What should the next gen Issue Rifle be?

[Nathan_Bell]

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

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]

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

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

[TOrrock]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

[Warrior]

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]

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.

[Buck]

Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range...

[TOrrock]

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.