"Can the rifle be further developed?" Topic

There are better rifles than the modern M-16. Rifles that have caseless ammo are an example, however, nobody equips troops with them, because you get very little additional benefit for a lot of additional cost, or so I understand.

So, is the modern infantry rifle a "maxed-out technology", or is it possible to develop it further? Would it be possible, for example, to develop smart bullets? What about a rifle that was an effective tank destroyer at long range? Always remembering that, no matter how cool the rifle's capabilities, it has to be cost-effective.

Binary propellant, aluminium-based propellant, sabots, computerized sights, ceramic barrels, general purpose lasers etc …

There is still room for development.

Currently people are questioning the power of the 5.56mm ammo. Several 6.5mm (or thereabouts) bullets being pushed, combining the compact ammo of the 5.56 and the punch of a 7.62 without the recoil.

Secondary weapon technology (cf M203 etc) is also being expanded to include new devices (programmed shells that airburst over enemy troops behind vertical cover etc.)

There are limits to current powders. It's becoming harder to squeeze out higher velocities out of it so aluminium-based propellant is supposed to generate much higher velocities, combined with special wear-resistant barrels we might see even smaller bullets but going much, much faster.

Then there are gauss weapons, but that tech is still a few years away as chemical reactions still provide a lot of power in a compact package as opposed to batteries etc …

are there any aluminium-based propellant rounds nowaday?

there are better rifles than the m16 or variants but are we taking cheaper?, easier to manufacture and maintain?, spare parts, reliabilty?, accuracy, stopping power, rate of fire

I would think there is always room for development. "Better, faster, stronger and more reliable" are keywords here.

Designers and developers are always looking for ways to reduce recoil, have something that fires cooler and more cleanly, parts that are interchangeable depending on the mission parameters, parts that limit to remove the effect of fouling, mud, dust and water as well as other issues that come up in the field.

The problem with caseless is that it needs better cooling. When you eject the brass, you eject a lot of the hot metal..

Binary liquid propellants, instead of solid?

Once again though, I think the stress has to be on economy. If you have constructed a smart, recoiless weapon capable of airbursting over enemy troops using caseless ammo and some kind of super-cooled barrel, but it costs a million dollars a piece to produce, you have just created a weapon of which you will build perhaps half a dozen, and give them to your most elite special operations team, but have you really created anything that is going to have much effect on the battlefield?

Even then, I'm not sure I would give this to my special ops guys. One mission gone wrong and now the enemy has six million dollars worth of weapons, whereas, if I give these guys M-16s, I haven't lost much.

Can any of these changes deliver order-of-magnitude improvements in capability comparable to the transition from self loading rifles like the M1 to assault rifles?

Pat R hit it on the head really, you need something like the M16 but can drop a bear with one round. Actually, a 7.62 P90.

I think the rifle is a "mature technology". There's still room for improvement, especially on the materials end – but I doubt there will be more revolutions of the degree exhibited by, say, the black powder / smokeless powder changeover.

There's an interesting article on "reactive materials" over at Danger Room blog.wired.com/defense that might apply to improved ammunition performance for special applications.

-Kle.

With the increased use of body armor, is there any development of armor piercing rounds? Can they be fired as smaller rounds (high velocity), or does it take a larger round?

Dan

Demigamer, the 6.5 Grendel round is a nice one.

link

And here is a pretty hot little round, the .416 Barrett, but it's not meant for assault weapons.

link

Don't forget that as the wheels of progress turn what is too expensive to be worthwhile today becomes affordable. That's why we suddenly all have cell phones with cameras in them.

The only thing I'm sure of is that the vast majority of people who say, "well, *that* can't go any further," end up looking like fools.

Andrew

Small, hyper-velocity flechette rounds will no doubt be used one day, in order to defeat body armor.

Then again, maybe they don't need hyper-velocity, but will have miniature HEAT rounds on them to burn through the armor instead.

Also, with super miniaturization technology, they will eventually be able to develop bullets/flechettes that will follow a moving/evading target, in order to strike home nearly 100% of the time.

Didn't Eugene Stoner come up with a HEAT round in a shotgun shell shortly before he died ?

"Fire and forget bullets". Now that will be a short war (smile).

I'd lean towards the idea of bigger bang for your bullet, so would expect to see either a HE type round, or hyper-velocity one that has the same effect.

Weapon ranges, in terms of combat use, have stayed about the same since WWII and it is difficult to see what might increase the ranges that infantry small arm weapons are used (the users have not improved). Therefore, small (quicker) weapons with more destructive impact would seem to be the order of the day, with very low maintenance needs, high accuracy within a certain range and hopefully ammo compatability with squad/platoon LMG weapons.

Dan

Don't forget inter-linking with other squad weapons; ie you could designate targets for other team members etc.

I agree that there is still room for improvement, but also that the K.I.S.S. principle applies, hence the ubiquity of the excellent AK family.

Ammo technology: Glaser safety slugs and a Sabot mix in a magazine. Very high cyclic rates of fire and four round bursts.

Thus you have four shots all along the same ballistc path, two of which will defeat body armour two of which will cause maximum energy transfer.

On a seperate note, would a Rail-gun type magnetic frictionless weapon still count as a rifle if the round was spin stabalised?

There's plenty of room for the basic infantry assault rifle to develop in terms of advanced technology.

But even without taking giant technological leaps, there are big improvements to be made.

In fact, there are plenty of better assault rifles currently on the market than the M16/M4. . . some of these are very similar to the M16/M4, just with known problems fixed in terms of reliability and whatnot. Others are entirely new weapons systems like the Masada.

The only reason the US military hasn't adopted these demonstrably better weapons is due largely to politicking inside the pentagon and between the military and arms manufacturers. Its a shame that the richest, most powerful nation in the world isn't willing to equip its troops with the best equipment available at a reasonable price.

I've heard that the army was trying out the HK416 and the SCAR L/H recently. Now word on whether they will actually make the change or not though.

Moving up to a 6.5mm bullet might not be a bad idea either. I've heard a LOT of bad things about the .556 round's ability to actually drop the target.

I think that one thing many people are forgetting is the Geneva convention.

As far as I'm aware, there are pretty specific rules in there regarding the types of ammo which may be employed in a war.

So while new ammo types may exist, they may not be usable for your average soldier. Spec ops and anti terrorist operations would probably benefit as I think these fall outside of the Geneva rules.

Riiiight, the purpose of a infantry weapon is to wound, not kill…Good G_d above, if this USAF guy knows that is just so wrong in so many ways.

Gracias,

Glenn

<<Moving up to a 6.5mm bullet might not be a bad idea either. I've heard a LOT of bad things about the .556 round's ability to actually drop the target.>>

Much work being done in US and Russia, as well as other major manufacturing countries on bullet composition. It is really nasty stuff and you can find declassified information on the web. Basically it allows the bullet to bend on impact, causing it to tumble thru the target while losing up to 40% of it's integrity as it travels thru the target, creating a really large wound. Ammunition is currently in production and in use. Most of the bad reputation about 5.56mm ammo is currently coming from users of the M-4.

the purpose of a infantry weapon is to wound

Actually this is logical, as explained to me by a senior army friend of mine at one stage.

If you wound the target rather than kill it (but still incapacitate the target due to the extent of injury caused) then in a 'war' scenario, it commits more of the enemy's resources, as explained below:

a) Bullet kills
One dead guy, rest of unit carries on fighting.

b) Bullet wounds
1. Wounded man goes down.
2. It takes 1 or 2 of their collegues to remove the casualty from the immediate danger area and administer first aid.
3. It takes additional medical personel to stabilise and further treat the casualty beyond simple first aid.
4. You then need to ferry the casualty to another medical treatment facility by vehicle.
5. Doctors and nurses at the facility then treat the patient…etc

So at each stage this is costing money for your enemy to continue fighting and treating their wounded.

Major Mike, correct me if I am wrong, but I understood from the authors of "Fire, Fusion & Steel" that most ballistic experts agree that nearly all conventioanl rounds tumble once they strike an object, whether that object is the target or some obstacle in the way.

"a) Bullet kills
One dead guy, rest of unit carries on fighting."

What about issues of Morale? At least if you think that you have a CHANCE of survival if you get hit, and that your buddies are willing to get you out, you might be more willing to fight than if you know that you have NO chance of surviving a hit.