Third Generation Battle Rifle

[Guardsman26]

With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.

Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.

As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:

1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?

2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?

3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?

4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?

5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?

Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.

I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?

[Gamecock84]

Yes it had the factory muzzle brake from FN. I know a lot of guys, especially SF guys, shoot this with a supressor.

I have to be honest, having put a few thousand rounds downrange and in training scenarios on a large piece of rural property, I do not see the recoil as a problem on the SCAR-H. Maybe the gas system is that good, idk. But I ring targets with this gun consistently.

And in regards to a 5.56 v. 7.62 NATO=== bad shot to side of chest, abdomen, appendage with 5.56 may not mean a down target....that same shot with a 7.62 NATO means a better chance at that same target hitting the floor.

IMHO.

[LRRPF52]

Both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H trash optics and SOPMOD accessories due to increased g-loadings on the return stroke of the action. I suspect it's because the SCAR does not have a sectional reciprocating mass like the AR15 family does, where the bolt carrier, buffer, and buffer weights are separate parts. The SCAR has no buffer system. It's basically an AR-18 operating system, which Armalite settled on in the 1960's because they had already licensed the Direct Impingement system to Colt, and could no longer legally make weapons with DI...but they wanted to.

The SCAR deals with recoil impulse and reciprocating mass with an elongated longitudinal cam pin travel in the carrier, which is great for dwell time and longevity of the bolt. The problem is that you have a BCG/oprod that weighs what a complete M4 carbine operating system weighs, impacting all at once when it chambers a new round. This has been identified as a source of major problems for things like optics, night vision, laser aiming modules, etc.

Within fragmentation range, the 5.56 can be brutal to be hit with, on an outside vital zone shot at that. Heck, people shot in the arms and legs with 5.56 within 200yds look horrible. I've seen it several times, and I only saw massive tissue damage, even on deflected rounds off body armor and rocks (fratricide incidents). It canoes people's heads open viciously, blows muscle tissue apart, fractures bones without even hitting them...basically all the hype isn't hype within 200yds.

It does get blown around by the wind-even the 77gr with a wimpy .362 BC sucks for energy and wind at distance. That's where 7.62 NATO comes in handy. It retains energy and cuts through the wind better. It is not ideal for kicking in doors or most of your close quarters engagement distances, unless everyone is wearing electronic muff ear pro and preferably using cans. 7.62 discharged indoors or even in blown-out buildings will rock your world, even when you're behind the guys who are blasting.

What I've heard about M855A1 is that is buckles guys in half, even from 10.5" Mk.18 CQBR M4A1's. I never used it as it came after I got out, but the sources who have related its performance to me are reliable.

In the end, I would opt for a deployable unit that had undergone a focused marksmanship training package that included shooting in wind conditions at distance more than an equipment solution. It wouldn't matter what caliber they had either, even though some are better than others. If your riflemen have no experience shooting in wind or at distance with formal instruction, they will just be missing anyway.

[LR1955]

With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.

Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.

As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:

1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?

2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?

3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?

4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?

5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?

Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.

I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?

1. Depends on how you designed the bullet. Your question is too vague to answer.

2. There is enough evidence available to show that optics have improved hit probabilities. It would be no different for any firearm. Being a Grendel doesn't mean the optic will perform better.

3. See 1.

4. Sure it would. Ten more grains of powder means a much higher velocity. For military purposes, this means greater danger space which means a higher probability of a hit. As for lethality, see 1.

5. You need to provide the design of the cartridge first.

How many places on earth can you see 200 yards, let alone 1000 yards? Not to mention training, optics, range estimation issues, wind doping, inherent accuracy of the issued carbine and an issued round of ball ammo. Thats why the maximum effective range of small arms for the US Army remains 460 - 500 meters and not 910 meters.

LR1955

[Michael]

LRRPF52 and LR1955 both make valid points. I will make one more that has been eluded to in previous posts, and I will do so with a quote from one of the great axioms of military professionals. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." The current fiscal environment combined with existing stockpiles of ammunition and weapons make the adoption of a new cartridge/weapons system on the other side of the bridge that is too far.

Again, until a weapons/cartridge that is truly next generation (revolutionizing small arms beyond the current metallic cased cartridge) makes its appearance in a package that is fiscally palatable by the bean counters, there will most likely be no change to the status quo.

May not be right, but it's reality.

[LRRPF52]

When kicking in doors, it would be really nice to have little 5.56 NATO carbines. When reaching out to 600m+, it would be nice to have 7.62 NATO. What if I could tailor the force so that we had DM's with 7.62 weapons, and everyone else with 5.56 carbines? Oh wait, we've been doing that for about 10 years now.

If I could wave a magic wand and replace 7.62 NATO for dismounts with a 130gr Grendel load for belt-feds and a new DM/SASS carbine, I would. It ain't gonna happen though, since there is so much 7.62 NATO in the system. If I could go back in time and tamper with MacArthur's termination of the .276 Pedersen, or the creation of the T65 case and the 7.62 NATO, I would. I would lean strongly towards a 6.5mm and a case that would still be of intermediate cartridge profile constraints so soldiers could carry more of it.

The biggest thing we need to be focused on now is the training budget, and proper training staffs who know what they are doing.

[Michael]

The biggest thing we need to be focused on now is the training budget, and proper training staffs who know what they are doing.

Amen, brother. Amen.

I see us rapidly spiraling to not only lacking in qualified personnel, but in adequate ammunition for training. There was a time in the mid-90's that rifle qual was modified to where if you shot X score, you didn't have to requal for 2 years. Don't get me started in the changes made in the marksmanship program that continues to cut number of rounds fired per year. Probably doesn't impact SpecOps, but for your average trigger puller, it borders on the criminal.

[Trooper]

With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.

Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.

As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:

1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?

2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?

3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?

4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?

5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?

Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.

I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?

With the infantry rifle being 16", the assumption is that engagements would be 300 m or less to include CQB inside buildings. The shorter barrel (carbine or bullpup) would not be designed for longer range engagements. A certain level of performance degradation would be assumed.

I do think that the Grendel cartridge might do better if longer. How much could it be increased and yet fit within the dimensions of an M16 magazine well? There is advantages of using the current platform (M16/M4) with new barrels to ease costs thus a gradual transition. But if it is determined that we need a longer case, how much longer? I do think that the diameter of the Grendel should stay the same. What is the smallest case that can still perform as well as the .308 caliber (7.62x51)? And should we want a heavier bullet, and how much? Should we aim at 140 gn?

[LR1955]

With the infantry rifle being 16", the assumption is that engagements would be 300 m or less to include CQB inside buildings. The shorter barrel (carbine or bullpup) would not be designed for longer range engagements. A certain level of performance degradation would be assumed.

I do think that the Grendel cartridge might do better if longer. How much could it be increased and yet fit within the dimensions of an M16 magazine well? There is advantages of using the current platform (M16/M4) with new barrels to ease costs thus a gradual transition. But if it is determined that we need a longer case, how much longer? I do think that the diameter of the Grendel should stay the same. What is the smallest case that can still perform as well as the .308 caliber (7.62x51)? And should we want a heavier bullet, and how much? Should we aim at 140 gn?

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

[Michael]

I do think that the Grendel cartridge might do better if longer. How much could it be increased and yet fit within the dimensions of an M16 magazine well? There is advantages of using the current platform (M16/M4) with new barrels to ease costs thus a gradual transition. But if it is determined that we need a longer case, how much longer? I do think that the diameter of the Grendel should stay the same. What is the smallest case that can still perform as well as the .308 caliber (7.62x51)? And should we want a heavier bullet, and how much? Should we aim at 140 gn?

Aren't longer 6.5 cartridges available? Rounds like the Creedmore and 6.5x55 Sweedish? I know nothing about these rounds BTW, but understand they fire the same projectile as the Grendel.

As LR1955 mentioned, if you want to maintain an AR 15 platform, we are at max cartridge length. Anything longer would require an AR10, and now you are running into ammo/weapon weight increase.

[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, by Bob Shepherd, and his observations are very indicative of systemic problems in the US's approach to overseas deployments that match what I have witnessed. We are painfully ignorant, for the most part, about anything outside the US´with regard to geography, history, cultures, creeds, nations, tribes, and interpersonal dynamics that really drive the centers of power wherever we deploy.

As far as training goes, we lack basic professional conduct-even according to out own limited doctrine, TTP's, and institutional learning centers, and he documents incident after incident where basic soldiering skills, particularly at the leadership levels, were completely lacking. He's a retired SAS guy who became a security advisor for journalists, and experienced some pivotal events all over the Middle East since he was mitigating the security for journalists who were actually out trying to go to the heart of stories, rather than sit back at the hotel. This led him to meeting Yasser Arafat (he stole his flag too, get the book-it's worth the read), the leader of Hamas (CNN interview), Taliban warlords, ANA counter-drug police dog-and-pony shows, Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law, and a whole host of other key figures in the region (most of whom are dead now).

His critiques about US force protection posture are most appropriate since he identified basic failures every time he visited a US COP or FOB. Things like unmanned guard towers, failure to do the Five S's with POW's, insane patrolling excursions with no value, positioning of COP's under the high ground in extremely vulnerable kill zones, Infantry Lieutenants using dead-reckoning land nav techniques in the mountains of Afghanistan, sacrificing riflemen to pull security for embedded journalists rather than run their normal positions in the order of movement, and on and on.

He had Public Affairs Officers exercise vendettas that jeopardized his life, and the lives of his guards needlessly. He also fought systemic problems in the deployed media management when it came to security and trying to advise desk-drivers about the risks of CP work, and duly recognized issues with UK firms as well that were clearly way out of their sector by employing unqualified personnel for Close Protection details, leaving teams improperly equipped and out-gunned, with broken vehicles and unfair pay.

His observations and experiences reminded me of the same culture I seemed to buffet against, which is basically one of people warming seats and getting pay checks, who really could care less about being professionals, or were never shown how to be professionals, and have continued bad habits in ignorance. With a system like this, a new caliber will only makes things worse. We have to fix things that require a brain-transplant, and that ain't gonna happen.

[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!