M-4/16 replacement

[Chris Werb]

If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper designing a new infantry rifle/carbine to enter service next year and remain in service for the next 25 years, what would it look like? For the purpose of this exercise, it has to be a new weapon, not something you could put together at AR15builder.com

Edited June 18, 2011 by Chris Werb

[shep854]

How many parts could this "clean sheet" design have in common with ARs?

If I had to go whole hog, I'd take a hard look at dusting off the HK G11 and rechambering it to 6.5-6.8mm; you can't get much more "clean sheet" than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

Edited June 18, 2011 by shep854

[Tony Williams]

If I had to go whole hog, I'd take a hard look at dusting off the HK G11 and rechambering it to 6.5-6.8mm; you can't get much more "clean sheet" than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

No clean-sheet design will be ready next year (try in ten years time), which makes the original question rather contradictory.

 

The US Marines seem delighted with their new M27 IAR, which is just an HK 416 with a heavy barrel of semi-carbine length. More accurate than the M16 and capable of a much higher sustained rate of fire. There is a general feeling that the MC would happily ditch all of their M16s for the M27 if they could afford it.

 

The US Army has a three-stage Product Improvement Programme planned for the M4, starting with a heavier barrel and a full-auto switch and finishing with a piston-actuated gas system. By which time it will bear a remarkable resemblance to the M27...

[shep854]

There is a rather general suspicion ( something of a "conspiracy theory" right now) that the M27 is a backdoor attempt to replace the M16 series.

[Dawes]

In the civilian AR-15 world, heavy barrels seem to be less than popular because of various reasons. They're seen as making the weapon a bit imbalanced/front-heavy and are seen (by many) to have little effect on accuracy. Others clain that the full-length heavy barrel on some AR's is actually an aid to long range accuracy and the barrel takes longer to heat up (and, conversely, longer to cool down). To each his own, I suppose.

 

I own an AR-15 HBAR and while I wouldn't want to hump it around all day long I don't mind the extra weight on the range and find that it helps a little to steady the rifle when offhand shooting.

[Yama]

[EchoFiveMike]

7mm, gas piston, integrally suppressed. Rail space for IR/green laser/LRF, IR light and weaponsight. MIL 1913 as good as anything else. Power integrated chassis adds complexity and asks for single point failure, stupid idea. Integral 40mm MV GL on all weapons, removable. Hydro/pneumatic buffer in stock for further recoil moderation, primarily for 40mm.

 

125gn Scenar type bullet at +/- 2800fps from 16" barrel. 160gn'ish scenar type match loading for DMR applications. Integral suppression reduces recoil, improves communications. No burst, no FA; learn to fucking hit, not make noise. 26+ rd magazine.

 

SAW is belt feed, purpose designed. DMR, variant of infantry weapon. With general issue of 40mm MV, doubt "lack of range", "need counter to RPG" will be issue. Except maybe in the Army's soft skill people S/F....Ken M

[Doug Kibbey]

 

NCHP issues the 552 "commando" carbine to certain members of the govenor's protection detail. They would be a helluva' PDW and are mucho fun.

 

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=215677

[Simon Tan]

While I generally concur with E5M, there are some areas in which I do not.

 

Most obvious is my position that the under barrel grenade launcher is NOT the way to go as far as shooting grenades. That task is best left to a stand alone launcher. Why? In part because there is already too much crap on rifles without bolting on another 2.5lbs to the front. The other is the inadequacy of sighting and shooting your under barrel launcher from your rifle...the ergonomics are all fouled up. To put the launcher sight in front of your face, you want to be shooting from almost a combat tuck, with the stock wedged between your strong elbow and torso. When prone, the stock is wedged against the ground with the body.

 

A full time can is nice, but a PITA to clean. The current crop of QD mounts, especially the AAC Blackout series are really excellent. A mini can like their Mini4 is excellent for general usage but DM guys may benefit from a little more volume like a M4-2000. Their 762SDN-6 is an awesome can and really ups the game IMO.

 

I want to keep rifles as clean and uncluttered by stuff as possible. All up but unloaded of 9lbs. would be acceptable.

 

Recoil absorbing stock. Works as advertised. Tested on 7.62x51mm rifle, 9lbs, 800 rpm cyclic.

 

 

Not usually my first stop for stuff but this intrigued me. The riser, not important. The recoil absorbtion, excellent. SAW gunners could benefit from this.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Simon Tan

[chino]

The GL should be separate and holstered until use. The rifle should be the only thing you carry in your hands all the time.

[Doug Kibbey]

 

Most obvious is my position that the under barrel grenade launcher is NOT the way to go as far as shooting grenades. That task is best left to a stand alone launcher. Why? In part because there is already too much crap on rifles without bolting on another 2.5lbs to the front. The other is the inadequacy of sighting and shooting your under barrel launcher from your rifle...the ergonomics are all fouled up. To put the launcher sight in front of your face, you want to be shooting from almost a combat tuck, with the stock wedged between your strong elbow and torso. When prone, the stock is wedged against the ground with the body.

[/img]

 

Not usually my first stop for stuff but this intrigued me. The riser, not important. The recoil absorbtion, excellent. SAW gunners could benefit from this.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with E5M on this. Having carried and M203 extensively, I did not find it all that burdensome. If this capability is left to a stand alone launcher, then somebody is either A. carrying one weapon of limited utility in some situations...or B. Some poor slob is schlepping two weapons. If more-or-less everybody has a 40mm launcher, you now have a firepower component that can be lobbed from numerous directions...making cover for an enemy much more problematic. It's not like everybody has to have a wild loadout of 40mm grenades, either. I typically only carried six or eight. With a little practice, a 40mm can be fired with better accuracy than you imply.

[Archie Pellagio]

UGL > Rifle + Wombat Gun digging into spine & clacking around.

 

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be going into combat with one of those revolver GL's and only a pistol either.

 

I think it is one of those 'proof is in the pudding' things - a lot of countries that clung to rifle grenades or separate M79/HK69 type systems have, after combat experience in places like Afghanistan switched to UGL's.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Luke Y

[CaptLuke]

I'm not sure that there's any reason for a clean sheet of paper until there is some big development that justifies it. Otherwise incremental work makes use of actual experience and yields only a marginally inferior product even if the "clean sheet of paper" design works form the get go, which is a big IF.

 

I'm guessing the plastic cased ammo, yielding big weight improvements without the fragility of caseless, may be this improvement. Then you get a whole new weapon and a whole new design along with a "clean sheet" cartridge. I'm thinking the 6.5 Grendel people got it right: even with better sites, regular troops aren't going to hit anything beyond the ranges where 7.62 NATO / 6.5 Grendel are proven useful. Maybe you need a more powerful load if you make some assumptions about body armor, but I'm doubting it.

 

It's a personal bias, but I think some research into drastically reducing cyclic rates while maintaining reliability would be time and effort well spent. Getting cyclic rates down into the 300-400 RPM range is going to retain many of the benefits of full auto fire while reducing ammunition consumption and increasing accuracy. The abortive LMR, Low Maintenance Rifle, project generated some interesting data on the increased accuracy of low rate full auto fire. The idea of a weapon that combines more ammunition and more controllable full auto fire is also IIRC what Eugene Stoner was pushing in one of his last projects and lightweight plastic cased ammunition and a low rate of fire weapon would seem to be ideal for this sort of approach.

[cheese possessed]

Magazine needs to be tilt-locking, such as on an AK47 or British L1A1. "Push-on" mags are the AR's design blind spot, especially in larger and heavier calibres.

[EchoFiveMike]

Cleaning cans= ultrasonic solvent tank in the rear, get to it whenever. Unless you're burning that Sov block shit ammo, cans go quite some time without noticable degradation due to carbon. Integral doesn't mean nonremovable, just designed for in the original planning, not adhoc afterwards.

 

UBL can take advantage of the weapons chassis you're carrying anyways, therefore can be lighter. Everyone must have a HE thrower, save for rare. specialized CQB type work. Aiming at "right now" combat ranges is POA/POI through primary optic; anything further, you have time to deal with sights, as it's not a "right f'ing now" situation. S/F....Ken M

[Simon Tan]

It comes full cycle with the M320, which is invariably used as a stand alone because it is such a POS when strapped to a rifle. The launcher is degraded along with the rifle. It works quite well as a standalone being very compact and rather handy. It's less a blooper than an oversize flare gun. The sights are a little fucked up because of the need to offset them for mounted use but a dedicated unit would prolly shoehorn into a chopped triple mag pouch with a bungee retainer and eventually someone will make kydex for it.

 

On the 320, they chopped the barrel back to 9 inches, the bare minimum possible to still throat paraflares. They have to mount the stupid thing right forward to reduce the risk of barrel strike during launch. This makes it a complete bitch to shoot and handle and makes the rifle really muzzle heavy. Also makes the rifle a bitch to drive. Doug, yer M16A1/M203 is lighter than a most of the rifles minus the M203. Most of that weight is sprouted on the muzzle end too, along with lights, lasers and cans. it might only weight 11 lbs, but a very lop sided 11 lbs.

 

I can see the value of a personal HE thrower but at what cost to efficacy of primary weapon? Everything is a compromise, the question is where your sweet spot is going to be. My opinion is that a compact stand alone gives up a little immediate speed (a transition) in return for better primary handling and much improved launcher function, ergo and handling.

[EchoFiveMike]

M320 is POS, USMC hasn't bought on, AFAIK. IMO, side open design is good, but barrel should be carbon fiber wrapped, protected by forearm, maybe 2 lbs'ish, tops?

 

For most of the sadly undertrained folks out there, the GL will be their primary weapon, at least from the standpoint of what they're going to generate enemy casualties with. It is simply a bridge too far to get most "leadership" people to take combat shooting seriously & budget time and ammo accordingly. DM's, snipers, dedicated MF'rs will still be the guys generating the bulk of enemy casualties from SAF, as such they should have a decent tool for the task. Everybody else can blow shit outta the landscape w/40mm and maybe get lucky; at the very least scare the shit outta the enemy. S/F....Ken M

[Simon Tan]

For that purpose, the simplicity of the GP-25/30/34 is hard to beat. They are still somewhat heavy due to Soviet grade construction but a little modern metallurgy should do wonders.

 

Simon

 

Note the 'tuck' position adopted by the firer in the Izmash JSC video.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Simon Tan

[Tony Williams]

I'm guessing the plastic cased ammo, yielding big weight improvements without the fragility of caseless, may be this improvement. Then you get a whole new weapon and a whole new design along with a "clean sheet" cartridge. I'm thinking the 6.5 Grendel people got it right: even with better sites, regular troops aren't going to hit anything beyond the ranges where 7.62 NATO / 6.5 Grendel are proven useful.

 

ARDEC recently completed a study of rifle calibres including the existing 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds plus 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm. They loaded them with comparable bullets and physically tested them at 50m and 300m, extrapolated out to 600m (the range which was apparently felt to be required of a future rifle). They checked accuracy, wind drift, barrier penetration, soft target effectiveness at various angles of yaw, ammo weight and recoil.

 

Their conclusion? That calibres in the 6.5mm to 7mm range offer the best balance of characteristics for a military rifle. In other words, the same conclusion that just about every other study of this subject has come to, at least since the .276 Pedersen of the late 1920s. One of the eternal mysteries of 20th century small arms (and, so far, 21st century too) is the way in which clean sheet analyses of ideal calibres keep coming up with the same answer but that armies somehow always manage to avoid adopting the conclusions.

 

There is one glimmer of hope, though: the LSAT team, currently testing a 5.56mm MG using lightweight plastic-cased ammo, have been told to focus on different calibres to achieve a longer effective range.

 

It's a personal bias, but I think some research into drastically reducing cyclic rates while maintaining reliability would be time and effort well spent. Getting cyclic rates down into the 300-400 RPM range is going to retain many of the benefits of full auto fire while reducing ammunition consumption and increasing accuracy. The abortive LMR, Low Maintenance Rifle, project generated some interesting data on the increased accuracy of low rate full auto fire. The idea of a weapon that combines more ammunition and more controllable full auto fire is also IIRC what Eugene Stoner was pushing in one of his last projects and lightweight plastic cased ammunition and a low rate of fire weapon would seem to be ideal for this sort of approach.

 

I agree. This is an extract from an article of mine concerning future small arms which has been accepted for publication:

 

"One issue which often receives little attention is recoil control, which as already observed is important in a rifle in order to facilitate training, rapid and accurate semi-automatic fire and controllable automatic fire. In guns of similar type, recoil is largely a function of the gun weight and the cartridge power (specifically, the momentum - mass × velocity - as opposed to energy - mass × velocity squared). However, the gun action can also have a significant effect, with advantages being demonstrated by soft-recoil mechanisms or even opposed-piston types like the AK-107. Controllability in automatic fire can also be enhanced simply by reducing the rate of fire. The very high cyclic rate common in modern 5.56mm small arms has little if any practical benefit and leads to more rapid ammunition exhaustion and barrel heating as well as greater cumulative recoil."

[Tony Williams]

On the 320, they chopped the barrel back to 9 inches, the bare minimum possible to still throat paraflares. They have to mount the stupid thing right forward to reduce the risk of barrel strike during launch. This makes it a complete bitch to shoot and handle and makes the rifle really muzzle heavy. Also makes the rifle a bitch to drive. Doug, yer M16A1/M203 is lighter than a most of the rifles minus the M203. Most of that weight is sprouted on the muzzle end too, along with lights, lasers and cans. it might only weight 11 lbs, but a very lop sided 11 lbs.

Simon, I am delighted to see that you are at last coming to realise some of the advantages of a bullpup

[Simon Tan]

So I start with a compromised rifle and then make it worse. It's right with a rate reducer to make FA fire more effective. You do not need a FA sear to shoot your rifle at 300rpm. They are called hammer strings. It's OK Tony, you still believe in .17 centerfire. It's right there with all steel cores.

[Simon Tan]

 

Is nice...yes?

[Typhoid Maxx]

Uh...looks like something I'd knock up in the garage...

[Doug Kibbey]

It's an improvement over this how?

 

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/usweapons/m79suchke.jpg

[shep854]

It's an improvement over this how?

 

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/usweapons/m79suchke.jpg

In production?