New military rifle concept?




 
--
 
December 29th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 

Topic: New military rifle concept?


I may be out of line with this post, but it is something I daydream about and may stirr some interesting discussions...If it is out of line, please delete the thread...


Ok, I'm working on a theory for an assault rifle. The basic concept is along the lines of a MAC10 or AK47, but on a slightly smaller scale.
I was thinking something that could be manufactured easily and cheaply, and carried as a backup weapon.
The basic equipment list for a SF unit would look something like this:
3 Weapons:
Weapon 1 - long range weapon. Semi Auto 7.62 NATO FAL, G3 with 2 Magazines and optics for general operator - specialized members of the team carry either stinger, anti-armor or sniper/anti material weapon in this slot. Weapon 2 and 3 still apply. When not using weapon 1, weapons 2 and 3 are employed.

Weapon 2 - close in weapon. Full Auto, small calibre with 6 Magazines.No Optics - optional silencer

Weapon 3 - sidearm. 9mm or same calibre as weapon 2 - if possible at all.


I want to focus on weapon 2. While the P90 would fit the bill nicely, it is too heavy and uses a non standard round. I initially thought of a +P 9mm round, but since this would bridge the gap between weapon 1 and 3, the range of a 9mm round would not be sufficient. It would have to be something along the lines of the .223 or similar. While I realize that there are hundreds of weapons out there that are close to what I'm thinking of, none of them actually match it 100%.
I guess this question goes to the very experienced military personnel out there:
1. Would you agree that the 3 weapon system for the average SF soldier is sound, and would it hold a benefit?
2. What calibre would you advise for weapon 2?


Let's hear the ideas?
December 29th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Are you having all involved carry 3 weapons?
December 29th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
Yes, that's why weapon 2 has to be ULTRA lightweight.
--
December 29th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
LeFrance had prototypes of a small version of the M16 back in the early 60's in 5.56mm Nato. Small and would accept supressors and a multitude of accessories.

I think the least you could go would be 5.56.

The thing is you have the concept of a 7.62 rifle which will fit the bill as far as distance and close in.
December 29th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
03USMC, the 7.62 is for ranges past 200 meters. For anything below200 M, I agree, the 5.56 is good, but I was thinking smaller - the basic concept is that the weapon and it's ammo should be light and compact enough so that it would not add massive weight to the operator's pack.
The dimensions of the weapon will be around 16" overall length, recoil (not Gas) operated and weigh in the region of 4 pounds loaded with 30 rounds. It's design will be slende, so that it can easily be stored on the side of a back pack where it can be accessed fast.

Has anyone thought of the Tokarev round?
December 29th, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
How about just one rifle in 6.5x45mm Grendel? Retains the low RECOIL and weight of a 5.56mm rifle, but has energy equal to a 7.62x51mm at 500m.

3 weapons=bad idea
December 29th, 2004  
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.
December 29th, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
I don't know about you, but I like the idea of not having to estimate range; unsling a weapon; aim and fire, then switch weapons to deal with a close in target. I also like one consistant round in the section/squad, I don't have to think about which mag is where when I toss buddy a mag. The problem with three weapons is that you have three times the complexity of a single weapon; three drills to memorise, three sights to zero and get used to, three different mags to carry, ect. Plus the simple fact that you have to carry three weapons.
December 29th, 2004  
bushpig1998
 
 
That's the one aspect of it that would bother me. You are correct, it doesn't make much sense, so how would you equip a squad to deal with almost any situation?

Have 2 semi auto, scoped .308's qith sidearm, 2 anti-armor with sidearm and the rest equipped with 5.56?
December 29th, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushpig1998
That's the one aspect of it that would bother me. You are correct, it doesn't make much sense, so how would you equip a squad to deal with almost any situation?

Have 2 semi auto, scoped .308's qith sidearm, 2 anti-armor with sidearm and the rest equipped with 5.56?
Well ideally, a section should have support for armour...however...
I wouldn't mind two soldiers in the secting being equiped with something like an updated M72; but I wouldn't want them to loose their rifles, it makes them ineffective against infantry, which isn't something you want in a small section level engagement. But then again; you probably have more experiance then I do; and have been there done that as well; so my opinion is fairly groundless.