Lets Build The Perfect Light Battle Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
No weapon is perfect - and I was of the understanding that the optical gunsites have been corrected and no longer fog or leak. Thought that was fixed early last year...

The M4 has its good points. But the G36 has a great advantage in its operating system. In comparison the M4 is running an early release of Win95. Yuck.

There are others good options outside of Germany - but we are talking about an idea LIGHT rifle. The Sig rifles feel heavier and not as well balanced. The Galil is great... but its an AK variant - and while fantasticaly robust... well - okay - I have no reason to dismiss the Galil so fast - but I just did.
Isreals Tavor is a nifty looking weapon but I have not handled one.
The Steyr Aug is also nifty but its got plenty of problems... especially if you have an Austrailian version. (Gawd who did they screw that one up so bad?)
The English SA80 is a very poor rifle dispites it's HK UK manufacture.
Japan hasn't done anything interesting in the area of weapons since the Nambu pistol.
Oz - already mentioned...
South America - AKs and ARs... nuthing interesting there.
Here in the States - there is the M96. Very good. A personal favorite. But its not a light rifle either.
Ruger Mini? Good rifle. I dont like the changing point of impact as the barrel warms up... Just not a personal choice.
French? The FAMAS is fun... I like it.
But it's French and the only things I like French are my Fries and Kissing.
The Beretta AR-70 is great... not too heavy... But its italian and the only thing I like from italy are the people, food, cars, and Family values.
Thats about it.
So - basically the only place that is doing anything interesting is Germany... Where the only thing I DONT like from Germany is the Food. (with the exception of Brattwurst - which I love but think of more like what a hotdog should be)
 
Thank heavens that the Germans have spent so little time on cuisine, and so much time on engineering!

I am sure that they are more than willing to conceed cullinary superiority for global domination in the arms race. :D

That being said, the G36 is less than ideal for many of the aforementioned reasons, especially the plastic receiver.

Sorry, but speaking as a Materials Scientist, there are NO plastics currently available that are completely suitable for rifle receivers.
This may change in the future as new formulations appear, but the current crop feature many properties deleterious to their longevity and overall performance, most notably the fact that they can absorb water, and can lose up to 40% of their strength as a result of the absorbtion. This is particularly prevalent in the Polyamides (Nylons, Zytel, etc.) commonly used in weapons today.
Granted, they can be dried out, but this requires a special temperature/humidity controlled area, and a lot of time ramping up to drying temperature to prevent distortion.
It is not something that you can do with a campfire or a blowdryer. There is also no "litmus" type check or indicator available for field use that would indicate that the rifle was too soggy to use safely. Bear in mind that at 4% of gross weight change in water absorbtion, the strength drops by a whopping 40%.

For these reasons, today's battle rifle's receiver must be metal to be the best.

As RIM-U (Reaction Injection Molded Urethane)technology becomes more prevalent, further explored and improved, it may offer polymer alternatives to metal but we are quite simply not there yet.

[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
As an aside, there are some "Super Polymers"
(Victrex PEEK, Ultem, etc) available that display remarkable high temperature strength and suitable water resistance, but they become exceedingly brittle at lower (< 30 F) temperatures. If you drop them while cold, they can literally shatter.

[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
At the risk of starting the war of the words again, this almost sounds like how the M-16A2 was finally developed. I would also like to see some sort of rotating bolt design similar in concept to Browning's sporting BAR locking directly to the barrel, allowing an aluminum or other lightweight receiver. Optical sights, in order to survive, are going to cost more than the rifle, but if properly designed and built, might allow soldiers to actually see their enemy and should be followed up on. Charging handle should be ambedextous not only for the south paws, but for wounded right handers as should be the selector switch and mag release. Power level? I'd like to see some modern data of a 308 necked to .277 which PO Ackley played with back in the 50's. Seems to be a good compromise between control and hitting power, and with an 18-20 inch barrel, the powder capacity would be ideal. I'd prefer not to set the bushes afire despite how menacing it looks. There are those who don't react the way we'd like them to when duly warned. A two piece receiver might be a way to go, but I also like the idea of being able to remove the bolt from the rear without having to split the receiver. Gas piston seems to be the best compromise as recoil action is too heavy and we do not yet have dilithium crystals available.
 
Mad Dog.
Imagine for just a second holding in your hand... a STAINLESS G36K
Wow.
Actually I could even go back a bit and return to the SBR AK.
Take a robinson arms Veper... With a short barrel.

Done.
 
Actually, given the galling problems and thermal characteristics of "stainless" steels in the 400 and 500 series, I would prefer to make the receiver, op rod, and perhaps the bolt carrier out of Titanium for the most part, with high chrome bearing steel inserts in crucial areas.
This would lighten the weapon, allow superior corrosion resistance, and tremendous toughness.

Examine the specific gravity (Grams/CC) of the materials in question:
Steel: 8.5 (average)
Titanium: 4.5
Aluminum: 3.5-3.8
Glass filled Polyamide: 0.9-1.2

For a very slight weight gain over Aluminum, we achieve roughly 4-6 times the relative strength. Since the Ti material is so strong, thinner sections can be used, much like in stamped steel receivers.
Manufacturing costs would be higher than steel or plastic, but when you consider what they are willing to pay for the OICW, it gets relatively inexpensive.
 
Titanium would make it lighter too - all very good.
Accept a good portion of affordable titanium on the market is from russia - recycled from submarine hulls...
So hopefully the rifle wouldn't glow so much.
;)
 
Has anyone seen one of Singapore Technologies Engineering's SAR21s yet? Looks similar to Isreal's Tavor and might hold some promise.

Side stepping the caliber debate (I too would support something in a 6.5 to 7mm in the 2700 to 3000 fps range) didn't Daewoo address this issue? It uses the best features of the AR, AK and FAL. Rechamber it to a better round, design a hybrid of an AR and AK magazine and make the thing out of titanium and you'd have a hell of a rifle!
 
I vote for a return to the M-1 Garand with a synthetic stock. Caliber would be 7mm-08. It would use a 10 round clip instead of a detachable box magazine. Sights would be iron only but adjustable. It would take a bayonet. It could serve as a contact weapon to inflict blunt force trauma. A soldier could use it as a tent pole were the need to arise. The semi-automatic only mechanism would be utterly reliable in all weather condtions, from the Arctic to the Equator, alpine regions to the deserts; sand, mud, snow, ice, and blood and guts, would be no problem. It should be made by Glock.

------------------
Oligarch
 
I want a G-36 with a Weaver rail (like the G-36 carbine shown earlier, but with an integrated 40mm grenade launcher. I like the style that swings out to the side. I want the design of the launcher to be integral to the rifle, not an afterthought like most current designs. The bore axis should be as close to the bore axis of the rifle as possible.

I'd also like the rifle to have about a 14" barrel and a compact blast suppressor/flash hider to cut blast down to managable in close quarters. Anybody who's ever shot a .223 in a close quarters out of a carbine knows what I'm talking about. I saw a Valmet with a reflex supressor that had a large expansion chamber behind the muzzle. I like the design, but it doesn't need to be terribly effective, only enough to cut it down to .22lr pistol intensity.

As for the sight, I want tritium Iron Sights and a stout 2x illuminated reticle scope that has sighting marks for different ranges and a range finding system. The gun should weigh no more than 9 pounds fully loaded with grenade and 30rd mag. Perhaps a graphite barrel for both the rifle and the grenade launcher. I want a VERY stout buttstock. In the field, the battle rifle gets used to butt-smack everything from unruly enemies at close-quarters to doors, windows, etc.

As for the bayonet... I would be happy without one, thank you very much. At best, I'd feel safer taking my combat knife and some duct tape to make the Lt. happy when he says, "Fix Bayonets" about ten seconds before you get shot. I think a folding bipod is a nice idea but I've never had one to use so don't know if I'd use it. Has to attach at Grenade Launcher pivot point and not interfere when folded or extended with grenade launching.

I think that the squad should consist of eight riflemen similarly armed and two with SAW's. No rifleman should be without a grenade launcher. Perhaps one of the squad members should be a grenadier with a purpose-designed semi-automatic or pump action grenade launcher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top