Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 224

Thread: Let's design a new service rifle and cartridge...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0

    Let's design a new service rifle and cartridge...

    A lot of discussion these days is focused on the current "big 3" alternate calibers of the AR-15 platform: 6.8 SPC II, 6.5 Grendel, and 300 BLK. Each one offers various gains (or losses) when compared to the standard 5.56 NATO round used in our beloved rifles. At the same time, in other areas, the gun world is abuzz with talk about how the Army effectively shut down the individual carbine competition.

    This got me thinking. Why not start a discussion about what exactly a new rifle should look like? I don't want to limit it just to the rifle, though, so let's discuss the cartridge as well. All of the stuff that we've been talking about as far as cartridge variations and rifle design has been limited by two factors:

    - All of the new carbine/rifle designs are based around continued use
    of 5.56 and STANAG magazines

    - All alternate cartridges we talk about have been a compromise of capability and the ability to fit into the AR-15 platform

    So let's discard those requirements for this discussion. If you read the original ORO reports about the .223 and the AR-15, it becomes apparent that the story of the Ar-15 is every bit as much about the evolution of the .223. This discussion should be no different.

    So here are the ground rules:

    1. We must determine an ideal cartridge for general infantry issue. You cannot use theoretical technology that doesn't exist yet or will be difficult to obtain in quantity. Bullets must conform to current laws of armed conflict.

    2. We must "design" a rifle to use said cartridge and be the standard issue long arm to US forces

    3. Costs should be kept reasonable, but not stingy. This is all an academic exercise and does not need to fit into any actual fiscal policy. But the end result should still be practical.

    Some considerations based on past experiences:

    The original ORO research that led to the M-16 determined that an average military firefight (up through WWII) occurred within 100 yards. Beyond that range, hit probability decreased dramatically. Beyond 300 yards, the chance of being struck by a bullet was essentially random. Beyond 300 yards, you were about as likely to be killed by a grenade or artillery as you were a rifle round. The .223 was developed to meet this spec, though the maximum range spec was extended to satisfy the Marine Corps. While the historical engagement distance is relatively close, experiences in Afghanistan have demonstrated a need to have consistent capability at longer ranges.

    During testing of the .223 and the M-16, penetration and intermediate barrier was found to be a significant issue when compared to the 7.62x51. Not much has changed in that regard; and the desire for a better performing round like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel illustrate the fact. Whatever cartridge we come up with should demonstrate range, accuracy, penetration, and good terminal ballistics.

    Accuracy through repeated fire was important during the original ORO tests. Whatever configuration we choose should continue in this tradition, but realize that the ammunition/weapon combination contracted today is 2 MOA to 6 MOA, not exactly precision work. Sacrificing precision in order to gain something else is acceptable, though the choice is up to you.

    Useful References

    Hitchman, N. (1952). Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=AD0000346

    Ehrhart, T. (2009). Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan:
    Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    To kick things off, here are my thoughts.

    First, despite being active duty USAF, I honestly don't have any experience with using small arms in combat. My career field is nuclear weapons, not any direct action roles. And in seven years, the Air Force just hasn't seen fit to even let me qualify with anything other than the M9. But I am an unabashed technical nerd who reads and absorbs everything I can about small arms. I have played with a wide variety of arms, and have many friends who routinely go into harm's way in varying capacities including pilots, NSW, PJs, and other combat roles. We talk pretty often. That said, in my opinion, a new generation of infantry combat weapon would have a few basic characteristics:

    1. As light as practical. With the trend towards heavier and heavier combat loads, the need for a lighter weapon grows more important. Research dating back to early last century also points out that being able to carry more ammunition dramatically increases the capability of the individual. We also have to consider the widespread entry of women into combat roles.

    2. Modularity. I dislike quick swap barrels, as I think it introduces too many variables, but I do like the way an upper receiver can be swapped on the M4 or SCAR depending on the needed role. The ability for an individual to quickly tailor the weapon to their need is a force multiplier.

    3. While I am a big fan of DI rifles, I think going to a piston system makes more sense for a hard use rifle. Improvements in the piston platform and manufacturing capability have mitigated the previously held concerns of accuracy and reciprocating mass on pistol rifles. I believe LMT and HK have demonstrated this with their piston platforms. That said, there is still a weight concern.

    4. Any future combat rifle should be fully ambidextrous. Magazine release, bolt catch, and safety controls should all be readily available to the firing hand while maintaining a proper grip. I like a forward mounted non-reciprocating charging handle (a la the ACR).

    5. I think an effective point target range of 500-700 meters is ideal for a general-purpose carbine/rifle. While the historical research showed the practical maximum range for most conflicts was 300 yards, recent experiences show that a longer capability is still needed.

    As far as cartridges go, I really like the work that was done on the 6.8 SPC II. I think the .277 bullet provides a lot of opportunity, especially when more velocity can be gained. A 135 gr SMK launched at 2800 fps is still supersonic at 1000 yards, and still retains 800 ft-lbs of energy at 700 yards (enough to take down a deer). Additionally, the work done on the 6.8 SPC shows that shorter barrels can still provide plenty of velocity.

    I think using the .277 bullet in a slightly larger case would provide the best balance of power, range, and capacity.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    4,157
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    My first thoughts jumped to a slightly shorter iteration of the .276 Pedersen round - basically give that the treatment to where it runs like a slightly longer 6.8SPC in terms of chamber pressure and neck dimensions. Breaking from STANAG limitations, even if only a bit, may not happen, but it should for the purposes of this discussion.

    I do like the polymer lower Aluminum upper setup used by the SCAR and Masada/ACR, and I'd agree that borrowing an existing piston system creates the greatest opportunity to field something useful. With those should be a simple ambidextrous pull down/push up bold release, otherwise both of those are good working examples.

    Since multiple services are going to want a PDW variant, that needs to be considered in the design - but something like that with a 8"-12.5" barrel and collapsing/folding stock will fill the role adequately.

    The biggest concern I have is that weight will be a compromise - for general infantry use, this will still come in at close to ten pounds when equipped with a Squad Common Optic, White/IR Light and Laser, Magazine, and Sling. This would be a great fighting gun out to 600m, for sure, but not be that handy in really urban fighting. Using a more PDW oriented version with a reflex optic could fix a lot of that, but this is back to the case where the entire family of weapons would need to be adopted before any logistics start to improve at all.
    عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
    کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
    Semper Fi
    "Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    197
    Feedback Score
    0
    What about the 7 x 46mm uiac?

    I know far too little to even attempt to put it into the ultimate service rifle.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    Llama,

    After you mentioned the PDW, I realized I had forgotten about the CZ Bren 805, which is another weapon that I think does a lot of stuff right. But, like the SCAR, the upper receiver just appears too "tall." I wonder if its even possible to keep a lower profile receiver while still using that style piston?

    Agnostic,

    I had never heard of that cartridge, and it looks really interesting. I didn't realize DocGKR had mentioned it in a thread here at M4C (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19936). I wonder what the recoil comparison would be between the 7x46 and some higher powered varient of 6.8?

    I come back to the training requirement. I feel like a lot of the reason we got away from the 7.62x51 as standard issue due to issues of weight and controllability in a standard rifleman platform under fully automatic fire. From a cost standpoint, it would take a lot more ammunition to properly train a single shooter with a heavier recoiling round.

    The 7x46 does offer an interesting logistical aspect, though. If it can effectively replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 for standard platforms, that helps the logistical supply chain quite a bit. Good find.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    197
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BrigandTwoFour View Post
    Llama,

    After you mentioned the PDW, I realized I had forgotten about the CZ Bren 805, which is another weapon that I think does a lot of stuff right. But, like the SCAR, the upper receiver just appears too "tall." I wonder if its even possible to keep a lower profile receiver while still using that style piston?

    Agnostic,

    I had never heard of that cartridge, and it looks really interesting. I didn't realize DocGKR had mentioned it in a thread here at M4C (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19936). I wonder what the recoil comparison would be between the 7x46 and some higher powered varient of 6.8?

    I come back to the training requirement. I feel like a lot of the reason we got away from the 7.62x51 as standard issue due to issues of weight and controllability in a standard rifleman platform under fully automatic fire. From a cost standpoint, it would take a lot more ammunition to properly train a single shooter with a heavier recoiling round.

    The 7x46 does offer an interesting logistical aspect, though. If it can effectively replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 for standard platforms, that helps the logistical supply chain quite a bit. Good find.
    That would be my question about it, weight and recoil.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile fired from a cartridge case with about 40 gr of capacity loaded with flash suppressed, heat stable powder optimized for full burn in a 16" barrel would be about perfect. Case head should be smaller diameter than current 7.62x51mm and case length should be a bit shorter--perhaps something around .440-460 base with a 46-47mm length; maybe using polymer case technology. Even better, something like a cased telescoping 7 mm could be used.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Re: Let's design a new service rifle and cartridge...

    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile fired from a cartridge case with about 40 gr of capacity loaded with flash suppressed, heat stable powder optimized for full burn in a 16" barrel would be about perfect. Case head should be smaller diameter than current 7.62x51mm and case length should be a bit shorter--perhaps something around .440-460 base with a 46-47mm length; maybe using polymer case technology. Even better, something like a cased telescoping 7 mm could be used.
    Or caseless?
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,799
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile fired from a cartridge case with about 40 gr of capacity loaded with flash suppressed, heat stable powder optimized for full burn in a 16" barrel would be about perfect. Case head should be smaller diameter than current 7.62x51mm and case length should be a bit shorter--perhaps something around .440-460 base with a 46-47mm length; maybe using polymer case technology. Even better, something like a cased telescoping 7 mm could be used.
    Take a 300 Savage and neck it down to 6.5? I wish I had my PO Ackley books here. Bet it's been done
    The number of folks on my Full Of Shit list grows everyday

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Not in a gun friendly state
    Posts
    3,807
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think the .30 Remington that the 6.8 started with is also a good place to start. I'd say do a 6.8mm projectile in a 125-140 gr range. Since we're not confined to the standard AR length, we could add 3 to 4 more millimeters to the cartridge and maybe taper it for better feeding.

    I'm not great at math, but I'd bet that could get a higher MV than the current 6.8 with better terminal ballistics and better aerodynamics (due to the longer projectile). Plus, the .30 remington case size would mean only slightly longer magazines than we currently have, and with a taper, like the AK, it wouldn't protrude as much due to the curvature.

Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •