[Navy joe]

What would it be as in what specific groups/features from existing guns would you like to see rolled into one?

For me it is pretty much a .308 M-14 with a FAL gas regulator and M-16 type straight mag release.

Sights: M-14

Trigger and safety arrangement: Same

Basic size and ergonomics: Same

Magazine: 20 rd, sturdier than FAL mags, straight release.

Bolt and gas sytem: FAL regulator, underslung arrangement of M-14, possible short throw rotary locking bolt into barrel extension ala M-16 and others. A more robust op-rod than M-14 would be nice.

Other niceties. Built in forward mounting area for optics, retain M-14 type mount option for precisiion optics. No pistol grip, just don't like them

[Badger Arms]

HK G-36 with an external bolt release and, uh, that's it. I'd prefer to mount an ELCAN, ACOG, or SUSAT sight instead of the tiny optics that come with the gun.

[Sven]

Navy joe:

Doesn't sound like the M14 is too far from where you want to be, eh?

;)

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I'd go for a BM-59 with the option of a non or low-magnification red dot optical sight. I know, it's heresy to put new glass on old warhorses. Possibly a pickle-fork flash hider similar to the M-14, but the compensator I've seen on a few looks plenty functional.

Maybe even a folding stock model, but most assuredly not the full-lengh abomination with the pistol grip like the Nigerian version.
Full length is one thing and is perfectly fine. An appendage like that dropped-down dongle is just a waste of wood and spoils the line.


Regards,
Rabbit.

"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world
peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until
the looting started..."

[JohnKSa]

Been done, I think.

DSA sells them...

[Andrew Wyatt]

that SOPMOD m-14.

[swingset]

Let's see:

Simple & Rugged.
Fast action.
Large capacity (but not too large as to be heavy when loaded).
High Powered Round.
Simple to use, simple to tear down, simple to maintain.
Good sights.
Nice trigger.


Oh wait....that's a No4mk1.

Nevermind.

[Skunkabilly]

HK G36 chambered in .308 or some fantasy (?) intermediate caliber, takes HK91 mags for cheepness, and uses the same furniture?

Not that I ever shot a G36, but it would be pretty neat.

[Crimper-D]

Had better be a good functional BAYONET:evil:

[Bostonterrier97]

Pretty much what Navy Joe said..except...

I would have gone a bit further..

M14, with FAL Gas Regulator..underslung
AR15 Mag Release

and..

Synthetic Stock with an Air Craft Aluminum Bedding Block.

Fluted chamber (as on the G3 and HK91) to ease with extraction

And...the receiver would be made out of an Titanium Alloy..
expensive to equip an Army but not as pricy as an Air Craft Carrier..The receiver would have triple recoil lugs.

And..(horror of horrors)..a caliber change to 6.5x55 but loaded to higher pressures.

Front Sight would be a night sight (ie. have a radioactive isotope making it "glow" in the dark)

The Barrel would be synthetic with a steel barrel sleeve. This would reduce the weight of the rifle, improve heat dissapation.

Vortex or Phantom Flash Hider

Trigger Group...I would use an Electronic Ignition system instead of a hammer and firing pin. It would have a rechargeble battery AND a capacitor. Some of the spent gas used to cycle the action would push a "solinoid" piston..this would induce a current whose charge would be stored in the capacitor.
The capacitor would be discharged when firing the rifle, by electronically detonating the primer.

So here we have both the Bolt cycling to eject a spent cartridge and chamber a new round and also an electronic ignition system that would be gas driven.

The battery would kick in and send current to the primer if for some reason the capacitor is drained. Some excess current in the system can also go back to recharge the battery as well as the capacitor.

Why do this? Shorter Lock Time, lighter triggers, less trigger travel, elimination of trigger break, all resulting in a more accurate rifle.


Soldiers would be issued both 20 round and 10 round magazines (the 10 rounders would enable a soldier to present a lower profile to the enemy)

[DMK]

FAL Carbine with a free floating 18" barrel, sling mounting point on the handgaurd, drop free mags, Tritium Gost Sight and a Picatinny rail.

Except for perhaps the drop free mags, not exactly an unatainable goal.

[Preacherman]

First and most important, I'd go for an intermediate caliber - 6mm. or 6.5mm. This would increase ammo. capacity compared to a .30-caliber weapon (assuming a narrower cartridge case was used) while reducing recoil.

Second, I would want ABSOLUTE RELIABILITY. This means that gas system, springs, etc. would have to be designed with reliability as a first priority. To heck with technical fiddles, artistic elegance, or manufacturing refinement - is it reliable? If not, change it until it is! (This is one reason I've never liked the M16/AR15 series very much. In combat, they require so much cleaning to keep in action that they can be a liability. The AK series, however - especially the Israeli Galil design and its copies, which I've carried in combat - are rugged, reliable and dirt-tolerant to an amazing extent.)

Third, I would go for light weight. This is subject to the first two considerations above, which take precedence: but given those two, I'd want the rifle as light as possible. It's no fun carrying a ten-pound hunk of rifle around for days on end (ask me, I know!). It should be possible to get loaded weight down into the 7 or 8 pound class, even with a larger caliber than 5.56mm. Besides, if you look at the way some of the modern versions of the M16 are tricked out, those things have gotta weigh a dozen pounds or more!

Finally, no flashy bells and whistles - just proven, reliable technology. I'll gladly take stuff that is guaranteed to work, but in a combat situation, don't give me things that require half-hourly lubrication, solar recharging of batteries at 53-minute intervals (precisely!), or infra-red or laser beams that can't penetrate the dust and smoke of a battlefield.

As to what the basic platform for such a rifle should be, of current weapons, there are several that might serve as a basis for further development. However, given advances in metallurgy, ceramics and polymers, I'd like to think that a designer might do better starting from scratch and building something really modern. Why don't we ask Gaston Glock to see what he can do? :D

[pignock]

I don't know if this is possible but it's one of those goofy ideas I had when making the long drive home and nothing was on the radio -

Could you use a high explosive like C4 in a very small amount to safely propel a bullet downrange?

What I'm thinking is a big tube of C4 in the buttstock that is metered, cut and placed in the combustion chamber with each cycle of the action. Bullets are fed from a magazine(holding LOTS of bullets) located below or in front of the action.

If this is possible to do, you could design one bullet that did different things at different velocities and adjust the quantity of C4 to meet the tactical requirements.

I'd put all this in a package that had M16 ergonomics and AK reliability.

Can this be done?:rolleyes:

[Preacherman]

Pignock:

1. What happens if you get a pierced primer or the equivalent, and a flashback gets into your buttstock reserve of C4?

2. What happens if an enemy round hits your buttstock?

OUCH!

[stevelyn]

What DMK and JohnKSa said. :neener: :neener: :neener:

[pignock]

I "think" C4 is pretty difficult to detonate. That's why blasting caps are so dangerous - they need a lot of power to set off the C4. Does anyone know if you can detonate C4 by shooting it?

As to the blown primer equivalent - if the C4 was isolated (or even double isolated) from the ignition chamber, and the ignition chamber had a safety vent for overpressure situations (think of a freeze plug or even a relief valve) I don't think there would be much to worry about.

[Correia]

A bullpup FAL. :p

[Blain]

Wouldn't the 6mm be a better choice than the .223 and .308 for an anti personel round?

[Chris Rhines]

Working on it.

Right now, the concept is like thus:

- Self-regulating, high-pressure direct-impingement gas system.
- Three-lug rotary bolt that rides on hardened steel guide rods (one contains the gas system, the other the recoil spring.)
- Mostly reinforced polymer/carbon fiber construction. Target weight is 6.5#. BTW, I'm designing this around the 7.62mmx51 cartridge and unmodified G3 magazines.
- Dual opposed extractors, controlled feed.
- Semi-fixed blade ejector.
- Totally ambidextrous. Ambi thumb safety, ambi press-button mag release (drop-free, of course,) interchangable fixed charging handle, dual R+L ejection ports with inmolded case deflectors. Flip one switch, and the gun ejects to the right or left, you choose.
- Lots of work going into the ergonomics, should combine the best ergonomic elements of the AR and the FN-FAL.
- Floated barrel from the factory.
- Integral scope rail with detachable iron sights.
- Detachable stock. The gun should break down into a package small enough to contain in an average suitcase.

Back to TurboCAD...

- Chris

[Preacherman]

Chris, if you build it, I'll buy two or three...

[Ian]

Yeah, I've called dibs on one too. :)

[Handy]

Depends if you want the ulimate 1960 rifle design, or the ultimate 1970s rifle design.

For the 1970s type gun, the G11 set up for caseless (C4 powered) ammo and a horizontal endless feed magazine. It doesn't have to be little bullets, chamber it in 6mm.

For 1960s technology (ejecting brass cases), get rid of the gas system and use a mechanically delayed blowback system. No fouling in the mechanism and a truly freefloat barrel for accuracy. Maybe a Star style 4 column box mag containing 50 rounds.

Both weapons:
Combination safety lever/bolt release. Either a two position ambi-lever or a grip safety that also releases the bolt. Flapper mag release for mag retention.

For sights, an optics unit that is slightly offset to the right and a peep sight slightly offset to the left with front sight toward the end of the barrel.

Stamped steel, Stellite polygonal bores, modular construction.

[T.Stahl]

A HK G3A3 with a bolt catch/bolt release and StGw 90-style open sights. That's it.

Oops, I forgot to add: The forward assist/silent bolt closure of the PSG/MSG series.

[Mike Irwin]

Hum...

No. 4 Mk I.

Wow.

That was easy! :)

[Skunkabilly]

Mostly reinforced polymer/carbon fiber construction

I'm in.

[Handy]

If you had seen enough well used carbon fiber bicycles, you wouldn't be "in".

[ElAlumno]

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Valmet_Model_62_Early.JPG

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Valmet_Model_76F_With_Accessories

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Galil_Rifles.jpg

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/_308_Galil_ARM.jpg

[Chris Rhines]

Handy -

Ex-roadie/Crackenfail rider (it did) here. I've seen plenty of CF and thermoplastic bikes, from old Kestrels and lugged Treks to the newer full-mono designs. Without exception, the only ones with problems were the old lugged models. The CF tubes would tend to come loose from the lugs and fray out at the ends. The full-mono models, yeah, if you crack one it's dead, but that's true of Aluminum frames as well.

Modern composites have many advantages over traditional steel/aluminum. Corrosion resistence, self-lubricating, much higher strength-to-weight ratios and fatigue limits. I have no doubt that a properly designed composite reciever would be just as strong and long-lasting as an Aluminum one, probably more so. Steel, maybe not, but composites are going to be much lighter than steel, and that's an acceptable tradeoff.

- Chris

[Handy]

Chris,
As a mechanic of many years, I saw quite a fill of delamination and hairline cracking, all on pieces of carbon fiber that never got over 100 degrees F. Kestral, Trek, Look, you name it. That's why many of the carbon frames no longer have lifetime warrantees.

On the other hand, I've never even seen a broken Ti frame. I've also seen more than a few steel frames that weighed just oz. more than competition and were tough. Look at Bontrager's old designs.

Carbon fiber is a poor material for something that isn't purely a load bearing device. As soon as you introduce heat, mechanical wear and impact, more traditional materials make much more sense. Especially where price is concerned. For mass production, even Ti is cheaper to work than composite laminates.

Basic plastic is a good material for housings and stocks, because you can replace them and even fire the rifle with them broken. They don't belong in receivers, barrels or bolts. Ask those $1200 SL8 owners if that receiver crack sits well with them.

[surfinUSA]

AR10 with an AK gas piston instead of the gas tube. I love the FAL but the rotating bolt is a stronger lock up than a tilting bolt.

Actually what I really want is something like that at a price I can afford.

[SodaPop]

This one was pretty cool until somebody hacked it apart.

[Chris Rhines]

Handy -

Old Bontragers are the nuts. But I've always liked steel bikes (the Cannondale was an impulse buy, and unregretted...)

Titanium? Not on any of my guns, thanks. It's too expensive to work, and still doesn't have the shock resistance of tool steel. A $3000 post-ban MBR won't sell.

Stamped steel is worth considering, but CF or similar composites have a number of advantages. If the reciever also acted as a bolt guide, like the AR, then steel would be an ideal choice. But in the design I'm working on, the bolt carrier never touches the reciever. A CF reciever shell is, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a load-bearing device (with some additional vibration-dampening characteristics.) It would be subject to no more stress than a typical composite stock.

Ti cheaper than CF laminates? Not in this world. Ti is popular in the cycle industry because it can be worked with conventional welding tools and frame tables. CF frames require a seperate mold for each frame size, and molds are pricey. So CF has a much larger inital cost, but is FAR cheaper to mass-produce.

- Chris

[Handy]

Chris,

As you alude to, frame building is still somewhat of a craft, even at large production volumes. If every frame were identical (rather than sized), then we could compare better with guns.

You need to ride a Ti bike some time. It has greater "shock resistance" than any steel, and can take more cycles without work hardening. It's a natural spring. Not as strong or hard as steel, but much stronger than aluminum.


Carbine fiber layups, even in mass production, require a certain minimum amount of (pricey) human labor.

Titanium, on the other hand, can be roboticly extruded, stamped and machine cut or welded. While tooling costs and raw materials are higher than steel, the same robotic processes can be applied. It need not be a "custom" material when the production volume is high. Taurus sells an all Ti revolver for $400, after all.

Either material is going to take a back seat to steel stampings or machined aluminum castings in terms of cost, but we are talking about the "perfect" battle rifle, so spending extra for lower weight might make sense.

You also haven't addressed the heat issue. While some thermoplastics can take a bit more, the resins and epoxies used in CF composites can't take much heat or impact without delaminating. In areospace, the resin layers are the first thing to go, often due only to vibration.

It just seems to me that CF is a costly way to construct something that won't last nearly as long as several other materials.

As to your design, sounds similar to the priniciple the AR-18 is built on. HK later used the same design in the G36, since the plastic receiver doesn't come in direct contact with the bolt.

[Chris Rhines]

As you alude to, frame building is still somewhat of a craft, even at large production volumes. If every frame were identical (rather than sized), then we could compare better with guns. True enough, but the comparison is still pretty valid.

You need to ride a Ti bike some time. Oh, I have, and they are nice. I demoed a Seven hardtail a few years ago when I was still riding seriously. While it was a wonderful ride, I'm not sure that it was two grand better than my friend's old 853 Ionic. Still, if I was made of money...

When I say that Ti does not have the shock resistance of tool steel, I'm refering to resisting battering without taking a permanent set, like you would need in hammers and firing pins. S7, for example, has it all over 6Al4V Titanium in the long-term durability department.

Carbine fiber layups, even in mass production, require a certain minimum amount of (pricey) human labor. This is true of CF, but not of other high-strength thermoplastic polymers (which can be injection-molded.) The human factor is one of the reasons for problems in monocoque frames, you have to have skilled operators who can do a proper zero-void layup. Like everything else, it all comes down to how much you are willing to spend.

It need not be a "custom" material when the production volume is high. Therein lies the problem. I'm not a high-volume shop, I'm just a gun-nut wannabe machinist with a CAD/CAM package. I'm not even sure how much of a market there would be for this type of rifle; I just wanted a semi-auto .308, and all of the ones presently on the market have signifigant design flaws. I can cut out a Delrin or 6061 injection mold and pop out a few prototype recievers without too much trouble. Titanium, on the other hand, is a major hassle. The tooling costs alone would probably price it out of my reach.

Either material is going to take a back seat to steel stampings or machined aluminum castings in terms of cost, but we are talking about the "perfect" battle rifle, so spending extra for lower weight might make sense. Well, perfect at a price point, anyway. Hence my insistence on .308 caliber and G3 mags instead of 6.5mm Christopher II and propritary polymer magazines.

You also haven't addressed the heat issue. While some thermoplastics can take a bit more, the resins and epoxies used in CF composites can't take much heat or impact without delaminating. Just got to pick the right material, then. There are some glass-loaded epoxy composites that are quite heat-resistent.

My main reason for leaning towards composites is weight. I just don't think that you can make a reliable self-stuffer out of metal, that will make Scout weight.

As to your design, sounds similar to the priniciple the AR-18 is built on. HK later used the same design in the G36, since the plastic receiver doesn't come in direct contact with the bolt. Yup. More like the Steyr AUG than anything else, though. AUGs have a really slick bolt carrier assembly.

The gas system is my own idea, more than anything else it's based on the M14. Self-adjusting, only one moving part.

Anyway, the whole thing is vaporware right now, but I would really like to see it prototyped. Hence, my present love/hate relationship with TurboCAD.

- Chris

[Handy]

I understand where you're coming from, Chris. I have a stack of scrap paper detailing a delayed blowback system with only two moving parts, but I don't have a CAD system to work it out.


Most of my comments are about mass production techniques. Stamping, for instance, is only useful for large mass production. Smaller lots make milling much more reasonable, or even CF.

Don't discount steel altogether, though. Using welded sheet steel you can still keep weight very low, without bulk.

[Soap]

Chris,

You know where you send a prototype to! ;) Seriously, whenever you get this thing all smoothed out, give me a ring if you need any help dealing with the business end of things.

[D.W. Drang]

OK, so back to this gun thingie...:neener:
Yeah, I think I agree with those that want a biger caliber than 5.56... ISTR that SLA Marshall was pushing for something in the .280 range? As were the Brits, when Winchester shoved .308 down everybodys throats?

Before getting any further into specifics, It must be reliable! Absolutely must! Hot, cold, wet, dry, sand, whatever, it has to work! So that means any bells and whistles must be ejectable! Optic sights, OK, but attach 'em to a rail so we can ditch 'em when they go TU. The iron sighs on the M16 are pretty good, re-use them.
And nothing battery powered! I abhor this fancy new computerized thing they want to saddle grunts with, with built in computers and stuff--it weighs too much to start with and they'll have to hump a ton of double-a's to power it!

Bayonet stud, si. Folding/collapsable stock. Strap-on grenade launcher, may as well keep the M203.

I'm thinking something like the Stoner modular system, where a unit armorer, maybe at GS level, can easily swap out a barrel for a longer or shorter, heavier/lighter unit for special purposes, switch the mag feed to a sidfe mount and the selector from safe/single/burst to safe/burst/auto (or short burst/long burst) so the SAW gunner would have the same weapon as everyone else, except with bipod, long/heavy barrel, and Beta-Mags to feed it. (The M249 SAW has the capability to use M16 mags, except that it doesn't work very well; the "dual-purpose feed mechanism"--i.e. belt w/disintigrating links AND magazines--isn't reliable.)

That modular system would let you issue optics (& heavy barrel?) to one guy in the squad and designate him "unit marksman", similar to what the Marines are doing now, and have a precision capability. While this wouldn't be the intelligence asset a "real"
sniper is, it also gives REMF units a capability they NEVER had before!

The SAW and "marksman" versions should probabaly have "conventional" rather than folding stocks.

Another thing unit armorer shoul be able to do is swap "sides", i.e., a southpaw would have a left-handed weapon.

Chambers and bores should be chrome lined for ease of cleaning.

Finally, if you have to hold it together with bailing wire like an M60 everyone involved will be shot!

[SodaPop]

Nobody laughed at my picture?:scrutiny: