Well I know that.:D
Printable View
I was thinking the same thing yesterday.
I think it could, but I also think it will have to match the AR's modularity, dependability and it might need some Armed Forces adoption before it really catches.
On paper, the Tavor looks like a bullpup that will be better received in the US than the others thus far. I think there's some room to play with bullpup platform a little bit. But I agree that there's only so much that can be done with brass case.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
I do like the idea of a viable (ergonomic, ambidextrous, proper trigger) bullpup, though you would almost have to call the format something else entirely these days in order to get anyone to seriously consider it, given that the word itself has become a near-synonym for "compromise." A cool compromise, in many cases, but still not the first thing you will reach for when a long arm is called-for.
Fanciful dreams aside, the Magpul PDR concept seemed to offer something useful and innovative. Small form factor, fast-handling, ease-of-operation (theoretically) and a full-power cartridge. Would have been nice to see the KAC PDW go mainstream as well, but in the present environment, the associated ammo issues would be limiting, to say the least.
Have focused largely on smaller packages here, but to my mind this remains an underdeveloped area; especially for the kinds of defensive applications that seem most relevant to most current and would-be carbine users.
We've already learned how to make very capable rifles that can handle the distance work in the larger chamberings. New platforms there would seem to be redundant. What we don't seem to have are the PDW/Honey Badger/PDR class guns that might provide more than a handgun has to offer when less than a full-on carbine is really what's needed. Then again, I have an admittedly-strong penchant for small guns that fire big rounds, and that may be coloring my views.
AC
If they could get the price reasonable on them, this barrel making technology might be an advancement for some applications.
http://www.lothar-walther.com/396.php
i wish there were a way for ambidextrous lowers to be massively adapted.
For me, the next big step would be a fully modular rifle that has a common receiver that not only can serve as a infantry rifle/carbine, but as a PDW, LMG (to potentially include belt feeding), DMR and into the sniper rifle realm. And be compatible across the board with current and future standard ammo selections up to and including 5.56, 9mm, .45 and 7.62.
And all this could be done with basic parts interchanged by the lowest Private, Airman or Sailor. No armorers or depot level stuff. Basic upper receiver swaps with return to zero guaranteed.
I look at the Colt 901 not as much as a neat rifle that has potential to interchange calibers, but more of a proof of concept and a base to expand on. It could be continually developed to become a contender to replace the M4 if it was worked right.
I agree. I have some designs of weapons that fully encase the operating parts inside the upper, retain the stoner operating system, and have alot of those feel good features, but outside of autoscad they will never go anywhere sadly.
But the designs still only offer better ergonomics and nothing truly better, but seeing them come to fruition woukd be cool. Maybe ill get a 3d pronter one day :)
IIRC there was plenty of research back in the 70's, 80's on new rounds. One in particular was the caseless round. Seems H&K had a bullpup designed for this round (G11?). It was the greatest thing since sliced bread at the time and then, nothing. The project seemed to have died a fast death. There were probably many bugs to work out with this kind of tech-heat for one, as nitrocellulose can be formed into shapes, but likes to burn when heated. I too think any new firearms developements will have to consider propellent chemistry or like others have pointed out, the rail gun tech.
As has been said. As long as ammunition is what it is, I don't think we will see major inovations. Lighter weight materials, and improved accessories, will most likely be the big ones. It works, and when something works and has been tested as much as the AR. It makes it somewhat hard, to come up with both something that works better, and is cost effective.
Things like LSAT are a step in the right direction. But with lsat I personally do not see it going anywhere beyond testing. Right idea, wrong execution. Heck, they are still trying to improve on current 5.56 (m855a1) and that has been many years in the making.