To design him a new gun
If you were on a design board to develop a new rifle for any modern Army/Marine style military entity what attributes would you push the other board members to include?

Please feel free to explain what you like and dislike. (Like anyone around here needs an invite to argue)

Question:
Caliber

Choices:
5.56mm
6.8mm
7.62mm
.45-70
Other?

Question:
Barrel Length

Choices:
<= 14"
14" - 16"
16"- 20"
>=20-24"

Question:
Operating system

Choices:
Gas Impingment
Operating Rod

Question:
Sights

Choices:
Iron Sights
Peep Sights
Built in Optics (ala' Steyr AUG)
Rails for user customization

Question:
Rock and Roll?

Choices:
Semiauto Only
Restricted to x round burst
Full Auto option
Who needs more than a good bolt gun?

 

Also, please note I asked for "caliber" if you like the 7.62x51 over the 7.62x39 or believe that the .270Winchester is a better choice than the 6.8SPC then tout your choice of cartridge.

Rick, I'd go with about a 6.8x47 (4mm longer then the 6.8 spc II)

Barrel Length, Various, depending on the Role/Mission.

Rails, every built in optic I've ever seen sucks.

Selector: I like the German option, safe, single, burst, full auto.

Antelope Sniper,

Either the 6.8SPC or 6.8x47 you describe are probably the best choice for folks that need to carry a bunch of ammo (and other necessary "stuff"), but I picked the .308Win because (just because).

I'd like to see a redesign of the AR15/AR10. I joked with another forum member the other day that we need an AR-12.5 that half way between the two to successfully house the new rounds that are slightly bigger than the 5.56.

quote:

that we need an AR-12.5 that half way between the two to successfully house the new rounds that are slightly bigger than the 5.56.

That's how I can up with the idea for a 6.8x47. It's length is right between the 6.8 spc and the .308. I figure it'll spit out a 100gr pill around 3150 FPS. Gets you into the respectable range without being too obnoxious on weight.

I used to be a real believer in the .308 until I bought my FN-Fal. Those 20 round magazines are HEAVY. I used to carry 500 rounds for the AR, no big deal. Aint' no way I'm carrying 500 rounds of 7.62x51 with a modern combat load.

So we need a lower that accepts AK-47 magazines, and attaches to an AR-15 upper with a 6.8x47 barrel. Add a bunch of rails and an Aimpoint and we're good to go.

That was easy.

Wow! Antelope Sniper and my bastard AR47/AK16 is the perfect rifle?

No discussion about H&Ks, FALs, Robinson Arms' snifty rifle or something cool that I've never heard of?

FN-FAL in 280 British, as originally intended. We may not even be having this discussion now had that route been taken when the Belgians offered it.

I still believe a physicist must not have been on staff when the 7.62x51 was adopted in a full auto rifle to replace the 30-06, which was deemed uncontrollable on full auto fire in M1 Garand-weight rifles. A .30" bullet of around 150 grains at 2600 FPS in similar weight rifles produce the same amount of recoil regardless of if it came out of a 63mm long case, or 51mm long case, yes?

I don't think any one gun would be best. I do think that a common caliber would be. For example a 7.62 with two or three guns. Long range precision, either M-21 or M-40. General use M1A or AR-10. Then if there is a need for an entry style gun something in either a "tanker" style short M1A or "M4" style AR-10. I'm not pushing a Springfield Armory contract but they make all three and would use a lot of interchangeable parts and the same training would suffice for operations and maintenance. I think that a Match Grade AR-10 would meet the precision long range option and give the same parts and training convenience. Ammo in long range and ball would be available.

For another option an American produced AK variant or an AR variant in 7.62x39 for under 200 yards would be useful. (The Rick R option?)

johnnyreb
An FAL in something like a 7mm-08? If you added the rails to clamp on 40# of sights, lights and a can opener then that might fill the bill. It surely would have some thump!

Sam,

I think that issuing a lower that takes a set of uppers would be neat and would allow for tailoring your force for the terrain.

In that case an AR style would be called for. I'm not a ground pounder (retired Sailor.)so I might miss some of the field applications but it seems we have a range problem with the 5.56, there is a need for entry/carbine sized weapons (including full barrel length collapsable stocks for body armor), and the semi-auto sniper rifle. Your lower idea would work great with the current inventory and rebarreled uppers. I was looking for an ammo that covered the range (with the exception of specialized sniper rifles .338/.50BMG). I thought a three round burst in .308 would be controllable for entry (eh?), a 20 inch barrel for infantry/field use would keep a 147ish grain bullet lethal out to most practical ranges, 175 grain long range would work for both open sight long range and designated marksman round.

The entry gun upper could be a 7.62x39 for more control, but it would entail handling 2 calibers of ammo and different mags. I know, I am using 2 different 7.62 loads already, plus belted for M-60 replacement.


It would be something to discuss over good tequila.

Rick R, I believe the Belgians initially built the FN FAL around the 7.92x33, and modified it to take the T65 cartridge, which became the 7.62x51, at the urging of the Americans. The British even enlarged the original 280 British so it would have the same case head as the 7.62x51. The politics should have been pushed aside, the FAL built under free license in the US instead of the M14 (the Belgians offered this as thanks for what the US did during WWII), and the 280 British adopted with a metric designation. Sometimes provinicalism gets the best of us...

While the .270 may have a ballistic advantage over the 6.8 SPC, it also has a size/weight disadvantage. If you're willing to run a long action case like the .270, might as well go back to the standard cartridge being the .30-06.

Just take a look at the incident in Somalia. At the end of the engagement most of our guys had less then a magazine of ammo left. If our guys had carried .308, .270 Win, or 30.06, they would of ran out of ammo before the end of the first night, been overrun, and and we would of had to bury every last one of them, instead of the 18 Heros that left us during that engagement. War is not hunting. I've never seen anyone fire and manuver out of a deer blind, and any evolved weapon must reflect that.

I think the 250 savage would make a good military caliber.

+1 on the 250 Savage concept, but the magazine would have to be banana shaped à la AK47, not necessarily a bad thing though.
What about removing the cartridge's case tapper i.e. 250 A.I. or better yet a 257-08 A.I.?

You know the more you play with the concept the better the 7.62x39 looks (or even Antelope Sniper's 6.8x39mm wildcat). Large enough bullet to work / small enough cartridge to carry a bushel basket of full magazines.

It just needs to be fired from a rifle that's a bit less crude (AK fans please don't take this the wrong way). Something with the ergonomics of the AR but add the reliability of the AK but still leave in the accuracy of the AR.

Rick, I own both an AR and a AK. My AR is significantly more reliable.

You boys have to remember a fundamental tenant of military science: "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics."

This business of changing calibers is a logistics nightmare! The reason we have our current technology is that it provides the infantry with more firepower at a lower logistics penalty than any of the previous rounds.

If you want to change to 6.8x47 or any other caliber, you better have a darned good reason. The 5.56 seems to be the current sweet spot. If you need more hitting power for a special mission then that could be discussed but when you are talking 4 billion NATO rounds then...

quote:

This business of changing calibers is a logistics nightmare!

Yea, especially since it would involve 27 other countries, most with fairly limited resources.

Fantasy procurement!

Ok, i would go with something like a 6.5 or 7mm x47 or 45mm long case. The UK'S Enfield arms factiry came up with a revolutionary bull pup rifle in something similar in the late 1940s. Additionally, the Czecks came up with something similar an tried to get it accepted as theone of /local flavour chamberings of the AK rifle.

Both 6.5 & 7mm bullets have good ranging and penetration performance as well as delivering a good thump to whatever they hit. A cartridge of that ilk also has the advantage of shoot ability for recruits etc.

Peep and / or somekind of optical sight would enable better marksmanship.

And while we are at it, make the rifles on a modular system, available / changeable easily in both left hand and 'wrong handed' configuration!

quote:

Originally posted by johnnyreb:
FN-FAL in 280 British, as originally intended. We may not even be having this discussion now had that route been taken when the Belgians offered it.

I still believe a physicist must not have been on staff when the 7.62x51 was adopted in a full auto rifle to replace the 30-06, which was deemed uncontrollable on full auto fire in M1 Garand-weight rifles. A .30" bullet of around 150 grains at 2600 FPS in similar weight rifles produce the same amount of recoil regardless of if it came out of a 63mm long case, or 51mm long case, yes?

Both of you posts are spot on.

The 223 is proving to be "not enough" for all occasions.
The 308 [one of my favorite cartridges] is just too much for a general issue rifle.
I think the 280 British, before the uscale of the base of the case would be a good choice.

I have used a AUG a fair amount and I fine its circle reticle to be very good, but I think a pictinny rail is a better idea, as it allows an easier and cheaper way to change otics vs a secial reciever like the AUG.

The AUG with its interchangeable barrels and recievers is a pretty slick design.

I think for the short run, next 10 to 15 years the regular rifle will stay the AR 15, and they will field more 308's where the tactics determine they are better.

You never change calibers of the standard rifle while in a conflict.

Gentlemen, I happen to buy the book on tape just released called "The Gun". It's a historic analysis of the Gatling, the Maxim, the Thompson, the AR and the AK-47. Primarily the AK-47. The writer is a formerly active duty USMC with a penchant for detail. I won't try to reiterate what the man wrote but after reading half the book I now fully understand the advantage of an assault rifle versus a battle rifle. I am also appreciating cartridges that are not "full-power" cartridges such as the 7.62x39 versus a .308. I highly recommend this book. On tape it's 18 hours long! Outstanding, literate and informative. One comment I will make after years of hunting, hanging out in benchrest clubs and being a history addict is that what of our greatest enemies is traditional thought and bias. It behooves us to always seek the best answers.

I wonder if we help design a rifle for uncle obama, will it be used against us?

This is it!

Springfield SOCOM II 7.62×51mm

quote:

Originally posted by DMCI*:
You boys have to remember a fundamental tenant of military science: "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics."

This business of changing calibers is a logistics nightmare! The reason we have our current technology is that it provides the infantry with more firepower at a lower logistics penalty than any of the previous rounds.

If you want to change to 6.8x47 or any other caliber, you better have a darned good reason. The 5.56 seems to be the current sweet spot. If you need more hitting power for a special mission then that could be discussed but when you are talking 4 billion NATO rounds then...

Which is why it would need to be a phased in change. And something like the 6.8 would be a better choice.

Personally, a 7MM of some flavor would be a better choice, but I am biased.

The problem is that modern armies always fight the last war that they won...or sometimes the last war that they lost!

The British won, eventually, the Boer War and like everybody else decided that the Mauser was the best way to go. The US won the war in Cuba against the Spanish and also decided that the Mauser was the best way to go.

Somewhat seeming to forget that the weapons of the opponents...the side that LOST...was the very same Mauser they now wanted!

Fortunately for us in Britain we were late starters and had the luck of chance to fight that war with the BEST bolt action battle rifle of the 20th Century. The Lee-Enfield.

The US saddled itself with an over powerful cartridge in another Mauser clone. The Springfield 1903.

Logistics, and Douglas MacArthur, then saddled the US with that "legacy cartridge" the same over powerful 30-06 cartridge in the lead into WWII.

I am certain that had the US gone to the ten round Garand in 280" calibre as intended in 1936 then we would not EVER have been having the 308" Winchester aka 7.62mm NATO argument.

The free world would have gotten a "better calibre mousetrap" in 7mm some three generations EARLIER!

And there is even the possibility that the whole 223" Remington aka 5.56mm NATO would have never arisen.

Don't forget that the M16 was essentially (I'll await the flames) the USAF 1960s equivalent of the M1 Carbine. In other words a "cook's rifle" for airfield defence and never designed as an proper infantry combat weapon to be carried into dirty or muddy conditions or infantry combat round per se.

280" calibre - or call in 276" or 7mm - was they way forward in self-loading rifles and shown as such in the 1930s.

All the remaining seventy-five years of what actually WAS ADOPTED is just historical legacy dictating rifle cartridge design.

Even the Russians adopted 7.62mmx39 in their AK47 because that is what rifling machinery they had at hand...all Russian weapons using the same "bore".

the one they have works just fine.

I'm open, as long as it has a Mauser-type Claw Extractor!!

Rich

One guy voted .45-70!

I've never thought that 5.56 was all it was "cracked up to be" and as it has proven to be lacking in the current hostilities, obviously something bigger is needed.

As the subject of logistics was mentioned, yes, changing caliber is really out of the question. Historically speaking, countries that have tried that have "taken it in the shorts" in the past. Regardless of phasing in a new caliber over time.

Though the 6 to 7mm guys will have a fit, the only option is to use a 7.62mm rifle as it is already in inventory, has a proven track record, will reach out there to "touch someone," and is not a punishing round to shoot as some have stated. Really, if you have a problem shooting such a cartridge, go home and grow up. You obviously aren't old enough, or stout enough to perform military duties.

Several devastating wars were fought for years with the 30.06 and 8mm Mauser as the primary cartridges (or of similar power) with no one the worse for wear from its recoil. And as firearms were designed in the past that fired both these cartridges effectively in full auto fire (really designed for close combat with buggers coming through the door) the argument that the 7.62 NATO cartridge is “too powerful” is garbage.

A 7.62mm rifle, with a long or short stroke piston, magazine fed, select fire, 18-inch barrel and good sights will do the trick.

Eric