New military rifle concept?

bushpig1998

Active member
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
bushpig1998 said:
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.
 
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?
 
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).
 
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?
 
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
 
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!
 
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
 
bushpig1998 said:
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top