Future soldier technology (modified thread)

[bobbymike]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25974/now-its-the-army-that-wants-a-new-rifle/

Interesting that it doesn't mention the possibility of adopting a Bullpup design which would solve most of the problems concerning weight and balance of a longer barrelled weapon. Never understood why the US military has been so anti-Bullpup weapons. I suspect it's rather like their previous opposition to pistol grips and semi versus fully-automatic firearms...

Some disliked the Steyr AUG because heat quickly accumulated near the receiver during rapid fire and was felt by the firers on their cheek.

Interesting. I've never had that problem when I fired the Steyr F88 when it was first adopted by the Australian Army. I assume they were firing fully automatic, multiple magazines rather than exercising proper fire discipline? Many of the complaints against the Steyr were manufactured by those who didn't like the idea of a bullpup rifle.

Logically from the first post it was being tested by a nation that didn't adopt the Steyr therefore I assume it was a test parameter not 'poor fire discipline' where the heat build up was noticed?

http://taskandpurpose.com/socom-multi-caliber-sniper-rifle/

 

[Arian]

Someone at their Youtube channel commented that this gives new meaning to "taking a selfie".

The companies appear legit and the camera seems to be floated in liquid as the bullet spins. Still not positive it isn't a joke but I suppose it's possible.

Its obviously an April's Fool joke.

Can you imagine the g-forces the camera experiences, and that tiny camera weighting only a few grains...capturing images as clear as that...would be a massive technological innovation in itself even if not put on a bullet. And a bullet would cost about $2,000. Its obvious its fake by the time it takes the bullet to fly. In real life it would be a frame or two in real time.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25974/now-its-the-army-that-wants-a-new-rifle/

Interesting that it doesn't mention the possibility of adopting a Bullpup design which would solve most of the problems concerning weight and balance of a longer barrelled weapon. Never understood why the US military has been so anti-Bullpup weapons. I suspect it's rather like their previous opposition to pistol grips and semi versus fully-automatic firearms...

Some disliked the Steyr AUG because heat quickly accumulated near the receiver during rapid fire and was felt by the firers on their cheek.

Interesting. I've never had that problem when I fired the Steyr F88 when it was first adopted by the Australian Army. I assume they were firing fully automatic, multiple magazines rather than exercising proper fire discipline? Many of the complaints against the Steyr were manufactured by those who didn't like the idea of a bullpup rifle.

Logically from the first post it was being tested by a nation that didn't adopt the Steyr therefore I assume it was a test parameter not 'poor fire discipline' where the heat build up was noticed?

http://taskandpurpose.com/socom-multi-caliber-sniper-rifle/

Appears to require "sign up" to view that page.

The Steyr had been adopted by the Australian Army by the time I got to fire it. However, no "heat build up" was noticeable because we practised fire discipline and only fired two to three 30 round magazines when ordered to. I would assume that the testers who tested the rifle before it's adoption would have noticed "excessive heat build up" during their trials and that would have told against it's adoption. Having read the trials report, there is no notation of "excessive heat build up".

After the Australian Army adoption of the Steyr there were claims that because it was a "plastic rifle" it was prone to "melting". As that only occurred if over ~500 rounds were fired continuously, I don't think that is much of a problem. Fire discipline prevents soldiers from firing excessive numbers of rounds continuously in favour of tightly controlled group fire.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a25974/now-its-the-army-that-wants-a-new-rifle/

Interesting that it doesn't mention the possibility of adopting a Bullpup design which would solve most of the problems concerning weight and balance of a longer barrelled weapon. Never understood why the US military has been so anti-Bullpup weapons. I suspect it's rather like their previous opposition to pistol grips and semi versus fully-automatic firearms...

Some disliked the Steyr AUG because heat quickly accumulated near the receiver during rapid fire and was felt by the firers on their cheek.

Interesting. I've never had that problem when I fired the Steyr F88 when it was first adopted by the Australian Army. I assume they were firing fully automatic, multiple magazines rather than exercising proper fire discipline? Many of the complaints against the Steyr were manufactured by those who didn't like the idea of a bullpup rifle.

Logically from the first post it was being tested by a nation that didn't adopt the Steyr therefore I assume it was a test parameter not 'poor fire discipline' where the heat build up was noticed?

http://taskandpurpose.com/socom-multi-caliber-sniper-rifle/

Appears to require "sign up" to view that page.

The Steyr had been adopted by the Australian Army by the time I got to fire it. However, no "heat build up" was noticeable because we practised fire discipline and only fired two to three 30 round magazines when ordered to. I would assume that the testers who tested the rifle before it's adoption would have noticed "excessive heat build up" during their trials and that would have told against it's adoption. Having read the trials report, there is no notation of "excessive heat build up".

After the Australian Army adoption of the Steyr there were claims that because it was a "plastic rifle" it was prone to "melting". As that only occurred if over ~500 rounds were fired continuously, I don't think that is much of a problem. Fire discipline prevents soldiers from firing excessive numbers of rounds continuously in favour of tightly controlled group fire.

I think you're missing the point of my post. What I am saying is that there might well have been A TEST parameter of something like "ten magazines full auto" that had NOTHING to do with fire discipline but was a test point for the rifle.

 

[Rickshaw]

I think you're missing the point of my post. What I am saying is that there might well have been A TEST parameter of something like "ten magazines full auto" that had NOTHING to do with fire discipline but was a test point for the rifle.

Ah, thank you, that is much clearer. So their reaction could be to an artificial situation which will never practically occur when using the firearm? So why bother with that test? Appears pointless to me, except as a means of potentially damaging the rifle. Sure, it shows the upper limit of it's use but it would not be a genuine concern to preventing it's adoption. Reminds me of the claims about the Steyr foregrip "melting" when fired on fully automatic downunder. It reached the newspapers just after it's adoption until it was pointed out that you'd need to fire an excessive number of rounds to reach that point and in reality, you'd never get there because no soldier could carry that number.

 

[cluttonfred]

It certainly seems like a heavy barrel variant of an existing bullpup (AUG, F2000, Tavor, etc.) in 6.5 Grendel or a similar intermediate (between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO) caliber would be a great off-the-shelf solution for U.S. forces looking for more range in a compact package.

 

[Rickshaw]

It certainly seems like a heavy barrel variant of an existing bullpup (AUG, F2000, Tavor, etc.) in 6.5 Grendel or a similar intermediate (between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO) caliber would be a great off-the-shelf solution for U.S. forces looking for more range in a compact package.

Exactly. However it doesn't seem to be countenanced by that article. Instead, they seek to continue with the unwieldy, unbalanced "conventional" firearm.

 

[marauder2048]

It certainly seems like a heavy barrel variant of an existing bullpup (AUG, F2000, Tavor, etc.) in 6.5 Grendel or a similar intermediate (between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO) caliber would be a great off-the-shelf solution for U.S. forces looking for more range in a compact package.

Exactly. However it doesn't seem to be countenanced by that article. Instead, they seek to continue with the unwieldy, unbalanced "conventional" firearm.

"off-the-shelf solution"

There's no bullpup in series production chambered for 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC.
There's all of *one* bullpup in series production for the actually required 7.62 NATO caliber. It's had a tortured development/breakin and has a been a dud with (para) military and LEO.

 

[bobbymike]

http://taskandpurpose.com/soldiers-tep-new-body-armor-2018/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/socom-is-looking-at-a-new-65mm-round-for-its-sniper-rifle

 

[Rickshaw]

It certainly seems like a heavy barrel variant of an existing bullpup (AUG, F2000, Tavor, etc.) in 6.5 Grendel or a similar intermediate (between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO) caliber would be a great off-the-shelf solution for U.S. forces looking for more range in a compact package.

Exactly. However it doesn't seem to be countenanced by that article. Instead, they seek to continue with the unwieldy, unbalanced "conventional" firearm.

"off-the-shelf solution"

There's no bullpup in series production chambered for 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC.
There's all of *one* bullpup in series production for the actually required 7.62 NATO caliber. It's had a tortured development/breakin and has a been a dud with (para) military and LEO.

Rifles can be adapted to fire virtually any calibre round. "off the shelf" refers to little or no development time. You offer sufficient money, the developers will develop.

 

[marauder2048]

Rifles can be adapted to fire virtually any calibre round. "off the shelf" refers to little or no development time. You offer sufficient money, the developers will develop.

Steyr struggled for years to adapt the Aug for .22 LR and ultimately failed despite abundant demand.

Of course, it's not unique to bullpups. Even getting enhanced performance rounds in the same caliber
adapted to existing, conventional platforms has been a challenge.

The reality is that "off the shelf" refers to extensive reliability and lethality data as well.

Just for reference, there's been sustained and abundant demand/money for 7.62 autos for years now with
multiple competitions across multiple services in multiple countries and there is all of one
decidedly mediocre 7.62 bullpup to show for it.

 

[Rickshaw]

Is there?

Kel-Tec RFB

NC/SC Norinco SKS Bullpup

CIA AK BULLPUP

RSS Bullpup

SCAR 17 Bullpup

There are quite a few more.

Of course, it also depends on which 7.62mm you're talking about. There are three rounds, afterall in general use...

 

[marauder2048]

Is there?

As I said before, there's one bullpup chambered for 7.62 NATO (the threshold caliber in the OP)
in series production which you have correctly identified as the Kel-Tec RFB.
And as I stated before, the RFB has struggled with reliability issues and is very far from being a suitable battle rifle.

 

[Rickshaw]

Is there?

As I said before, there's one bullpup chambered for 7.62 NATO (the threshold caliber in the OP)
in series production which you have correctly identified as the Kel-Tec RFB.
And as I stated before, the RFB has struggled with reliability issues and is very far from being a suitable battle rifle.

A "battle rifle"? A very American term. "Assault Rifle" is what a longarm capable of selective fire is generally called. You simply said, "7.62". There are three different rounds in that calibre in general usage - 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mm. The Kel-Tec RFB has reliability problems? Really? According to whom? When did the military carry tests on that rifle? Or are we discussing what the gun nuts promulgate?

I wonder why 7.62x51mm rifles have reliability problems when in bullpup configuration, whereas 5.56x45mm service rifles generally don't.

 

[cluttonfred]

A "battle rifle"? A very American term. "Assault Rifle" is what a longarm capable of selective fire is generally called.

That is incorrect. A self-loading long arm capable of fully automatic fire can be one of several categories traditionally defined by the cartridge used:

Pistol cartridge = submachine gun (selective fire or full auto only)
Intermediate cartridge = assault rifle (selective fire)
Rifle cartridge = battle rifle (selective fire or semi auto only) (also historically automatic rifle)
Rifle cartridge & intended for sustained fire = light machine gun (selective fire or full auto only)

There are some guns that defy those definitions, like calling the 5.56mm FN Minimi/SAW an LMG or the use of the term automatic rifle for heavy barreled assault rifles like the new 5.56mm USMC M27, but they are the exception and generally indicate the intended use trumping the traditional caliber definitions.

There is also a tendency in popular media to call any military style, high capacity weapon an assault rifle regardless of caliber or the ability to deliver full auto fire, which is just as wrong as calling all handguns revolvers.

 

[Rickshaw]

A "battle rifle"? A very American term. "Assault Rifle" is what a longarm capable of selective fire is generally called.

That is incorrect. A self-loading long arm capable of fully automatic fire can be one of several categories traditionally defined by the cartridge used:

Pistol cartridge = submachine gun (selective fire or full auto only)
Intermediate cartridge = assault rifle (selective fire)
Rifle cartridge = battle rifle (selective fire or semi auto only) (also historically automatic rifle)
Rifle cartridge & intended for sustained fire = light machine gun (selective fire or full auto only)

There are some guns that defy those definitions, like calling the 5.56mm FN Minimi/SAW an LMG or the use of the term automatic rifle for heavy barreled assault rifles like the new 5.56mm USMC M27, but they are the exception and generally indicate the intended use trumping the traditional caliber definitions.

There is also a tendency in popular media to call any military style, high capacity weapon an assault rifle regardless of caliber or the ability to deliver full auto fire, which is just as wrong as calling all handguns revolvers.

Excuse me? I'm using the definitions as supplied by the Australian Army to me when I served. An "Assault rifle" was a rifle of any calibre which was capable of both fully and semi-automatic fire. There was no reference to calibre involved. It didn't matter whether it fired 7.62x51mm or 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm rounds.

A LMG is a light, bipod mounted weapon of rifle calibre capable of semi-automatic or fully-automatic fire. A Bren gun is an excellent example of that, just as is a Lewis gun.

A MMG is a medium machine gun, fired from a tripod and of rifle calibre. A Vickers gun is an excellent example of an MMG.

A HMG is a heavy machine gun, fired from a tripod and of calibre greater than general rifle calibre.

A GPMG is a weapon which fires a rifle calibre round and can be fired from either bipod or tripod. The first was the MG30 used by the German Army.

An SFMG is a Sustained Fire Machine Gun, generally of rifle calibre, which is fired from a tripod and has dial sights. The Fabrique-Nationale L7 GPMG is an excellent example of that sort of weapon.

An SMG is a Sub-Machine Gun, which generally fires a pistol calibre round in fully automatic fire and is hand held. The German MP40 or the British Sten or the Australian Owen guns are excellent examples of such weapons.

 

[marauder2048]

Taxonomy debates are fun but pointless since you can always poke holes in them:
neither of you mentioned Personal Defense Weapons for which an entire class of
cartridges and systems have been developed. Where does .300 Blackout fit for example?

A "battle rifle"? A very American term. You simply said, "7.62".
I wonder why 7.62x51mm rifles have reliability problems when in bullpup configuration, whereas 5.56x45mm service rifles generally don't.

The OP discussed an American Armed Service procuring a rifle in 7.62 NATO hence the terminology.
My subsequent post mentioned 7.62 NATO. It's been a clear theme in this thread.

Bullpups are finicky in terms of digesting different ammunition brands/types within the *same* caliber.
Thales has been forced design its own line of 5.56 EPR rounds since its bullpups could not function reliably
with the M855A1 despite it being successfully employed by some elements of the Australian Army
who use conventional rifles.

 

[cluttonfred]

The definition of an "assault rifle," a literal translation of the German "sturmgewehr," is a selective fire weapon of intermediate caliber, more powerful that a pistol cartridge but less powerful than a traditional rifle cartridge. That is a fact, anything else is missing the point.

 

[Rickshaw]

Taxonomy debates are fun but pointless since you can always poke holes in them:
neither of you mentioned Personal Defense Weapons for which an entire class of
cartridges and systems have been developed. Where does .300 Blackout fit for example?

Glorified SMGs, nothing more. Either that or a glorified, fancified pistol. "PDW" is a nonsense AFAIAC. Give them an SMG. Worked for me when I served in the Army, why is there a sudden need for a new sort of weapon?

A "battle rifle"? A very American term. You simply said, "7.62".
I wonder why 7.62x51mm rifles have reliability problems when in bullpup configuration, whereas 5.56x45mm service rifles generally don't.

The OP discussed an American Armed Service procuring a rifle in 7.62 NATO hence the terminology.
My subsequent post mentioned 7.62 NATO. It's been a clear theme in this thread.

The OP did not when I read it, mention anything other than the calibre, 7.62mm. The term "NATO" doesn't appear until after the initial posting mention the US Army's search (supposedly) for a new rifle.

Bullpups are finicky in terms of digesting different ammunition brands/types within the *same* caliber.
Thales has been forced design its own line of 5.56 EPR rounds since its bullpups could not function reliably
with the M855A1 despite it being successfully employed by some elements of the Australian Army
who use conventional rifles.

Bullpups are as finicky as the designer wants to make them. M855 isn't the standard SS109 round. It is the US Army's interpretation of the SS109 standard. Then you have the individual US manufacturers interpretation of what M855 means...

Bullpups are not worried by different ammunition if the ammunition is designed to fit the weapon they are being used in or vice-versa. If the users and the manufacturers actually adhered to the standard set out in the STANAG you'd avoid 90% of the problems...

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.facebook.com/RealClearDefense/videos/1336727293084890/

Could you with a special eye reticle make an IR tracer that can only been seen by someone with that eyepiece?

 

[marauder2048]

.50 Cal One Way Luminescence rounds are in the pipeline for FY2020.

 

[marauder2048]

Taxonomy debates are fun but pointless since you can always poke holes in them:
neither of you mentioned Personal Defense Weapons for which an entire class of
cartridges and systems have been developed. Where does .300 Blackout fit for example?

Glorified SMGs, nothing more. Either that or a glorified, fancified pistol. "PDW" is a nonsense AFAIAC. Give them an SMG. Worked for me when I served in the Army, why is there a sudden need for a new sort of weapon?

"PDW" is standard NATO D/7 terminology and will be through 2025+.
"SMG" is both a fairly archaic term and a fairly obsolete concept with the proliferation of Level II/IIIa body armor.
Hence the advent of new cartridges/calibers, new/modified weapons and new terminology.

The OP did not when I read it, mention anything other than the calibre, 7.62mm. The term "NATO" doesn't appear until after the initial posting mention the US Army's search (supposedly) for a new rifle.

The OP is a link to a link with the headline:

"US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO"

Bullpups are as finicky as the designer wants to make them. M855 isn't the standard SS109 round. It is the US Army's interpretation of the SS109 standard. Then you have the individual US manufacturers interpretation of what M855 means...

Bullpups are not worried by different ammunition if the ammunition is designed to fit the weapon they are being used in or vice-versa. If the users and the manufacturers actually adhered to the standard set out in the STANAG you'd avoid 90% of the problems...

The point is that the conventional rifles designed for the SS109 have had little difficulty
in digesting the M855A1 whereas the bullpups have. BAE had to go down the same road
as Thales did for the Aug to develop an EP round for the SA80.

 

[bobbymike]

https://futurism.com/videos/the-u-s-armys-new-iron-man-military-suit/

 

[Rickshaw]

Taxonomy debates are fun but pointless since you can always poke holes in them:
neither of you mentioned Personal Defense Weapons for which an entire class of
cartridges and systems have been developed. Where does .300 Blackout fit for example?

Glorified SMGs, nothing more. Either that or a glorified, fancified pistol. "PDW" is a nonsense AFAIAC. Give them an SMG. Worked for me when I served in the Army, why is there a sudden need for a new sort of weapon?

"PDW" is standard NATO D/7 terminology and will be through 2025+.

You have a link to prove that? I cannot reference to anything referred to as the "standard NATO D/7" online. Does it even exist or does it have a different official name?

"SMG" is both a fairly archaic term and a fairly obsolete concept with the proliferation of Level II/IIIa body armor.
Hence the advent of new cartridges/calibers, new/modified weapons and new terminology.

SMG describes a small, handy, fully-automatic weapon for individual use. Exactly what a "PDW" is. The calibre is not stated nor should it be, as there has been numerous different calibres over the decades since the weapon's inception.

The OP did not when I read it, mention anything other than the calibre, 7.62mm. The term "NATO" doesn't appear until after the initial posting mention the US Army's search (supposedly) for a new rifle.

The OP is a link to a link with the headline:

"US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO"

That is not part of the original posting... It is the title of the article that is linked to.

Bullpups are as finicky as the designer wants to make them. M855 isn't the standard SS109 round. It is the US Army's interpretation of the SS109 standard. Then you have the individual US manufacturers interpretation of what M855 means...

Bullpups are not worried by different ammunition if the ammunition is designed to fit the weapon they are being used in or vice-versa. If the users and the manufacturers actually adhered to the standard set out in the STANAG you'd avoid 90% of the problems...

The point is that the conventional rifles designed for the SS109 have had little difficulty
in digesting the M855A1 whereas the bullpups have. BAE had to go down the same road
as Thales did for the Aug to develop an EP round for the SA80.

As I suggested, look to the M855 round, not to the weapon. Don't blame the weapon for the failings of the round. The original M16 had tremendous difficulties with its ammunition because the US Army specified a "dirty" powder, against the instructions of the weapon manufacturer and yet it was the weapon which was blamed for it's failing to cycle...

 

[marauder2048]

You have a link to prove that? I cannot reference to anything referred to as the "standard NATO D/7" online. Does it even exist or does it have a different official name?

"PDW" was defined way back in 1989 in NATO document D/296.
NATO Revisited it in 2004 ("NATO Land Group 3 Close Combat Infantry" by Robert M. Pizzola ARDEC @ NDIA Joint Services Small Arms Conference, 12 May 2004)
and you'll find the D/7 working group still plugging away at it with updates given at NDIA armaments practically every year.
You can very easily find these presentations in DTIC.

From the NATO perspective, SMGs are automatic weapons that fire pistol rounds and since there's only
one NATO standard pistol round that means a 9mm automatic weapon.

The OP did not when I read it, mention anything other than the calibre, 7.62mm. The term "NATO" doesn't appear until after the initial posting mention the US Army's search (supposedly) for a new rifle.


The OP is a link to a link with the headline:

"US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO"


That is not part of the original posting... It is the title of the article that is linked to.

You were also perplexed about the use of the term "battle rifle" despite the fact that it's in
the original posting which of course doesn't even follow unless you read the original story
("US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO") on which the OP totally depends.

As I suggested, look to the M855 round, not to the weapon. Don't blame the weapon for the failings of the round. The original M16 had tremendous difficulties with its ammunition because the US Army specified a "dirty" powder, against the instructions of the weapon manufacturer and yet it was the weapon which was blamed for it's failing to cycle...

As I suggested, look to the SS109. The conventional rifles in UK and Australian service were designed to
handle the SS109 rounds and handle the M855A1 just fine.

The M-16 case is totally different: there was a huge lack of standardization during the Vietnam period
on the M193: you had at least two different IMR powders as well as ball powder in the wild from different vendors
with large lot-to-lot variations. Both IMR and ball powders had issues with cycling when in turn depended
on conditions and ammo type (tracer vs. ball).

None of the this is true for the SS109 (solidly and comprehensively standardized decades ago)
and the M855A1 which has one powder, one bullet and (pretty much) one vendor.

 

[Rickshaw]

You have a link to prove that? I cannot reference to anything referred to as the "standard NATO D/7" online. Does it even exist or does it have a different official name?

"PDW" was defined way back in 1989 in NATO document D/296.
NATO Revisited it in 2004 ("NATO Land Group 3 Close Combat Infantry" by Robert M. Pizzola ARDEC @ NDIA Joint Services Small Arms Conference, 12 May 2004)
and you'll find the D/7 working group still plugging away at it with updates given at NDIA armaments practically every year.
You can very easily find these presentations in DTIC.

You're talking gobblygook as far as I am concerned. "NATO document d/296" is classified as being, well, various things when you do a Google Search, only one of which is associated with small arms and that is an explanatory set of Powerpoint Slides. I suppose it is both an advantage and a disadvantage not being from a NATO nation. It means I get to ask questions about the stuff I'm reading.

From the NATO perspective, SMGs are automatic weapons that fire pistol rounds and since there's only one NATO standard pistol round that means a 9mm automatic weapon.

See, another advantage to being a citizen of a non-NATO state. I look at the history of the term, in toto, not just from a NATO perspective...

The OP did not when I read it, mention anything other than the calibre, 7.62mm. The term "NATO" doesn't appear until after the initial posting mention the US Army's search (supposedly) for a new rifle.


The OP is a link to a link with the headline:

"US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO"


That is not part of the original posting... It is the title of the article that is linked to.

You were also perplexed about the use of the term "battle rifle" despite the fact that it's in
the original posting which of course doesn't even follow unless you read the original story
("US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO") on which the OP totally depends.

Oh, I read the original story. It is simply another piece of American gun nut rubbish as far as I can tell. It did not, as I pointed out, consider the use of a bullpup weapon, despite the bullpup allowing a full length barrel in a short weapon when it was complaining about how long weapons are with full length barrels... I suppose we should all just adopt the M4 and then we can all moan about the inadequate power of the weapon's ammunition while ignoring the real problems with a short barrel...

As I suggested, look to the M855 round, not to the weapon. Don't blame the weapon for the failings of the round. The original M16 had tremendous difficulties with its ammunition because the US Army specified a "dirty" powder, against the instructions of the weapon manufacturer and yet it was the weapon which was blamed for it's failing to cycle...

As I suggested, look to the SS109. The conventional rifles in UK and Australian service were designed to
handle the SS109 rounds and handle the M855A1 just fine.

The M-16 case is totally different: there was a huge lack of standardization during the Vietnam period
on the M193: you had at least two different IMR powders as well as ball powder in the wild from different vendors with large lot-to-lot variations. Both IMR and ball powders had issues with cycling when in turn depended on conditions and ammo type (tracer vs. ball).

None of the this is true for the SS109 (solidly and comprehensively standardized decades ago)
and the M855A1 which has one powder, one bullet and (pretty much) one vendor.

The M855 round is the US Army's interpretation of what SS109 was. It is not what NATO said SS109 should be. This is obvious from the fact the M855 does not work with, as you pointed out, bullpup weapons whereas SS109 as formulated in Europe does... The Australian SS109 round is just that, SS109, not M855... It is manufactured in Australia to NATO SS109 standards, that is why the Steyr fires it.

Look, I can see we are not going to convince either of us that the other is right. Lets just leave it there. We are wasting each other's time. You are too stuck in the US Army and I in the Australian Army environments. You do things your way, we will do things our way. We both take note of but are not ruled by NATO agreements.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/06/army-kills-contract-for-shoulder-fired-airburst-weapon.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556

http://m.gazette.com/air-force-academy-cadets-gravy-like-goo-is-a-bullet-stopping-marvel/article/1602586

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2017/05/military-using-human-brain-waves-teach-robots-how-shoot/137660/

 

[muttbutt]

Aselsan debuts new ASYA exoskeleton system

Turkish Aselsan has showcased a new exoskeleton system at the IDEF 2017 exhibition.

The new exoskeleton system is called ASYA, an acronym for the Turkish phrase, “Askeri Yürüyüş Asistanı,” which means Military Walking Assistant.

ASYA was designed to increase the performance of soldiers and policemen by facilitating walking, running, climbing and jumping. It transfers the load bearing effort from the leg and arm

http://defence-blog.com/army/aselsan-debuts-new-asya-exoskeleton-system.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/15/ussocom-usmc-take-first-steps-toward-adopting-a-338nm-lightweight-medium-machine-gun/#comments

 

[marauder2048]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/15/ussocom-usmc-take-first-steps-toward-adopting-a-338nm-lightweight-medium-machine-gun/#comments

So the GD LWMMG with the polymer cased round. Cool.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/05/15/US-Army-testing-Saab-camouflage/5831494843081/

http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/macdill/cool-gadgets-new-ideas-on-display-at-sofic-tampas-annual-commando/2323707

 

[marauder2048]

More MG news:

Textron Systems Reaches Development Milestones with 7.62mm and 5.56mm Cased-Telescoped Machine Guns


TAMPA, Fla., May 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES INDUSTRY CONFERENCE -- Textron Systems Unmanned Systems, a business of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT), announced today the achievement of two significant milestones in the continued maturation of its family of lightweight Cased-Telescoped (CT) Machine Guns.

Textron Systems' 15-pound 7.62mm CT Medium Machine Gun recently completed Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 demonstrations, consisting of validating the performance of the integrated weapon's operating mechanism. Upcoming milestones include obtaining a limited safety release and participation in Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment (AEWE) 2018.

Additionally, Textron Systems' 9-pound 5.56mm CT Light Machine Gun, which is at TRL 7, recently completed a demonstration for the Swedish Armed Forces. The demonstration, which was conducted at the Land Warfare Centre in Kvarn, Sweden, assessed the weapon's accuracy, mobility and maintainability against their current lightweight machine gun. Results showed that the 5.56mm CT Light Machine Gun required 30 percent less ammunition to accomplish a fire mission, provided a 20 percent tighter shot grouping and scored significantly higher soldier ratings for ease of maintenance, trigger operation, recoil reduction and burst fire control.

"We are pleased with the recent results achieved during testing on both the 7.62mm and 5.56mm CT Machine Guns, as well as our development progress to-date," says Unmanned Systems Vice President of Control & Surface Systems Wayne Prender. "As we develop these weapons, our intent is to make them as lightweight as possible while also improving performance – these tests and developments validate that we are accomplishing these goals."

As part of the U.S. Army's Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT™) program, Textron Systems' CT program seeks to enhance and improve upon the Army's current technology. To accomplish this, the Textron Systems 5.56mm and 7.62mm CT Machine Guns offer reduced system weight, lower ammunition weight, and increased lethality and reliability.

The 15-pound 7.62mm CT Medium Machine Gun will be on display at the Textron Systems booth (620) at the 2017 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) in Tampa, Fla. Other variants of the lightweight Cased-Telescoped family of weapons will also be represented.

 

[jsport]

More MG news:

Textron Systems Reaches Development Milestones with 7.62mm and 5.56mm Cased-Telescoped Machine Guns


TAMPA, Fla., May 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES INDUSTRY CONFERENCE -- Textron Systems Unmanned Systems, a business of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT), announced today the achievement of two significant milestones in the continued maturation of its family of lightweight Cased-Telescoped (CT) Machine Guns.

Textron Systems' 15-pound 7.62mm CT Medium Machine Gun recently completed Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 demonstrations, consisting of validating the performance of the integrated weapon's operating mechanism. Upcoming milestones include obtaining a limited safety release and participation in Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment (AEWE) 2018.

Additionally, Textron Systems' 9-pound 5.56mm CT Light Machine Gun, which is at TRL 7, recently completed a demonstration for the Swedish Armed Forces. The demonstration, which was conducted at the Land Warfare Centre in Kvarn, Sweden, assessed the weapon's accuracy, mobility and maintainability against their current lightweight machine gun. Results showed that the 5.56mm CT Light Machine Gun required 30 percent less ammunition to accomplish a fire mission, provided a 20 percent tighter shot grouping and scored significantly higher soldier ratings for ease of maintenance, trigger operation, recoil reduction and burst fire control.

"We are pleased with the recent results achieved during testing on both the 7.62mm and 5.56mm CT Machine Guns, as well as our development progress to-date," says Unmanned Systems Vice President of Control & Surface Systems Wayne Prender. "As we develop these weapons, our intent is to make them as lightweight as possible while also improving performance – these tests and developments validate that we are accomplishing these goals."

As part of the U.S. Army's Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT™) program, Textron Systems' CT program seeks to enhance and improve upon the Army's current technology. To accomplish this, the Textron Systems 5.56mm and 7.62mm CT Machine Guns offer reduced system weight, lower ammunition weight, and increased lethality and reliability.

The 15-pound 7.62mm CT Medium Machine Gun will be on display at the Textron Systems booth (620) at the 2017 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) in Tampa, Fla. Other variants of the lightweight Cased-Telescoped family of weapons will also be represented.

Thank you for both posts Marauder 2048.

 

[muttbutt]

TALOS has broken cover.

Concept SOCOM TALOS exoskeleton at SOFIC 2017

 

[muttbutt]

New Lockheed Martin Exoskeleton Helps Soldiers Carry Heavy Gear

FORTIS K-SRD provides strength to go the distance

Using licensed DermoskeletonTM bionic augmentation technology, the FORTIS Knee Stress Release Device (K-SRD)TM is a computer-controlled exoskeleton that counteracts overstress on the lower back and legs and increases mobility and load-carrying capability. It boosts leg capacity for physically demanding tasks that require repetitive or continuous kneeling or squatting, or lifting, dragging, carrying or climbing with heavy loads.

“FORTIS K-SRD features military-specification batteries that are approved for infantry use, improved control box ergonomics and faster actuators that generate more torque,” said Keith Maxwell, FORTIS program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “These system upgrades resulted from soldier feedback on the initial design

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/17/new-lockheed-martin-exoskeleton-helps-soldiers-carry-heavy-gear/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-army-special-ops-commander-lifts-curtain-on-2035-strategy-due-out-this-summer

 

[lastdingo]

I don't understand exoskeletons that are used with normal boots and no exoskeleton support for the foot.
The feet will tire out before anything else and there will be fatigue fractures.