The application of technology

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iain

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
1,540
Location
Elsewhere
Ok, I don't want this to turn into a "The M14 is the best rifle ever" thread or the "The M14 is the worst rifle ever" thread.

Just by reading around here a bit I have picked up a certain level of hostility to the application of technology to firearms design. I mean this as hostility to plans like the OICW system and to unusual designs such as the H&K G11. It also seems the bullpup is not all that popular as a concept.

So I was kinda curious as to why, in the future systems like the FN F2000 and the OICW when/if they work will seriously increase the efficacy of the soldier on the battlefield. I look at these designs as prototypes, the issued OICW may not look at all like the designs around now and may not have all the features as some may prove useless.

As for designs like the G11 I am no firearms expert, so you'll have to give your own reasons for disliking it if you do. Reading up about the FAMAS has led me to believe that a concept like that (when it works - think SA-80) has great potential - it has SMG, sniper and SAW variants as well as standard 'assault rifle' form.

Technology is likely to play a major role on the battlefield in the future - we want our troops to be at the fore-front of this do we not?
 
Bullpups are generally disliked for several reasons, I think.

1. They're not AR-15s. That has LOT to do with it.
2. You can't switch shoulders with most of them. Many people overestimate the number of times you need to fire a rifle from your bad shoulder, and apparently don't think that any kind of brass deflector could be developed.
3. The manual of arms is different (see no. 1.) They are, apparently, slower to reload, but I bet this is largely a training issue.
4. Bad triggers. Bad triggers are nothing but a hindrance to good shooting.

As for the G11, my personal dislikes of that specific design are as follows:

-It has a scope, but no type of sighting apparatus for close-ranged shooting.

-It fires a ridiculously small bore cartridge that probably barely has the wounding capacity of 5.56mm, and is probably inferior in terms of armor/cover penetration. (That's what happens when your bullet is "unstable when changing media; it fails to penetrate things that heavier bullets will.)

-It was apparently designed with the idea in mind of soldiers firing super-fast 3-round bursts, sort of "shotgunning" their rounds downrange to increase hit probability. (Hence, in theory, the limited wounding capacity of the sub-5mm bullet is not so important as, in theory, the badguy will receive two or three hits.) I don't like this idea at all; seems to be the very essence of "spray and pray".

I have no personal beef with caseless ammunition itself, assuming it can be made to work as well or better as what we have now. It'd certainly be lighter in any case.

The G11, though, strikes me as being overcomplex. I'll bet taking that thing apart in your foxhole to clean it is real fun. Acceptable battlefield weapons should be as simple as possible. Increased simplicity goes a LONG way towards soldierproofing.

Electronic sighting arrangments are fine, so long as there is some kind of back-up that doesn't rely on batteries and the gun will work without the electronic scope (a HUGE flaw in the OICW design).
 
Just playing devil's advocate here. Not saying if I disagree with you or not, but:

the 4.7 HK G11 bullet, despite it's small caliber, was very, very, long, making use of space inside the caseless propellant block it was imbedded in. It's weight was somewhere around 55-68 gr. IIRC, giving it .223/5.56-like performance/ft-lbs., but had better sectional density than .223, and the long bullet may have enhanced terminal effects.

Also, the ultra-fast 2200 rpm 3 round burst was so fast, and the free-floating barrel and action meant that dispersion was held to an absolute minimum, which means that all 3 rounds hitting the target if the first did, was a very good probability.

And while the HK G11 was "complex" in some sense of the word, it was also very simple in others, as it was able to forego the entire extraction cycle, and thus needed no ejection port, extractor, or ejector due to it's caseless nature. That may well have helped simplify it back down a bit.

Just my $.02
 
Nightcrawler,

The G11 bullets are lighter, but they are going close to 4000 fps. I think that penetration and wounding are derived largely from the amount of velocity energy involved.

The 3 round burst thing puts 3 rounds in the air within a couple meters of each other (in line). Rather than a "shotgun" effect, this comes out working more like a duplex load. The bullets should all strike within a few MOA of each other. This both increases hit probability and lethality. The gun can also be fired at a more sedate full auto rate.

As to the complexity, the gun looks weird inside, but the basic mechanism is a simple recoil system. The "bolt" itself only moves on one axis, in one plane, which is simpler than every gas self loader out there.

The optics thing is always debatable, but seems to be most countries preference, including us and our Aimpoints on the M16. This isn't exactly a new trend, either. When did the SUIT scope start appearing on FALs and L1A1s?

I think that it is easy to write off the "spacey" G11 because it really was just a prototype. But a prototype that West Germany came a hairs breath from ADOPTING, not just trying out.

Personally, I trust HK engineers. More than once they've pioneered completely new and untried concepts that went on to become world standards. The G11 is no more radical today than the G3 was in the '50s.
 
Caseless without extraction seems like a good idea. Until you realize that you still need some form of extraction if you get a dud round. Thats very important with a caseless gun since the ammo tends to be less environmentally tolerant.

Real life practical example: Airsoft guns. There is a reason most airsoft guns have ejection ports even though they are essentially caseless. Sometimes you get a bad ball that gums up the works. You need a way to get the gun running in a hurry and the port gives you that ability.

Bullpups are going to be around forever though. Its just such a good solution to the barrel length/handiness tradeoff. You get both a long barrel and a short gun. I think that good solutions to the inherent trigger/ejection problems of the bullpup will present themselves eventually and then they will be everywhere.
 
The G11 was in part not adopted because of the financial costs of reunification of Germany. It is not a shotgun effect, the three round burst does not recoil until after the last round meaning that 3 rounds can be put in one place at very high velocity.

Mr Acheson's point about bullpups essentially makes my argument for me - the problems and the issues will be sorted out. I have said before; remember the early days of mobile phones?
 
Let's see now.

1. The G11 is a very small caliber, sectional density notwithstanding.
2. It has a very high cyclic rate and floating action so that a three shot burst has small dispersion.

Either the dispersion is so small that all three bullets hit the opponent which will increase lethality, or it is large enough to improve hit probability but not "climb out" and he will be hit with one little bullet, which might be enough to take him out of action in the "better an enemy wounded than dead" chairborne theory. But you can't have it both ways. Who is right, Andrew or S.P.E.?

As I understand it, full auto is not at a slower cyclic rate than the burst, it is a series of fast three shot bursts with enough pause to reset the clockwork that the average rate of fire is about 1/3 the burst rate.

Wouldn't it have been simpler just to make it a 6.5 caseless with semi and rather slow rate full selector? Then an MG 42 sized version to really put some lead in the air.

Pity the Soviets didn't stick around to arrange field tests.
 
I'm not sure what the G11 cartidge's bullet weight and actual muzzle velocity was. Anybody know?

In any case, I think it's a step in the wrong direction, making the bullets smaller and smaller (even with the increased velocity). Remember, even if bullets are high velocity, if the bullet weight is too light the bullet will deflect/fragment easier than a heavier one, and will have trouble penetrating cover, especially multiple or thick barriers like logs and walls. (Of course, if the G11's bullet weight is similar to current 5.56mm bullet weights, you're not giving anything up, though I think that even the 62 grainers used in SS109 are too light, and in truth the military is experimenting with heavier bullets now.)

Did the G11 have a semiauto mode? If not, it is DEFINATELY a step in the wrong direction. Little difference having hundreds of rounds of ammo makes if you waste it all firing 3 rounds per shot, or need to put more than one round into each badguy in order to reliably incapacitate.

With a caseless design, you get the advantage of no brass; a HUGE weight savings. I'd like to see a caseless rifle scaled up to 7 or 8mm, using heavy AP bullets. (Probably want to make it semiauto only, though.) Combine it with good optics, the G11-style free floating barrel, and assuming you could get a decent trigger on a bullpup, you'd have a really excellent "next generation" designated marksman's rifle, that could be to G11 types what the Dragunov is to the AK-74.

But that's what I'D want in a caseless rifle, with my quaint ideas of eventually becoming a real rifleman...:cool:

As for scopes, yes, I know that scopes are all the rage these days on service rifles, and that's no bad thing, as they only make hitting distance targets easier. But he troops with their M16A3s and A4s, as well as their M4A1s, could re-attach their carry handles and use the irons if their scopes went down.

Remember too, that for close-quarters battle (like clearing houses in Iraq), even the relatively low powered scopes like the ACOG, ELCAN, and Trilux are far too much magnification. That's when a smart troop will take off his ACOG (or British equivalent) and replace the carry handle and irons (the SA80 has irons mounted on a carry handle too...).

This just isn't an option with the G11. There needs to be either a backup set of iron sights or some kind of reflex sight that doesn't use batteries. (I have mixed feelings on reflex sights as opposed to irons; they're easier to use, but then, iron sights can be completely covered in dust and still work. They don't fog up, they don't crack, etc. Perhaps irons are a better choice than even a quality reflex sight for a back-up aiming apparatus).
 
Moving on - OICW anyone?
Click to expand...
The XM29 will be a great replacement for the M203 when it's finally fielded. I have few doubts that the bloated turd you see today is analgous to the lever action JM Browning rigged up to display the viability of semi autos.
 
I would love to have an AK or AR over one of them fancy thangs anyday. Ya know why? Because it works and I don't need a constant supply of AA's for my shooting pleasure.
 
That's fine when you're shooting for pleasure, but when you're shooting for survival, you'd probably want every edge.

BTW, you're going to need batteries for your radio, but I don't think anyone would want to forego that piece of equipment.
 
Anyone seen what the FN F2000 is capable of? There was a video posted on here a while back, the auto-aiming system meant that it would range find and then by you tilting the gun up or down the gun would let you know by a system of lights on the top of the sight when the bullets would hit their intended target. No idea about windage allowance possibilities but a squad equipped with that system would be very useful.
 
Anybody read about the AN-94? It mimics the G11s burst fire, but with normal ammo. Talk about a grossly complicated gas/recoil system.

The Russians are ADOPTING it. But the G11 is still "too complicated" for the West.
 
I have no objection to technology. I have a big problem with putting it in the hands of soldiers before it's perfected. Our procurement system is famous for that. We always move on a couple generations before we ever completely field and work the bugs out of one.

I have no doubt that at some point caseless ammo will be perfected and able to be produced cheaply enough to make it viable. I also have no doubt that someday they will get the OICW to make weight and actually work. As it is now, it's not suitable for combat use and unless there are some major breakthroughs in technology, it won't be for a very long time.

Then if your talking a military weapon, there is the question of cost. You have to be able to afford to buy enough to equip your army. How many point detonating grenades do you think we'll be able to afford? War is expensive enough now. When the basic load for a grenadier costs almost as much as an ATGM how many grenadiers can you afford? Plus they have yet to prove to me that they can get acceptable terminal effects from the small payload in the 20mm grenade.

It's not the technology that bothers me, it's being asked to use it to defend my life before it is ready. The OICW will require some changes in how units are supported in the field. There will need to be more transportation assets to move it's ammunition at the Battalion and below level if it's fielded in any quantity. There will have to be inspectors and quality assurance people probably at Brigade level to keep tabs on the ammunition. More electronics techs and equipment will have to go into Battalion and higher maintenance sections to support this new wonder weapon. There is a lot more that goes into fielding a new rifle then having a smiling BDU clad person with it on the cover of your favorite gun rag. We rushed the M16 into service in Vietnam before we set up any support for it. We lied to the troops who questioned why they didn't get cleaning kits. Then when soldiers and Marines died because their self-cleaning weapons failed them, we blamed the design, when the problem all along was the logistics system.

Jeff
 
I'm not fond of bullpups because 1. you have to either have different left hand or right hand rifles for left handed or left handed shooters, make lefties shoot right handed, or end up with a system where there is no ejection port (like the f2000, which, to my knowledge, has no way to manipulate things in the chamber area, or visually inspect the chamber to even make sure the darn thing is loaded) 2. they're never going to be as fast as an m-16 to reload.
 
2. they're never going to be as fast as an m-16 to reload.
Click to expand...

I think the M16 is the only military rifle built that has a mag release that easily allows the user to drop his mag in the dirt.

Bullpups are built like every other military rifle - the mag is released by the hand grasping it. Same, same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Badger Arms
  • Locked
Army Times: OICW to be Fielded in Afganistan.
Replies
18
Views
1K
keederdag
K
benEzra
  • Locked
OICW out, XM8 and OCSW in
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Jaywalker
J
S
  • Locked
A practical take on the Bullpup vs. Conventional argument.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
11K
Maverick223
Maverick223
T
  • Locked
  • Poll
Will you buy a New FN P90 or P2000?
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
ddc
D
S
  • Locked
Why old military rifle designs consigned to museums?
Replies
17
Views
658
223man
2
Back
Top