Futuristic Assault Rifle

N

Nightcrawler

New member
In a sci-fi story I wrote, there is a scene involving the standard issue assault rifle of the US military. It's not described in any detail, just as the 6mm M2A2 assault rifle. The story takes place in 2183, but the "setting" I'm shooting for is where technology has advanced into space, but things are much the same as they are now, 'cept the comptuers are faster and millions of people live in space. (It's easier than trying to predict the real technological and sociological developments of the next 200 years.)

Oh, yeah, I try to submit tidbits of RKBA into my writings whenever I can, just to subtly spred the Gospel, as it were. :D

Anyhoo, here's the idea I have in mind for the rifle, just so you all know, as if you care. LOL

6mm Bullpup design, downward ejecting. The cartridges of the day are non-metallic, advanced composites being lighter and stronger than metal. Combined with advanced propellants, it can get the same velocities out of a much smaller case size. I'm imagining the cartridge would be, say, 6x40mm, but a straight, skinny cartridge, no tapering or anything. Perhaps a 100 or 110 grain bullet at about 3000 feet per second.

The rifle itself has a recoil absorption system (referred to as the compensator), and is totally nonmetallic. As I said, in my future, advanced composites can do the same thing steel can do today, but in a lighter form, including holding rifling after thousands of rounds. (Don't ask me how, I'm not a materials expert; it's the FUTURE!)

It's fitted with what's referred to as a "computerized targeting scope", which would include a microcamera, and feature IR scanning, night vision, laser range finding, and automatic adjustment for windage, elevation, and can easily be adjusted for different levels of gravity. Of course, it would feature back-up iron sights, in case a high-intensity EMP weapon fried the circuts, or it was damaged, etc.

Other weapons mention, but not described, in the story are service pistols, submachine guns, and automatic shotguns (good for clearing spaceships, will little worry of ricochet or hull penetration). I'm open to ideas for future writings in this same setting. Nothing too fancy, though. No blasters, plasma weapons, etc. These things exist in the setting, but they're not manportable. Lasers are used on spacecraft for missile defense, and railguns are used as ultra-long-range spacecraft guns, for instance.

Hmm...thinking about it, I have an idea for the pistol. It'd look sort of like the Walther P-38, because it'd have a recoiling barrel (recoil absorption system), perhaps. It may sound overcomplex now (though the Russians have a rifle like this, the AN-94), especially in a small package like a pistol, but add almost 200 years of technology onto what you know. Also, a recoilless firearm would be almost necessary in a space environment, if it was to be used in low or zero gravity. If you were floating in zero gravity, and fired a rifle from the shoulder, you know what would happen? You'd be sent spinning. Not exactly and ideal situation for combat, is it. Plus, having the guns be "recoilless" would add an element of futuristicness to the story, giving the nit-pickers one less thing to grip about. (It's 2183 and they're still using the equivalent of the AK-47??) Heh.
 
Last edited:
There won't be cartridges in future military rifles. They will either be electronic fired caseless ammo or some form of energy/laser beam.
 
There won't be cartridges in future military rifles. They will either be electronic fired caseless ammo or some form of energy/laser beam.
Click to expand...

How do you know? I don't mean to sound like I'm being, you know, contrary or anything, but you seem awfully sure. There've been several discussions on TFL about this in the past. Manportable energy weapons have a whole slew of problems with them, and electronic fired caseless ammo doesn't seem to offer any real advantage over a conventional rifle, but it WOULD require that the rifle be battery powered. A caseless rifle would STILL have to have an extractor, unless you wanted a rifle that you couldn't clear the chamber of without firing it.

Anyway, it doesn't get mentioned in the story, but in my universe notes, caseless weapons you described DO exist, they're just not universally popular, as they don't offer many advantages over more common nonmetallic cartridge weapons of the day. It is worth mentioning that the most popular propellants available are liquid and gaseous, and, being fluids, require a case to contain them. I'm not sure how the primer of the future works, but I don't think I'll need to get into that much detail. Electronic ignition sounds neat and all, but rifles that need batteries to function are a disadvantage, in my opinion. Manportable lasers are out there too, but they require batteries and are usually used in places with no atmosphere, where there's no particles to ionize and disrupt the beam. They also make for long-range sniping weapons, in their more powerful forms. Having no noise, flash, or recoil, and being completely instant-hitting and flat-shooting, they're ideal for the task.

The technology described in my notes varies widely sometimes, because mankind has spread throughout the solar system in giant oribital space colonies, some of which are quite isolated, so a very wide array of designs are to be found. Some colonies have branched off from the "earth-standard" line of technological evolution, and have taken their own unique path.

I'll also add that most of the space colonies are independent, and in various ones out there, you can find almost any political system imaginable.
 
Last edited:
If we are to believe the folks at Sandia and Los Alamos, practical directed energy weapons are a whole lot closer to fruition than many of us realize. Presumably they are currently directing the research toward ship-based and air-based systems, but man-portable systems can't be too far off in the minds.

Also, caseless ammunition (aside from material advantages) would also benefit from the fact that it would leave no trace (provided that the "bullet" is also self-disintegrating or even explosive) - a handy trait in clandestine, LIC (probably urban) of the future.

This is, of course, assuming that future wars involving the US will continue to see the acceleration of using "soldiers as sensors" rather than as "shooters."

As for batteries, who knows. 200 years is a long time. Perhaps someone will come up with a solar (body heat, UV, IR, whatever you fancy) re-chargeable with tiny mechanisms and back-ups.

BTW, there is now news of inserting bio-markers in soldiers (for IFF of sorts) and providing mechanisms for converting battlefield salvage (hint, hint) into edible nutrition as well as vaccinating through rations.

Skorzeny
 
Don't forget your physics, here. You state the bullets are nonmettalic, being stronger and lighter than metal.

Do you want the bullets to be *lighter*?

The main point of using a lighter bullet is to get high velocity without correspondingly high recoil. (Yes, I'm grossly oversimplifying). If your weapon has an internal automatic compensator, why not go for nice, dense, HEAVY bullets. Depleted uranium, anyone?

Its all about delivering force to the target. And a heavy bullet moving at a given speed delivers more force than a light one at the same speed.

Unless we're into the realm of overpenetration...;)

Mike
 
I think by that time the firearms would at least use caseless ammo and electric ignition. If your timeline includes the discovery of high-temperature superconductors (which would be realistic in that timescale) then coil guns which launch a very small projectile via coils of electromagnets in the barrel would be feasible.
 
I think Nightcrawler's got it right in showing the progress of weapons reasonably. People always just assume 10 or 20 years down the line will be the big breakthrough. When it seems we have long periods with little or no change then maybe a big step, then nothing really significant for another long period. Remember the old movies claiming we would all be driving flying cars by 1977?

If someone wrote a story based in the year 2053 and claimed the 9mm Berretta M9 was the current service handgun few would consider it realistic, but the 1911 served than same time period.

In issued rifles all we have really accomplished in the last 100 years is going from a bolt action 30 cal to a .223 cal semiauto.

The last 30 years (during the most outstanding technical explosion in history) we started with the M-16 and ended with the...M-16.

JMHO, Blueduck
 
Nightcrawler-
I strongly suggest you pick up a few of the books by L. Neil Smith. He's a pro-gun sci-fi writer who's been at it for a number of years now.
I understand that 'The Probability Broach' is quite good, though out of print. There are plans afoot to reprint it sometime soon though.
I can also personally recommend 'Forge of the Elders.' His books tend to have very fanciful characters and settings, but he writes guns with an exceptional flair. (Who would've thunk to bring back the MARS autoloader in .50? or Debating the relative merits of 'Red Dawn' with a large, talking mollusk?)
Anywho, you can find his stuff at his website:
http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html
Give it a look, and maybe pick up a novel or two. They tend to be a pretty quick read.
 
I like it. The non-metallic barrel is interesting.

RE: cartridge. I would drop the grainage a little and raise the velocity. Maybe get rid of rifling and use some type of drag or fin-stabilized projectiles. I guess projectile type would be dictated by the personal armor in use at the time.

Good luck and keep pushing it.
 
My spin on this whole thing is kinda in the middle. In my oppinion I think that caseless rounds would be widely used. They would not replace the more conventional form but I think they would be the majority. with 200 years of technological knowhow surely someone would use this to thier advantage, maybe even implimented as thier main infrantry weapon. Once the bugs are worked out of the caseless idea everyone else would be right behind.
A clean burning, caseless round by then is at least a good possability. If in your consept univerce we are using gas propelled rounds (I did read that right, right?) maybe the caseless round could be a hybrid using a dense burnable compound that does not dirty up the gun and if tough enough to hold the gas. The round would look the same as it's traditional counterpart and be as stronge - maybe even incorperating something like an internal honeycomb or crossbar structure if needed. This way there's very little case to burn and a lot of volitile gas to propell the bullet. And now that the whole package is lighter you can up the wieght of the slug. Make all the slugs have depleted uranium cores. And what about the potential for a slightly larger round with explosive/incendary/fragmentational capabilities. An expensive round but good for special opps. Maybe in 10mm maybe smaller. Don't forget we'll have some kick-ass armor then too.
In 200 years there will also be LOTs of laser weapons. Improved optics, better gas combinations and smaller parts will transform our current vehicle mounted weapons to very compact versions. I would bet a large sum of money that will will have a working tank-busting human mounted laser prototype in the next 10 years. Our government, and everyone else with a budget, is putting a lot of resorces into this effort.
Laser weapons do make noise. It's a faint popping or buzz. Very loud when striking a target - most of the noise is from that now that I think of it. 200 years from now I'm sure the noise will be dampened anyway.
And what about alternatives to these already researched weapons? Like a plasma ejecting flame thrower type thing? The plasma could be contained be magnetic field then expelled similar to a flame thrower. I know nothing about this one, I just pulled it out of my a$$.
Please tell me what you think of these ideas. I would like some input. Anyone agree with me? Is there something I didn't think of that make these options invalid?
 
Sacco, laser weapons would make a HELL of a lot of noise. They would be very high signature weapons when used in an atmosphere. A laser powerful enough to be used as a practical infantry weapon would ionize the air between itself and the target and make a sound like a small thunderclap due to the superheated air. The ionized air would also be visible in lower light conditions and of course the beam of the laser, if it is a visible light laser, would be visible if there was any sort of vapor or smoke present.
As I was saying before, a coilgun would be a much more practical infantry weapon and they will probably be able to make one in the 200-year-from-now timeline being discussed.
 
oh yeah...another thing. About the projectile weapons in space: For every action there is a reaction. By making the rifle reletivaly recoilless you still have some kick. You will never be able to remove this. With projectile weapons there will always be kick. Trust me. So, let's work around this. If the weapon is fired from the shoulder there needs to be something to counter-act the rotation caused. Maybe manuvering jets? Or the weapon could be mounted on or near the center of gravity. Using optics that would be incorperated into the rifle/cannon and diplayed on the suit or monted on operators head or in operators brain (just throwing these ideas out there) there would be no need to fire from the shoulder. Another way to defeat recoil could be by using guass weapons. No flash, no charge, no propellant, less mass. All of that gives you a good space cannon. Another alternative would be a laser. That would by far be best for space. I'm not sure (I've argued this one before, actually) but there may or may not be recoil from a powerful laser. We know that light has mass and it can propell a space craft but weather a small infrantry weopon would cause a noticable amount of recoil, I don't know. I don't think so. But a large capital ship mounted laser cannon I think would. But in 200 years, without the wieght of the equipment (in deep space or orbit) would make the laser the weapon of choice by far. I think that the battle field in space could incompace hundreds of miles making projectile weopons, even snipping, guess work.
Again, what do you think of these ideas?
 
about the laser weapons: I don't think they'll make quit that much noise. We could argue this forever. The lasers that are high energy used for blowing up stuff are of high frequency thus the human eye cannot see the light. Ionized air I don't know about but the light could not be seen going trough smoke/haze/vapor. It is beyond the ulta violet side of the spectrum. That is to say the NAKED HUMAN eye could not see it. Ionized air...you bring up an interresting piont. Makes me wonder. But I've never heard of anything like that for any of the laser trials that I know of. We have lasers that will punch through 1 foot of steel with ease (and that's just a small student project at ,I think, ITT) There is no ionisation that I know of that occurs from this laser. I would assume infrantry lasers would have similer strength. I will admit it might be possable. If it would really happen or not I don't know but my guess would be no. Maybe it would happen with the larger lasers?
 
Sacco, the lasers we have that will punch through steel actually burn through it. They are continuous wave lasers that have to be focussed on the same spot for several seconds. That is obviously unrealistic for a weapons laser. A laser weapon would have to fire in short pulses, each of which would have to contain much more power than those test lasers of which you speak---at least in the several dozen kilojoule range, which we have not yet approached. To do this would require high temperature superconductors to act as capacitors to store the energy to be released in the pulses.
They would indeed ionize the air. They might or might not be in the visible spectrum...depends on the type of laser and whether it is determined that a visible laser or an ultraviolet laser would be better for infantry applications.
The effect of a weapons grade laser infantry weapon on the human body would be aking to a bullet wound in that the laser would flash-heat the bodily fluids, causing them to expand explosively. The size of the wound would depend on the power of the pulse (or how much power is left after penetrating body armor).
 
Nonmetallic Firearms

Keep in mind, I'm not shooting for compete realism (as if predicting the future is possible), but instead am constructing a unvierse that I like.

Anyway, in a nonmetallic catridge, the projectile itself is still made out of metal, usually, to get the proper mass behind it to have enough inertia to do damage. The case, and firearm itself, however, are made of composites. Synthetic bullets have a use, too, but being lighter than metal, provide higher velocities but much lower bullet weight. I'm going to say that a heavy synthetic alloy is the preferred bullet material, depending on the job, though steel, tungsten, and depleted uranium still have their uses.

A reason a new materials gun would be desirable shows up in the story. The final scene takes place on the surface of Pluto. Pluto has 3% of Earth's gravity, and is colder than you probably can imagine. In effect, steel, carbon fiber, titanium...a gun made out of these would shatter if it was impacted, in such cold temperature. The recoil of the weapon, and the bolt going back, would probably shatter the recoil spring in a conventional firearm, actually. Not good.
 
Last edited:
not true. I don't know what laser you've been watching but it's not the same as the one I've been watching. With one POP it pounds it's way through the steal. Burn, yes, but it's almost instant. Not seconds but FASTER than you can say POP. It sounds a lot like a firecracker under a can. I'm not making this up, I promise
 
Aside from futuristic weaponry, I would be interested to know the hypothetical explanations for artificial gravity which is prevalent in science fiction.
 
artificial gravity...that problem is harder - a lot harder - than the others. is this artificial gravity used when in deep space to provide gravity or to counter act a dominant gravitational pull? And is this to be implemented on a ship or something else?
 
another thing. This is a subject I find no one ever gets right because it hinders the creative writting process and you don't want to see the charactors in a movie sitting all day. Explain how your using the gravity and make it as detailed as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top