Lets Build The Perfect Light Battle Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MAD DOG

New member
Having thoroughly explored the numerous foibles of the M16 and its variants, we can now do something a little more constructive.

Lets see if we can't all get along for a while and put our heads together on the ideal system for a new type of battle rifle.

My thoughts, subject to immediate change if anyone has a better idea or two:

Basically a downsized FAL type design.
(93 countries can't be wrong...)
Steel receiver. Alloy (titanium?) lower.
Built in scope mount/Picatinney rail that operates with the built in iron/tritium sights in place.
Detachable bipod that does not interfere with the barrel.
Folding stock option.
Built in tactical light.
Sling swivels in the right places.
Magazines that go straight in.
Beveled, slightly funnel shaped mag well.
Hard points to attach other accessories to without the use of tools.
(no, I don't know what the accessories are yet, we are still designing the rifle)

Caliber: 6mm or 6.5mm X ~39 or so.
This would roughly duplicate the super accurate 6mm PPC, thereby satisfying the accuracy hounds. It also has moderate recoil and is flatter shooting than the 7.62X39.
(100 grainers at 2600fps)

The field is open for rational suggestions.
Have at it!
 
Heck, we've already done that. What's wrong with the AR-18, the Stoner 63, Galil, H&K G-36, US M-4 Carbine, or any of the current bullpups that needs significant improvement? We had a recent thread on Caliber but so far as rifles go, I think this will be interesting.
 
I had just been thinking about this...

For caliber, split the difference between the 5.56mm and .308 - 100 grains at 3000fps. Perhaps a .221 Rem. Fireball case blown out to 6.5mm? That should still fit in a short-action semi-auto rifle.

The rifle should be a bullpup design. 20 or so inches of barrel, 28 inches overall. 416SS upper reciever fitted into a polymer stock/forearm assembly. Bottom ejection would be ideal, but I can't figure out an easy way of doing it, so convertable left/right ejection will probably have to do. I'd go with a Daewoo DR200-style gas system (rotating bolt lockup, fixed AK-style gas pistol, adjustable gas regulator.) Bolt latch and safety should be ambidextrous. Top-mounted, ambidextrous cocking handle.

Aside from that, Mad Dog's suggestions look pretty good. Built-in tac light, folding bipod (I could do without that, but others may love it,) Picatinney rail, tritium night sights, et cetera.

So where are the investors?? I'm waiting...

Later,
Chris

------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
Why not just go with regular 6.16x51mm (.243 Win)?

It falls right in between the .223 and .308. It's not as bulky as the .308, but not as "wimpy" (or so you believe) as the .223. It's a midweight bullet fired at (nearly) the same velocity as the .223. From what I can tell, it seems to have more or less the same ammount of recoil behind it as a .223.

As far as the rifle, I don't think going the FAL route is the right way. I think its time to innovate a new system, based off of the lessons we've learned from the past 50 years of automatic combat rifles. Don't get me wrong, the FAL is a great rifle, and I wouldn't mind having one, but its hardly close to perfection. We can do better then the FAL. We need something of a lighter weight design, thats as reliable or more, thats easy to clean, and has a simple but effective design. Yeh, I know, these are all "well no duh!" type things :D, but come on, lets not forget 'em.

Thats all I can really say, I'm not knowledgable enough to comment any further :)
 
Stay with the .223. Keep the ammo load as light as possible. We are talking light battle rifle and most skirmishes will be 100 meters and under. Keep the platform as simple as possible because of the environment. Remember our habit of adding doodads that will make one thing look like it will do several jobs but won't do anything well.
 
The ZM weapons LR kit is an interesting device.... but lets take this beyond other AR variants if we can.

My ideal?
HK G36 "upper" (gas operation system, bolt, charging handle, carry handle and optics etc...)
A lower that allows the use of mags that are cheap and plenty. HK 91 grip. Folding stock.
Hmmmm... this is not bad:
g36ccomparison.jpg

g36cangle.jpg

Oh. Wait. Looks like someone already made this!
My only change?
Make it chambered in 7.62MM NATO.
 
The Ammo debate is a whole can o worms...
.223 is less than ideal = yet .308 is too heavy for so many rounds.
I was NEVER one to spray and pray - even is pitched fights. I aimed then squeezed. Simple as that. I used 1/2 the ammo others in my unit did. Even when on the "Hog" (M-60 to those who dont know) I would actually bring the entire 60 up to my shoulder and aim it well and fire short controlled bursts.
(Discussion of the Machinegun is an entire other topic) Yes - its heavy. No - its not ment to be fired like that... But I did.
Rifles like the FAL - CAN be fired rapidly and accuratly.
At the First UTAH TFL Gathering in Springville - I fired the FAL rapidly into a standard man shaped target at the full length of the range. Almost as fast as I could pull the trigger. ALL the shots went into the head. I am not an amazing shot - I am not bragging. Just saying that with a .308 you can still aim and fire quickly dispite it's heavier recoil. I aint that big... I aint that strong... but I can do it.
I think most guys could.
It just takes the effort to try.
 
A note about the .243.

It is a .308 case necked down to 6mm/.243
Same length, same powder capacity as the .308, just a smaller bullet..

The 6mm X 39 I suggested is a compromise in overall size and velocity that will make carrying more ammo easier, and still deliver enough wallop out to 300 yards for combat usage. Allows a shorter action as well.
It will buck wind better than the .223. The 6mm and 6.5 mm bullets have about the best sectional density and BC of anything going. Great penetrators, and very accurate as a result.
 
ok i said that i love the M16 but we are not doing that now. i'd say that .308 is a good round to use, and that the M14 is a good desing to use to but not the M14 that the U.S. Military has now. now use the M14 desing but make the Rifle the Length of the M16 and ther is no need for a Full-Automatic Rifle if your shooting a .308-round, now we have a Rifle like this Manufacturing in the USA now it's the Springfield Armory M1A-A1 BUSH Rifle, it's got it all the Size of the M16 and the .308-round to. so now we have a good Battle Rifle but we still need a Carbine, well use the M16, well? not the M16 but the Colt M4 Carbine. now the M16 was developed to replace the M1, M1A1, and M2, Carbines so lest use the M16 for what it was developed for. now the Carbine developed to be use by noncommissioned officers, ans special troops, and company-grade officers so the Colt M4 Carbine is a good gun for that :D

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.
 
BTW, I did not mean a carbon copy of the current FAL design, but to use its best atributes, and baseline the performance and ergonomics on that.

No plastic receivers, thank you.
 
I'm in agreement with Mad Dog for the most part. I like the 6.5mm bore diameter, but could accept going to 7mm also. 100gn bullet at 2600-2800fps is good. More is better. With at least a 20inch barrel this is feasable. A 260Rem(6.5-08) can get 3200fps with a 100gn bullet and 24inch barrel. I like an improved FAL for the most part but don't like collapsable stocks for general issue rifles. I hate bullpups. Can you put the mag in a worse spot? Yes, you get to add barrel length without OAL problems, but it's ergonomics suck. It would have to have optical sights, with pop-up/pull out emergency irons. Lightweight, like titanium is good. I'n not sure I like carbon fiber too much for general issue. Tac light is bad idea for military use. I can just see Pvt Schmuckatelly using his riflelight for reading porno in the squad bay or something. Also light discipline is an issue, also half will be broke at any one time. Too much hassle. tritium sights are good, as long as they can be covered with something so they don't look like flares on NVG's(Don't laugh, know that little red light on a MotorolaTalkabout radio? It'll light up an entire 10'x30' room! BTDT) Semper Fi..Ken
 
i was looking in all my gun books and i fond a gun that has a Spring Extractor and it's not the M16 it was the M60 yes it has a Spring Extractor not a Fixed Extractor :D

i hope you guys like that bit of info.

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.
 
I read another poster who pointed out that the Remington 7400 in .308 with 10 round mags would be a pretty decent battle rifle. Maybe not the best, but certainly the most affordable.
 
I vote for a mid-size 6 to 6.5 mm bore, in a 7.62 x 39 head size and less case taper.

The .243 has the upper end of the needed performance, but I want a box magazine the size of an M14 magazine to hold MORE ROUNDS. For decent performance, I expect it would have to be larger diameter in the powder chamber than the .223.

Can the M14 mostly self-adjusting gas piston system adaptable to the Daewoo AK gas piston/AR bolt carrier unit system? Although the FAL gas adjustment setup is bone-simple in approach, I don't like the idea of introducing the chance of operator error.

I still like a bullpup. Regardless, let's have rear sights as useful as the M1 or even the M16A2 systems. But alongside that iron sight setup, place something like the C-More sight or the Tasco micro red-dot sight.

But on the other hand, the built-in rangefinding capacity of the Steyr AUG donut reticle might be better for the parallel sighting system. Just up the thing to 3 power and increase the field of view a bit.

Aren't slide-in mags (M16) more prone to getting stuck than rock-in mags (M14 or AK)? If the M14 style can be made with a single-finger pushbotton mag release like the M16, we would be close to having the ideal system.
 
I believe we've covered this topic before here (still have calluses from flogging the dead mare), but here goes.

Cartridges;
- pistol round, maybe 9x23 or 10mm auto, with jacketed SWC ammo
- light rifle round; 6x49, shooting a 70gr penetrator round and a 100gr FMJ-BT, case has same base diameter as the 5.56x45 round
- heavy rifle round; 7x64, basically a .280 Rem with more case taper to help with feeding, designed for a 175gr AP boattailed bullet
- .50 BMG

Guns;
- assault rifle; 22" barrel, fixed stock, light rifle round, select fire
- sharpshooter rifle; 24" barrel, fixed stock, scope/NVG system, heavy rifle round, semiauto
- sniper rifle; 24" or 26" bbl, fixed stock, scope/NVG system, .50 BMG, bolt-action
- carbine; 16" folding stock version of assault rifle
- subgun; 12" subgun a la MP-5, pistol round
- pistol; semiauto, single-column, single-action

The assault gun should have alloy upper and lower, a gas system based on the Kalashnikov, irons and optics with the same central axis, rear sight pops up automatically when scope is removed, QR rail system, straight-line mag well, all ambi controls. Here's where I'm going to get semi-radical; an assault rifle is where we really ought to have fluted barrels. We need stiffness to prevent the barrel getting bent in the field, plus it makes using a bipod and sling less of an accuracy killer. With a mass-production hammer-forged barrel, I think flutes could be added for not a lot of extra cost. The bayonet should be a real bayonet, without serrations, nail clippers, or other gewgaws. Sling might be one of those high-speed/low-drag 3-point jobs, but should be easily detachable.

The bolt and carrier should be designed so that they don't rely too much on reciprocating weight to keep the cyclic rate down. One of the few things that gipes me about the AR family is the bolt carrier weighs a bunch. Weight should go into the barrel, the bolt/barrel extension, and the stock; those are the items that need to be strong.
 
Almost forgot, the trigger system. On the assault rifle, there should be an ambi selector lever; down for full-auto, up for semi. Full auto lockwork should have a 2-stage, 7-8 lb trigger pull, whereas the semiauto trigger should have a 3.5 lb pull. The control levers, trigger and trigger guard should be designed so that the gun can be run while wearing gloves. Might want a spring on the full auto setting, such that the shooter must keep the lever pressed down or it pops back up to Safe.

There could be maybe 5 sizes of pistol grip to customize to the individual shooters paw, and the buttstock should have a snap-on cheekpiece of various sizes so that each shooter can get a good cheek weld and have their eye line up naturally with the irons. Stock should be composite, using a high-strength epoxy resin and nylon or kevlar reinforcing fiber. With newer manufacturing methods such as RTM, might be able to make a nearly unbreakable stock for a very low cost.

On the bolt, a big honkin' extractor would be nice (even if the case rim needs to be thickened; extraction = life), and it'd be interesting to try a fixed blade ejector. Here's a thought; controlled round feeding! Probably not possible in a full-auto, but that sure would be slick.

Front sight assembly should have a big flip-up "sourdough" bead w/ tritium insert, and a smaller daytime bead (maybe a fiberoptic). Rear sight should follow the AR's A2 sight, with a large "ghost ring" aperture and a smaller aperture.
 
I don't want a gas system like the M16.
My favorite handy rifle is the M1 Carbine. You could carry that all day long, and hardly notice it. I wouldn't mind seeing work done on that concept. Certainly a polymer stock, maybe lengthen the 30 carbine round a half inch, and work on that concept. While the original was somewhat useless in real fighting, the .223 isn't much better either. Few GI's are good enough shots to take advantage of the inherent accuracy of the M16, and the 30 caliber makes a bigger hole. I don't mind adding weight to a GI's load if that weight makes him more effective. A combat load has already been reduced significantly by using new materials such as nylon and such. Whenever the Army lightens Joe's load, his commander just makes him carry more unecessary stuff to make up the difference.
When the SHTF, you want to have absolute confidence in your rifle. You want dead people to fall down, and not keep running at you. .223 hasn't been a stellar success at that compared to the 7.62. The bigger the hole, the faster they leak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top