Third Generation Battle Rifle

[Trooper]

Here we go again....

How to make a Grendel cartridge longer but not wider that still fits within the limitations of a AR-15 Magazine? Eliminate the shoulder or neck. Since that won't work, you have hit your limits.

You want something that will outperform the military versions of the 7.62 but still retain the Grendel case? Neck the Grendel down to 6mm and shoot 6mm bullets. Will that ever be done? No.

I can imagine the need for a quadrant sight if someone wants to shoot a ball 140 grain bullet from a 16" barrel Grendel. A 140 is too long and too heavy for the cartridge capability. In other words, a 140 using current materials is a horribly inefficient bullet to shoot using a 30 grain cartridge that is restricted by magazine length. Not to mention pressures. Sure, guys shoot the 140s. And they have to hot load them to dangerous levels just to get early 20th century velocities out of them.

The facts are that unless something radical changes in terms of propellent or bullet material, you won't get the increases in lethality that would justify billions of dollars being spent on something new. It isn't even logistics. It is money and money that is better spent on things other than trying to improve early 20th century technology that has already hit a 97% capability if not more.

LR1955

The question is whether we should continue to stay with the limits of the M16 magazine or lengthen the case thus going with a new platform and magazine? As for diameter, it appears that 10.5 mm seems to be the right size. Thus only length should be adjusted. As for the 140 gn bullet, that does fit into a .308 case (260 Rem).

[LRRPF52]

When you go to a T65-based case, you're back to the invalidated battle rifle concept again. Kicking the dead horse.

Our marksmanship training was woefully inadequate in the Army, because it's based on the "Train Fire" concept of conscripts in the defense at the Fulda Gap firing from foxholes and prone positions in a defense against Soviet Motorized columns. I haven't seen any indication that we have gotten away from that. One of the only things to really change in marksmanship training is more focus on various CQM packages-some almost worthless, and others pretty good, especially as you get closer to Ranger Regiment experience.

We are in for a major need to overhaul the doctrinal concepts of how Infantry soldiers should be employed, considering the changes in expected engagements based on realistic future threats. There really needs to be at least two force postures and doctrines: One for conventional warfare, and one for Asymmetric or Unconventional Warfare. Since nobody in their right mind wants to engage us where our strengths are, AW/UW makes a lot more sense, and so it has been since before most of us were born.

As far as service rifles and carbines go, the caliber won't make a huge difference on the outcome. Training, on the other hand, will be extremely deterministic in all outcomes. I just finished reading The Circuit

[montana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UAzd2-_sHE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkLfpgvm2Ng

This is an older video and most of you have probably seen it , but even James Sullivan, "one of the designers of the AR-15- M-16" thinks the platform is getting long in the tooth. I don't necessarily agree with him but it shows the difference of opinion people have towards small arms design. I think shooting competition is a great place to start when evaluating newer small arms designs.

[LRRPF52]

James Sullivan may be an excellent engineer, but sadly, he hasn't the first clue as to how small arms are employed in combat. You can determine this just by watching him shoot. The C-Mag he is so fond of is a stinking heap of feces when it comes to reliability. As soon as it even detects a hint of dust, it turns your weapon into a malf-o-matic.

We should also note that the AR15 really isn't his design, as he was one of the engineers tasked with scaling down Stoner's AR10 to the .222 Remington. The reason why the M16 family is "long in the tooth" is because nothing has demonstrated an even noticeably marginal performance improvement over it. If you doubt that, just watch the guys who have developed "piston-operated" AR variants and what the ones use who also conduct formal high-volume firearms training.

LAV & the HK M4 turned HK416? AR15 DI carbines in his courses
Magpul Masada? AR15 DI carbines in their courses

James Sullivan needs an extensive course on how we employ small arms, starting with some basic marksmanship instruction. Firing from the hip on AUTO is for inbred miscreants in 3rd-world dirt holes who eat buggers and gang-rape goats, not professional soldiers who aim at what they hit.

His Ultimax is an excellent system in that it uses constant recoil, but he meant it as a service rifle, whereas it performs better as a Squad Support Weapon. His idea of Infantry combat is dudes hosing away from the hip on full auto, which is simply amateur from a military perspective.

[montana]

I don't have quite the disdain you have when it comes to AR gas pistons and Kalashnikov rifles, "we have discussed this in the past". I have had better luck with gas pistons in the AR platform when running different types of ammo that has different pressure values. The direct gas system has a shorter variance of pressures that will work reliably compared to a gas piston. The other opinions I agree whole hardily. I just thought it was amusing to see the difference of opinions people can have no matter what their experience with the military rifle concepts has been. This is why I believe shooting competitions are a good place to start when comparing rifle concepts. Not the end all of rifle concepts but a good start.

[LR1955]

I don't have quite the disdain you have when it comes to AR gas pistons and Kalashnikov rifles, "we have discussed this in the past". I have had better luck with gas pistons in the AR platform when running different types of ammo that has different pressure values. The direct gas system has a shorter variance of pressures that will work reliably compared to a gas piston. The other opinions I agree whole hardily. I just thought it was amusing to see the difference of opinions people can have no matter what their experience with the military rifle concepts has been. This is why I believe shooting competitions are a good place to start when comparing rifle concepts. Not the end all of rifle concepts but a good start.

Montana:

Roger. And guess what? The gas gunners who shoot AR-15 based rifles do not use piston systems in their rifles.

LR1955

[LRRPF52]

There's a growing consensus in the special operations community that op-rod driven M4's have been a waste of time. There are no noticeable reliability enhancements that have been realized at the training and operational levels within SOCOM, which is one reason why the SCAR-L went away so fast. The only saving grace for the SCAR-H is that it's lightweight, has a manageable recoil impulse for 7.62 NATO, and is relatively accurate for what it is. The fact that it eats SOPMOD suite accessories will be its downfall in the military, while civvies shell out 2-3x what it should cost on the US market.

I still can't over-emphasize the need for quality training, and that will never happen as long as TRADOC is involved with US Army schools and courses, starting with Initial Entry Training, AIT, PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC, and the SGM's academy, let alone IOBC, ALC, and so forth. If you talk to anyone with a decent level of warrior focus, they will have an earful for you regarding these schools and the institutional idiocy they espouse.

If you hand an organization filled with leaders raised in this system a new toy, it will have almost zero impact on operational capability, because nobody will be competent enough to even conduct a wind-reading and compensation course, and even if the leadership found out that they had soldiers trained in such things, they will be side-lined and kept out of the training. My Sniper training was viewed with little notice in line companies, and in the rare event that I was asked to conduct preliminary marksmanship training limited to zeroing of the weapons on a Battalion range, I was openly ridiculed in front of the soldiers by our Battalion Sergeant Major, who knew jack and squat about connecting with targets.

I consistently qualified Expert (an easy feat in my experience), and would even double-time back and forth between the ammo point to get as much trigger time as possible as an example to my subordinates. We never spent near enough time on basic rifle marksmanship. The only productive range sessions I ever had were Platoon-level with good coaching and identified goals with measurable performance objectives, and those events were extremely rare.

In short, I see this whole subject as a training and logistics-based focus (90% or higher), not a particular design or component focus, as long as the systems are decent.

[Michael]

As always, LRRPF52 gives us the view of the military professional (or knuckle dragging mouth breather, for those of us in the know) who is going to employ the weapon in defense of the Constitution of the United States. Training comes first, and if you haven’t employed a weapon in combat, please listen to those of us who have. We aren't stupid, and our lessons are learned the hard way in the worst possible conditions.

As a fellow knuckle dragger, below are some specs I would like to see considered if we are going to have a SERIOUS conversation about the next generation assault rifle.

I am leaving them as general as I can so no one rifle/round is being pigeon-holed as a quick fix. I am also looking at it as a SYSTEM – new round, optics, ect. I am not specifying type of action, round, manufacturing materials or even projectiles. Again, this is NEXT GENERATION. These are my ideas, based on my experience shooting at non-American bad guys and doing a little analysis of what our capabilities would need to be in a system that would serve military needs for several decades, as the M16 family has. I don’t think there is anything out there right now that would meet all of the below requirements (or if it is even possible to meet with current tech), but I could be wrong. They’re in no particular order, I was just typing as it came to my little brain.

All components interchangeable between two versions - rifle and carbine
Weight of weapons system, with day optics, loaded magazine, BUIS, sling and IR/day Vis laser = 7lbs carbine, 8lbs rifle
Day optics fixed 4x with ballistic matched reticle to 800m
Capability for add on night optics
Capability for upgrades to lasers and optics
Day laser vis in full sun 150m
Night laser vis 300m
Select fire - single shot, two round burst, full auto settings
Cyclic rate of fire – 700-800 RPM
Sustained rate of fire – 15-20 RPM
Rapid Rate – 50-60 RPM
Ambidextrous controls
Magazine capacity = min 30 rds
Magazine weight loaded = max 1Lb
Penetration at 200m = Class IV Ballistic Plate
Accuracy= 2MOA at 100m
Max effective range = 500m carbine, 600m rifle on point target (12”x12’ with optics, 20”x20” with BUIS), 700 and 800 for area suppression target (2’x2’ with BUIS)
Kinetic Energy – maintain min of 500KJ at 800m (not sure if this is correct terminology or not)
Length of Rifle = not to exceed 35"
Length of carbine = not to exceed 30"
Barrel life = 20,000rds
Trigger Pull in Semi – 4-5lbs
Durable coating/corrosion preventative to current MilSpec requirements
System able to be adapted to current close combat methods (ie durable enough to deliver repeated butt strokes/bayonet strike – I know, it’s archaic, but see story of Willie Lump Lump)
Ability to maintain zero after 5’ drop test
Self cleaning (ie, weapon dropped in mud/muck, don’t need to disassemble to have weapon function as designed)
Able to fire 5000 rds in a torture test (ie no cleaning, rapid rate of fire with no failures)

I am probably missing/forgetting a few things; and may have even screwed a few things up, so feel free to critique. Again, this is just what I would like to see, but I am basing it on 25 years of infantry experience and some familiarity with how the DOD tests/evaluates weapons.

[montana]

Montana:

Roger. And guess what? The gas gunners who shoot AR-15 based rifles do not use piston systems in their rifles.

LR1955

I also use direct gas in my AR for muti- gun competition, and long range shooting, " no argument here".

[babaganoush]

James Sullivan needs an extensive course on how we employ small arms, starting with some basic marksmanship instruction. Firing from the hip on AUTO is for inbred miscreants in 3rd-world dirt holes who eat buggers and gang-rape goats, not professional soldiers who aim at what they hit.

Please, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

[ricsmall]

I know this isn't feasible for the military, but what if you took a mega billet lower which is already thicker, mill inside to fit larger mag like Olympic arms did for the 22-250? Just a thought. Fire away

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

"'Cause breaking up is hard to do."

Army kills carbine competition, June 14, 2013, Armytimes.com --- ". . . The HK416 had 233 stoppages as compared with 882 stoppages by the M4. The Army later modified the M4's numbers to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring. The SCAR performed better, with 226 stoppages. But the top dog was the XM8 --- a prototype built by H&K that seemed destined to replace the M4 in 2005. Instead, the $33 million program fell prey to a broken acquisition process and bitter infighting within the Army until the Pentagon put a halt to the heir apparent."

[babaganoush]

Army kills carbine competition, June 14, 2013, Armytimes.com --- ". . . The HK416 had 233 stoppages as compared with 882 stoppages by the M4. The Army later modified the M4's numbers to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring. The SCAR performed better, with 226 stoppages. But the top dog was the XM8 --- a prototype built by H&K that seemed destined to replace the M4 in 2005. Instead, the $33 million program fell prey to a broken acquisition process and bitter infighting within the Army until the Pentagon put a halt to the heir apparent."

No surprises, there.

[LRRPF52]

Those test data figures were so skewed, it's nothing funny. They recorded 2rd bursts as malfs even if only 2 rounds were left in the mag, and inadequate or no lubrication was used on the M4's in the old tests against the XM8, which is a horrible POS. The XM8 had limited metal rails and a trunnion mounted in....a polymer receiver. Guess what happens when you run a polymer receiver rifle like that in high-volume? Yeah, its barrel droops and things stop working.

This whole carbine program was boom-era defense contractors lobbying for a piece of the pie, riding on age-old myths about M16 performance, thinking they could easily rig the tests to show their older tech operating systems could out-do the DI system, and they failed to demonstrate a significant improvement. Now that the budget is in a bust cycle, the Pentagon and Army aren't so eager to facilitate a porktractor's pocket-lining, given they are facing cuts all over the force, and lots of soldiers-especially SF types, really like the M4.

[montana]

I find it amusing the powers that be are trying to rig the test to find a replacement for the direct gas system, when they rigged the test to prevent the adoption of it in the first place. The gas piston AR "HK416" was developed for the need to have a reliable suppressed M4 with a 10" barrel or shorter. The direct gas system was failing in this need. There has been no other country that has developed a new rifle system using a direct gas system but many that used the gas piston," Israel being an example with the TAVOR". Israel uses the M4 rifle system but still went to the gas piston when they developed their new rifle system. If this means anything I have no idea since I was left out of the loop. The direct gas impingement in the AR platforms works very well and I have had very few complaints with it if it is kept lubed . It makes a rifle more accurate than a gas piston and makes the over all weight a lot lighter and simpler compared to a gas piston. The direct gas and the gas piston are not perfect but which is better depends on one's opinion.