View Full Version : What should the next gen Issue Rifle be?
Nathan_Bell
05-28-08, 10:07
The parallel threads going over the Carbine and the Cartridge had a good question in one of them. What do we need the new rifle to do that the M16fow does not do?
Through the reading and listening I have done here is my list of what it should be:
1. Long stroke Piston Drive. The Russkies got it right.
2. Intermediate cartridge. The US.mil TTP is aimed fire driven, so the slight decrease in F/A controllability should not be much of a loss. DocGKR has stated in other places that the 7mm Murray is the 'ideal' assault rifle cartridge. If I misunderstood Doc, lemme know and I will zap these comments.
3. Good, simple, iron sights: I have heard enough folk who have had issues with keeping them zeroed that I will believe them that the A2 is 'too much' sight for a combat arm, but the AK sight is 'not enough' so we need something in between.
4. Optic ready: The RDS have proven their worth in combat, the next rifle should be setup from the get-go to use them. IE pic rail, none of this 1980's built in optics.
5. Usable basis for PDW and LMG: Keeps the basic manual of arms the same accross the board as well as ammo.
6. Robust magazines: If I need to explain that one :eek:
7. Follow the M16fow development and look to other than small arms technology for constructing the weapon. Remember the M16fow was also revolutionary because it used aerospace manufacturing processes more than small arms processes.
What have I missed?
Business_Casual
05-28-08, 10:31
The parallel threads going over the Carbine and the Cartridge had a good question in one of them. What do we need the new rifle to do that the M16fow does not do?
Through the reading and listening I have done here is my list of what it should be:
1. Long stroke Piston Drive. The Russkies got it right.
2. Intermediate cartridge. The US.mil TTP is aimed fire driven, so the slight decrease in F/A controllability should not be much of a loss. DocGKR has stated in other places that the 7mm Murray is the 'ideal' assault rifle cartridge. If I misunderstood Doc, lemme know and I will zap these comments.
3. Good, simple, iron sights: I have heard enough folk who have had issues with keeping them zeroed that I will believe them that the A2 is 'too much' sight for a combat arm, but the AK sight is 'not enough' so we need something in between.
4. Optic ready: The RDS have proven their worth in combat, the next rifle should be setup from the get-go to use them. IE pic rail, none of this 1980's built in optics.
5. Usable basis for PDW and LMG: Keeps the basic manual of arms the same accross the board as well as ammo.
6. Robust magazines: If I need to explain that one :eek:
7. Follow the M16fow development and look to other than small arms technology for constructing the weapon. Remember the M16fow was also revolutionary because it used aerospace manufacturing processes more than small arms processes.
What have I missed?
So pretty much a SCAR in 6.8, then?
M_P
Not a bad starting point, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a short stroke gas system either that uses a separate tappit system.
Plenty of M14's, FAL's, SKS's, and vz-58's have been using that system for decades with very high reliablity, although I'd definitely go with a robust rotating bolt assembly.
variablebinary
05-28-08, 10:48
The parallel threads going over the Carbine and the Cartridge had a good question in one of them. What do we need the new rifle to do that the M16fow does not do?
Through the reading and listening I have done here is my list of what it should be:
1. Long stroke Piston Drive. The Russkies got it right.
2. Intermediate cartridge. The US.mil TTP is aimed fire driven, so the slight decrease in F/A controllability should not be much of a loss. DocGKR has stated in other places that the 7mm Murray is the 'ideal' assault rifle cartridge. If I misunderstood Doc, lemme know and I will zap these comments.
3. Good, simple, iron sights: I have heard enough folk who have had issues with keeping them zeroed that I will believe them that the A2 is 'too much' sight for a combat arm, but the AK sight is 'not enough' so we need something in between.
4. Optic ready: The RDS have proven their worth in combat, the next rifle should be setup from the get-go to use them. IE pic rail, none of this 1980's built in optics.
5. Usable basis for PDW and LMG: Keeps the basic manual of arms the same accross the board as well as ammo.
6. Robust magazines: If I need to explain that one :eek:
7. Follow the M16fow development and look to other than small arms technology for constructing the weapon. Remember the M16fow was also revolutionary because it used aerospace manufacturing processes more than small arms processes.
What have I missed?
Sounds like youre describing a XCR/SCAR spec type weapon.
I dont know what the answer is for the next gen carbine. However we can see where the industry is going. Static weapon systems are out; QD barrel, modular and multicaliber is in, and I do not think it is a fad.
Until the DOD gets off its bottom and conducts full trials, its hard to say what comes next that will have real staying power as a frontline weapon
telecustom
05-28-08, 12:32
We are scheduled to get out SCARs in a few months. After we put the thought their paces I'll post a review. We just did our SOFMOD II fielding last week and the jury is still out on most of the gear.
Maybe it will all come together once it is put on the SCAR rather than the M4A1.
rubberneck
05-28-08, 12:46
It might be a moot point if Obama wins in November. He already has a long list of defense programs that he is going to cut as soon as he takes office and I don't see him spending money to replace all the rifles currently in inventory.
I don't think the SCAR is the answer that many people think it is. I have heard some feedback from guys that have tested it and not one spoke of it in glowing terms. I guess time will tell.
I don't think we'll see a complete change until something thats the next evolution of small arms comes along. Somthing as revolutionary as this first repeating arms etc. I think the next evolution is likely to be very different from what we have now. We have come a loooong way with technology in other areas yet small arms have remained pretty much the same, we still proppell bullets with a burning propellent out of a case of some type. Their are other ways to propel things that could be far superior to that. just my thoughts, but I think the SCAR, Masada, 416 etc. are good for the industry as long as we keep pushing the envelope, if your not moving forward your moving backwards.
rubberneck
05-28-08, 13:45
Going a step further I don't think we are going to be getting away from the 5.56 for a very long time. We convinced the rest of NATO to adopt the caliber and now that our allies have millions of rifles and billions upon billions of rounds bought and paid for, they aren't just going to walk away from it to suit us. Most of them are looking for ways to cut their defense budgets not expand them. The cost of replacing all their rifles chambered in 5.56 and the ammo is such a large number that most of them probably couldn't afford it while maintaining their socialized programs, and I don't see us going it alone.
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range...
NATO STANAG isn't what it once was. You have new members from Eastern Europe using 5.56mm, 5.45mm, and 7.62x39mm AK's and vz-58's that don't take STANAG mags, and you have the Germans and Spanish who use the G-36, which don't take STANAG mags either.
We forced NATO to adopt the 7.62x51mm round when they didn't want to, and we were the first to ditch it after they had spent the money to adopt rifles in that caliber.
I don't think NATO standardization is what's holding us up.
The logistics involved in changing weapons, calibers, and magazines alone will prevent wide-spread fielding of a M4 replacement.
variablebinary
05-29-08, 10:05
The logistics involved in changing weapons, calibers, and magazines alone will prevent wide-spread fielding of a M4 replacement.
That is not a good reason.
That is not a good reason.
You may not like the reasoning of the bean counters, but it is what it is. It's reality being applied.
Nathan_Bell
05-29-08, 16:23
Not a bad starting point, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a short stroke gas system either that uses a separate tappit system.
Plenty of M14's, FAL's, SKS's, and vz-58's have been using that system for decades with very high reliablity, although I'd definitely go with a robust rotating bolt assembly.
When I stated the long stroke system, I was thinking of basically using the gas system and bolt off of an AK, very good extraction that way. Primary extraction with the twisting of the bolt and then a system that is over engineeed so that it will always run.
That is not a good reason.
It's not a good reason to keep a significant improvement out of the troops' hands.
It's a perfectly valid reason to pass over a small incremental change that provides minor, if any, improvements.
Which is the case here? Until they test, we'll never know.
Anyone still working on caseless ammo?
When I stated the long stroke system, I was thinking of basically using the gas system and bolt off of an AK, very good extraction that way. Primary extraction with the twisting of the bolt and then a system that is over engineeed so that it will always run.
What problems exist with the short-stroke piston system that would make the long-stroke piston system preferable? Hell, for that matter (here's my uneducated civilian background showing), what requires a move away from the existing direct-impingement/gas-piston system at all?
-B
Nathan_Bell
05-29-08, 19:41
Anyone still working on caseless ammo?
Yes, but last I read it seems to be more aimed at crew served / support weapons. Cannot find the the link to the story, but it was one of the big .mil trade show write-ups.
That is not a good reason.
true. but everybody has to work within constraints of a budget. even the army.
the money spent replacing the M4/M16 (which has problems, but IS a known entity that many soldiers know inside and out) may be better spent on armor, vehicles, electronics, who knows.
that said... masada/ACR in 6.8. :D
Anyone still working on caseless ammo?
i think that got dumped with black powder back in 1900 or so. :D
The USMC has announced they are replacing their M16 series.
I hear they are looking at BullPups...but YMMV etc;
Business_Casual
05-30-08, 20:10
That is interesting, is there any published information we can read on that program? Any online links to reputable sites?
M_P
No stinking bullpups please! They are just about as hard to reload as a musseloader. A piston up-grade will serve them just as well while keeping the familiar and easy to reload m-4. Maintenance will be much easier and the cost will be less for the taxpayer, double win in my book!
Gutshot John
06-01-08, 17:47
Why invest significant resources to update a system that's already 40 years old?
If we're going to spend the money, let's update something for the new century... preferably something that will be around for a while. Invest the money, do it right. Get the best rifle available for the next 20 years and the standard for the next 40, like the M-16.
In the meantime, take all of those mean, nasty surplus M-16/M4s and either sell them as "C&R" (if possible) or parts if nothing else. :D
variablebinary
06-01-08, 18:38
Why invest significant resources to update a system that's already 40 years old?
If we're going to spend the money, let's update something for the new century... preferably something that will be around for a while. Invest the money, do it right. Get the best rifle available for the next 20 years and the standard for the next 40, like the M-16.
In the meantime, take all of those mean, nasty surplus M-16/M4s and either sell them as "C&R" (if possible) or parts if nothing else. :D
Where do I sign to make this happen?
If we're going to spend the money, let's update something for the new century... preferably something that will be around for a while. Invest the money, do it right. Get the best rifle available for the next 20 years and the standard for the next 40, like the M-16.
That makes perfect sense, but is limited by one critical factor: once the issue comes to a head and the decision is made that the M4 is unsat, the call to replace it will be immediate. That's why COTS programs are so popular.
OICW, XM8, etc. show what happens when a developmental program runs amok. In the middle of a long-running COIN war, with a significant dependence on individual small arms, the extra time involved in designing a new weapon simply isn't there.
Look at the pistol program ... it's been more than three years since that COTS program first saw daylight and we haven't even reached the RFP point yet. And no one takes the pistol as seriously as they will a M16/M4 replacement ...
You're right, the ideal thing would be to figure out what would work best, develop it, test it, and field it. But the odds are we'll hit panic mode sooner than that can be completed.
Gutshot John
06-01-08, 21:59
That makes perfect sense, but is limited by one critical factor: once the issue comes to a head and the decision is made that the M4 is unsat, the call to replace it will be immediate. That's why COTS programs are so popular.
OICW, XM8, etc. show what happens when a developmental program runs amok. In the middle of a long-running COIN war, with a significant dependence on individual small arms, the extra time involved in designing a new weapon simply isn't there.
Look at the pistol program ... it's been more than three years since that COTS program first saw daylight and we haven't even reached the RFP point yet. And no one takes the pistol as seriously as they will a M16/M4 replacement ...
You're right, the ideal thing would be to figure out what would work best, develop it, test it, and field it. But the odds are we'll hit panic mode sooner than that can be completed.
So do you think that explains the impetus for developing a stop-gap upgrade?
I can see doing something to extend the service a little bit until a decisive replacement can be developed/fielded in the next 10 years.
My only concern is that such an update will end up being almost as expensive as a whole new system...but without the long-term cost/benefit.
What's worse, I can see a stopgap measure being selected which then gains enough support that it becomes the new standard, leading us back to this same debate in five years.
Right now it's more politics than warfighting. There are commanders who see their careers relying on the continued acceptance of the M4, and there are commanders who see their futures rising with the adoption of something new.
IrishDevil
06-01-08, 23:10
While not a popular opinion I'm sure, I believe something along the lines of a Valmet in 6.8 or another flavor(maybe even 5.56) is the answer. Give it a good rugged/repeatable optics mount and your off to the races. The majority as in 99% of the military has no need for a space age super rifle. A rifle with good accuracy to 300 meters and robust/rugged enough to be reliable is what I feel is needed. I'm in no way a detractor of the M4/M16 family of weapons, there likely more than adequate for the majority of the troops, especially accuracy wise. Where I do see rifles along the lines of the SCAR/ACR/416 needed, are for the upper 1% SF users, people who can truly exploit the benefits of the weapons. I see no value in changing weapons from the M4/M16 platform unless there is a caliber change. At the very least field better performing 5.56 ammunition.
variablebinary
06-02-08, 03:04
If one thinks the calls for trials is much ado about nothing, it becomes easy to write off the merits of new platforms and put everything in the stop-gap pile
At the same time, I'd hate to see some broad, rash decision to replace the M4 with something like...the 416 for example which has lots of press and a big marketing machine...its also what the M14 is to the Garand...a stop-gap measure
The SCAR spec makes for a great base set of features that pushes the envelope enough to ensure we arent making a lateral move...
That is interesting, is there any published information we can read on that program? Any online links to reputable sites?
M_P
I read it from various sources, including the USMC. Ill see if i can dig up a link
No stinking bullpups please! They are just about as hard to reload as a musseloader. A piston up-grade will serve them just as well while keeping the familiar and easy to reload m-4. Maintenance will be much easier and the cost will be less for the taxpayer, double win in my book!
I cant say for the army, but the USMC does NOT like the M4, they like their 20" rifles and Ive seen very few Marines issued an M4, and usually those were corpsmen or other special purpose types
For the army a piston upper is the best answer, but the Marines like full sized rifles due to performance issue w/ short barrels hence their reasoning to replace the M16 series period
They dont want to M4 and the A4/2 is too long, so the obvious answer in a 5.56 rifle is a bullpup
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.