Third Generation Battle Rifle

[Trooper]

http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/c...rx-100-review/

Basically the 1st Generation (Gen I) was the M14 and the FN FAL. And, maybe, the AK-47.

Gen II was the M16/M4/AR10/AR15. The HK G3 as well. One might at the bullpups from Enfield and MAS.

Gen III is illustrated by the HK XM-8, the Remington/Bushmaster ACR (Magpul Masada), the Beretta ARX-100, IWI Tavor and the FNH-USA SCAR 16S/17S. To a lesser extent are the rifles being developed by Faxon Firearms (http://www.faxonfirearms.com/) and LMT (http://www.lmtstore.com/complete-wea...ck-barrel.html). The concepts are modular rifles with quick change barrels/multi-caliber. Also the use of gas systems. Molded receivers carry a one-piece, continuous top rail.

Couple the Gen III concepts with a new General Purpose Cartridge (GPC, ie 6.5 Grendel) and we might have a decent weapon system.

BTW, frankly had we gone with the FAL instead of the M14 (which was a good idea, for WWII - think of a M1 with a BAR magazine) using the .280 British, we might not have even be having this discussion.

[LRRPF52]

I've played with the ARX-160 and ARX-100 at SHOT. While there are some interesting innovations with the selectable ejection (left or right), and the unique quick barrel change system, the carbine feels like an ungainly pig in my hands.

The open nature of the receiver is even worse than a Kalashnikov, which invites all sorts of debris to find a new home in the critical heart of the weapon. I can see a lot going wrong with that for those of us who live in extreme dust/sand environments with high winds, but if you keep it sanitized at the range, you should have no problems.

The other major pet peeve I have with it is the sight height plane above bore, which seems to be a trend with "3rd Gen" military rifles. It is way too high for my tastes, like the SCAR. The furniture and receiver housing of the Beretta feels quite substantial, however. If you are familiar with the Glock disassembly lever, the Beretta's quick barrel change system will be a snap for you.

My verdict is that it still doesn't offer anything over an AR15 that excites me enough to even remotely want to get one.

[Trooper]

I've played with the ARX-160 and ARX-100 at SHOT. While there are some interesting innovations with the selectable ejection (left or right), and the unique quick barrel change system, the carbine feels like an ungainly pig in my hands.

The open nature of the receiver is even worse than a Kalashnikov, which invites all sorts of debris to find a new home in the critical heart of the weapon. I can see a lot going wrong with that for those of us who live in extreme dust/sand environments with high winds, but if you keep it sanitized at the range, you should have no problems.

The other major pet peeve I have with it is the sight height plane above bore, which seems to be a trend with "3rd Gen" military rifles. It is way too high for my tastes, like the SCAR. The furniture and receiver housing of the Beretta feels quite substantial, however. If you are familiar with the Glock disassembly lever, the Beretta's quick barrel change system will be a snap for you.

My verdict is that it still doesn't offer anything over an AR15 that excites me enough to even remotely want to get one.

That might be the problem as to why the Army has not selected a replacement for the M16/M4. Nothing is that much better. Plus most tend to be less comfortable than the current platform. And the cost is climbing so high that it makes it nearly impossible to arm troops.

What would make a good Gen III battle rifle? The modular concept is a start. That includes a gas system plus multi-caliber (barrel swaps). Integrate the rails into the housing. Faxon firearms has a good concept, in aluminum. Now do it in polymer which drop weight plus smooth the lines out. We need a rifle that is thinner, much like the FN FNC was.

The IWI Tavor also is a good start, for a bullpup. We may need two rifles, one for the designated marksman and another for the average "Joe". A bullpup might work better for most support troops or for infantry needing to get in and out of vehicles or enter buildings. the UK went this route. Perhaps IWI could make a DMR from their platform (20" barrel, regular rifle stock rather than bullpup, set up for long range shooting). That way that DMR and the IR would have a majority of interchangeable parts.

[Gamecock84]

I own a SCAR 17S and it is a fine weapon platform. Standing up with no support and irons only, I repeatedly hit a 20" steel plate at 300yds. It has little recoil for such a big platform and is still lightweight. Maybe that's why the military ordered 100,000 units? Platoons with a SCAR 17 with a red dot type optic, then another guy with an Elcan 1.5-6x, and a third with a high power scope show the versatility of the weapon. It is the future of the military.

[Michael]

I am not convinced that any of the GEN III weapons improve the capabilities of the current main battle rifle enough to justify the cost of fielding - this is essentially what the Army and Marine Corps decided a few years ago. They look cool, and have some interesting features, but do they perform better? More lethality? Better accuracy? I know from testing a few years ago, the XM-8 was a little more reliable than the M4, but I believe that was accredited to the magazines used.

BLUF - having been in the loop of testing/evaluating weapons for the Marine Corps, I don't see any drastic changes within the DOD until a replacement (or improvement) for the metallic cased cartridge is perfected. It's all about capabilities, and the metallic cased cartage is pretty close to the apex of development/reliability. The M16/4 family of weapons is not perfect...but it's pretty damn good.

[Trooper]

I am not convinced that any of the GEN III weapons improve the capabilities of the current main battle rifle enough to justify the cost of fielding - this is essentially what the Army and Marine Corps decided a few years ago. They look cool, and have some interesting features, but do they perform better? More lethality? Better accuracy? I know from testing a few years ago, the XM-8 was a little more reliable than the M4, but I believe that was accredited to the magazines used.

BLUF - having been in the loop of testing/evaluating weapons for the Marine Corps, I don't see any drastic changes within the DOD until a replacement (or improvement) for the metallic cased cartridge is perfected. It's all about capabilities, and the metallic cased cartage is pretty close to the apex of development/reliability. The M16/4 family of weapons is not perfect...but it's pretty damn good.

I think that we are seeing an evolving GEN III rifle. From what has been presented so far, it will be gas operated thus able to be modular. The bulk of the current rifles needs to be slimmed down. Plus price needs to come down. If the opposition can produce AK-47s for under $200 (often far less) then we have to have weapons that can be produced at least at a quarter of the price that many of these rifles are going for now.

You are correct that the driving force is the cartridge. We have to replace the .223 (5.56x45), it is just not up to the job. And we need to replace metallic casings with plastic (weight, brass is costly, wasteful to leave on the battlefield). Thus if the 6.5 Grendel is to succeed, it needs to be a bit more powerful and designed to be in a plastic casing. Then design a rifle for it.

As for the current M4/M16, it is over engineered and far too expensive.

[Trooper]

The discussion has me thinking. We used the .30-06 for both WW1 and WW2. The British had been using the .303 and the Soviets the 7.62x54R. After the war, we started thinking about a better cartridge. The UK wanted the .280 British, we wanted the .308 (7.62x51). Soviets went to the 7.62x39. From that can the rifles: M14, FNH FAL and the AK-47 (with the SKS). That was Generation I (GEN I).

GEN II was the 5.56x45 for NATO and 5.45x39 for the Warsaw Pact. The rifles were the M16 and the AK-74. BTW, a battle rifle has a 20" barrel, an assault rifle is more like 16" thus a carbine.

GEN III rifle designs are out there but nothing is really outstanding. We are designing the rifles (modular based on gas systems with mulit caliber options). The problem is that we are still designing for GEN II ammunition. It is time for a general purpose cartridge to replace the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51. Something like the Grendel. The 6.5mm is the ideal caliber. The real question is do we want to limit ourselves to the current magazine or go for a longer case? And part of creating a GPC is that we need a plastic case to replace brass (reloaders could still use brass, of course). Develop the GPC and the rifle will come.

BTW, think of what would have happened had we adopted the .280 British instead of the 7.62 NATO then the 5.56 NATO.....

[Michael]

Polymer cased ammo? Caselesss ammo (HK G11 type)? Coil/rail weapons? Energy? Who knows. I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I just know that modern ammo components (metallic cartridge, smokeless powder, Boxer/Berden primers, copper jacketing, pointed spitzer bullet) are technology that is over 120 years old. Manufacturing has improved, as well as our ability to fine tune shapes, sizes and weights, but modern ammo has remained essentially unchanged since the end of the 19th century.

[Trooper]

Polymer cased ammo? Caselesss ammo (HK G11 type)? Coil/rail weapons? Energy? Who knows. I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I just know that modern ammo components (metallic cartridge, smokeless powder, Boxer/Berden primers, copper jacketing, pointed spitzer bullet) are technology that is over 120 years old. Manufacturing has improved, as well as our ability to fine tune shapes, sizes and weights, but modern ammo has remained essentially unchanged since the end of the 19th century.

Caseless has been shown to have to problems with moisture and needs to packed in a magazine. Polymer seems to be the best alternative to brass though steel or aluminum would work. Just too expensive to buy brass just to leave it on the battlefield.

Coil/rail weapons require too much in terms of a power source. Same with energy weapons. Thus we are stuck with slug throwers.

We are dealing with a mature technology (which makes it very hard to ban). It is Industrial Age technology, mechanically based. One of the ways to insure that it would go away is to perfect it. GEN III is about perfecting that technology. BTW we could have done this in the 1950s had we gone with the .280 British (7x43).

[Michael]

Yep. Lots of problems with new tech. That's the problem with new innovations. It takes interest, time, money and resources to perfect/improve upon.

Argument about leaving brass on the battlefield is an old one as well. Somewhere I have an Infantry Journal from the '40's (maybe early '50's) with an article that covers that. There also use to be an argument about not giving the infantryman semi-auto rifles as he would waste ammo.

Got it. You're a fan of a cartridge designed in the 1940's. They didn't, so the point is moot. Is the 6.5G the next mil cartridge? Maybe, but I doubt it. Again, we must look at identified desired capabilities.

[Trooper]

Yep. Lots of problems with new tech. That's the problem with new innovations. It takes interest, time, money and resources to perfect/improve upon.

Argument about leaving brass on the battlefield is an old one as well. Somewhere I have an Infantry Journal from the '40's (maybe early '50's) with an article that covers that. There also use to be an argument about not giving the infantryman semi-auto rifles as he would waste ammo.

Got it. You're a fan of a cartridge designed in the 1940's. They didn't, so the point is moot. Is the 6.5G the next mil cartridge? Maybe, but I doubt it. Again, we must look at identified desired capabilities.

My point is that it is the cartridge that drives rifle development. In each of the generations since WW2, it has been the cartridge (.308, .223) that led to a new service rifle.

http://forum.snipershide.com/bear-pit/193001-u-s-nato-need-better-cartridges-we-have-them.html

This thread has some interesting ideas. Shows that this is not the only discussion on the matter. I like the idea of a GPC for the infantry rifle, the Designed Marksman rifle and the light MG. For the medium MG they suggest that we go the .338 Laupa!

[Michael]

Maybe, and I am not saying you are wrong. The issue is the cartridge and weapon must meet the requirements (or MilSpec) to be viable, as well as be fiscally supportable across the logistics chain. To replace the current weapons/ammunition it is going to have to be a really 'gee wiz' system that far exceeds the current capabilities.

I am a fan of standardized calibers for rifleman, DM and Light MG, and we kind of have that with the 5.56. Is that the best caliber? Maybe not. Say we go to the 6.5G, what happens to the benefits of the round when you chrome line the chamber and bore? You are now probably creating a 2 MOA weapon, negating the BC/accuracy benefits of the Grendel.

.338 Lapua is a great round - but as a MMG? You must consider the weight of the ammo in the discussion as well as the weight of the weapons system, and the ability for someone to manage the recoil. A MMG/GPMG is meant to be man portable with adequate ammo. Not everyone in the military is 6'2' and 225Lbs.

[Trooper]

Found this in doing some research on GPC. Tony Williams is one of our posters here.

This is a Power Point presentation for the US military

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayLandmarkBAnthonyWilliams.pdf

[LRRPF52]

Battle Rifle: Chambered in 7.62 NATO
Assault Rifle: Chambered in an Intermediate Cartridge

There's over a decade of 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO ammunition in stock currently. That is one of the biggest driving factors in what chamberings will be used.

[Gamecock84]

Hit it on the head.

The 7.62 NATO is where its at in the SCAR 17 platform.