New military rifle concept? - Page 2




 
--
 
December 30th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
Well I've been shot at and shot at someone, but not in a wartime situation - in a civillian capacity with handguns.
so your opinion is not groundless. All poinions matter.

I think an exceptionally light assault rifle could go as a secondary weapon for anti-armor individuals in a squad. I would hesitate to go with a sub mg, mostly because the lack range of any sort, unless an SMG can be had that would reach out and touch someone at 200 to 300 meters.
Anyone know the exact weight of an MP5 and M4?
December 30th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
If you want a back up weapon go with the HK PDW MP7 small enough to be fired as a pistol or as a rifle.
December 30th, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
I'm a big fan of the entire sections using the same ammunition. Logistically it makes life alot easier; and it also means that soldiers can concentrate on the properties of one family of weapons. I think that the best "secondary weapon" would be a regular issue rifle. The anti-armour weapon itself should be seen as secondary; as on a patrol it generally makes more sense to have your rifle ready then an AT-4 or M-72. The anti-armour is a back up in case you come under contact by something that you were not expecting to see (ie: a T-62 in Tora Bora).
--
December 30th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
All very true. The HK PDW is nice and quite a monster at close range, but I don't know if it can be considered a rifle.

As far as havin a rifle as a primary weapon - absolutely correct. Now for the doozy, 5.56 or 5.45 as a main calibre with 7.62 NATO as DMR or GPMG?
December 30th, 2004  
SureShot223
 
Good luck getting a firearm manufacturer to buy that design and besides the military is already considering replacing the M-16 with the M-8 carbine and I think that i going to happen. The M-8 is a great weapon and dependable. Imagining is the first step to building a great rifle and stick with it. If it makes it to the front line, make it light so I don't get tired of carrying it around in the field (haha).

PO3 Jackson
December 30th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
Thanks! hehehe

As I said, it is only a pet project - all imaginary. I don't have the tools, time or financial backing to run such a project. The future lies in composites, so if a new weapon comes out, I think we will be looking at a carbon barrel and some other composite parts...who knows, maybe they will make the entire weapon of carbon....even the ammo!
December 31st, 2004  
Vitaly
 
Hey, there is already such a thing.

http://www.gunblast.com/Bushmaster-Pistol.htm

or

http://www.quarterbore.com/ar15m16/oa93.htm

All that is needed is a few modifications.
December 31st, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Well if you want a good rilfe then i would say ethier the XM8, G11 (you'd need to make one first) or the good old reliable AK74U
December 31st, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushpig1998
I thought about that, but I want to try and keep the concept as compatible with current battlefield scenarios as possible. 7.62,5.56 9mm and even Tokarev Ammo can be raided off the enemy when supplies run low. The Grendel is a good round, but scarce.
Can you please expand on why you think that 3 weapons is a bad idea? Not questioning your opinion, just interested....this would be a nice learning experience.
Having bee on the ground and luggin a 10 lb plus FAL around for days on end, I know that the troops won't like 3 weapons, but they will have a distict advantage over AK wielding enemies - they can take them down at long range with .308 then finish off the ones that get through at close range with weapons 2 and 3.
Why would you weigh down the soldier with 3 different weapons, 3 different types of ammo, having to train the soldier in those weapons, and **** with your logisitics by having to supply that 3 different types of ammo when the infantry squad already has 2 SAWs and a designated marksmen that can reach out to 800m.

The 6.5mm Grendel is ballistically equal if not superior the 7.62mm NATO at combat ranges. It doesn't go subsonic till 1400 yards. I say equip the riflemen and SAW gunners at squad level with this. This gives MMG capability to the squad, allowing for something heavier like .50 or 25mm OCSW at platoon level.
December 31st, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
As mentioned before, I noticed the logistical nightmare early on. I geuss this could be considered to be one of those classic desires for "An All round perfect cartridge".
The main reason I was looking for a cartridge other that the 5.56 NATO is because I would have liked to see a weapon where the magazine well is inside the pistol grip - making for cleaner lines on the weapon. The .223 round is just too long to do this and still keep decent ergonomics, right?
At least that has been my experience.
All of this leads to another topic - I read an article regarding the 7.62 TT round. Apparently it canbe safely loaded up to 2200fps - making it a small, but lethal round. Would anyone here consider this to be a good intermediate (terminology?) round? I know Magsafe sells this round at the 2200+fps rating and from what I've read it is really accurate and good past 200 meters.
OR
Should this be left in the closet as a gone and died submg round?