Future of Assault Rifles

[James2911]

After reading through several threads about assault rifles, I began to wonder where the future will lead for these weapons. What type of ammunition will they fire? What will their configuration be? Will they be lighter, or pack a larer puch than those of today? Feel free to post your view on the future of primary infantry firearms

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by James2911

After reading through several threads about assault rifles, I began to wonder where the future will lead for these weapons. What type of ammunition will they fire? What will their configuration be? Will they be lighter, or pack a larer puch than those of today? Feel free to post your view on the future of primary infantry firearms

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.

[carman1877]

I think that as warfare grows so will assault rifles. The guns will mostl likely like today be made of mostly plastic and metal. I think that they might get biiger rounds such as 7.55 or something. They will get lighter if at all possible.

[momo]

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

[Vajt]

Modularity seems to be the key today. Able to switch calibers and barrels very easily as well as add various attachments and grenade launcher (look at the SCAR L and H, HK 416 and 417 and the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR).

It is also interesting to note that AAI was granted an exclusive contract to study not only the US's next generation light machinegun but also next generation carbine. With both case-telescoped and caseless rounds.

http://www.aaicorp.com/html/News_Eve...1211_LSAT.html

-----JT-----

[beaver_pl]

any decision to change calibers must be a NATO wide decision. If the US is going to introduction new ammunition that is different in caliber from the existing 556, 762, or different in function - caseless or other, it should float the idea to other NATO allies in order to be consistent with STANAG

[shrubage]

I think assault rifle development has reached its technological peak, at least for now. There are precedents for this look at the M2 browning still essentially the same design as in 1918. I think there will be improvements to construction of assault rifles especially new lightweight materials but I think the essential design will remain the same for the short to medium term.

Developments such as caseless ammunition just don't deliver the improved performance that would compensate for the maintainance and reliability issues. No military is going to abandon the 5.56 untill an ammunition is developed that delivers significantly increased performance, and I don't think thats on the cards.

As for the the arguement between 5.56 and 7.62 I think a lot of countries have effectivley solved it by developing the role of the fire team designated marksman.

[USNlover]

I am a member of the NRA and they did an article about the future of weapons. and the main subject was caseless/cased. the facts are that the US army has developed a shotgun-like round that has the sabot but the entire shell is launched a 5.56 bullet thats in it can hit like a 7.76 round with less powder and weight. they but this new ammo into a m249 and weighted it and tested it with a regular m249 and the LCAS (which they call it) was on average 5-6 pounds lighter and you could carry 100-200 more rounds for the same weight.

[exported_kiwi]

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.

Good move but why don't they re=engineer the good old M14? A much better MBR IMHO.

[Saxon-Thor_74]

Originally Posted by exported_kiwi

Good move but why don't they re=engineer the good old M14? A much better MBR IMHO.

IMAO, the M14 doesn't have enough lobbyists to sway the policy makers to lean on the Defense Establishment to positively answer your rhetorical question, despite the fact it's an excellent platform. However I concur with a previous poster that the military will opt for investing in versatility, in which calibre can be changed on the same gun. The round has to fit the role. 5.56 will probably have a future role in REMF functions, but I see the 6.? with it's body armor piercing kinetic energy, but with less muzzle rise/flash than 7.62 being predominant. My question is: to bull-pup or not to bull-pup?

[usgn]

Basically even with the SCAR or HK416, these so-called latest AR are more for interim/bridging the gap kind of solution. Both weapons doesn't offer any lethality advantages over whatever already fielded and combat proven AR. The designs simply aren't revolutionary in any with regards to combat capability and effectiveness.

Maybe in future, weapons are part of the soldier centric system or some called soldier centric networks....it's no longer just the weapon itself...

[Gremlin29]

Originally Posted by usgn

Basically even with the SCAR or HK416, these so-called latest AR are more for interim/bridging the gap kind of solution. Both weapons doesn't offer any lethality advantages over whatever already fielded and combat proven AR. The designs simply aren't revolutionary in any with regards to combat capability and effectiveness.

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.

[F-15 Eagle]

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.

That and they have full auto instead of 3 round burst but thats a different story.

But I think for the future assault riles like machine guns will be basically the same as they are now overall but with better calibers and slightly different designs nothing like that caseless ammunition crap.

[Gremlin29]

Just a technical note, by definition an assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge, like the 7.62x39 or 5.56x45.

7.62x51 is not an intermediate cartridge, which makes it a battle rifle. The CETME and H&K G3 and M14 are good examples. These standard size cartidge battle rifles fell out of favor by just about everyone many decades ago mostly because the range advantage they have over the intermediate cartridges isn't needed 99.9% of the time.

The future assault rifle should be rugged and reliable like an AK with the accuracy of the M16 (I think F-15 Eagle raised an excellent point in another thread regarding the 20" barrel). They should also incorporate state of the art metalurgy on the barrels ala the M60E3/4 which can sustain impressive rates of fire without blowing out the barrel.

I'm not a fan of the bullpup but I've only fired a couple of mags through the Steyr. I know some swear by them but again I always look at the professional trigger pullers like SAS, Delta etc and I can't think of any top rate SF group that use a bullpup as their standard assault weapon.

[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-----