The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States
This is a discussion on The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Vajt
That's actually a good point. From what I've been reading, sound suppressors have the added benefit ...
That's actually a good point. From what I've been reading, sound suppressors have the added benefit that they increase accuracy. I wonder if they will become part of the standard kit?
-----JT-----
Seems to me that slowing the round down to subsonic speeds would lead to "rainbowing." But I doubt they'll become a piece of standard kit, at least in the US. The 5.56mm has enough penetration issues as is without slowing down the muzzle velocity.
Seems to me that slowing the round down to subsonic speeds would lead to "rainbowing." But I doubt they'll become a piece of standard kit, at least in the US. The 5.56mm has enough penetration issues as is without slowing down the muzzle velocity.
Silencers do not slow the round down, they trap the exhaust gasses. If you want subsonic ammunition the only way to do that is to load it with less powder and a heavier bullet. Then you get rainbowing.
Silencers do not slow the round down, they trap the exhaust gasses. If you want subsonic ammunition the only way to do that is to load it with less powder and a heavier bullet. Then you get rainbowing.
The standard issue ammunition dovetails actually very well with modern sound suppressors. The sound signature emitted by the flight of the projectile is btw also an important factor in the suppression of the enemy.
I think everybody who witnessed a night training operation with shooting knows just who perfectly the muzzle flash gives away the position of the shooter. This is also true to a lesser extent for difficult light conditions and bright days. Ironically a well chosen and camouflaged position can be more liable to get betrayed by the flash as in many instances it will make good use of shade and (light) cover, creating a better contrast for the bright flash.
The capture and slowing of most gasses does also greatly reduce the disturbance in front of the rifle. Far less movement of leaves, grass and less kick-up of dust and snow. In short the sound suppressors makes it much, much harder to see the signature of a shot making it much harder for the enemy to find you and to kill you and easier for you to suppress or kill him.
Firn
P.S: Subsonic ammunition should be special issue only, with specially designed projectiles. The light NATO caliber is not really suited to be completely silenced.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
The sound signature emitted by the flight of the projectile is btw also an important factor in the suppression of the enemy.
What i forgot to mention! 5.56mm rounds cannot go subsonic whitout having the energy of a .22LR, that's why the Russians have developped specialised long 9mm rounds specially for silenced weapons.
1. Does the U.S. military really need a new carbine? The M-4 has just about replaced the M-16A2. So it may be around longer than most people think.
2. If a new gun is adopted, will it need a new caliber like the 6.8 mm round?
3. POLITICS! If a new rifle is chosen, it will have to be made in the U.S. Right now, COLT, FN and RUGER can make the quantities needed and have new designs. How will the politicians in the home states of these makers pressure the selection.
Remember the farse that surrounded the adoption of the BERETTA 92FS as the M-9 pistol. Even the most anti-gun politician in AMERICA, Edward KENNEDY got involved (his state is home to SMITH & WESSON, a loosing contender).
If REMINGTON gets behind the BUSHMASTER ACR, that would also become a real contender.
4. Money? The AR-15/M-16/M4 rifles are not cheap. RUGER can probably produce the SR-556 cheaper with more features than any competitor. It appears to meet all the requirements and should prove reliable enough. It would be the one that I bet on.
The high price on these rifle at gun shops in the U.S. is more a reflection of the demand that the real price. I have seen them at 25 to 35 percent below the suggested price.
I think the military will just keep using the M-4, improving it be adding better sights like the TRIJICON ACOG or CANADIAN ELCAN. Also, newer ammo with expanding bullets could be used in AFGHANISTAN. The enemy there are not signatories to the HAGUE or GENEVA conventions.
They may standarize on a modified version if it can save money like the COLT Monobloc version, but I have not heard of enough complaints from users to get rid of the M4. It has not been around that long and the military would have to buy all new support equipment.
Does anybody see that kind of expense when you have an anti-military administration?
If you list FN as a company which could supply the US Army with american made firearms you could name any other international company, too.
They just happen to have a north american division but every other foreign company is going to open one too, if it not already exists, if it could get such a contract.
Right now the ability of american companies to come up with a good infantry weapon is questionable.
There are SCARs in use with SOCOM, H&K 416 with the SEALs, M240 and the SAW with everybody and the USMC IAR is also a slightly modified H&K 416.
Not a stellar situation for the US companies in terms of reputation.
There are several questions to ask?
Also, newer ammo with expanding bullets could be used in AFGHANISTAN. The enemy there are not signatories to the HAGUE or GENEVA conventions.
That's not really how the Hague convention works.
By signing it, the US has effectively outlawed expanding bullets in its armed forces, no matter who they happens to be shooting at.
That's not really how the Hague convention works.
By signing it, the US has effectively outlawed expanding bullets in its armed forces, no matter who they happens to be shooting at.
Thiel,
This is getting a little off the subject, but that is not the finding of U.S. military lawyers. They have ruled that expanding ammo can be used against non-signatory combatants. The U.S. goes by our interpretation of the treaty,not Europe's or anyone else.
Recently, the U.S. was examing the use of a bullet sold by FEDERAL AMMUNITION called the EFMJ (Expanding Full Metal Jacket). This round has a piece of plastic under the nose of the bullet jacket. It has pre-stressed fractures and will flatten and expand on impact. It was designed by the inventor of the HYDRO-SHOK bullet and works with an expansion similar to the older hollow point bullets.
Over the years, their have been challenges to a number of weapons as being inhumane and they were overcome.
For instance, napalm was charged with being cruel and inhuman just as flamethrowers were. The argument for flame weapons is that they kill be suffocation as the oxygen is exhausted during the burning. The reality can be something else, but these weapons are still used.
I also heard that the Russian's once challenged the use of Gatling guns by the U.S. Now the Russians make them.
If you list FN as a company which could supply the US Army with american made firearms you could name any other international company, too.
They just happen to have a north american division but every other foreign company is going to open one too, if it not already exists, if it could get such a contract.
Right now the ability of american companies to come up with a good infantry weapon is questionable.
There are SCARs in use with SOCOM, H&K 416 with the SEALs, M240 and the SAW with everybody and the USMC IAR is also a slightly modified H&K 416.
Not a stellar situation for the US companies in terms of reputation.
Just a side note Waylander,
HK has announced that it will be setting up a facility in the U.S to manufacture the 416, rumor is that this rifle is in contention for future military sales and the civilian version will be sold to the American public.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
One doesn't get such a contract without setting up shop in the US. There are jobs involved after all...
I am still curious about the future of the USMC IAR idea. I am convinced that it is just an obvious trick to sneak in a new standard assault rifle through the backdoor.
^ I saw an episode of History Channel's "Lock and Load" where they compared the Japanese Machine Gun versus the Marine's back in WW2, and pointed out that among the major short-comings of the Japanese weapon was that it was Magazine-fed versus Belt-Fed. Although I'm sure the new designs are much more resistant to jamming, I find it rather unusual that they adopt that magazine-fed machine gun for their new IAR.
^ I saw an episode of History Channel's "Lock and Load" where they compared the Japanese Machine Gun versus the Marine's back in WW2, and pointed out that among the major short-comings of the Japanese weapon was that it was Magazine-fed versus Belt-Fed. Although I'm sure the new designs are much more resistant to jamming, I find it rather unusual that they adopt that magazine-fed machine gun for their new IAR.
Keep in mind that the employment of LMGs on both sides during that point in time was vastly different that the way SAWs are used now. During that point in time, the US Army had one .30 cal light machine gun per squad, plus another section at the company level (typically attached to HQ company). I'd presume the Marine Corps did something similar with their M1919s and based off of what I've read, so did the Japanese.
This comparison isn't really an analog as to how the SAW is used by the Marine Corps today, since now the M249s are as far down as the fireteam level. This would likely lead to a different tactical employment and use of the weapon.
How you use a squad-level LMG and how you use a fireteam-level weapon will be different, and that's going to lead to a different set of ideal traits and design characteristics for each weapon.
In fact, the best point of comparison (from a force structure/employment standpoint) would probably be the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). Towards the end of the war, the Marine Corps reorganized into four-man fireteams similar to the ones used today. In every fireteam was an "Automatic Rifleman" carrying a BAR, which incidently was a magazine fed-weapon.
On a completely unrelated note. As I'm sure you are aware, some FN MINMIs (the basis for the M249) are configured to handle M4 and M16 magazines. So in a pinch, it too, can be a magazine-fed weapon.
^ Now I'm more confused. And I don't trust wiki at all, so...
After I googled "fire team machine gun", it gave me 4 foot soldiers with 1 of them equipped with a SAW to lay down suppressive fire. And so, is a squad essentially 2 fire teams? And that in a squad, there's no longer going to be anyone carrying a belt-fed machine gun? And since a platoon is 4 squads, will the belt-fed machine gun go away for light infantry?
^ So for a 10-man squad, 1 of the remaining 2 men will have a belt-feed machine gun? If this is the case, then there's a LOT of firepower to a Marines' squad. I like it
