Seems the general feeling here is that the XM8 doesn't really do enough or anything better than the M16. What exactly yall think would be worthy of an upgrade? Is there current technology to make a better gun or is it something just over the horizon? I've heard some people say caseless ammo would be a good step but it seems to me all that would eliminate is the ejection port. Doesn't seem like enough progress to me. I think a firearm where somehow the propellant (or whatever is used to shoot) would be permanently stored in the gun and only bullets would have to be loaded would do the trick. You could fit a shitload of bullets in a mag. Dunno if there is anyway to do that though. ehh, just a thought.

I'm all for caseless. Thats a fully sealed system barring barrel and magwell. Almost impossible to get a jam from dirt.

anyone ever see that new system where bullets are stacked in a barrel and electronically fired? Maybe that could somehow be adapted for use in a battle rifle.

G11
Caseless.

You have to start with the cartridge.

Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup.

Any new cartridge to replace 5.56 has to be able to penetrate a Level IV rifle strike plate at normal engagement ranges.  Otherwise its worthless.

I have been thinking about something in about .40cal/10mm firing a discarding sabot projectile with a long 6.5-7mm penetrator of tungstin, with deep grooves cut in the body, so when it tumbles it would still split into 3-4 fragments.

Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup.

Fuck I'm dumb. I never even thought of that.
See fellas, thats why I shoot'm and dont build'm

Tannerite,it had to be said.

Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup.

I wouldn't say it won't work; I'd say there are some design problems that need to be worked out. I would also argue that the M16/M4 doesn't need to be replaced; they just need to develop a more effective cartirdge, like using a faster burning powder and a thicker case a-la .223 WSSM and get the velocity back up to 3200FPS or higher out of the 14.5" barrel.

Quoted: Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup. I wouldn't say it won't work; I'd say there are some design problems that need to be worked out. I would also argue that the M16/M4 doesn't need to be replaced; they just need to develop a more effective cartirdge, like using a faster burning powder and a thicker case a-la .223 WSSM and get the velocity back up to 3200FPS or higher out of the 14.5" barrel.

3200 fps isn't fast enough.  And you need a harder bullet material like tungstin, which is also heavier, making it harder to get those speeds in a full bore projectile.

But by increasing the bore, and firing a saboted projectile, you can acheve those speeds within reasonable pressures.

With what we are spending on Iraqi

don't look for a new firearm for a long time.....................

Quoted: With what we are spending on Iraqi don't look for a new firearm for a long time.....................

Actually a new cartridge doesn't need a new firearm.

The AR15 could be rebuilt to use my cartridge, just like it can be rebuilt to use .458 SOCOM or .500 Beowulf or any of the pistol cartridges.  It could even keep the .223 headsize.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup. I wouldn't say it won't work; I'd say there are some design problems that need to be worked out. I would also argue that the M16/M4 doesn't need to be replaced; they just need to develop a more effective cartirdge, like using a faster burning powder and a thicker case a-la .223 WSSM and get the velocity back up to 3200FPS or higher out of the 14.5" barrel. 3200 fps isn't fast enough.  And you need a harder bullet material like tungstin, which is also heavier, making it harder to get those speeds in a full bore projectile. But by increasing the bore, and firing a saboted projectile, you can acheve those speeds within reasonable pressures.

The 223WSSM is rated at 3600FPS, but I'm sure thats a 24" barrel. I like your idea, but the size of the ammo is going to be a problem; capacity is going to be pretty limited.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup. I wouldn't say it won't work; I'd say there are some design problems that need to be worked out. I would also argue that the M16/M4 doesn't need to be replaced; they just need to develop a more effective cartirdge, like using a faster burning powder and a thicker case a-la .223 WSSM and get the velocity back up to 3200FPS or higher out of the 14.5" barrel. 3200 fps isn't fast enough.  And you need a harder bullet material like tungstin, which is also heavier, making it harder to get those speeds in a full bore projectile. But by increasing the bore, and firing a saboted projectile, you can acheve those speeds within reasonable pressures. The 223WSSM is rated at 3600FPS, but I'm sure thats a 24" barrel. I like your idea, but the size of the ammo is going to be a problem; capacity is going to be pretty limited.

Its a straight case, so you could use the .30 Remington case diameter of .422, as the 6.8mm Remington did.

In fact, you could USE the .30 Rem case, blow it out straight like .221 Rem is turned into .300 and .338 Whisper by SSK.

Is this what you are talking about?
guns.connect.fi/gow/2030.html


This is really, really cool! 4900-6500FPS with the sabot, or a variety of 9mm traditional ammo out of the same barrel.

Quoted: Is this what you are talking about? guns.connect.fi/gow/2030.html guns.connect.fi/gow/2030b.gif This is really, really cool! 4900-6500FPS with the sabot, or a variety of 9mm traditional ammo out of the same barrel.

Aww shit.

I hadn't seen that before, looks like I am not original.

I think his penetrator is a little small, would go through armor well but wounding afterward would suck.

I would use a conventional design case too.  But otherwise yeah.

I chose .40 to get both the maximum piston area and to carry a longer, larger diameter penetrator that would have a chance for better after penetration effects.

Offering a full bore buillit is a good idea but it would reqire a sight that could switch between two completely different range scales.  They would have big differences in trajectory.  Though optics technology is advanced enough they could probaly do a two recticle optic sight

A 10/22 and a .38 are all that's needed.

There isn't any point in spending a small fortune just to field a "new" weapon like the XM8 with only minimal improvements over the current M16 variants. The M16 has proven itself to be the most adaptive weapons system ever developed for military use. It has become what Eugene Stoner had envisioned when he developed his 63 system - only the M16 evolved on an existing, already issued platform.

The M16's life could be extended well through the time when a truly advanced, and completely revolutionary system is developed, such as a miniaturized rail system. Change the gas system to a piston/op rod type similar to HK's "new" system, or use one of the many other similar systems that have been developed over the last 35 or so years. Change the caliber to the 6.8mm for better leathality. Let's face it. We can enhance the performance of the 5.56mm with the adoption of heavier bullets like the 77 gr. MK262, but in the end, it's still a .22 caliber. And the .22 cal. repeatedly comes out on the short end of the "ideal caliber" measuring stick.

Newer isn't always better just because it's new. If that were true, the "Ma Deuce" would have been history a long time ago. And what might we have gotten in exchange? Some "new" POS that couldn't do what the "old" does so well?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Modify it if the modifications truly make it better, but don't throw the whole thing over the side just for something shiny and new.

OK, rant over....

I'm no expert in any of these areas, but I do believe caseless has some promise.  A one-piece extruded grain of nitrocellulose could potentially be durable enough.  The benefits of caseless can be immense.  Plus, it would be a great way for the .gov to exclude civilians by phasing out current technology and keeping caseless out of the civilian market (back door gun control) so that probably makes it more attractive to the liberals in charge.

Sabot ammunition in small arms, historically, has never met with great success (not counting blackpowder and shotgun slugs).  Many round configurations have come and gone, but very few are generally available today.  Again, I'm not an expert, so maybe this is due to market forces, but I recall there being problems with reliability and accuracy.  I know the military is currently using sabots in small arms (ie, SLAP), but their use appears to be very limited.

THE GUN THAT NEVER WAS: Heckler & Koch G11
Yah, baby! I want one.
But, where would I get the ammo?

It had it all -- accuracy, ease of use, and a revolutionary "caseless ammunition" system that might have changed the way rifles are made -- but the Heckler & Koch G11 rifle was never put into mass production. What happened to this unique rifle?



Some of the most interesting innovations in military technology are never implemented -- not because the innovation was a bad idea to start with, or due to design flaws, but simply due to bad timing. Case in point: the revolutionary Heckler & Koch G11, a rifle that used unprecedented "caseless ammunition," as well as advanced aiming and recoil-less firing capabilities. Its only sin? It was ready for action in a period of political unification and cost-cutting measures.

Blaze of Glory: Improving Burst Accuracy

The short, bittersweet tale of the G11 began in 1970, when the then-West German government initiated a study to produce a new combat rifle to replace the 7.62mm G3 battle rifle currently in service. Among the many requirements for the rifle were that it carry 50 rounds of ammunition (to reduce magazine changes), have a flat trajectory through 300 meters (to facilitate rapid aiming), have a high degree of accuracy when firing 3 round bursts (for improved lethality), and weigh less than 10 pounds with 100 rounds of ammunition.

Of these requirements, the most challenging to overcome, and what made the G11 such a revolutionary weapon, was the issue of burst accuracy. Following a 1960s study at Frankfurt's Battelle Institute, it was determined that current methods of automatic and burst fire management were not capable of meeting the accuracy demands established by the German government. Fully automatic fire generates individual recoil impulses which not only causes the rifle to rise (as the weapon pivots on the firer's shoulder), but when transferred to the shooter's body, these impulses cause the shooter's torso to rotate as well. As a result subsequent shots will be high and wide compared to the first, meaning that if the first round missed the target, all subsequent rounds would also miss the target.

The GL11 rifle with an optical scope mounted.
The study concluded that there were two solutions to this problem. The first was the "shotgun" approach, in which a large number of projectiles would be launched at the same time, saturating the target area. This option was rejected because the size of the shell needed to launch a sufficient number of projectiles would have not only reduced the overall combat load of the firer, but the high recoil impulse generated with each shot would have had a dramatic effect on subsequent shot times and accuracy. Accordingly, the second option, in which "salvos" of bullets were fired at as high a speed as possible, so as to reduce the effects of recoil on bullet accuracy, was the one recommended.

In order to condense individual recoil impulses into one manageable force however, required the weapon have a cyclic rate of fire of 2,000 rounds per minute, which was not achievable utilizing conventional single barrel technology. To meet this requirement Heckler & Koch, the manufacturer selected to build the G11, eliminated the cartridge case extraction and ejection steps from the firing cycle and turned to the Dynamit Nobel company to develop a new type of bullet technology: caseless ammunition.
G11 Specifications
Caliber:
4.73 x 33 mm caseless ammunition
Builder:
Heckler & Koch
Weight:
3.8 kgs
Overall Length:
750 mm
Barrel Length:
540 mm
Sights:
Optical; special sights like night vision optional
Function:
gas-operated, rotating breech, select-fire rifle (semi-automatic, full-auto fire)
Firing Cycle:
600 rpm for sustained fire;
2000 rpm for 3-round burst
Muzzle Velocity:
930 m/s
Magazine Capacity:
45 rounds (3 magazines are directly attached to the rifle)
Maximum Effective Range:
400 m




The 7-Step Firing Cycle



The seven steps in a firing cycle are as follows:

1. Firing.
2. Unlocking the bolt.
3. Extracting the spent cartridge case.
4. Ejecting the spent case.
5. Feeding a new cartridge from the magazine.
6. Chambering the round.
7. Locking the bolt.

The G11, with no case to extract or eject, omits 3 and 4 (and because it really doesn't have a recoiling bolt in the traditional sense, steps 2 and 7 are abreviated).

Weapons either fire from the open (i.e. empty chamber) bolt position, or the closed bolt (loaded chamber) position. The M-16 is a closed bolt weapon, while the M240 machine gun is an open bolt weapon. Weapons that fire from the closed bolt start on sequence number 1 and go down through 7. Weapons that fire from the open bolt start on sequence number 5 and work their way down through 7 back to 1, and finally stop on 4 (with the bolt locked open).



The Revolution

H&K's caseless ammunition concept was revolutionary for a number of reasons. First, and most importantly, by eliminating two steps from the seven-step firing cycle (see box on right), the cyclic rate of fire could be increased to meet design requirements. Second, since there is no brass (casings left over from firing a weapon) to eject, there is no need for an ejection port, which means the rifle's action is protected from external fouling and contamination. Finally, eliminating the bullet case not only reduces the overall weight of the bullet, but also allows for a more efficient design to be used.

To overcome the numerous technical obstacles associated with such a new and radical weapon design, H&K and Dynamit Nobel, along with optics manufacturer Hensoldt/Wetzlar, combined their development efforts to form the GSHG (Gesellschaft für Hülsenlose Gewehrsysteme, or Corporation for Caseless Rifle Systems).

The most challenging of these obstacles was the development of the caseless ammunition itself. Early tests with molded gunpowder led to the development of High Ignition Temperature Propellant (HITP), a less sensitive compound that would reduce the risk of "cook offs" where the internal chamber temperature was high enough to ignite the propellant. The propellant is molded into a rectangular block around the 4.7mm diameter projectile and cartridge primer. The rectangular shape allows the rounds to feed more efficiently from the magazine -- since there is no magazine "dead space," as there would be with conventional round metallic cartridges, there is no room in the magazine for the bullets to shift and potentially mis-feed. In addition to improving feeding, the molded propellant also significantly reduces the weight of each individual cartridge (A G11 rifle, with 45 round magazines and 510 rounds of 4.7mm caseless ammunition, weighs as much as a G3 rifle with 20 round magazines and 100 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition).
The rifle itself is relatively straightforward (the G11 fires from the "closed bolt" position, and the breech is gas piston operated), with the exception of the rotating breech/chamber cylinder. With no bullet case to extract, there is no need for a locking bolt/chamber arrangement, as there is in conventional rifles. In its place, the G11 has a rotating cylinder that serves as both breech and firing chamber. Rounds are fed vertically through the top of the weapon (the feed magazine and two spares are mounted horizontally over the long axis of the barrel housing) into the cylinder breech, which is then rotated 90 degrees to align the chamber with the barrel. When fired, the gas piston rotates the cylinder back 90 degrees and another round is loaded.

Schematic of G11 bolt and feeding system.
To achieve the desired degree of accuracy in burst mode, the G11 relies on an extremely high (2,000 rpm) rate of fire. At this speed, 3 rounds can be fired in 60 milliseconds, which means the projectiles have already cleared the barrel before the recoil forces have had a chance to affect the shooter's aim. In comparison, on full auto the G11 has a cyclic ROF of only 460 rpm, with one bullet fired every 130 milliseconds. The final production model, the G11K2, was equipped with a bayonet/bipod mount under the barrel and a 1x large eye relief aiming scope featuring an illuminated aiming circle (though this may be removed and replaced with any existing combat optic or night vision device).

End of the Story?

In 1989, after extensive field-testing with the Bundeswehr (German Army), the final version, the G11K2, entered production and delivery to the Bundeswehr commenced in 1990. The K2 version of the G11 featured several advantages over previous prototypes: Most notably, the receiver was redesigned so that three 45-round magazines could be carried side by side on the rifle. This enabled the soldier, with a total weight of less than ten pounds, to carry 135 magazine-loaded rounds right on the rifle. During testing of the G11 K2 in the Fall of 1989, German Army draftees achieved an average of 50% more hits using the G11 compared with the G3 rifle. Other tests in 1990 showed that of 60,000 rounds fired by a G11, the estimated ammunition failure rate was about 1/485 rounds, with a minimum cook-off rate of 150 rounds at 60 RPM. In early 1990 the German Army issued an official statement on the testing program, in which the rifle was said to have met all requirements, and was ready to be fielded.
But the G11 was never adopted by the German Army to replace the G3. Though no specific reason was given, the likely culprit was simply the changing times: the demise of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the reunification of Germany. The German Parliament may have decided to reallocate the G11 funding to support reunification programs, or perhaps the German government decided to go with NATO's request to adopt a rifle which fired the then-NATO standard rifle cartridge, the 5.56x45mm. Whatever the reason, the G11 remains shelved, while the G3 was ultimately replaced by the 5.56mm firing H&K G36 in 1999.

The story doesn't quite end there -- here in the US, there have also been recent tests of the G11 technology. A third prototype, the HK-ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) was tested in 1990 at Fort Benning, Georgia. The HK-ACR was identical to the G11 with the exception of an optical sight designed for targets ranging from 25 to 600 meters. The rifle reportedly received high marks and there were no major parts failures experienced on any of the fifteen test weapons used. While there have been no recent reports about caseless ammunition technology, there may come a time when the G11's innovations are included with future rifle upgrades, here in the US or elsewhere. As long as the technology is out there, the G11 story may have a happy ending after all.

sonofabp, you are the reason I read these forums. I knew HK had worked on this a bit but had no idea how extensively. Interesting read. I never really thought about all those benefits of caseless ammo. After reading I'm further frustrated that our gov might dump all this money on such a small if any upgrade when they could just continue fielding the m16 and and spend it on further refine, research, and test radically new ideas like caseless ammo and whatever else that could change the battle rifle into something so powerful it is only a concept right now/

Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup. Any new cartridge to replace 5.56 has to be able to penetrate a Level IV rifle strike plate at normal engagement ranges.  Otherwise its worthless. I have been thinking about something in about .40cal/10mm firing a discarding sabot projectile with a long 6.5-7mm penetrator of tungstin, with deep grooves cut in the body, so when it tumbles it would still split into 3-4 fragments.

don't we already have complaints from soldiers using bullets made of materials like tungstin? Don't they just rip right through people without tumbling at all? I remember someone telling me this once.

M14

The article leaves out the real problems with the G11 caseless round.

That the ammo broke up while being transported.
That it posed a greater fire hazard in storage.
That the fractured rounds posed increased explosion or squib round dangers
That it was not moisture or oil resistant.

Solving the heat buildup/cook off problem- assuming that they did solve it and this isn't more HK propaganda like they keep spewing out about the XM-8/G36- was only ONE issue of many.

Quoted: The article leaves out the real problems with the G11 caseless round. That the ammo broke up while being transported. That it posed a greater fire hazard in storage. That the fractured rounds posed increased explosion or squib round dangers That it was not moisture or oil resistant. Solving the heat buildup/cook off problem- assuming that they did solve it and this isn't more HK propaganda like they keep spewing out about the XM-8/G36- was only ONE issue of many.

like all things, if it was worked at hard enough and for a longer amount of time I'm sure these problems could be ironed out

here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle…

…… how many real wars have the Germans won?…

The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count.

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: You have to start with the cartridge. Caseless won't work.  You still have to be able to eject duds and the last round in a shoot, so you will not be able to reduce the number of apertures.  Then there is building a round that isnt fragile or flammable.  And then what to do with the extra heat buildup. Any new cartridge to replace 5.56 has to be able to penetrate a Level IV rifle strike plate at normal engagement ranges.  Otherwise its worthless. I have been thinking about something in about .40cal/10mm firing a discarding sabot projectile with a long 6.5-7mm penetrator of tungstin, with deep grooves cut in the body, so when it tumbles it would still split into 3-4 fragments. don't we already have complaints from soldiers using bullets made of materials like tungstin? Don't they just rip right through people without tumbling at all? I remember someone telling me this once.

The existing M995 5.56 AP has problems with not tumbling.  But it is shorter than the standard M855 and its core is not serrated.

Thats why I would use a long penetrator (but not long enough to be a APFSDS, we tried that with the Styer ACR and its darts).

Tumbling in flesh is a function of the length and shape of the bullet, not its material.  Fragmenting AFTER tumbling IS a function of material and construction.

Tungstin is a very strong metal and unless the sides of the penetrator were cut deeply it would not fragment.  But this kind of pre-cut penetrator has already been developed for Naval small caliber cannons for CIWS purposes by Oerklon.  They call it FAPDS, fragnable APDS and it is designed to keep the projectiles from simply passing through a cruse missile if it hits but fails to hit something hard like the warhead casing.

How much the penetrator would have to be cut would have to be determened by making some and testing them.

Quoted: anyone ever see that new system where bullets are stacked in a barrel and electronically fired? Maybe that could somehow be adapted for use in a battle rifle.

Metal Storm®

www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html

ANdy

Quoted: here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle… …… how many real wars have the Germans won?… The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count. Andy

Except everyone but England and Russia used the G98 Mauser, the US included.  Both the M1903 and M1917 are G98 clones.

Even England used a limited number of P14 rifles.

The M-16/M-4 is fine, although I'd love to see them adopt the 6.8mm round. The M-16 has needed better magazines for years, maybe they can fix that problem with a new caliber.

The M-8 is an answer to a question that no one asked.

Quoted: The M-16/M-4 is fine, although I'd love to see them adopt the 6.8mm round. The M-16 has needed better magazines for years, maybe they can fix that problem with a new caliber. The M-8 is an answer to a question that no one asked.

The 6.8mm is such a minor improvement on the 5.56 its not worth it.

If we were back in 1958 still hammering out the SCHV idea and still deciding on WHAT to replace 7.62x51mm with, 6.8mm would win.

But after 40 years of investment in 5.56 and with a very LIMITED time remaning before even 5.56mm is obsoleted by advances in body armor there is no poing.

Quoted: Quoted: here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle… …… how many real wars have the Germans won?… The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count. Andy Except everyone but England and Russia used the G98 Mauser, the US included.  Both the M1903 and M1917 are G98 clones. Even England used a limited number of P14 rifles.

Bag that Jerry chaps!



SMLE MkIV Sniper rifle… mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: anyone ever see that new system where bullets are stacked in a barrel and electronically fired? Maybe that could somehow be adapted for use in a battle rifle. Metal Storm® www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html ANdy

I checked out a few months back.  Pretty cool stuff.  I wouldn't want to walk into a perimeter with one of those things scanning the area...that's for sure.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: anyone ever see that new system where bullets are stacked in a barrel and electronically fired? Maybe that could somehow be adapted for use in a battle rifle. Metal Storm® www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html ANdy I checked out a few months back.  Pretty cool stuff.  I wouldn't want to walk into a perimeter with one of those things scanning the area...that's for sure.

They would make a good supplement for the Claymore.  Especially if you could mount one on a RC car chasses.  Like the sentry guns from Aliens only with wheels

Quoted: The article leaves out the real problems with the G11 caseless round. That the ammo broke up while being transported. That it posed a greater fire hazard in storage. That the fractured rounds posed increased explosion or squib round dangers That it was not moisture or oil resistant. Solving the heat buildup/cook off problem- assuming that they did solve it and this isn't more HK propaganda like they keep spewing out about the XM-8/G36- was only ONE issue of many.

A big +1
I just wish they were more willing to take a good idea and refine it.
Eventually someone will invest the time and get the big pay off.

Wooooooo! 50,000 rpm Sentry Gun…



Andy

Go back to the long barrel for the 5.56mm. Seemed to work fairly well for a lot of people in a lot of conflicts.

Army screwed up by going to a carbine for that round. If they wanted a shorter rifle, they should have bullpupped and not sacrificed barrel length and performance.

At least, IMO.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle… …… how many real wars have the Germans won?… The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count. Andy Except everyone but England and Russia used the G98 Mauser, the US included.  Both the M1903 and M1917 are G98 clones. Even England used a limited number of P14 rifles.

Wrong,
The M1917 was an Enfield action chambered in .30 cal.
carry on.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle… …… how many real wars have the Germans won?… The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count. Andy Except everyone but England and Russia used the G98 Mauser, the US included.  Both the M1903 and M1917 are G98 clones. Even England used a limited number of P14 rifles. Wrong, The M1917 was an Enfield action chambered in .30 cal. carry on.

Nope, it was a Mauser pattern action.  Based on the British P14 Enfield which was supposed to replace the SMLE as intended to those overimpressed by the performance of the G98 in Boer hands.  The P14 was also supposed to be chambered for a 7mm cartridge instead of .303.  The war broke out before the change was even begun, but fans of the P14 in the British Army got the rifle into production here in the US in .303.  The British and Commonwealth troops issued with it did not like it, because of its length and weight, the only thing they liked about it was the rear sight- between its characteristic huge recever "ears" at the back it DID have the best rifle sight made up till that time (and which was copied in principal onto the M1 Garand later).

When the US entered the war, the companies that were building P14's for the UK simply rechambered the gun for the US .30/06.  Our soldiers ALSO found it too long and heavy for real combat but did like its rear sight and that it had a one piece firing pin instead of the Springfields two piece.

We also called the M1917 the "Enfield" since the US companies that had started building the guns (Remington and I beleve Rockwell/Marlin) had gotten the patern guns from ROF Enfield- where indeed the prototype guns in 7mm had been built before the war.  But the bolt action was a streight rip off of the G98 Mauser design, just like the M1903 Springfield was also a rip off of the G98 (to the point the US Supreme Court made the US Goverment pay Mauser Werke 10 million dollars in compensation in 1911).

The Lee-Enfield action has its two locking lugs at the REAR of the bolt, Mauser types have them at the FRONT of the bolt and use the bolt handle as a 3rd "safety" locking lug.

Improved mini-14/30,ie thicker higher quality bbl,better stock and bedding,improved caliber over 5.56 such as 6.8 spc or even the 7.62x39.M16/AR-15 is a good weapon,however maybe not GI proof enough for regular issuie.New rifles can be paid for by surplusing all the stocks of M16 to civilians for 800 bucks each.Every one is happy,except Sara Brady,she would look like this

Quoted: here's a very good reason why you should not adpot a German military rifle… …… how many real wars have the Germans won?… The 1870 Franco-German War is specifically excluded as fitting pussies does not count. Andy

I am far a fan of German foreign policy, but I doubt there losses have had much to do with their quality of their small arms. In fact, if anything, their small arms kept them in wars much longer than they otherwise would have...

This could all be settled by switching to friggin' sharks with "lasers" on their heads.