Future infantry small arms

[Lampshade111]

When you say something is a Mc[whatever], you're saying that it's comoditized, that one is as good as another, that it's nothing to write home about -- McJob, McMansion, McChurch...McRifle.

 

Ah, haven't heard that used up by me for some reason. Well if the ARX-160 matches up to the HK416, SCAR, ACR, and other designs getting hype these days, it isn't a bad thing. Just not horribly innovative.

[Doug Kibbey]

Ah, haven't heard that used up by me for some reason. Well if the ARX-160 matches up to the HK416, SCAR, ACR, and other designs getting hype these days, it isn't a bad thing. Just not horribly innovative.

 

Think "cookie cutter" hamburger chains, same product, different name....it'll come to you.

[A2Keltainen]

How good ballistics (at say ranges > 200 m) could you get if you took a M80 7.62x51 NATO, and just shortened it a bit to something like a "7.62x39 NATO", while keeping the same bullet, powder type, and primer (for ease of manufacture and industrial logistics)?

[Marek Tucan]

Afraid the ballistics would be pretty bad, you'd need a lighter bullet probably - 7.62x39 also has a different one from 7.62x54R.

[rmgill]

How good ballistics (at say ranges > 200 m) could you get if you took a M80 7.62x51 NATO, and just shortened it a bit to something like a "7.62x39 NATO", while keeping the same bullet, powder type, and primer (for ease of manufacture and industrial logistics)?

 

You'd be slowing the bullet down which would give you a much higher trajectory for the same range target. You want MORE propellant not less for flatter shooting. Think 7.62x54R vs 7.62x39.

 

7.62x54R - 150 gr bullet 2,840 f/sec - 2,677 ft-lbf

7.62x39 - 154 gr bullet 2,104 ft/sec - 1,519 ft-lbf

 

7.62x54R typically runs larger sized 180 or so grain bullets too at 2,600 ft/sec.

[A2Keltainen]

You'd be slowing the bullet down which would give you a much higher trajectory for the same range target. You want MORE propellant not less for flatter shooting. Think 7.62x54R vs 7.62x39.

 

7.62x54R - 150 gr bullet 2,840 f/sec - 2,677 ft-lbf

7.62x39 - 154 gr bullet 2,104 ft/sec - 1,519 ft-lbf

 

7.62x54R typically runs larger sized 180 or so grain bullets too at 2,600 ft/sec.

 

How much would the trajectory change in a modification such as the one I mentioned, and how much would it matter for practical shooting, say for distances up to 500 m? The thought behind my modification was, rather obviously, not to create a flatter trajectory, but to improve kinetic effects on target compared to 5.56x45 NATO, and if the heavier bullet, compared to 5.56x45 would give better practical long range precision thanks to less wind drift and less loss of speed.

[Richard Lindquist]

A 800 meter rifle in a "compact size as possible" that is also suitable for urban warfare is asking a lot.

 

One size does not fit all applications.

 

And a canteen which will carry two gallons of water and weigh no more than five pounds when full.

[rmgill]

And a canteen which will carry two gallons of water and weigh no more than five pounds when full.

 

And an APC that has tank level protection and only weighs 10 tons. Oh, and it'll take 10 fully kitted troops comfortably with all the gear they care to bring.

[Marek Tucan]

And an APC that has tank level protection and only weighs 10 tons. Oh, and it'll take 10 fully kitted troops comfortably with all the gear they care to bring.

 

And will have a tank-killing main gun and would fit into CH-47

[rmgill]

And will have a tank-killing main gun and would fit into CH-47

 

Come on, get with the program. It would fit into the back of a V-22 Osprey.

 

 

Oh, BTW, finally got a look at the books that reference the Centurion early stowage diagams. I could find no evidence of the Brens in the MK 3 stowage. I'll have to inquire further with the nice folks at Bovington.

[zakk]

And will have a tank-killing main gun and would fit into CH-47

Gav!n?

[Doug Kibbey]

And an APC that has tank level protection and only weighs 10 tons. Oh, and it'll take 10 fully kitted troops comfortably with all the gear they care to bring*.

 

 

*To include their bicycles and captured SKS carbines in case their ammo supply dries up.

[alfa]

Hi, Can Anybody identify this rifle

 

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b8cc03b3127ccec5b86a31b0f900000040O08AZOW7Vk4cMwe3nwo/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D720/ry%3D480/

 

from

 

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5059&sid=8a59e8275c9f2b518004ce9c3f7e8b6e&start=2160

[Simon Tan]

QBU-88 Sniper/DMR from the PRC.5.8x42mm

[Rick]

Didn't the British Army have a "bullpup" rifle shortly after World War Two? From dim memories it

wasn't accepted due to some political stuff by NATO and/or the U.S.? How good or bad was this rifle?

[baboon6]

Didn't the British Army have a "bullpup" rifle shortly after World War Two? From dim memories it

wasn't accepted due to some political stuff by NATO and/or the U.S.? How good or bad was this rifle?

 

Yes the EM-2, discussed in several threads in this section.

[Tony Williams]

From: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

 

Another which very nearly saw service was the British EM-2 bullpup rifle, initially chambered for a new .280 cartridge (later slightly modified as the .280/30 - both measured 7x43 in metric terms) which after trials with 8.4g bullets was finalised with a 9.0g bullet at 736 m/s, for a muzzle energy of 2,440 joules. There is some confusion over the EM-1, since two different weapons were assigned the same designation: the first was a full-powered (7.92x57) bullpup gun by Roman Korsak, a Pole working in England, the second EM-1 was a rival to the EM-2 in the same 7x43 calibre, which had a similar bullpup configuration but with a different action and was made from stampings and pressings rather than machined. Unlike the AK, which continued to be supplemented by the full-power 7.62x54R Nagant cartridge in MGs and sniper rifles, The EM-2 was a carefully-judged attempt to produce a weapon which could replace both the 9mm Sten SMG and the full-power .303 Lee Enfield rifle in one compact package. A GPMG based on the Bren mechanism but with belt feed, the TADEN, was also developed to use this round and replace both the Bren and (at least partly) the Vickers MMG.

 

The EM-2 + 7x43 combination appears to have achieved all that was asked of it, and in 1951 the cartridge was briefly adopted by the UK as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. However, it faced insurmountable political obstacles. Previously, it had been submitted for comparative testing in the competition to select a new standard NATO rifle/MG cartridge. The 7x43 was regarded by the US Army's testers at Fort Benning as a better basis for development than the new US .30 cal round with which it was competing, and other NATO countries (Canada and Belgium, at least) were very interested in the concept. The British and Belgians made great efforts to meet the objections of the US Army, who thought it wasn't powerful enough, first by stepping up the loading to 2,700 joules, then by developing a longer cartridge (the 7x49 - which actually saw service with Venezuela in the FN FAL rifle). Despite this, the Americans insisted on NATO adopting a common round which had to be of .30 calibre and powerful enough to replace the .30-06 in MGs - which meant by definition that it could not be used in an assault rifle. A change of government resulted in the British giving way and cancelling the EM-2 and its cartridge in favour of the FN FAL in 7.62x51 NATO, which apart from being half an inch shorter than the .30-06 cartridge represented no progress whatsoever over this fifty-year old design.

 

 

[rmgill]

 

The TADEN. This is mentioned in the Bren Gun Saga.

 

You can see how it uses the gas system, barrel locking/change, Bipod, tripod and I think the breech locking system from the Bren (I'll have to check the book if people are curious, it's at home now).

Edited August 6, 2010 by rmgill

[Xavier]

What is the recoil of an EM-2 like compared to 5.56 & 7.62?

 

Also, wouldn't the original 7x43mm have had a rather curvy trajectory with it's low-ish speed?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Xavier

[rmgill]

What is the recoil of an EM-2 like compared to 5.56 & 7.62?

 

Also, wouldn't the original 7x43mm have had a rather curvy trajectory with it's low-ish speed?

 

.303 British

-150 gr - 2770 ft/sec - 2,554 ft lbf

 

6.8mm Rem SPC

-115 gr - 2,625 - 1,759 ft lbf

 

.280 British

- 139 gr - 2,530 ft/sec - 1,980 ft lbf

 

7.62x39

- 122 gr - 2,396 ft/sec - 1,555 ft lbf

- 154 gr - 2,104 ft/sec - 1,519 ft lbf

[Tony Williams]

.303 British

-150 gr - 2770 ft/sec - 2,554 ft lbf

The standard British military loading in both world wars (Mk VII ball) was a 174 grain bullet at 2,440 fps, for 2,312 ft/lbs.

 

.280 British

- 139 gr - 2,530 ft/sec - 1,980 ft lbf

It's a little more complicated than that with the ballistics changing quite a lot during development. MV for the US trials was around 2,415 fps but it was later uprated to meet US objections.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Tony Williams

[Tony Williams]

What is the recoil of an EM-2 like compared to 5.56 & 7.62?

Noticeably softer than 7.62mm, and apparently controllable in burst fire (which is more than can be said for 7.62mm rifles). Compared with 5.56mm, more of a firm push than a sharp kick.

 

Also, wouldn't the original 7x43mm have had a rather curvy trajectory with it's low-ish speed?

Yes, although no worse than the .303 which the British seemed to do OK with for half a century. It was a consequence of the US insistence on very long range (2,000 yards), which required a long, heavy bullet. A new loading for the 7x43 (currently being considered) would probably use a lighter but better-shaped bullet of around 130 grains, with energy delivered to 1,000m calculated to match 7.62mm M80 ball.

[rmgill]

The standard British military loading in both world wars (Mk VII ball) was a 174 grain bullet at 2,440 fps, for 2,312 ft/lbs.

 

 

It's a little more complicated than that with the ballistics changing quite a lot during development. MV for the US trials was around 2,415 fps but it was later uprated to meet US objections.

 

True but lacking the ballistic coefficients we can at least assume from the velocity and the bullet weight comparisons what the loose differences in trajectories are going to be no?

[Xavier]

Noticeably softer than 7.62mm, and apparently controllable in burst fire (which is more than can be said for 7.62mm rifles). Compared with 5.56mm, more of a firm push than a sharp kick.

 

 

Yes, although no worse than the .303 which the British seemed to do OK with for half a century. It was a consequence of the US insistence on very long range (2,000 yards), which required a long, heavy bullet. A new loading for the 7x43 (currently being considered) would probably use a lighter but better-shaped bullet of around 130 grains, with energy delivered to 1,000m calculated to match 7.62mm M80 ball.

Did you just say they are looking into reviving the 7x43

[thekirk]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We need to do a fundamental re-think of what it is, exactly, that we're expecting these systems to do, and how we plan on fighting with them. And, we need to quit doing the analysis in a vacuum--The entire picture needs to be taken into account, individual weapon through crew-served, to vehicle-borne fire support asset.

 

I'll hold that 5.56mm is perfectly adequate, within the constraints of modern unlimited warfare. All it's supposed to do is afford infantry to defend itself within a fairly limited range, and let other systems, usually crew-served, to do the job outside those ranges. If we were following the model used in Vietnam, where we had recon teams sneaking about the countryside, calling in unlimited fires on the enemy they found, then 5.56mm would be perfectly adequate. As it is, when you try to use that cartridge/weapons system outside the "environment" it was evolved for, you run into problems.

 

If we're going to fight our wars with just what the infantry can carry, and not avail ourselves of external fire support, of course there are going to be issues. The 5.56mm is a perfectly adequate cartridge, if you're fighting an unlimited war in the jungle, or in built-up areas of Europe. Take it to the high mountain deserts of Eurasia, take away the customary supporting weapons, and you're going to show issues with it, as a system.

 

I'd suggest that things be re-evaluated, and looked at carefully, with some cold-blooded systems analysis. What is the individual weapon supposed to do, aside from star in some immature phallic confusion fantasies? Would a system like the XM-25 make more sense?

 

I still say that big part of the problem is that we don't train junior leaders to fight their units as a system, balancing the various weapons and using them most effectively. If it were me, there would be simulators running in every base camp, allowing the junior leaders to practice controlling their units, and allowing them the opportunity to see where they can most effectively utilize their unit's various weapons. A junior leader is not meant to engage the enemy with his/her weapon; they are supposed to engage the enemy with their unit...

 

An example of this, to my mind, is how the US Army has marksmanship badges for individual Soldiers and their assigned weapons, yet does not have the equivalent for the various levels of leadership to "qualify" with what is, in actuality, their weapon: The unit they lead.

 

Fire control, and the associated skills that go with it, is a lost art. There used to be a manual, Vietnam-era, that discussed this stuff, yet that's gone by the wayside, integrated in a haphazard way into other manuals.

 

As we transition to a more electronic infantry Soldier, one thing I think would be valuable for the infantry leader, at all levels, is a built-in heads-up display, showing precisely what their range fans are, superimposed on their vision. This would enable them, at a glance, to know whether or not the fleeting glimpse they get of the enemy should be engaged by an individual weapon, or with a crew-served one. Seems like a minor thing, but when you're trying to coordinate an entire squad or platoon, it's not always easy to do the range estimation thing with any real accuracy. I found that the hardest thing, when controlling a squad in training.

 

More advanced sensors and analysis algorithms would allow a real-time projection of what weapon would be most suited to engage which target--A palm-frond hut might be given the attention of someone with an individual weapon, and a thicker concrete or mudbrick construction might be delegated to something vehicle-borne.

 

Coordination of fires, and the proper application of them, is key to victory in a firefight. I'd rather have a small team of guys with less-than-perfect weapons and a good handle on how to fight coherently together than a larger unit with better weapons and no real idea how to use them as an integrated whole. The small group with better coordination is going to win, every time, unless they're facing truly overwhelming odds.