correct termingolgy for the gas system used by the M16 and or M4 family?

Not sure what piston weapons you tested. I'd be shocked if it was the piston gun LMT is offering, or HK, or FN for that matter.

I'd love to see the test footage, and I'm more curious to know what weapon it was that was in the midst of self destruction.

I'm just weeks shy of 20 years time in service. Even though I'm an aviator, I am a firearms enthusiast and have my FFL as well so I'm very interested in hearing more from you.

[Vajt]

I read an article in the latest issue of Special Weapons magazine that discussed an M-4 based rifle from Next Generation Arms that uses ceramic plating on key metal parts to fuse ceramics into the metal. This allows the rifle to be lubricant free and reduce the maintenance needed. It also reduces heat and can better handle environmental conditions.

This sounds very positive and I wonder what is the cost-benefit of doing this so that any future rifle or machinegun purchased by an armed forces would use this technique?

-----JT-----

[Go229]

Originally Posted by Vajt

I read an article... ceramic plating on key metal parts to fuse ceramics into the metal. This allows the rifle to be lubricant free .. maintenance needed.. reduces heat, better handle environmental conditions.

This sounds very positive and I wonder what is the cost-benefit of doing this so that any future rifle or machinegun purchased by an armed forces would use this technique?

-----JT-----

That would surely decrease the needed maintenance and increase the weapon effectiveness in bad conditions (dust, ice, ect) and i'd love to have such a thing!

I design rifles for a living. As a Colt engineer on the M-4 contract in the 1990's,

My dream job! I salute you! Where's that saluting smiley...

I saw sixty thousand weapons (getting the living hell beat out of them and perform flawlessly)

Compare that to the so-called reliable AK-47. ...
The far superior Finnish Valmet has a heavy, all milled reciever that doesn't flex, as does the Israeli Galil and the Serbian Zastava, but all are otherwise AK's. They shoot quite accurately, although they weigh more than an M-14 with three to four times their effective range. The weapon still wants to flex, which is why the milled reciever rifles all end up eventually cracking across the front of the magazine well.

The massive tolerances of the AK are supposed to increase reliability, but in actuality they decrease it, as the bolt can cock and increase drag. The better made Israeli, Finnish, and Serbian weapons all have much tighter tolerances than the Chinese and Warsaw Pact weapons, and all are smoother in operation and more reliable.

Ouch!!! That would explain the widely disparate accuracy between rifles of varying origin. Receivers made out of lesser quality steel or weakened would essentially make that AK a anti-aircraft gun ...

An Air Force Captain of my aquaintance teaches the Designated Marksman class at Ft. Benning Georgia, and informs me that he goes days without seeing a stoppage anywhere on the range, and that even the M-4 carbines are putting every shot, every time, in a head sized group at 500 meters. That fits with what I've seen in 3 years of carrying the rifle for a living, and being responsible for the manufature of more than half a million of them in the last 18 years. Don't believe the armchair commandos, or the politicians trying to score points with an ignorant public.

I'd have to beleive that 60 years of continuous research, development and improvements over many wars would be enough to iron out the problems and improve on the design. The only thing that needs changing to my opinion is the caliber. I beleive the 6.5 grendel is the best round! The armor penetration and long-range effectiveness almost up to a 7.62 NATO with weight only 28% up from 5.56mm in the same weapon. Sure it's heavier, but who dosen't say that by the time a replacement is needed caseless technology will have improved.

What do you think of Caseless ammunition, and the HK 11 projects?

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Go229

That would surely decrease the needed maintenance and increase the weapon effectiveness in bad conditions (dust, ice, ect) and i'd love to have such a thing!


My dream job! I salute you! Where's that saluting smiley...





Ouch!!! That would explain the widely disparate accuracy between rifles of varying origin. Receivers made out of lesser quality steel or weakened would essentially make that AK a anti-aircraft gun ...


I'd have to beleive that 60 years of continuous research, development and improvements over many wars would be enough to iron out the problems and improve on the design. The only thing that needs changing to my opinion is the caliber. I beleive the 6.5 grendel is the best round! The armor penetration and long-range effectiveness almost up to a 7.62 NATO with weight only 28% up from 5.56mm in the same weapon. Sure it's heavier, but who dosen't say that by the time a replacement is needed caseless technology will have improved.

What do you think of Caseless ammunition, and the HK 11 projects?

Continental Machine Co. (parent company of Stag Arms, I designed the left handed upper reciever) was sending quite a few firearms parts to Remington's design facility in Kentucky after they took the design contract for the 6.8mmSPC over from the Army Marksmanship Unit, and the fellows down there were kind enough to keep me informed of what happened down there.

They started with the .30 Remington case, as it was the biggest case that would function through the M-16 while maintaining double column feeding. The tried the basic case with 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, 7mm., and 7.62 millimeter projectiles. After many millions of shots fired, they decided the 6.8 had a better combination of lethality, accuracy, and energy retention at any reasonable range likely to be confronting the infantryman in today's world.

Basically, they wanted the chance of consistent one shot kills at 500 meters, and the ability to provide harrassing and area denial fire to 800 meters. Beyond that, it's the sniper's responsibility.

The 7mm projectile had a very slight edge in lethality, and the 6.5mm had a slight edge in trajectory, with the 6.8mm being the best compromise.

Caseless ammunition has it's virtues in an armored vehicle, where fired shells rolling around inside are a hazard, but they aren't robust enough to stand up to magazine feed and the friction/acceleration curve of belt feeds. The shavings and dust generated are dangerously explosive.

As for the H&K action, it's an abortion the Germans have been trying to sell since the 1960's, without any luck. Look at every kind of locked breech weapon in use 40 or 50 years ago. Now look at the weapons being built today by those same companies.

All feature a conventional rotating bolt with front locking lugs and gas operation. No more delayed blowback G-3/CETME's, no more tipping block FN/SLR's. The rotating bolt gives you maximum camming at lockup and extraction, and it also gives you the maximum bolt speed/feed energy exactly when it's needed, at the moment of chambering the round in the barrel.

While I think the ABAKAN is needlessly complicated, heavy, and expensive for what is essentially an analog of the M-16, it does have enough bolt mass to provide reliable feeding, and is a seminal departure for the Russians, signifying a return to American and British style active, aggressive infantry tactics. The day of the armored infantryman, dismounting only to overrun anti-tank weapons at close range while supported by vehicle based fire is drawing to a close.

Grozny taught the Russians that the only way to overcome skilled and desperate resistance in urban areas is with skilled, disciplined professional troops using fire and manuver. Armored vehicles are more of a liability in built up areas than an asset.

Even the American Abrams, when used as a fire support weapon by infantry who have trapped an enemy in a restricted area, is kept well back and only moves in areas that have been swept for IED's.

There are a few sad vestiges of the armored infantryman ethos still around, unfortunately. The only excuse for a bullpup weapon like the British and French use is for people crowded into an APC, and I say that after working on the Israeli TAVOR project for two years.

In prone, the magazine hits the ground, forcing the muzzle down. Where the M-16 comes to the face like a shotgun, with the sights automatically in line with the soldier's line of sight and it's weight balanced between the hands, all bullpups have the ergonomics of a railroad tie, and the muzzle blast is deafening. Not a class of rifle I would want to carry in battle.

Understandable perhaps for the Israelis, who have a tiny population, an aversion to large casualties, and an enemy who mostly uses smallarms, mortars, and grenades, but even the Israeli Special Forces page mentions that their elite units much prefer the M-16 to either the TAVOR or any of the more than a million captured AK47/AKM's they have in storage.

The issue of ergonomics is one that favors the M-16 more than almost any other rifle commonly issued. A faster first shot kill than almost any other weapon, barring the instance of shotguns in use by American troops. And no, it doesn't violate the international conventions, as they are only binding if you are a signatory, which America never has been.

Again, the ABAKAN has it's virtues that way, but the all steel construction makes it more than a kilo heavier than the M-16A4, and the A-4's weight is in the barrel where it does some good.

For a modular system, check out the MGI industries switch barrel unit, with the changeable magazine well. I did the development work on Mack Qwinn's basic idea, and I'm working on a plug-in belt feed to replace the magazine well.

[ewen55]

Originally Posted by Gremlin29

I disgree slightly. Both weapons eliminated the gas impingement system found on the M16/M4, which has been the achilles heel for that platform from day one. It's a proven bad concept for a battle rifle, that US forces have dealt with for many decades.

A problem that quickly went away, as soon as the military went to a ball powder that had no calcium based deterrent coating on it. And the term direct impingment implies what? That the gas simply blows back into the action and magically forces the bolt assembly to the rear?

The gas is actually brought into a chrome plated chamber inside the bolt carrier, and forces that chamber backwards off the bolt, camming it open as it goes. It's all very conventional, with the gas exausting out the small bleed ports in the side of the bolt carrier into the ejection port, and the alignment maintained by the tail of the bolt guiding the bolt carrier during it's travels.

Please remember, this is the Swedish Ljungman (AG42) gas system, designed for weapons that had to function in arctic cold or, as Egyptian Hakims, in desert heat, all of which the system handled admirably.