Your requirements for the perfect combat rifle.

C

Chad Young

New member
Some buds and I were having a discussion the other day on what we would want in the perfect general purpose combat rifle. Each of us had opinions on caliber, sights, etc. I am very curious what your requirements for the perfect combat rifle would be.

Here are the requirements I would apply:

1. Medium caliber (6-7mm) with an effective anti-personnel range of at least 500m.
2. Semi-automatic in operation.
3. Magazine fed, using composite magazines of at least 20 rounds capacity.
4. Ghost ring sights adjustable from 100-800m with the ability to mount optics quickly and easily without loss of zero. Iron sights must be of the "night sight" variety.
5. Must be able to be field stripped with no or minimal tools.
6. Must be convertible from left to right hand operation without changing out parts, or eject in such a way that either left or right handed shooters can use it without modification.
7. Chrome plated chamber and barrel
8. Does NOT use direct gas impingement to operated bolt.
9. Can mount a bayonet that actually is useful in battle.
10. Cleaning kit in gun.
11. Capable of semi, burst, and full auto firing.
12. Must average at least 1k MRBF.
13. Loaded weight with ammo, less optics, less than 8.5 pounds.
14. Stock or body made of composite polymer.

Your ideas?
 
Perfect rifle?

In no particular order:

-accurate (sub-MOA accuracy) to 600 yards plus
-soft body armor piercing capability
-hard cover piercind capability
-easily and cheaply mass produced
-big magazine capacity (100?)
-easy to change magazines
-streamlined (like a Garand, nothing sticking out hardly)
-compact (less than 26" overall length)
-lightweight
-ambidextrous controls (safety-selector, bolt handle, bolt release)
-bolt hold open on empty magazine
-nasty would ballistics
-cheap, readily available ammunition
-nothing battery powered
-provision for adding optical sights and tactical lights, night vision scope, and still use iron sights quickly in case any of the add-ons goes down
-provision for adding a 40mm grenade launcher like the M-203
-Sturdy enough to fire rifle grenades or slam the muzzle against something without bending the barrel
-Brass ejection that does not interfere with firing either left/right handed. This is NOT the same as being changeable to eject either right/left side. (this probably nixes any bullpup design)
-Uses commonly available magazines
-Interchangeable heavier barrel assemblies and provision to mount on standard military tripods for support weapon use. Also, belt fed option.
-Heavily corrosion resistant materials
-Readily field disassembled/reassembled without tools
-Flash hider
-No gas vents such that covering one with your fingers will cause a nasty wound (Steyr AUG is like this)
-Barrel shrouded to prevent burns
-Safe-semi-full auto capability
-Hammer forged barrel and chrome plated bore. Something like the Glock rifling would be nice.
-Safety selector silent operation and readily reached by firing hand without changing firing grip
-Mag release ambidextrous and reachable by firing hand without changing firing grip.
-Non-reflective finish in woodland camo or gray. NOT black.
-Tritium powered night sights that index same as daytime sights point of impact.
-Capable of shooting 5 full magazines (500 rounds?) on full auto without causing cook offs
-fires from closed bolt for easier accurate shooting
-Barrel free floated for maximum accuracy
-Reliable in arctic, temperate, mud, sand, dust, ice, tropical, jungle, and any other foreseeable environment. Hey, might have to go clean out some bugs. Starship Troopers anyone? :D
-Designed for a minimum of malfunction modes within the mechanism (example: an ejected case can lodge in the lower part of the receiver and the rifle will still function)
-Well balanced to minimize fatigue while holding the rifle in a shouldered ready position for long periods
-Sling swivels located for either left/right side cross-chest carry and silent operation
-All parts designed for durability (survive the concussion from a 130mm howitzer round exploding nearby in perfect functioning condition)
-Comes with a (disposable?) muzzle cap and ejection port cover for keeping crud out.
-Muzzle adapters for suppressor attachment (Gem-Tech?)
-Sight axis designed so suppressor attachment has clearance above expected suppressor diameter

...and deliver the first 1000 for T&E next week.

Note how many desirable features are mutually destructive.

Edmund
 
Round considerations:
6-6.5mm caliber.
2700-3000 fps from an 18" bl
Significantly smaller than 7.62x51, 7x57, or 6.5x55mm rounds
High sectional density
(My planned Mauser Cub Scout will be .250/3000 AI, which is about as close as I can come to round I'm looking for, 100-grain 6mm @ 3000 fps)

Semi, Safe, Burstfire (2)
Accuraccy 1.5" 3-shot group at 100 metres, or better (1" for designated markman rifles)
Minimum of 2000 rounds in battle conditions, without cleaning, before malfunctions
Maximum loaded weight 8 lbs, including
Detachable high-intensity light and
6" blade bayonet

Much, if not most, of what Edmund said
 
a 200 yard caliber(if the opisition is farther than that, you shouldn't have fired at them. besides an m-60 will make up the difference)
5.5lb weight
small enough to use in a building
reasonably accurate
unerringly reliable
unbeleiveably handy
apature sight
has a butstock strong enough to use as a weapon

oh wait, that's an m-1 carbine
 
A lightweight polymer frame with modular structure for easy conversion to LMG or carbine, low-magnification optics (collimator sight or ACOG), and chambering in an intermediate caliber. A HK G36 in 7.62x39 or 7.92mm Kurz would be just about perfect. 5.56mm is for varmint rifles, not infantry weapons.
 
Lendringser, 5.56 is effective when the terminal velocity is above a certain speed - some say 2700 fps. The ballistics are pretty flat. Thus you can hit something relatively easily that you can't destroy at that range due to the kinetic energy loss.

7.62x39, with such a low muzzle velocity, has relatively poor external ballistics. You might be able to destroy something, but it will be harder to hit at long range due to the more curved trajectory.

Another question to be considered is, what kind of combat? And for whom?. I think people have made a compelling argument for modern infantry having 5.56 weapons because they can call in artillery, use MG fire, heavier weapons, air strikes, etc, and the training requirements are less than a real "rifleman's rifle."

In a different setting, for example, when less "combined" resources are available, an individual would be better served with a battle rifle.
 
Some thoughts

I was actually thinking about this very topic in Math class, god is that teacher boring. After reading a lot on the subject, including searching through TFL's posts on just about anything having to do with assault rifles, I've found that the most important thing of all is reliability. Nothing tops reliability in terms of usefullness to a soldier. If the thing doesn't go bang, it doesn't matter how light it is, how many rounds he has, or how powerful they are. It is instantly transformed into a very expensive club.
Second of all, different requirements require different guns. For the sake of cost effectiveness they should however be based on a common receiver, if this is practical. Changing barrels around, stocks, maybe even calibers.
Whatever else people say about the G36 it is a reliable rifle (or at least the "bang, bang" part). From the reviews I've read the thing can go several thousand rounds without cleaning (some reports say 25,000). The idea of incorporating optics is definitely a good one, but better iron sights are necessary. Another problem with the gun is its buttstock, which could be strengthened with a little Steel, Aluminum, or more polymer.

Other important factors are:

sufficient range
Lethal "enough"
Light weight
Inexpensive (but not cheap)
accurate (2-3 MOA)
High Magazine Capacity

More important than everything else except reliability is that the solider be trained to use it effectively.

As far as automatic fire goes, I think it's overrated. I seem to recall a war in Africa where the rebels were low on ammunition so they had all of their men switch to semi-auto only, and were able to win the war. Not that a "battle rifle" shouldn't be capable of full-auto, there are definitely cases where it's useful (none of that 3 round burst crap), but soldiers should learn, and train for aimed semi-auto fire. The battle rifle might even be a 7.62 NATO, while the designated Auotmatic weapon could fire 5.56, it's controllability is better suited for that.

The 5.56 round is definitely well suited to shorter ranges more commonly found in battle conditions, and its lethality is unquestionable within those ranges. The reason for its use is that it fragments, while hollow points are banned for military use.

If we look at the history of military rifle development, the trend seems to be towards a greater rate of fire. The Bolt action, when developed was revolutionary. The Garand's Semi-Automatic capability gave it a huge advantage. When the Germans started cranking out SturmGewehr's in WWII the top request of Generals on the Russian front was for more of these wonderful weapons. The American adoption of the 5.56 Millimeter cartridge increased capacity of these fast firing wonder weapons, and gave non-hollowpoints many of the same advantages of hollowpoints, and made bullets difficult to retrieve from the torso.

Regardless of what rifle, good troops remain the most important factor. That having been said, I want nuclear technology miniaturized so I can fire bullets that cause my targets to be vaporized.

-Morgan
 
It wasn't the rebels in the story where they "switched from fullauto to semi"; but the army of Rhodesia before the new enlightened rule of Mr. "A farmer in every pot" Mugabe.

IMHO while this is passed around as "as long as we have semis we're okay" propoganda, the Rhodesians had PLENTY of access to fullauto weapons - the AKs of the communist-backed foreign invaders who were dying in droves. And plenty of ammo - the 3 mags of unspent AK ammo on the bodies of same.

Giving up fullauto on a 308 FAL is not all that big a deal :)


Battler.
 
Forgot to add:

1. Should be able to fired while wearing mittens or gloves. I like the trigger guards that fold away on som rifles.

2. Should be able to cocked with either hand easily.
 
I want one of those rifles Sigorney had in "Aliens". 100 rounds of AP, flamethrower, grenade launcher all in one attractive package. And the gun was pretty too..... :)
 
1. ~6 pounds
2. Capable of accepting mags of at least 30 rounds or drums of 100 or more.
3. Modular so that it can be made into a SAW, sharpshooter's scoped rifle or compact carbine without tools.
4. Collapsible or folding stock but one that is as stable as a fixed stock.
5. .223 caliber is fine...we could invent some new caliber but IMHO .223 is just fine for combat.
6. Capable of mounting a grenade launcher.
7. Configured for ambidextrous use (ambi safety, brass deflector, charging handle either on top like the original AR10 or at the back like an M16).
8. Magwell should be straight-in, not rock-n-lock.
9. Should be capable of changing mags one handed and manipulating the selector without taking your hand off the pistol grip.
10.Should be reliable enough to drag through the mud and fire a few hundred rounds without jamming while still maintaining at least 2 MOA accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top