Any ideas on what would be the perfect military rifle?

C

Correia

New member
All of this talk about the OICW abomination has gotten me thinking about how I would make a military weapon, and what it would be like. Bear with me, it's kind of different.

The action would be based upon the FN-FAL, with an adjustable gas regulator. The caliber would be .300 whisper (or perhaps another whisper round a little bigger). The ammo issued would be high velocity, with subsonic ammo being issued to special forces types. A suppresor could be screwed onto the end of the barrel. The gas regulator could be changed from high velocity to subsonic. Same gun, different mission. No need to use subguns for quite times. Plus the whisper would pierce body armor better than a subgun, and the trajectory would be better. Regular high velocity ammo would be more powerfull than a .223, and with an adjustable gas system the same gun could be used with no problem.

Seems like it would be a decent machine gun round too.

Folding stock, rail for mounting all sorts of optics, forward or standard. A few different sizes, 20" rifle, 16" carbine, and as short as possible with out malfunctioning for vehicle crews and such.

So is this a decent idea, or am I compleatly wrong?
 
I've long thought that the .300 Whisper would make an excellent military/LE cartridge. Dunno why it's not more popular.

Nice thing about the .300 Whisper cartrige is that the same cartrige could be used for standard infantry, marksman/snipers, machineguns, and suppressed operations just by adjusting the gas let-off.

If I were to design a perfect military rifle, I'd want it to weigh no more than 7 pounds empty. Would an FN action be able to be made that light?

Make it 99.999% reliable, and available on the civillian market, at you've sold me. ;)

Later,
Chris
 
It would have a 100% kill rate at 800 yards 80% kill rate at1000yds. Capable of firing he grenade Be capable of a killing butt stroke with no damage to the rifle. Capable of use with a bayonet. And minimum seven shots between loading,. Does this sound familiar to you Korean war type?
 
The ? should 1st be what is the perfect military cartridge. Then build the rifle around that.

I always thought that the calibre should be in the 6mm to 6.5mm diameter.

6.5 would be ideal.

Next the head of the cartride needs to be smaller than a .308 but bigger that a .223

get your new cartidge maybe like 50mm in length a 6.5x50mm Nato round.

Now gun: use relible action like an AK gas piston design with loose tolerances. Good sights like on an m-16 or m-14 and max 7.5lbs weight

[This message has been edited by orsogato (edited March 21, 2000).]
 
I hate to disagree with you, Orsogato, but it has been proven in history that cartridges in 6mm to 6.5mm calibers were poor man stoppers. That is why both Imperial Japan and Italy switched from 6.5mm cartridge to 7.7mm and 7.35mm, respectively.
The Japanese discovered that the 6.5mm projectiles were insufficiently lethal when fighting the Chinese during the 30s and the Italians found out the same about their 6.5mm during their campaign in Abyssinia.

The Japanese and the Italians used 6.5 x 50mm and 6.5 x 54mm cartridges in their Arisaka and Carcano rifles, respectively.

Johannes
 
What Mr. McMillan said.

Now if it could be altered to accept BAR magazines.....

------------------
Audemus jura nostra defendere
 
It should have no moving parts, so even a Marine can't break it. ;)

------------------
Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war.
 
I'm with orsogato, though I was thinking along the lines of .257" rather than .264" since we have so many good reloading bullets for the 257. Johan, if we looked at caliber only we'd conclude that 7.62 was also crap, since 7.62x39 is just as marginal as 5.56x45. you gotta look at cross-sectional area, bullet weight, *and* velocity. a nice little 100gr FMJ spitzer at 3000 fps would do quite nicely, thank you. I'm not too concerned about the need for subsonic versions; percentage-wise that's a nonissue compared to the needs of tens of thousands of normal rifle company grunts. just give me a light/fast load for "assault-rifle work" and a heavy AP boattail load for long range work and punching thru cover.


the big question is low-pressure or high-pressure? if we go low pressure, we can use a tapered case sorta like the 7.62x29, which probably gives more reliable feeding. on the other hand, that leads to highly curved mags, which are hard to make reliable and not as easy to insert into the receiver. low pressure also would require more case volume thus a larger case, which limits the rounds per mag.

the rifle should have an AK-like gas system, AR-like sights, lefty-friendly receiver (ambi safety and mag release, reversible ejection and charging handle). need a folding carbine version, a full-sized 11B version, and a marksman version. I think Gale is just trying to rescue all those Garands that are slacking off in government storage. ;)

I'd prefer an empty weight of about 7.5 lb, but I have absolutely no desire to go around bayonetting or butt-stroking the bad guys. actually I'd rather design aircraft to shoot rockets and drop bombs on the bad guys than get up-close-n-personal with them, so I guess I'm just not a "people person." :)
 
I always thought the 1941 Johnson was about the perfect military rifle. The only thing it really needs are a little improvement to the sights and a much more amenable trigger. Full sized cartidges are the way to go, .30-'06 here. It's easy to load and top up as you shoot. The gun is handy, simple to maintain (assuming a parts supply) and VERY easy to manufacture...hint, hint. Not much it really lacks. Too bad it never really caught on.
 
I too think the Johnson has merit as it was used effectively by the Special Service Force (Devil's Brigade). But I really like the Beretta BM-59 with all its improvements and configurations.

------------------
"Keep shootin till they quit floppin"
The Wife 2/2000
 
300 Whisper for "real"(as opposed to suppressed close-in) sniper work? You're kidding right? The 308 Winchester is OK, but only OK. 30-06 ballisitics(when you load it for real, not so it works in the M1Garand) are good but I would prefer a shorter, wider powder column. 284 Winchester necked up to 30? Maybe. The trick is to increase bullet weight and velocity without increased blast and recoil(can't do it) M1 Garands were great. "WERE"-past tense. Most of the troops we get now are gun-illiterate, or worse-movie educated. M16's are easy to shoot. Oh yes, 223 generates much less heat than 7.62mm. I have fired engagements with M16's that would have melted FAL/M14's(200+ rds in 2&1/2 minutes) I'm thinking something in 7mm would be OK. 7-08 would be great for snipers and MG's but not rifles. There is no perfect answer that I know of. Semper fi...
 
I agree there is no one answer to this dilemma. The military would have to divide the chore among three primary choices. First, there would a M1 Garand (made with modern materials and a detachable 10 round box magazine) in .270 Winchester. Next, there would be the short cartridge (30 round) assault rifle in the much maligned but battle-proven 5.56 Nato round. Finally, there would be an updated subgun (now called a Personal Defense Weapon) in the new FN cartridge or something similar.

Appropriate issue to troops would be suitable for the task involved. As Jeff Cooper has remarked, the general purpose rifle is a very hard thing to do since tools are fitted to a specific purpose.

I realize too that relying upon different cartridges is contrary to military procurement ideals, but the drift of this thread seems to be that one size cannot fit all needs.
 
My axioms:
1.) The round chosen should be for the worst combat conditions, which I would say are the wide open places of this world, facing a numerically superior enemy which absolutely must be kept at bay. Good example: the Chinese (a likely foe) in Korea (a likely place): you are done if you have to fight them with sturmgewehr and gernades.
2.) The round chosen should be the same as the combat troops use for their machine guns.
Facts:
1.)The 308 Win. was adopted because it could be loaded to the same velocity as the 30/06 used in WWII & Korea with the 150 gr. bullet used in those conflicts with a significant saving in weight and length.
2.)Even today, no army in the world is equiped with a cartridge more powerful than the 30/06 of WWII or Korea. You will never be out gunned with the current 308 Win, no matter whose military you have to face anywhere in the world.
My choice:
1.) M14.
2.) FN-FAL, even though I have never fired one. A lot fo people seem to respect it.
Proviso:
This is for a main battle rifle, not for special operations or theaters, personal safety (bolt guns better, always reliable) or maximum fun.

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited March 25, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited March 25, 2000).]
 
Always been rather fond of the 106mm recoiless rifle myself. ;)

Hey, you didn't say I had to *carry* the silly thing!

Bimjo
 
I always thought some sort of built in grenade launching fitting on a military rifle would be handy. It would go with a grenade that could be launched from any rifle using any ball round, or thrown as usual, or linked and fed to an auto-launcher like Mk19.
 
I want a 10mm caseless round with a 30 mm he grenade launcher, a.k.a. "ALIENS"! ;)

------------------
I thought I'd seen it all, until a 22WMR spun a bunny 2 1/4 times in the air!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top