A Breakthrough in Small Arms Design

I've been cooking up an idea for a new rifle recently, and although I won't reveal many details, I'd like to hear the opinions of combat veterans about it, especially Israeli, Arabic, and Slavic vets. The rifle is bullpup, has a radically new system of operation, an effective range of over 1,000 meters, fires a special caseless cartridge, and has a magazine that will hold at least 120 rounds. It's purely mechanical, no electronics whatsoever. It's slightly longer and heavier than the M-16, SLIGHTLY. The design is going strait to IMI once finished. Pistol, SMG, SAW, and sniper versions coming soon. What do you think? What would you want to see in a new infantry rifle?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A picture? Caliber? Not quite enough info.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't give youu a pic yet, caliber's around 6.6 though. 5.56 is a popgun round, 7.62 is uncontrollable on full auto, so I'm looking for an intermediary between intermediaries you could say. Recently I have heard of M-16s being rechambered to 6.8, so it wouldn't be so alien.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your information is very sparse. Although I have no Middle East experience, I do have
extensive combat experience from Vietnam. I agree that the .223 cal. M-16 round is
not as 'powerful' as some others, but that is not necessarily a disavantage. Effective
range is a consideration, and the .223 is as good as any of the later combat rounds,
but the additional 'killing power' of a larger round is not always an advantage. A torso
hit with a .223 usually leaves an opponent incapable of continuing to effectively resist,
but if he is only wounded instead of killed, then his comrades feel an obligation to try
to save their friend's life, possibly exposing themselves to fire or, at the very least,
removing them from the resisting force while they are helping their comrade. A thousand meter range, huh? In a weapon that weighs only slightly more than an M-16?
It will be necessary for you to explain how this weapon will be accurate at 1000 meters
with a light weight barrel. Heavy barrels on a sniper rifle are there for a reason, they
are more accurate, but it also makes the weapon heavy. High muzzle velocity, and
therefore increased recoil, are necessary for long range accuracy to keep bullet drop
within reasonable limits. You haven't mentioned how the bullet is to be propelled, gun
powder or what, but is this caseless cartridge impervious to rough handling and water?
Where is the magazine to be fitted on the rifle? If it is to be fitted in the stock to keep
it out of the way for a prone shooter, the weight change from a full to a nearly empty
magazine can effect balance and the accuracy of the weapon, especially at 1000 meters. Don't mean to sound so critical of your weapon, but the performance you cite
does seem to be a little too good to be true.

 

Anyone who watches The History Channel enough could have told me that And I've always heard that the M-16 has a 300+ meter range.
If you have trouble believing that such a small weapon can do so much, take a look at this: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm , and this: http://israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html. The G11-K2 has a range of around 800 meters. Keep in mind that the Middle-East has much better visibility than Viet-Nam, so a better range is always a plus to the Israelis. It also has much higher winds, so a heavier caliber than 5.56 is a big step forward. Also the M-16 is absolutely loathed by the Israeli Army, as the gas port gets so easily clogged by the powdery desert sands. The barrel is not light weight, it's made of tungsten carbide to prevent overheating. The weapon has it's fair share of lightweight composites though, so I don't think it will make much of a difference. The cartridge is rectangular, simmilar yet significantly more efficient than that of the G11. If you want to hear of the mechanics of the weapon, I'm sorry, I will not release that information just yet, I don't have any patents.

 

Anyone who surfs the web can come up with a hypothetical gun design. To start with,
the M-16 is listed as having a 460 meter effective range, not just '300+'. The G-11-K2
tested by the army was said to have an effective range of 300-600 meters and it
weight about 10 lbs and fired a small caliber caseless cartridge. The LSW version, a
light machine gun, was said to have an effective range of up to 800 meters, but that
weapon only weighs slightly less than an M249 light machine gun, which weighs over
15 lbs (7.1 kg). Your caseless ammo sounds to be both difficult and expensive to
manufacture, deterring it from widespread acceptance and NATO favors a standardized
ammo for its members. Would the weapon and its ammo be able to compete economically with other designs? Also, the tests of the G-11 indicated it was easier
for new recruits to hit with 50% greater accuracy in a short training cycle, not that
the weapon was 50% more accurate in the hands of an expert rifleman than a more
conventional rifle. A 1000 meter EFFECTIVE range in a lightweight bullpup design,
utilizing a heavier bullet while producing the needed high muzzle velocity, and keeping
the recoil within reason limits, sounds unrealistic to me. There are laws of physics, you
know.

 

If you're going to treat me like a moron I'm putting you on my ignore list. My stepfather was in marine training in 1969, he fired both the M-16 and the M-14, and he had nothing good to say about the former in comparison. Like I said, I'm not telling you a damn thing about the mechanics or the cartridge beyond that, I have no patents and I'm not going to risk letting it out now.
I have built and modified several PA Luty guns in the past (if you don't know who that guy is, look him up), and most of my information comes from various firearms encyclopedias. I have already told you that I only took pointers from such firearms as the G11 and T-21, my rifle design is very much different than either of those. The first time I mentioned the range I already said it to be the EFFECTIVE range, look more closely at the text. Also, remember that differences in caliber not only make a difference in diameter, but length as well. The 7.62 is much longer, is less affected by wind, and has much more powder. Since my cartridge is rectangular with the bullet encased in the propellent it holds far more than the 7.62.
You seem to be forgetting that my rifle's barrel is more than twice as long as the M-16's. Add all that up, and if a 4.7mm rifle can get up to 460 meters of effective range, I should easily be able to get around 1000 meters. And please don't use an American gun as the standard here, those guys are notorious for letting their small arms rot, while they drop their jaws at how cool multi-million dollar guided missiles look and work. And definitely do not bring NATO into this, I never follow NATO standards, and I hate the organization.

 

NATO will be a consideration if you plan to market to armed forces. Perhaps law enforcement will be more interested. I can understnad the patent thing, but generally once its pending you're protected. A 120 round magazine though? If it gets adopted by an army, the complexity of that would limit its use to special forces, the grunts would get something simpler, easier to keep working. Especially considering the size required to house that many rounds.

 

I'm not at all trying to market this to the world, just Tzahal (Israeli Army). The magazine is very compact, it fills the rectangular stock with bullets (that I can say, as it's already been done with the SAW version of the G11). It's operation is far more simple and reliable than gas or recoil. And the patent isn't pending yet, I haven't even finished the design, never mind going to the patent office.
The main reason I started this thread was to get info on what an infantryman would want in a battle rifle, I didn't want insults or demeaning criticism.

 

Perhaps you should have simply asked what an infantryman would want in a battle rifle... you may have already compromised on patent non-disclosure.

 

quote:
"Anyone who watches The History Channel enough could have told me that And I've always heard that the M-16 has a 300+ meter range."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flintlock, you seemed to question my experience in combat, implying that I may be
making it up after watching the 'History Channel.' I am not. I suggested the same
could be said of someone who claims to be an arms designer with a wonderous new
weapon with revolutionary capabilities. The M-16 weighs 6.35 lbs empty. You said
your weapon weighs SLIGHTLY more than an M-16. To over double the effective range
of an M-16, you are going to have to increase the muzzle velocity of the bullet a great
deal, while using the larger caliber and length (heavier) bullet which will also increase
the recoil of the weapon. There is, by your statement, no gas operation or mechanical
recoil spring to help reduce the felt recoil. That is what I meant by the laws of physics,
greatly increasing the velocity and the weight of the bullet, while keeping the weapon
at M-16 weight levels, adds up to a very heavy recoil, uncontrollable on full auto fire.
Without going into any details of your design, how much recoil does it generate, in ft/lbs?

 

All sounds great, in theory, but the G11 design has been around for what, 25+ years, and never made it into production. Biggest problem was that of 'cook off' with the caseless rounds, in that the breach got hot enough to detonate the round as it was loaded. Of course, without a protective case, the ammunition will need very special care, if it is to be used in hostile environments. A lightly oiled cased round is quite well protected from the elements. But subjecting your actual propellant directly to water, sand, mud etc, could be a problem, unless you are going to foil wrap them? Your propellant is also going to have to have to refrain from becoming brittle in low temps, or the stress of loading in fully automatic fire could cause it to separate from the round.

Getting the mechanicals to work is only half the story with a caseless round.

 

Yes, I know all too well about the cook offs, but I've found a way around it. And I don't understand why any of the things I've said would compromise a patent, I said nothing about the unique features of my design, I only listed things that I borrowed from other rifles.
2inquisitive, I wasn't doubting your experience, only pointing out that you're shoving very obvious things at me, like how it's better to wound than kill, and fundamental principles of range, muzle velocity, and recoil. This means that you know a lot more than you're saying. You're telling me of various problems that you could see in the firearm that only an idiot wouldn't have thought of and taken into consideration. I already told you that the gun is still mostly in the theoretical phase right now, with some sketches of it on paper and Window's Paintbrush.
I've designed it so that the recoil goes strait to the shoulder, and it has very little, if any muzzle climb. I think a little tinkering with muzzle break designs in addition to that could solve the problem of excessive recoil.

 

What makes a good infantry rifle then?

I'm curious now...

 

I just don’t see how your going to fit 120 6.6mm easily or with little mass.

why not a 5mm round or smaller. By using a bullet with a hollow head or low deceleration fracturing architecture the same amount of killing force can be attend with a smaller round, also very high velocity bullets like these are great for armor piercing. By having a segmented bullet connected with ceramic ribs the bullet can respond corrected to different targets. When hitting a hard or bullet proofed target the ribs will break and the bullet will compress onto its self a little forming a hard single piece rod perfect for penetration. When the bullet hits a soft target like flesh the ribs deform and the bullet warps or breaks into its segmented pieces providing much greater medical damage.

Case-less is good, no extraction cycle, lower physical construction cost. Easier to multi-round simultaneous fire like the G11.

 

Spurious, I am of the opinion there is no perfect infantry rifle for all conditions. Everything
has to be a compromise, or each army would need a different rifle for each situation.
Flintlock started of by saying the M-16 used a 'popgun' round. I responded that wounding is sometimes more effective than instantly killing an enemy at the ranges
military encounters often take place. I prefer a large handgun caliber for close range
such as home defense or if I were to do police work because I'd want the criminal
incapacitated immediately so he couldn't return fire. An infantryman that has to carry
his weapon all day while walking definately wants a lightweight rifle. One that patrols
around town in a vehicle isn't as concerned about weight. Reliability is paramont for
all situations, accuracy and range are very necessary for open country warfare. Low
recoil is necessary for full auto fire and much desired when new recruits are being
trained because a lot of people new to shooting develope a 'flinch' when learning to
shoot with a heavy recoiling and loud muzzle blast rifle. That was one of the reasons
new recruits could learn to shoot the small caliber G-11 more accurately with less
training. Constant firing with a heavy recoiling weapon will bruise one's shoulder and
cause a lot of pain. Not good if the recruit closes his eyes and jerks the trigger, he will
have a difficult time overcomming the habit, destroying his accuracy and effectiveness
as a soldier. That is why the trend is to smaller bullets, with a lighter bullet, you can
increase muzzle velocity extending the range of the weapon while keeping the recoil
and muzzle blast at reasonable levels. The M-16. I trained with an M-14, a .308 cal.
(7.62mm) rifle, in basic training. A pretty heavy and long rifle, but one that was accurate during training. After that I went to a special jungle warfare training where
I used the M-16. I didn't like it. I had heard all the stories about how they would jam
and the rifle I had wasn't very accurate. Damn! I went through more special training
in Vietnam provided by my unit, the 101st Airborne Division. Just to keep matters straight, I was with Charley company, 1st of the oh duce (502nd) Infantry. But you
know what? I fell in love with the M-16 in Vietnam! I cleaned it daily and it never let me down. The one I was issued over there was an older version with the prong-ended
flash suppressor, but it was very accurate and I only had one jam, and that was when
we were firing up old ammo, it failed to feed once on about the 15th magazine I ran
through it, mostly on full auto. That was probably caused by dirt in one of the loaded
magazines. At one point, they wanted me to turn in my older version for a new rifle,
but I refused, I said I had complete confidence in the one I had. M-16s do jam. They
are made with close tolerances and if allowed to get too dirty, they will jam. Keep them clean and no problems. That is the problem, keeping them internally clean in
dusty conditions. They have a dust cover that snaps shut over the ejection port, but
it is not air tight and fine dust can get inside the gun. In vietnam, the soldiers that had
problems were the ones in base camp that would ride around in open jeeps on dusty
roads and not clean their weapon for days. I realize the deserts in the Middle East
could make keeping a clean weapon a real chore at times. Under those conditions,
a rifle with looser tolerances such as the AK-47 should function better while dirty.
I don't know what kind of mechanism Flintlock's design will use, but dust can find
its way into about any design that isn't sealed, and a sealed design isn't possible
because the rifle has to have a way to be disassembled quickly and easily for cleaning
and possible maintanence, such as to clear a malfunction. A magazine that holds
120 rounds also sounds nice, but I wonder what kind of spring will be used to move
each individual caseless round into position for chambering. The first round that is
loaded into a magazine is under little pressure, the in the designs I am aware of, the
spring pressure gets greater with each round loaded. I assume it is to be a disposable
magazine with that many rounds, but are the propellent encased cartridges strong
enough to resist crumbling or having material scratched from their surfaces while
being chambered from a high tension magazine? I assume he must have this worked out. Also, I assume the design wouldn't need an ejection port since there is no case
to eject, but residue from the burning powder and whatever material that might be
used to strengthen and hold the propellent in shape could build up more quickly since
it can't escape through the port. I am not suggesting Flintlock hasn't solved these
possible problems, but it will take the all new design he has.

 

Interesting post,

So would this mean that the modern army infantry should be trained in the use of different weapons, and issued a selection of lets say 3 weapons. According to the conditions a particular weapon should be chosen?


I was only in the army for 14 months (drafted) and didn't really get weapons training. I was a medic. We just had some basic weapon training with our Browning 9 mm (it wasn't really a browning I think, because they were made in Belgium). It was an easy and simple weapon. I wasn't really impressed with its accuracy and range and quickly realized that our issued weapon was just a symbolic one. A last desperate resort kind of thing that might work in some situation. I also realized that handguns are probably more dangerous than any other kind of weapon. It is just too easy to point it in any direction.

I also think that a bullet that wounds might be far more effective than a bullet that kills. It takes quite a lot of logistics to move a wounded soldier from the front to the field hospital or further down the line.

 

Can I put the 'wounding' myth to bed? Take the fairly recent case of the DC Sniper, and his victims;

James D. Martin, 55, killed on Oct. 2
James "Sonny" Buchanan, 39, killed on Oct. 3
Prem Kumar Walekar, 54, killed on Oct. 3
Sarah Ramos, 34, killed on Oct. 3
Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera, 25, killed on Oct. 3
Pascal Charlot, 72, killed on Oct. 3
Unidentified 43-year-old woman, critically wounded on Oct. 4
Unidentified 13-year-old boy, critically wounded on Oct. 4
Dean Harold Meyers, 53, killed on Oct. 9
Kenneth Bridges, 53, killed on Oct. 11
Linda Franklin, 47, killed Oct. 14
Unidentified 37-year-old man, critically wounded on Oct. 19
Conrad Johnson, 35-year-old man, killed on Oct. 22

That's for one round, from a fair distance. Seems pretty deadly to me. A three round burst, or prolonged full auto burst, at closer quarters (as would be likely in FIBUA or Jungle conditions) would be equally as deadly.

The smaller calibre rounds came into use, after German research post ww1 showed that their traditional round had a range far greater than it was actually being used at (typically 400metres or less), and therefore, could be made smaller, lighter, and cheaper. So they invented the Kurz round, and the familiar Schmeisser weapon to fire it fully auto.

Later US research (in Korea?) showed that firefights were happening at even closer quarters, and a faster rate of fire gave an advantage. Hence the commissioning of the 5.56mm round and weapon.

Of course, the M16 was a triumph of marketing over specification, it was sold as a rifle that wouldn't need cleaning much, so the first mark was released without cleaning kits. The closer engineering tolerances over bigger calibres proved this to be incorrect. Also the early M16s didn't have chromed breaches (like the Soviet made AK47s did) and held five less rounds (despite having a smaller calibre round) the AKs having the banana mag could squeeze more in.

I've never shot an M16, sadly, but I have shot a larger calibre FN SLR (Fabrique Nationale FAL, just semi, instead of full auto), ex standard issue British Army rifle, and it was very accurate, but a touch heavy.

Caseless is the way to go, but I think the G11 approach would have been on the market if it was feasible, as they have had over 25 years to perfect it.

For a really feasible battlefield rifle, checkout the proposed solutions from Metal Storm;

http://www.metalstorm.com

Electronically detonated caseless rounds, and the possibility to use varying calibre rounds, from various barrels, and hybrid rifles.

 

the problem with Casless is that NATO and other military coops would have to re-standardize, factories would have the re-machine there assembly lines. Caseless is cheaper to produce physical but put in the cost of re-standardizing and re-machining means a very big amount of money would have the be blown on this up front, making it years if not decades until caseless round cost less then standard rounds.

 

Good points everyone. Remember this however: Israel is a socialist state, it's very small, has a decent budget, and is used to spending considerable percentages of money on military gear. And in point of fact 2inquisitive, there is a certain Sayeret (I don't remember which one, try looking it up here if you're interested: http://isayeret.com/ ) that uses the AK model 1947 exclusively.

You're right 2inquisitive, I cannot completely solve the dust problem, but not having a gas port really helps. The ease of tensions of the springs was my biggest problem for a while, but I've found a way around that too.

Phlogistician, I've heard of Metal Storm, but I don't like them. Their guns have preloaded barrels, which means you have to carry individual barrels for every reload, very heavy and inefficient. It also means that the first few rounds will be inaccurate and slow moving, as they go down only a few centimeters of barrel length. Plus they rely far too much on electronics, not good for a combat firearm, as fixing it would be as hard as fixing a crashed computer.

Always keep in mind that most of the fighting Israeli troops get into isn't against a foreign enemy, or on a specified front line. Many of them walk into ambushes, or get into firefights when terrorists strike in the area they're guarding. Both require a lightning fast response and the soldiers need to lay down as much fire as possible within the first few seconds, which I'm sure would be a familiar situation to a Nam vet. 120 rounds would make the gun a little heavier, but certainly no more bulky than the M-16, and I would prefer having some extra weight to changing mags every 30 rounds, especially considering that the M-16 has a 950 rpm rate of fire.