Concept: The Modern Fighting Rifle

[CmdrSlander]

What follows is a list of "stretch" specifications for what I believe to be the ideal rifle for modern tactical scenarios. By "stretch" I mean that they may indeed by difficult or impossible with current technology, so comment on the concept going forward and not its present practicality.

------------------------------

The modern fighting rifle should be chambered for an intermediate cartridge in excess of 6mm (.243") in in diameter. These cartridges should fit in a standard AR15/M16 magazine WITHOUT modification. The MFR should be able to hold at least 30 rounds in a standard magazine, and should reliably accommodate magazines in excess of 70 rounds.

The MFR should have a barrel shorter than 14", it should be able to equip a suppressor as standard, and should have at least three gas system settings (suppressed, standard, harsh conditions).

The receiver and handguards ought to be monolithic, certainly the top rail should be.

The barrel should be able to be changed without tools in under two minutes.

The stock should be adjustable for comb, length of pull, and should fold in a manner that allows the rifle to be fired when the stock is folded.

The MFR should be non-metallic wherever possible, with a polymer to metal ratio of 50/50 at minimum.

The modern fighting rifle should be equipped with a 1 to 4 power sighting system, whether this achieved by a variable power optic or an offset mounted red dot accompanied by a fixed power optic is immaterial.

The MFR should have an entirely free floated barrel.

The MFR's handguards should run at least 2/3rds of the length of the barrel.

The MFR should be able to accept clip and qd type single and two point slings without modification.

The MFR should weigh less than 6.5 pounds naked and 8 pounds kitted out.

The MFR should be able to fire semiautomatic, two round burst, and fully automatic with the same trigger group. Automatic fire (but not burst fire) should be from an open bolt.

One should be able to detail strip the MFR with nothing more than a punch and screwdriver.

The MFR should be capable of 1.5 MOA accuracy.

The MFR should be functionally invisible to light amplifying night vision equipment.

Finally, the MFR should be designed to function without wet lubrication. It should require cleaning no more than once every 4000 rounds.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have no problem at all with a 5.56.

I really don't have a problem with a 16" barrel, and I have never been carrying my service rifle and wished it was suppressed. I disagree with suppressor-ready being a standard requirement.

I really have little need for the entire upper to be monolithic, as long as the top rail is.

I have never had to change the barrel on a service rifle. And even if I had the need, the ability, and the opportunity to do so, in the middle of a fight, how would I zero it?

Why does it need a free-floated barrel if you are only looking for 1.5 MOA anyway?

I would rather have it run well from the closed bolt than fire from the open bolt.

Seriously, pretty much this entire list is way over on the 'nice to have' list, not the 'need to have' list. If one of my soldiers told me he couldn't do the job without these things, I would tell him he needs to learn his job better.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

CmdrSlander, perhaps you can give us a bit of background on your experiences with particular platforms that led you to these requirements.

 

[gazpacho]

Why start with a compromise? There is nothing inherently superior in the design of the AR magazine.

Honestly, this sounds like a recipe for failure. The base design should be as uncomplicated as possible. Modifications should be designed for specific roles. Full auto is unnecessary. Suppressors generally reduce the efficiency of a cartridge (okay, that one is from my generalized opinion). Quick change barrels aren't necessary.

Frankly, I've run put of energy to continue.

Reliability is inversely proportional to complexity.

Yeah, a lot of it is freakin' cool, but honestly, this sounds like a 12 pound rifle.

 

[B!ngo]

Agree with mljdeckard though I don't have his experience. What seems to be missing is the 'goal' or vision for what these specs are trying to fulfill. Is this a radical change for a completely new mission(s)? Are there shortcomings as defined by use cases that this spec is trying to address?
I would contend that without stating the problem you are trying to solve, or the goal you are trying to attain, a list of specs alone is impossible to review.
All that said, to me, field swappable barrels is an answer to a question that no one is really asking.
B

 

[CapnMac]

So, all that's needed is an AR-18 in 6.8spc or 6.5x55 with a free-float handguard?

For use in helo/apc, you don't really need a shorty 14" barrel if you have a fully-folding stock. With a 13-15" OAL change available, probably better to have 16-17" ballistically-suitable barrel, especially kicking up to 6-6.5mm bore.

 

[GLOOB]

+1 on the AR mag thing. That's a weird requirement.. esp for a caliber greater than .243.

So what's the point of a barrel change in 2 minutes, when there are already barrels that can be changed in 10 seconds?

I'm puzzled with the need for a free-floating barrel on a rifle that you designate to have a maximum 4x scope, min 30 rd mag sticking out the bottom, 6.8spc ballistics at best, and a folding stock. That's not much of a setup for long range sniping. When you specified 1.5MOA, that's fine. What's the point of further arbitrarily requiring a free-floating barrel?

Finally, the MFR should be designed to function without wet lubrication. It should require cleaning no more than once every 4000 rounds.

Now this is the only requirement I see as particularly ambitious and desirable. I would dig this rifle, for sure! Clean it every time you need to change out the barrel, eh? Nice.

 

[ROCK6]

Yeah, I think there's too many "requirements" without identifying the primary role. Suppressor-ready would be nice but why address barrel length if you have a quick change barrel?

I can see a need for a quick-change barrel in some circles. There are several mission-specific calibers that could be swapped which makes sense in some environments, but for the regular troopers, it's really not a big need and most likely it was cause problems as it's just another thing to inspect, clean and ensure it's tightened properly.

I don't like burst options; never have. Discipline is done through training and leadership, not a selector switch...just my experience. Besides, trained troopers are much more effective doing semi-auto, controlled pairs than using the burst option...again, it adds unnecessary complication.

Free-float isn't always necessary, but if this is a multi-purpose platform, that may be a good option (thinking DMR).

Optics are good options and should be standard, but I always fall back to training with irons.

ROCK6

 

[Mp7]

A short FAL?

 

[hueyville]

Add in a can opener, microwave oven and built in WiFi and we have a real plan. All the options requested in one weapon are counter intuitive and conflicting. Especially the must use standard AR mags. OP must happen to already have a few and doesn't want to pop for new mags on a rifle that will take millions of dollars to developed and thousands of dollars per unit to produce and market. Build me a completely new platform including cartridge but I don't want to buy mags for it? Why not make backwards compatible for using black powder and musket balls in case we run out of bullets.

 

[Fishbed77]

Where did these requirements come from? Sounds like some manufacturer put these together to promote their particular product.

 

[Onmilo]

Lewis Machine and Tool keeps rambling through my head,,,

 

[Skylerbone]

It's gonna carry 2 lbs. of ammo and be under 8 lbs. fully loaded???