Future Small Arms Concepts

[Lauge]

From what I've read (especially when it comes to ground forces) Murphy rules.

So true. In case you don't know them, see: http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-war.html

Regards & all

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

"The most dangerous thing in the world is a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass."

 

[Rickshaw]

From what I've read (especially when it comes to ground forces) Murphy rules.

Much over-stated and perhaps very American-centric IMHO. I prefer simply von Moltke's much quoted dictum - "No plan survives contact with the enemy". The "enemy" can of course be your own troops.

Which is of course why soldiers train so hard (if they are good) in order to cope with the unexpected. There is a quote, no doubt apocryphal which is attributed to an unnamed German General who surrendered at the end of the WWII who said, "War is chaos. It is well that the American army has had so much practice at it." ;D

 

[Racer]

Back to rifle design:
-I prefer bullpup layout. Mostly FN F-2000. There are some flaws, but you can work them out. The case ejector channel is to long, dirt will close it fast. Ice and snow? You can shorten it.
-Ammo: after a caseless design, like 5.56x41 LSAT CL, I came to another solution: normal case, cylindrical design, a 6mm bullet (5 grams) but with a new propulsion, like 2-component, liquid or gel. I came to this idea after seeing tests with a slim cylindrical case design with 5,56mm bullets, same overall length like 5,56x45mm and same power. Shorten the case, enlarge diameter slightly to 6mm, use the new propulsion. So you have a small (especially diameter), powerfull and light package. Optimize it for a short 440mm barrel. For an assault rifle you don't need much more than 2'000 Joule.
-The reason to drop the caseless idea was as follows: to unloading the rifle you have to install an unloading mechanism to, so in the end you have a much more complicated design with a sensitive gas-sealing. Only left reason for caseless is weightsavings.
-For higher magazine capacity: You can use quad-stacked magazines. With the small ammo the size of a 50 shot Mag will not be much more than a normal 30 shot 5,56x45mm Mag.
-Use a rail above for sighting systems, one in front below for grips, granadelaunchers, ... whatever. As normal today.

This would be my design for a time frame around 2015. I can send a picture of it, if someone is interested.

 

[Rickshaw]

I'd be interested in seeing it.

At the present moment, most small-arms experts are suggesting that a round about 6.5-7mm would be ideal as far as wound characteristics are concerned. This is of course revisiting the ground covered in the late 1940s by the British Army with its EM-2 design, one of the first bullpups. Having used the F88 Steyr for a couple of years, I can say I prefer it over the older L1a1 SLR in all matters except one - bayonet fighting. Its lack of reach is a decided disadvantage. Before people start saying that the bayonet is dead and will never been used again, I'll just point to the Falklands/Malvinas war. As someone I know in the British Army used to say, "Nothing concentrates the mind quite so much as the fixing of bayonets!"

The FN2000 is quite a nice looking weapon. My only question is how do you inspect the chamber to declare the weapon safe? I'd disagree with the idea of making the ejection tube shorter. Ejecting out the front of the firegrip makes sure that you don't get burning brass down your shirt sleeve. A shorter ejection tube would allow that to happen. I also don't understand how they make sure that the ejecting rounds don't fall back, if the weapon is elevated above the horizontal and cause a stoppage when the next round attempts to eject. This hasn't been made clear in any of the demonstration videos I've seen of the weapon.

Personally, I'd prefer a positive ejection method, which forces the rounds forward into the tube where some method prevents the regress of the spent round to cause a stoppage. I'd also like a small trapdoor, which would prevent the egress of dirt/mud/dust/snow/etc.

 

[Lauge]

My only question is how do you inspect the chamber to declare the weapon safe?

I asked an FN Herstal rep. the same thing. If you look at the top side of the weapon, at the area just behind the integral optical sight (or behind the back-up sight on the rail version), and just above the magazine, you'll see a small "hump". This is a "trapdoor" that flips up to allow you to look into the chamber when the bolt is locked back. A bit too complicated, if you ask me....

Regards & all

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

 

[Racer]

I'd be interested in seeing it.

The ejection would be forward, about 15 degree to the right (or if you change a leverposition inside) to the left side. It should be possible to shot with ejection on the wrong side. Its closed with a small hatch like AR 15 designs. The cases should fly far enought out of reach of your shirt.

Power comes from a short-stroke system, similar to LWRC or that kind.

The chamber state is really a problem. My first attempt was like FN, but its inconvenient. Second was a clear window in housing... but you know how much you see after a small bath in mud... Solution? Don't know yet.

The main frame is made of aluminium (including top and lower rail) in a polymer housing. Siderails are possible.

And ah... well to short for bayonett, sorry

 

[yasotay]

Interesting design. Is the fold down fore grip removable if one is to become a grenadier?

 

[Racer]

The foldable front grip and the lower front housing are mounted on the lower front rail. After demounting it you can mount there what ever you want

 

[prolific1]

Hey Racer I'd like to see the design you're talking about. I am not a proponent of caseless anytime soon. I feel that as long as bad folks will be using AK-47's then the good folk will need robust and simple guns. Specialized rolls may allow for fancier stuff (i.e. a Javelin is not as simple as a RPG but people carry them anyway) but the regular joe's get the regular kit. I think lighter and smaller with the same capability of modern weapons or the same size and weight of modern weapons with more capability and power are the way to go. I think cased weapons will last into the next century. The materials may change but the operation will remain consistent with what we have today. I just like indulging in a bit of fantasy from time to time.

 

[prolific1]

My bad. This is the version I was looking to post. It's not finished yet. I need to add the mag release button. All the add on bits I'm doing separately. It's just a bullpup version of the HK 416 mechanism, which I am fond of.

 

[prolific1]

Here it is with all its accouterments. Mag release is of the ambidextrous finger operated variety, just above the multifunction buttons. With rails you could go nuts with the add-ons like laser sights (in the works) and the such.

 

[Rickshaw]

I tend not to be all that impressed with what we call downunder "Guccified" weapons. Invariably such accoutrements tend to upset the balance of a weapon. About the only useful ones I've seen have been infra-red pointers and grenade launchers. The others tend to tell you more about the owner's personality rather than how actually useful they are. ;D

 

[prolific1]

Well the standard issue would be the top. The lower image is just a list of possible attachments which are optional. Rather than post 5 or 6 images of each part I tacked them all on.

 

[uk 75]

Now that we are in the 21st Century the various energy weapons (rayguns, phasers etc) shown in TV and Film seem as far fetched as the single stage to orbit Pan Am clipper in 2001 Space Odyssey.

We know (hovercraft, monorails) that real life has a habit of turning yesterday's dream machines into dull reality (the only place you find new monorails outside China are people movers at airports).

Lasers are used to aim rather than kill (though anyone seeing a red spot on them may react as badly).

But who knows what Prez Musk might be daydreaming?