User Panel
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:34:46 AM EDT
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.
|
|
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. |
|
Fuck I'm dumb. I never even thought of that. See fellas, thats why I shoot'm and dont build'm |
|
|
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..................... |
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
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/
|
|
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 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 |
|
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. |
||
|
Metal Storm® www.metalstorm.com/04_the_technology.html 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. |
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|||
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.