Well, this would generally be a question for W&C, but the objective market of people who serve is here, so I might as well ask you guys.

What things do you like in your current service weapon. What things would you like?
Would you consider that the M16 platform could be bettered in some ways?

For the record, I'm designing a modular weapons system to compete with the M16. So I need all the input from the actual end-users.
Thanks,
LavaRed

You ain't designing shit.

For the Record The army uses the M4, not the M16. No Infantryman has a M16.

The army is going to get something from H&K


EDIT:

For shits and grins, It has to weight 8 lbs or less.

30 round magazine

Able to shoot 10k rounds with out maintence.

Well, this would generally be a question for W&C, but the objective market of people who serve is here, so I might as well ask you guys.

What things do you like in your current service weapon. What things would you like?
Would you consider that the M16 platform could be bettered in some ways?

For the record, I'm designing a modular weapons system to compete with the M16. So I need all the input from the actual end-users.
Thanks,
LavaRed

M16's were one of the worst weapons to be made, useless in tropical weather, requiring constance maintenance and oiling. Weapons need to stray from gas operation, gas and oil causes carbon buildup which needs maintenance. Weapons need to stray from combustion into... "Lazers" Or electromagnetic energy, eg RAILGUNS. I will find a link for it soon

lasrs lots and lots of them too...oh and a scope that can see through walls, OH! and an attachment that lets you blow stuff up somehow...

All while weighing under 10 pounds...

8lbs or less.

Modular / easily replaceable parts.

Reliable, therefore don't vent the gases back into the chamber.

Take down with no tools, other than hands.

Accept wide range of optics.

Stanag mags.

Dedicated grenade launcher / flash hider / bayonet / bfa attachments.

Sling.

M16's were one of the worst weapons to be made, useless in tropical weather, requiring constance maintenance and oiling.

Wasn't that just the first M16? I believe they made reasonable improvements in the M16A2, for example.

Anyway, Are we talking Battle rifle, or Assault rifle?
__________________________________________________ __

To the point. It sounds like one of the best assault rifles out there right now is the Isreali Tavor. You can switch out parts like barrels to configure it into a sniper rifle, close quarters combat weapon or Machine gun format. It's light. It's reliable, It's accurate, It's got a high rate of fire and It's got a long barrel in a short package due to the Bullpup style of the rifle.

M16's were one of the worst weapons to be made, useless in tropical weather, requiring constance maintenance and oiling.

Do you know this as a fact from personal experience? I'm tired of hearing people repeat stuff as fact that someone else who doesn't know what there talking about has told them. I have no real experience to comment but I have heard nothing but good things.

Do you know this as a fact from personal experience? I'm tired of hearing people repeat stuff as fact that someone else who doesn't know what there talking about has told them. I have no real experience to comment but I have heard nothing but good things.

My grandfather was in vietnam he gave me his opinion on the rifle, i have seen many texts relating to the subject also

My grandfather was in vietnam he gave me his opinion on the rifle, i have seen many texts relating to the subject also

You think they haven't produced M16's since then?

Interchangeable between 5.56 and 7.62 by replacing the barrel with ease, folding stock, as tough and reliable as the AK but as accurate as the L85A2...

SCAR (http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FN%20SCAR.jpg).

You ain't designing shit.

For the Record The army uses the M4, not the M16. No Infantryman has a M16.


Man, just for the record, the M4 is an M16 based platform so similar you could swap out most, if not all, components and internals between them. So M16 designation would broadly cover all of the variants the US has been employing for the last 40 odd years.
And yes, I am attempting to design something within your requirements and:


Without a gas system
Able to swap out calibers between 5.56NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 9mm NATO with just the change of a barrel and magazines.
Uses STANAG magazines.
Mount accessories on Picattinnies
Weigh around 6 odd pounds
Shorter than a bullpup without being a bullpup (figure any barrel length within a total weapon length only 4-6 inches longer, e.g., 16" barrel in a 22" weapon)
Totally ambidextrous and modular.
Has 35 parts or less and can be disassembled without tools.
Telescoping, M3 Style stock.
Iron and optic sights.
One piece molded polymer outer receiver.
Free- floated barrel.

This rifle would solve most of the modern infantryman's rifle- related problems, from allowing him to use captured stocks of harder-punching enemy 7.62, to having a supperbly accurate, yet short and handy rifle, while allowing ease of maintenance and reliability.

More requirements?

Able to swap out calibers between 5.56NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 9mm NATO with just the change of a barrel and magazines.




Wouldn't the rifle need different bolts to fire those different sized cartridges?

Well, there's a well designed weapon from an end-user point of view, and a well designed weapon from a administrative/logistical point of view. Two very different things.

IMO the Armalite AR18 is about as good as the gas operated SCHV rifle concept gets. From either point of view.

7.62 mm
9-10 lbs.
Simple design.
Easy to break down.
Extremely rugged.


Wait a second......


http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/ak47.htm


It's already been made!


sorry, but it's one of my favorite rifles.
but yeah, I would want that, plus the ability to be heavily accesorized and modded.
That's definately one of the high points of the M4

Wouldn't the rifle need different bolts to fire those different sized cartridges?

I measured them, turns out they are just about the right size to be succesfully handled by a 9mm compatible bolt face.

7.62 mm
9-10 lbs.
Simple design.
Easy to break down.
Extremely rugged.


Wait a second......


http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/ak47.htm


It's already been made!


sorry, but it's one of my favorite rifles.
but yeah, I would want that, plus the ability to be heavily accesorized and modded.
That's definately one of the high points of the M4

I definitely have to agree on this one, even tho I hear the AK has been going out of fashion in regular armies of late.

Well, there's a well designed weapon from an end-user point of view, and a well designed weapon from a administrative/logistical point of view. Two very different things.

IMO the Armalite AR18 is about as good as the gas operated SCHV rifle concept gets. From either point of view.


You know, I've always wondered why the US didn't adopt this as their main weapon. Seing as the design is as sound as the AR modular concept goes.

Without a gas system
Able to swap out calibers between 5.56NATO, 7.62x39mm, and 9mm NATO with just the change of a barrel and magazines.



How do you plan on having a recoil spring that can handle the differing amounts of recoil generated from those rounds? A spring strong enough so it would absorb enough energy from the 7.62 to prevent excess force on the internals of the rifle, and soft enough so it wouldn't impede on the cycling when firing the 9mm?

Am I right in thinking this is how it would be if using a blowback or recoil operation?

1. Reasonable weight.
2. Balanced.
3. Good ergonomics.
4. Ability to do most 'drills' while keeping the master hand on the pistol grip.
5. Ability to mount different sights and attachments.
6. Ability to hold zero even after being bashed around.
7. Ambidextrous controls.
8. Easy to Maintain.
9. Bullpup configuration (shorter overall length, better balance).

Your requirement to be able to switch only the barrels in order to change calibre is pretty unrealistic. You do realise that the weapon would have to be zeroed again once the switch was made to that "hard punching" enemy ammo? That's hardly field expedient.

Your dislike for gas operated systems is a little irrational, there are plenty of gas op weapons that work just fine. If the operating system was changed I'd like to see it changed to incorporate caseless ammo.

I definitely have to agree on this one, even tho I hear the AK has been going out of fashion in regular armies of late.

Yeah, very true. The only problem is that quite frankly, it's getting old, as far as designs and innovations go. Still, its a keeper for the private arsenals.

And yeah, the AR18 is pretty nice.

1. Reasonable weight.
2. Balanced.
3. Good ergonomics.
4. Ability to do most 'drills' while keeping the master hand on the pistol grip.
5. Ability to mount different sights and attachments.
6. Ability to hold zero even after being bashed around.
7. Ambidextrous controls.
8. Easy to Maintain.
9. Bullpup configuration (shorter overall length, better balance).

Your requirement to be able to switch only the barrels in order to change calibre is pretty unrealistic. You do realise that the weapon would have to be zeroed again once the switch was made to that "hard punching" enemy ammo? That's hardly field expedient.

Your dislike for gas operated systems is a little irrational, there are plenty of gas op weapons that work just fine. If the operating system was changed I'd like to see it changed to incorporate caseless ammo.

Indeed. The caliber swap requirement would probably be the first thing I'd dump, seeing as it is kind of an unnecesary sophistication.
I do not dislike gas- operated actions. But are harder to produce and have more pieces.

What would you guys think of a Mauser- type rotating bolt face system which is unlocked by the barrel recoil?
The current system is unlocked by the differing force between the barrel recoil spring and the bolt recoil spring. But a locking boltface can be easily incorporated.

What would you guys think of a Mauser- type rotating bolt face system which is unlocked by the barrel recoil?


Would a weapon with a recoiling barrel still work while using a bayonet?

Would a weapon with a recoiling barrel still work while using a bayonet?

Yes it should. Especially if the bayonet is mounted on the Picattiny instead of the barrel itself.

You mentioned bullpup configuration, but as I see it, the end users in general are very split over this issue. So I propose a compromise. Since my design has an internal sheet metal receiver, and an external plastic receiver "shell", that houses the trigger mechanism, it is very easy to design two external receivers, one in bullpup configuration, one in standard. This would require no alterations to the weapon mechanism, and only swapping out one shell for the other. End users would be issued both outer receivers, so they can choose which they want. It's not a field expedient, as partial field stripping of the rifle is necessary to switch configurations, but it would allow individual soldiers to choose what suits them best.

Yes it should. Especially if the bayonet is mounted on the Picattiny instead of the barrel itself.

You mentioned bullpup configuration, but as I see it, the end users in general are very split over this issue. So I propose a compromise. Since my design has an internal sheet metal receiver, and an external plastic receiver "shell", that houses the trigger mechanism, it is very easy to design two external receivers, one in bullpup configuration, one in standard. This would require no alterations to the weapon mechanism, and only swapping out one shell for the other. End users would be issued both outer receivers, so they can choose which they want. It's not a field expedient, as partial field stripping of the rifle is necessary to switch configurations, but it would allow individual soldiers to choose what suits them best.

Sounds like a challenge to design, but it would probably be worth it.

Would the picatinny extend far enough to react past the end of the muzzle?

Sounds like a challenge to design, but it would probably be worth it.

Would the picatinny extend far enough to react past the end of the muzzle?

According to the current design, the barrel will stick out from the receivers about 2 inches. The 4 Picatinny rails are molded into the outer receiver, and extend from the chamber to the end of the receiver, except for the top picatinny, which, after being cut by the ejection port, extends all the way to the back of the rifle, allowing mounting a cheekpiece, shell, deflector, or whatever you like.
I think I'll whip you guys up a sketch of the design, minus the operating mechanism, to see what you think.

I want something like a sub-machine gun. It fucking sucks setting up tactical comm with a long ass M16 (Yes, we still get issued M16's, in the AF). It would be nice to have something smaller than an M4, that uses the same bullets. It would probably be smarter to just issue us some 9mm sub-machine gun, since you gotta buy 9mm's for the officers anyways. Those things are probably cheaper than 5.56's anyways.

I want something like a sub-machine gun. It fucking sucks setting up tactical comm with a long ass M16 (Yes, we still get issued M16's, in the AF). It would be nice to have something smaller than an M4, that uses the same bullets. It would probably be smarter to just issue us some 9mm sub-machine gun, since you gotta buy 9mm's for the officers anyways. Those things are probably cheaper than 5.56's anyways.

I can probably whip you up something in either calibre, while keeping the same external shape an ergonomics. Bullpup or not?

According to the current design, the barrel will stick out from the receivers about 2 inches. The 4 Picatinny rails are molded into the outer receiver, and extend from the chamber to the end of the receiver, except for the top picatinny, which, after being cut by the ejection port, extends all the way to the back of the rifle, allowing mounting a cheekpiece, shell, deflector, or whatever you like.
I think I'll whip you guys up a sketch of the design, minus the operating mechanism, to see what you think.

Won't having rails on that much of it increase the weight a bit much? There is only so much you can stick onto a weapon.

Yeah, rails = PEQ 2 and PEQ 2 = gayness.




...seriously, I hate the damn things. They almost never work, and when they do, they aren't sighted in right. We have to spend needless hours boresighting them, and nightvision is overrated anyway. Just give me a plain jane M16/ACOG and some enemy muzzle flashes and I can hit. Optics really add an advantage to your shooting and if you don't believe me, go to an IPSC match. They have divisions of optic equipped and iron sighted shooters. They're not even in the same league, that's how much better shooters with optics do.

Do optics improve your shooting skill? No. They cannot improve basic marksmanship, but they can make a good shooter better, and thus improve your accuracy.

How much rails do you suggest be moulded onto the weapon?

The lower rail for bayonet and vertical foregrip is a must.

And do you guys think having a top Picattiny all the way back to mount a cheekpiece is a good idea?

Are the side rails necessary or can we do away with those?

I can probably whip you up something in either calibre, while keeping the same external shape an ergonomics. Bullpup or not?

Bullpup would probably be more efficient, but would it not cause poor handling at automatic fire?

The French FA MAS seems to excel at full auto controllability, or so I've been told. I've only ever held one.

How much rails do you suggest be moulded onto the weapon?

The lower rail for bayonet and vertical foregrip is a must.

And do you guys think having a top Picattiny all the way back to mount a cheekpiece is a good idea?

Are the side rails necessary or can we do away with those?

A vertical foregrip's a good thing to have.

A cheekpiece might not be necessary for the average battle rifle, you could add one if there was a 'marksman' variant of the rifle made. Having all of that heavy rail just to mount a cheekpiece is a bit much IMO, but I'm not really the expert on these things.

As for side rails there has to be a place for a laser/NAD (or whatever they're called overseas). The side rails don't have to be that long. The laser attachment can sometimes be mounted forward of the optic depending on the type.

How do you plan on having a recoil spring that can handle the differing amounts of recoil generated from those rounds? A spring strong enough so it would absorb enough energy from the 7.62 to prevent excess force on the internals of the rifle, and soft enough so it wouldn't impede on the cycling when firing the 9mm?

Am I right in thinking this is how it would be if using a blowback or recoil operation?

Do it minimi style with a fixed firing pin and the spring integrated onto the bolt carrier, you only need to swap the barrel, chamber and bolt assembly to change calibres.

Hmm. some things myself and similarl minded ground operators would like are:

Modularity- Easily changable grips, adjustable cheekrest, lots of attachment points for accessories. Easily changable barrels and or/ reciever assemblies for various lengths/applications.

Collapsable and foldable stock.

Select fire- safe, semi, full auto. Fully ambidextrous safety, button type mag release, bolt, and bolt release(I really like the bolt release)

Match grade trigger. Smooth and sweet, minimal overtravel and creek. Adjustable from 3-6 lbs.

Accuracy of 2.5 MOA or less at 100m

Chrome lined barrel. Start at 10 inches and maybe a 18-20 inch barrel for distance work. Maybe a heavy version for use as a support weapon. Must have an effective muzzlebreak/flash hider that easily accepts suppressor.

Durability- It MUST be able to take an assbeating and operate in high temperatures (up to 200 degrees) Gun kote/permakote or some other non reflective, corrosion resistant coating.

Back up iron sights- should come standard on any serious rifle/carbine. Adjustable for windage/elevation, of course. Perhaps tritium inserts?

Caliber no less than 6.8 SPC. 5.56/.223 works MOST of the time. We want something that works more often. You cant beat 7.62x51 NATO either.

Field strips easily and without tools. Small and fragile part need to be ket to a minimum.

Lightweight- 12 or less loaded without accessories.


I could go on, but thats what I have at the top of my head. The Army isnt going to replace the m16/m4 and m9 anytime soon, if in our lifetime. They felt like replacing the m24 was more important.

Currently IMO the best thing we have going is the mk14 EBR. But its way to heavy, you need an allen key to take it apart. And I hate the safety and lack of bolt release(stock) and the mag release. But its an AWESOME operating system.

light, bullpup, wide range of optics

Hmm. some things myself and similarl minded ground operators would like are:

Modularity- Easily changable grips, adjustable cheekrest, lots of attachment points for accessories. Easily changable barrels and or/ reciever assemblies for various lengths/applications.

Collapsable and foldable stock.

Select fire- safe, semi, full auto. Fully ambidextrous safety, button type mag release, bolt, and bolt release(I really like the bolt release)

Match grade trigger. Smooth and sweet, minimal overtravel and creek. Adjustable from 3-6 lbs.

Accuracy of 2.5 MOA or less at 100m

Chrome lined barrel. Start at 10 inches and maybe a 18-20 inch barrel for distance work. Maybe a heavy version for use as a support weapon. Must have an effective muzzlebreak/flash hider that easily accepts suppressor.

Durability- It MUST be able to take an assbeating and operate in high temperatures (up to 200 degrees) Gun kote/permakote or some other non reflective, corrosion resistant coating.

Back up iron sights- should come standard on any serious rifle/carbine. Adjustable for windage/elevation, of course. Perhaps tritium inserts?

Caliber no less than 6.8 SPC. 5.56/.223 works MOST of the time. We want something that works more often. You cant beat 7.62x51 NATO either.

Field strips easily and without tools. Small and fragile part need to be ket to a minimum.

Lightweight- 12 or less loaded without accessories.


I could go on, but thats what I have at the top of my head. The Army isnt going to replace the m16/m4 and m9 anytime soon, if in our lifetime. They felt like replacing the m24 was more important.

Currently IMO the best thing we have going is the mk14 EBR. But its way to heavy, you need an allen key to take it apart. And I hate the safety and lack of bolt release(stock) and the mag release. But its an AWESOME operating system.

Ok. I think most of your requirements are within the parameters of the current design.

I'm noticing that the rifle being short is not really as important a factor as the caliber. So I suppose it should be designed for the 7.62x51 mm magazines at first.
The idea of making it easily convertible from bullpup to standard and issuing both stocks with each unit, I think, is better, to suit particular operators.
Rails molded out of the same polymer stock should not add much weight. I'm expecting to keep the system below 7 pounds. 5 is more like it. Heavy, quick change barrell will be standard (around 1.5-2 cm outer diameter IIRC).
Whats the ideal barrel and overall length for a useful rifle?
Thanks,
Lava

Whats the ideal barrel and overall length for a useful rifle?
Thanks,
Lava

In a bullpup you can get away with having a 20 inch barrel in a good overall length.
The Steyr AUG is 780mm Long, and it's got a 20 inch barrel. That's for a 5.56, I'm not sure what the best length for a 7.62 is.

If you applied some clever engineering you could shorten the weapon even more.

The US isnt big on bullpups.

Barrel length depends. 16 is a good general use length. However, when adding a suppressor that becomes kinda cumbersome. Maybe a quick change barrel system? Maybe a 10-12 inch barrel for up close and a 18 inch version for distance work?

The US isnt big on bullpups.

Barrel length depends. 16 is a good general use length. However, when adding a suppressor that becomes kinda cumbersome. Maybe a quick change barrel system? Maybe a 10-12 inch barrel for up close and a 18 inch version for distance work?

I'm trying to work that concept; my approach is very similar to that of the SCAR, although of independent design (free floated barrel, supported by pins under the chamber, frontal disassembly, etc.)
However, I intend to one up the SCAR by making my rifle convertible to bullpup configuration with just the swap of the stock, a process which would take 30 seconds tops to complete.

The US isnt big on bullpups.


Neither was I until I got to use one.