Does anyone think that if the U.S decided to go hi-tech and abandon the M16/M4 series, that FN's new F2000 bullpup rifle would make a great replacement?

What makes the FN more hi tech than the M16/M4?

Design

hi tech is not neccessarily a good thing simplicity is a good thing I think most soldiers just want something that is accurate and will fire every time not some hi tech thing that is so efficent it won't even fire.  Kinda like new cars very high tech lots of litte sensors and parts makes it possible for lots to go wrong. KISS keep it simple stupid!

The next rifle will likely be the OICW that is currently being developed.

[url]http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/oicw-new.htm[/url]

See also the OCSW:
[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/ocsw.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.dote.osd.mil/reports/FY00/army/00ocsws.html[/url]

[img]http://pstr-m02.ygpweb.aol.com/data/005/6D/6F/03/8D/xfrzx2wVnzAczaEtgUMuoHDpJZkJMoFm0180.jpg[/img]  The Future has arrived.....

I am speaking in terms of ergonomics not electronics. I love the M16 and own an M4 myself. I just figured that since that most every country including Russia has replaced or will replace their current combat rifles the US might want to explore the same area. As far as the OICW, no less an authority than Jim Sullivan predicted it would become another boondoggle.

We do need something like an OICW though, how about just putting an electronic fire control on an an M4 and designing new 40mm or 30 mm. rounds.

Jim Sullivan is the man who helped with the original M16 design.

I'm wary of any type of weapon(OICW) that relies on batteries but we might as well accept the fact that this will probably be what we predominately see from now on.

LOL...... This guy really does belive this.

Ok so if this is what were going to "see" from now on where are we going to see it and who will use it? The OICW is someones pipe dream of what the weapon of the future battlefield will look like. More than likely they would be right, if they had any clue of what the future battle field will look like.

Exactly. and no I really don't believe it. The OICW will have to lose some weight and expense.

Not to mention SIZE. [img]http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/oicw1b.jpg[/img]

Ok now lets watch this guy try and get around these trees, or get prone and try to move 90 degrees on the ground. No way. This weapon system is not practical.

I just hope they don't find out the hard way.
The one that enters service will probably look a lot different if they care about user input. And I bet between now and then there will be plenty. Whehter or not the designers listen is another story.

I just hope they don't find out the hard way.
The one that enters service will probably look a lot different if they care about user input. And I bet between now and then there will be plenty. Whether or not the designers listen is another story.

I wonder if maybe what those designers come up with will look more like this?

[img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/m4m203-right.gif[/img]

If they wanted something other than the M4/grenade launcher what about the F2000/GL?

The Russian AN-94 is better, in most every respect, and it doesn't require batteries. Sullivan was actually half-right: the OICW isn't [i]going to be[/i] a boondoggle - it already [i]is[/i] one. It's only really interesting trait is the time-charged 20mm grenades. But, of course, batteries are required.

JMO.

It's the only bullpup rifle that can be shoot lefthanded...

Gah - I didn't know they were coming up with a CREW-SERVED version of this asininity!  Unbelievable.

Let me check my recall, aren't the OICW's still tagged around $20K a pop?  And for what - a toy with the label "Batteries Not Included, Some Assembly Required" on the side...

I remember my old preferred ICW - the M4/M203 combo.  Add AN/PVS nightsight and some C-Mags, and you are hitting about a $5K price tag, with individual components, and a significantly reduced (yes, that's a good thing!) electrica requirement.  Few batteries (which can be done without,) HE weapon with payload uncontaminated by guidance package, and a bit of kit that a southpaw (like me!) can fire without getting "case face."

Crew-served version?  I'd sooner have a 1919A6 or M2HB covering my back - they don't jam, don't stop, and don't need batteries either.  Simple, reliable, effective - that's what I like.

My next generation combat weapon?  I have a few favourites...

M4/M203, as above
Ciener Ultimate Over/Under (.223/12ga)
Ithaca 37 with duckbill choke
Atchisson Assault Rifle
M1 Garand
Barrett M82A1 Counter-Sniper Rifle

Those are the mains.  Gimme access to those for standard field issue, and I'll solve just about anything you need done.  I just need full discretion for weapon and ammunition selection, as well as mission profile (translation - tell me WHAT needs to get done and get the Hell out of my way!)

FFZ

With all the backup our troops get, air, arty, MG's, grenade launchers, we might as well keep the weapon simple. I vote for the M-4 with better optics and current grenade launchers.

H. James Sullivan designed/co-designed  the ArmaLite AR-15, later designated the M16 by the Army (Stoner is often given design credit but the Stoner rifle was actually the AR-16 in 7.62), The Stoner 63 for Cadillac-Gauge, the Mini-14 for Ruger, the Ultimax 100 for Singapore, a C-mag for Beretta since adopted by the German Army, the Model 77 for Ruger, a 7.62mm chain-gun for Hughes Advanced Armament and a .22 rifle for John Wayne.

Presently working on the "Counterpoise" kit to make the M16/M4 more controllable on full-auto and a 7.62mm belt-fed full performance machine gun that is due to weigh-in at about 11 pounds, far more controllable than the M-60 weighing 23 pounds.  This rifle/MG will fire either open-bolt (full auto) or closed-bolt (semi-auto).

Eugene Stoner, H. James Sullivan and Bob Fremont all have their roots in ArmaLite extending back to the 50's.

[smoke]

Doesn't "counterpoise" sound like a feminine hygiene product?

Forgot to add the AR-7 ArmaLite survival rifle to Sullivan's credits.

I think that the crew-served 25mm grenade launcher actually sounds it could be useful in some situations, possibly counter-sniper or the like. Of course if they do implement the OICW or OCSW they will have to prove their mettle in combat, then we can all watch the history channel when we are 90 and say "I knew that mumbo-jumbo wouldn't fly." (or if it does actually work we can always say "I knew that those guns would kick some serious ass.") As they say, only time will tell.

OCSW is just fricken ridiculous.
anybody see anything wrong with the following chart?
[img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/ocsw_wea/slide14.gif[/img]
They claim it has reduced engagement time, but their own bloody chart shows the M2 to be superior at that. Not to mention it has a flatter trajectory.

Plus the logistics figures look fishy - replace 3 5-ton trucks with 1 hummer's worth? Yeah, right.

Airbust 25mm rounds may be a replacement for the Mk19, but if they want to replace everything with it(M240, M2), they're fricken crazy.

No to pick nits, but Stoner's 7.62 was the AR10, not the AR16. And the main difference between the AR10 and AR15 is size and caliber. The design is essentially the same. Stoner pretty much did the design work.

No problem with picking nits.
Stoner was the inventor of both the AR-10 and the AR-16 - both in 7.62.
There is considerable difference in the AR-10 and the AR-15 although the AR-10 does resemble, outwardly, a large AR-15.

Other than size and caliber, what are the major operational differences? They both use the same gas system design, same bolt and action design, and same overall construction.

The AR-10 had some problems with springs in general and the extractor spring in particular.  The AR-15 had a relatively larger bolt and adequate spring room to operate reliably.
I don't want to get technical here but the AR-15 was also smaller.  [:D]
You're right about the gas system - Stoner's invention - using the rear of the bolt as the gas piston.
Construction materials were influenced by Fairchild Engine and Airplane Company - owners of ArmaLite.  These folks were acustomed to working with strong, light-weight materials.  

Stoner designed two weapons in 5.56mm.  The FARC in the early 70's and the Stoner 86 machine gun.

Stoner just didn't believe in the 5.56mm cartridge until late.

Now from what ArmaLite weapon was the AR-15 derived and what was the original caliber ?

Did you say ARMALITE?.......hhhmmmmmm......[:)]

Had you not included Model AR16 I would have thought you were describing the Armalite AR-18 designed by Art Miller in 1963 and its' proposed marketing plan.

[smoke]

My Dad's Girlfriend works at Picanney... They are doing a lot of the development there for OCIW... I personally think its a waste of money and time but hey I am just a grunt... Land Warrior is a pretty kewl idea but anyway here is a blurb she sent me from Fox News


On Pentagon's Wish List: A Gun That Cuts Corners in Pursuit of Bad Guys

Tuesday, January 08, 2002
By Michael Y. Park

In the James Bond movie The Man With the Golden Gun, the handgun in question
killed noiselessly with a single bullet.
In Aliens, Sigourney Weaver fended off xenomorphs with the rugged megaguns
of the Marines of the future.
And in 2005, real-life U.S. Army soldiers will be battling the enemy not
with a regular rifle but with an assault weapon that could have leapt out of
the special-effects department of a movie.
"It's the difference between a bow and arrow and a modern rifle," said
Hubert Hopkins, president of the Alliant Tech Systems Integrated Defense
Company, which has been developing the weapon for the U.S. Army since last
August.
Though it has an unwieldy name - the Objective Individual Combat Weapon
System, or OICW - it is being touted by its manufacturers as having the
potential to revolutionize the way America fights its wars. Besides shooting
bullets, the OICW will actually be able to hit targets completely behind
barriers.

The Objective Individual Combat Weapon System.
"It's the closest thing you'll get to bullets going around corners," said
Barbara Muldowney, the OICW assistant product manager for the U.S. Army's
Pickatinny Arsenal, in New Jersey.
Along with the standard 5.56-mm projectiles, the OICW will shoot 20-mm
explosive rounds containing miniaturized electronics that can detonate the
ammunition in midair. That means a soldier shooting the OICW doesn't have to
hit his target to hit his target, so to speak. Instead, he can cause an
explosion behind the target - and behind or above the barrier the target is
hiding behind.

So, instead of having to score a bull's-eye to kill a bad guy, a marksman
only has to make sure the target's in the blast radius, the exact
measurement of which is classified. Unless the target is protected by a
strong-enough wraparound shield, the OICW will make many obstacles
irrelevant.
Military technology like this could have changed history in infantry-heavy
wars like the one the U.S. fought in Vietnam, where one or two enemy
soldiers using a well-aimed rifle and the protection of natural vegetation
or a heap of rubble could wipe out squads of Americans, Hopkins said.

cont..

"Where an enemy sniper can drop behind trees and cover, the soldier lases
[uses his laser to target] on a tree, shoots his OICW, and that sniper's
gone," he said.
Of course, the OICW's shooting-bullets method of taking down enemies is
nothing to sneeze at. It has "basically the same architecture" as the M16
assault rifle, making it "five times as effective at twice the range,"
Hopkins said.
In simulations, an infantry squad equipped with OICWs was sent into an
offensive battle against another squad with standard weapons. Then an
infantry squad with standard weapons was sent against a similarly accoutered
force. The differences between how the OICW-equipped squad and the regular
infantry did were stark, Hopkins said.
In the battle with traditional weapons, both the friendly and the enemy
forces had about the same number of dead and wounded. In the OICW scenario,
the OICW won the battle with "virtually no casualties," he said.
"You can go after all your targets," Muldowney said. "They can't hide."
And even though it's loaded with the bursting weapon and sophisticated
computer-targeting equipment, the OICW actually weighs in at 14 lbs., just
under the weight of a standard-issue M4 rifle with optical equipment and a
thermal-weapons sight.
The catch, of course, is the price tag. The program overall costs the
military about $32 million a year, and at $30,000 apiece, the OICW is an
expensive accessory for your average footsoldier's arm. When the weapon is
ready for mass production in three years, the Army will buy up to 25,000 of
them at first. Out of each standard nine-man infantry squad, four soldiers
will have the OICW.
But the cost didn't seem so daunting after Sept. 11, Hopkins said. After the
war on Afghanistan's Taliban militia and Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda
terrorist network began, the Army said it needed the new guns as soon as
possible. It had originally asked the three companies working together on
the project, Heckler and Koch and Brashear LP, of Pittsburgh, all
coordinated by Alliant, to yield usable results by 2009. The call for better
weapons cut the red tape - and four years, Hopkins said.
And it's about time, he said. The OICW ought to apply the technology of
America's spectacularly successful air and artillery prowess to protecting
the men and women who fight for the U.S. on the ground, he said.
"Before, we were focusing on guided bombs and cruise missiles," Hopkins
said. "We're bringing that precision to the infantry. We're bringing air
warfare to the ground."

Well, ACTUALLY([:D]) the 8 lug rotary bolt was from Mel Johnson, whos rifle design competed against the M1 Garand. Mr. Johnson later worked as a consultant for Armalite.



Very true, but the AR15 was NOT derived from the Stoppette. Hardly any similarity at all.




Are you thinking of Bill Davis? He worked at Colt's for a short time right at the beginning of production. He had previously worked at Aberdeen Proving Ground during the SCHV developement phase as an engineer and later chief of the small arms branch (he worked for my dad until dad moved to Florida to work on aircraft armaments at Eglin). BTW, the APG guys way back in the early stages of SCHV developement, had recommended the 55gr bullet, the 1 in 10" twist, and chromed chambers, but the Army Ordnance brass did NOT want to see the SCHV succeed so they made some "changes" for the sake of "economics". As far as I'm concerned, THEY are who is responsible for the dead soldiers in Vietnam, found with their weapons jammed.



Virtually all you will read credits him with designing the 5.56 round too, but that is COMPLETELY untrue as well.

I'm sticking with Stoner as the designer of the rifle though....    Ain't it nice to live in a free country where folks can debate and disagree and yet remain brothers at arms???

The reason for the reduction in engagment time has everything to do with the sight, and nothing to do with the ammunitions time of flight.  The sight provides range and aiming cues, so you can hit the target with the first rounds, vice have to adjust "burst on target" as it were.  Since the rounds are air bursting, they are several times more effective than PD fuzed rounds of the same caliber, a good rule of thumb is an air burst with HE is about 6 times as effective as a graze burst with the same HE round.

Gus,
The Colts' guys were Foster Sturtevant and Bob Roy.

Their changes let the Army continue to use Ball powder and to hide their mistakes.
After all the dead G.I.'s were already dead and there were important things such as careers to consider.
I think Colts' finally chromed the chambers without allowing McNamara and his band of idiots to know.


Later, I sure don't know any more on this subject !!

I totally agree. One of the best enhancements to the current system would be a reduction in lock time. Fast lock times make hits [i]so[/i] much easier!
I don't think they'll ever get the 20mm to work. Sullivan has said that we would have to invent an explosive that is something like 1,000X more powerful than the most powerful explosives now known to make a 20mm airburst effective. The 20mm simply doesn't have enough payload.
I also believe that recoil reduction systems will do alot to enhance full auto effectiveness.

I think they should just loose the rifle part. what good is a 10 1/2 inch barrel out in the field? the .223 fragmentates at 2700fps and above. the short barrel will only have an effective range of about 75 meters.

if they remake it as just a grenade launcher and not a main rifle, perhaps it would be more appealing. and lighter.


my .02 cents lib

I think the article submitted by lonewolf has an interesting quote.  The "virtually no casualties" line will sell lots military hardware now days.  

I wouldn't want to remove the only part of MY weapon that I was SURE would work!!! There are a lot of reasons why the OICW is not ready, if it ever will be. Electronics components reliability while riding in a 20mm projectile are questionable. The whole damn thing depends on the projectile exploding at exactly the right time, while spinning (rifling) through the air. Not to mention the explosives potency issues previously addressed. Weight, battery life, reliability, and a host of other issues still have a long way to go before they are solved. I'd say it's 15 years or more away, assuming it doesn't get pressed into service prematurely for political reasons.