I like the way think! Lol
Levi
Printable View
Interesting you mention that. My friend from undergrad made this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=TWeJsaCiGQ0
Just needs bigger scale!
Wow! And the construction of of that prototype looks so ripe for miniaturization. Not only man portable in my lifetime, but concealable rail guns. Won't need suppressors for those. How about a muzzle velocity dial? Multible caliber magazines for dilating mag-lev bores?
And when they get cheap enough we'll have drone versions built into every public CCTV cam and the NSA will hear criticism no more. Interesting times ahead.
Arrrgh. Not enough sleep. I needs my coffee.
Bullpup style platforms are making major inroads. I think you will see improvements on them just like we have seen on the AR platform over the coming years.
I personally believe that the evolution of the AR pattern rifle is a long, long way from being finished. Just within the last 2-3yrs we've seen AR controls become seamlessly ambidextrous, along with being significantly faster to manipulate, and overall much more user friendly ( think..BAD-ASS ST selectors, and fully ambi lowers like the IWS, and ATXS).
In terms of AR manufacturers....LMT, and KAC will not only continue to build hard use rifles built properly to spec like colt, DD, BCM, noveske, etc. does, but equally as important they'll continue to push the envelope to the very edges. LMT's MRP/MWS design in 2004, and KAC's SR-15 IWS/E3 design in 2008 are imho the biggest innovations on the AR design since perhaps Eugene Stoner drew up the design at the end of the 1950's. As long as Karl Lewis, and C. Reed Knight Jr are around, we'll see innovation within the AR FOW.
In terms of AR kit manufacturers....Geissele, Magpul, and BAD Inc. will no doubt continue to drive innovation through their excellent various pieces of kit. Bill Geissele is truly an engineering, and design savant, and imho there isn't a more exciting player in the AR game than Geissele Automatics in terms of the future.
Just because the M4 is the benchmark does not mean that it is the pinnacle of small arms development (or even for just 5.56mm individual weapons). What makes the M4 stand above the rest is ergonomics (as long as you're a righty), modularity, and above all: testing.
Things that I consider to need improvement:
Buttstock. The whole receiver end-plate/endplate retainer nut/receiver extension is a cludgy Rube Goldberg. A dedicated design to give the user a good collapsible stock is past due. I think that the closest that I have seen is the UBR, but some weight needs to be lost. Further, it would be a definite advantage to have folding capability, but that pushes into another aspect:
Operating system. No, this isn't a "DI" vs "Piston" thing, but rather a look into what is actually happening inside the weapon to preserve the recoil profile of the "DI" system, but with upper-receiver encapsulated operating parts to enable a folding stock, specifically one that can be folded and still permit firing.
Relocation of CH. It's at a place that makes use more difficult. Placement/style of FAL is pretty good. Needs to be non-reciprocating but able to be used as a forward assist. While the FA is not frequently needed, there are times that it is.
Full/true ambidexterity and modularity of control parts.
All nice things, but in the end they are still not revolutionary and none are leaps and bounds better than the current system. We have still hit a wall in terms of small arms development outside of ergonomics.
Until a new round comes along, or we find a way to make a portable super strong power source the only changes we will see in small arms will be in ergos.
Do any of you think the so called "bullpup" configuration will ever catch on in America? I have a hard time accepting that style of rifle. Of course I had a tough time accepting the M4.