Help needed for new design
- Thread starter Cerberex
- Start date
- Status
Watch your lay out. Remember that on a bullpup in front of the mag means you have the potential to drop those f@#$ hot casings onto your strong side arm. My arm is covered with burns from the shooter next to me's brass from an Appleseed this weekend which is bad enough
Having my own rifle do it to me would ruin my day and my trigger control
Also I would shy away from large bore. You give away a great deal of capacity/capability unless you are designing for a sub 100m weapon. Also by designing around a new cartridge you have added another obsitical in that you have to get buy in from someone to make the ammo ect.
Design for 6.8mm/5.56mm with commonly availble mags. This will let you proof your design concepts for the action. Later you can look at designing a mag.
If you search for the NDIA small arms breifs you can get a good grasp of what the military is looking for. They also currently have a Sources Sought Notice Posted for rifles:
Start with a rifle design, the problems with LMGs will consume you. Making them around a .45ish round will take them out of the LMG relm, perhaps even the MMG range and leave you competeing with the M-2 .50cal.
Good luck
Last edited:
The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, followed by the Hague Convention (1907) Laws of land warfare, bars the use of explosive bullets to be used in individual combat weapons.
To do so would be a war crime in any civilized nation.
rcmodel
I am not designing a weapon that would be suitable on current battlefields, this weapon is designed taking into mind the vast improvements to body armor that are being made now and it would therefore be most at home in coming years. All I need is help with a good trigger design, but if you want to debate the merits of the rifle then okay. The fact is that it will take alot more than 5.56 ball ammo to punch through body armor in just a few years at this rate. So I am keeping this in mind when I suggest a larger bore.
As far as the rules of warfare are concerned, remember that the Germans considered Americans using shotguns a violation of the rules of war back during WWI, so it really does depend on interpretation I guess you could say.
Research body armor more. Bore is not the solution, bullet construction and other things are. Depending on several variables .22LR penetrates more then, 9mm, 9mm more then .45 ACP, 5.56mm M855 penitrates more then 7.62mm M-80, ect.
Well you could use a 14.5mm anti tank rifle, but that is a little bit over kill, the question is what do you do when you want to penetrate armor over a distance
It matters not whether it does or not.
Does it matter if you get killed with a 7.62 FMJ, or a 155mm artillery shell?
What matters is, explosive small arms projectiles are currently outlawed under the rules of land warfare, and have been for over a century.
rcmodel
Perhaps you should consider changing majors ... you'd be surprised how many mechanical engineers have ZERO "nack" for it!!
I think it was Trump who said "you'll never be good at something you don't enjoy". I'm not suggesting that you don't enjoy CE but since you obviously enjoy ME you might want to think about it. JMHO.Perhaps you should consider changing majors ... you'd be surprised how many mechanical engineers have ZERO "nack" for it!!
__________________
Good point, but as tempting as it may seem, I am better with structures, especially the architecture side of it, and please don't start on the differences between an engineer and architect.
__________________
Good point, but as tempting as it may seem, I am better with structures, especially the architecture side of it, and please don't start on the differences between an engineer and architect.
Any way, I have to go to calculus 2 now so please feel free to argue against the concept while I'm gone. Questions, comments, concerns, quips, queries, and factoids will all be adressed upon my return
Cerberex wrote:
Just an FYI... that's not something folks typically discuss in an online forum, given the current state of NFA laws these days.
Just an FYI... that's not something folks typically discuss in an online forum, given the current state of NFA laws these days.
All I'm asking for is thoughts on how to make a better firing system. Complete and detailed schematics are available for almost any automatic weapon through the internet including the M16, which most people don't think too much of it's three round burst mechanics.
NFA makes an exception for experimental designs, I believe, but there's still a lot of red tape to go through.
Like I said, the specifics are unimportant, just google "M16 trigger" sometime and you will see what I mean. All I want is suggestions on what would be good or what to avoid.
M16 is a good place to start. Its mechanics are sound.
But I still warn you: more research is needed. There is much, much more to learn.
And 3RB is pretty much all but dead now. If you're disciplined enough to use full-auto of any kind, then you are disciplined enough to control how many shots you shoot.
Almost all soldiers I have talked to are not allowed to use the fully-auto setting on their rifles.
(Plus 3RB in a .45-70 act-alike caliber won't be able to hit anything.)
I believe you can purchase a 3 round group from SARCO or J&G, they have the little "disclaimer".For educational purposes only.
Good enough for me.
boneheads.
Burst cycle trigger group will be tremendously expensive to mfg, making the t.g reliable will get costly - if you pursue the mechanical route.
Electric's are kinda' becoming the norm - nowdays.
Making a firing pin stay "hot" for a determined length of time is very possible; see -Remington ETRON Rifles for more.
The carrier diameter of your proposed 'ammo' is actually small for a body armor defeating delivery package.
Basic recoil comes from powder + ejecta.
Simply changing the wads,powder (faster burn) and very slightly lowering the shot charge, I have what I believe to be the ideal duck load, great pattern - VERY manageable recoil, economically decent.
You get out of a weapon in RECOIL what you put in and then blow out.
Nothing has to be shot - it can be launched.......
Platform will NEVER cost near ordinance. 'cept for the Airforce......
Smart munitions are getting a lot of research at this time.
You have an excellent concept, and your observation on body armor is very agreeable with my thinking.
Good luck, good hunting, good fishing,
Don Wallace.
Good enough for me.
boneheads.Burst cycle trigger group will be tremendously expensive to mfg, making the t.g reliable will get costly - if you pursue the mechanical route.
Electric's are kinda' becoming the norm - nowdays.
Making a firing pin stay "hot" for a determined length of time is very possible; see -Remington ETRON Rifles for more.
The carrier diameter of your proposed 'ammo' is actually small for a body armor defeating delivery package.
Basic recoil comes from powder + ejecta.
Simply changing the wads,powder (faster burn) and very slightly lowering the shot charge, I have what I believe to be the ideal duck load, great pattern - VERY manageable recoil, economically decent.
You get out of a weapon in RECOIL what you put in and then blow out.
Nothing has to be shot - it can be launched.......
Platform will NEVER cost near ordinance. 'cept for the Airforce......
Smart munitions are getting a lot of research at this time.
You have an excellent concept, and your observation on body armor is very agreeable with my thinking.
Good luck, good hunting, good fishing,
Don Wallace.
hmm.. well the UMP is a .45 ACP, but i believe only a 2 shot burst, does anyone no how controllable that is ??.. but now there designing cartridges that are much smaller like the 5.7mm or the 4.6mm that travel alot faster to penetrate body armor better.. but they do have a 9 x 39mm armor peircing round that would be pretty interesting + its good out to 100m for somthing like 5mm of steel.
- Status
