Rifles of the future?

[DOAW]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

Also, no one should count on the military changing their standard ammunition anytime soon. The 5.56 is the choice of NATO, so why would the US want to suddenly go to a round that no one uses like the 6.8?

Are you sure about that? They've done it twice already; once from 30-06 to 7.62x51 despite the protests of the British, and then again to 5.56 in the middle of Vietnam.

[Canadian4206]

Actually the more I looked at the weapons, the less I see the real difference in them. The M4 has the same range as the SCAR and the other one, except the other two are heavier, and they cost like 200 dollars less (Not much difference). The XM8 looks the best, but has less distance, the heaviest but is probally the cheapest. Not really good choices to replace the M4, but I would go with the SCAR. There's got to be better options then this?

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by DOAW

Are you sure about that? They've done it twice already; once from 30-06 to 7.62x51 despite the protests of the British, and then again to 5.56 in the middle of Vietnam.

The 30-06 was the M1 Garand and the M14 had the 7.62, and both were pretty much rifles, not assault rifles, though the M14 did have full auto.

The changes made before/during Vietnam were because they wanted infantrymen to hold more ammunition as opposed to a heavier hitting round and when the M60 was replaced by the SAW, it used the same ammunition. The reason the round hasn't changed lately because it is the best round that has range and is light enough for a regular troop to carry in good numbers.

Basically, it isn't the round that needs changing anymore, it is the weapon. The changes that were made before were because the newer weapons could carry more ammo. The standard magazine is not going to get much bigger, so what is there to improve on with a newer round? A heavier round would maybe have 5-10% more penetration, but at the cost of range, weight, cost, or compatibility? I think the only round that really needs to be changed is the 9MM back to .45 or .40.

Originally Posted by Canadian4206

Actually the more I looked at the weapons, the less I see the real difference in them. The M4 has the same range as the SCAR and the other one, except the other two are heavier, and they cost like 200 dollars less (Not much difference). The XM8 looks the best, but has less distance, the heaviest but is probally the cheapest. Not really good choices to replace the M4, but I would go with the SCAR. There's got to be better options then this?

That's what the upper receiver option that HK did would of been the best. IMO, the USMC did a good thing by going with the A4s instead of the XM8 or other models out there, but they should have probably went with the HK416 upper receivers IMO. It may have been cheaper than purchasing brand new A4s and it also has a rail system. Not sure if the iron sights are exactly the same, but it would of been cost efficient, more realiable, and easy to put on the M16/M4 lower receivers.

[HughJass]

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

Eh...

No.

And the HK416 was proven to be less reliable than the XM8 in the US Army's dust chamber test, looks like squeezing a G36 into an M4 body caused a few niggles.

The HK416 is just an inferior weapon to the original platform designed as a sell out to the freakish belief seemingly held by the US armed forces that if something isn't shaped like an M16 its rubbish.

H&K have made no major innovations in the field of firearms since the cancellation of the G11.

The whole of their current long arms range are based either on the Roller Delayed Blowback system of the G3 (PSG-1, MP5, etc) or the Gas Piston of the AR-18 (UMP, G36, MP7, etc).

The only major advances in recent years have been in Belgium (PDW, foreward ejecting bullpups) and Russia (balanced automatics and the increased ROF of infantry's cased weapons) other than that its pretty much just been rehashing old systems.

Cased Ammunition has pretty much gone as far as it can go, aside from a bit of tinkering with the calibre and case length. Even these oh so advanced weapons are still, essentially, 40 year old designs.

The future is caseless. Not the G11 perhaps, but the next major move foreward in small arms will be a caseless bullpup rifle. With the caseless ammunition one of the (alleged) major problems of bullpups (ejection) is solved. It also reduces mechanical complexity, there by increasing reliability.

Well on U.S.Army 6 000 rounds firingtest HK416 score 3.5 time better than M4. XM8 have the best score whit 123 stops, hk416 had 233 stops and M4 882...

[cplgangster]

tbh with you the way the world is going i think the rifle of the future will look more like this

[Fullforce]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Bob_Marley

I suggest you leave.

now.

Come on, it looks horrible. It's just a big box.

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

There doesn't need to be some major overhaul or innovation for a weapon to be a good weapon.

One of the best quotes I've ever heard was from Ronnie Reagan "Sometimes the solution is not outside the box."

Also, no one should count on the military changing their standard ammunition anytime soon. The 5.56 is the choice of NATO

I have to disagree with you here, at least a little. 5.56 was the US's choice, and we drove the rest of the free world to that round. When WWIII looked like a real possability it made sense for everyone on the blue side to use the same round, but now there is less of an over riding need for compatability. Now the shortcoming of the round are becoming more appearant (primarily because the bad guys don't care if they die, this was not true of the Ruskies), it may be time to re-examine the round. IF ( and that's a giagantic IF) the US were to change weapons from the M-16 family it would also be valid to consider changing calibers.

The future is caseless.

Until the overheating/cook off issues of caseless are solved I don't think we'll see a rifle fielded with it. The closest to a fieldable caseless weapons system we've seen yet is the 120mm smoothbore gun in
most western tanks which uses a semi combustable case.

I think the biggest obsticle to change is the US's resistance to change the "standard" weapon away from the M-16 family. They've spent far too much time and money in getting us one common weapon to start fragmenting that. Consider that when the UK changes from one rifle to another they have to buy enough guns and spares for about 200,000 troops (including all branches), which is approximately the size of just he US Marine Corps. There are nearly a million in the US Army. That's a lot of freaking guns. Changes away from the M-16 will have to be incremental and able to be quickly implemented across the whole of the military with a minimum of change. As you said, that will not happen until there is a major reason to make the change, one that could not be added to the exising M-16 family.

[Canadian4206]

I got a prediction, The Future Weapon is... Dun, Dun Dun. None. Robots take over warfare. That is sarcasm, but at the same time. Is a possibility. Either Self Thinking, or controlled. Either way, robots are the future . Then eventually some guy developes light sabers, and discovers 'the force' and laser weapons. Then the robots go haywire. Sound familiar?

[[R-COM]TheScot666]

but lightsabers and the force happened,
A long time ago,
In a galaxy far far away.

Or in family guy terms
A long time ago, but somehow in the future!