Next Rifle Upgrade Possibility

They already have 45 cal bolt action rifles with ten shot detachable magazines. Smokeless powder is in the pipeline along with jacketed bullets. Thinking about moving all the ammo for a battle, I have to think that it is a good thing that they have dragons to pull the wagons.

iranuke wrote:They already have 45 cal bolt action rifles with ten shot detachable magazines. Smokeless powder is in the pipeline along with jacketed bullets. Thinking about moving all the ammo for a battle, I have to think that it is a good thing that they have dragons to pull the wagons.

Correct - the M96 takes this class of rifle to war in the spring - in time to meet the Harchongese.

with the advent of smokeless powder and increased bore pressures - decrease the diameter and go for velocity as well as semi auto.

The M1 either standard or Garand seems like the ideal progression at this point - Hmmmmmmm

dwileye13 wrote:

iranuke wrote:They already have 45 cal bolt action rifles with ten shot detachable magazines. Smokeless powder is in the pipeline along with jacketed bullets. Thinking about moving all the ammo for a battle, I have to think that it is a good thing that they have dragons to pull the wagons.

Correct - the M96 takes this class of rifle to war in the spring - in time to meet the Harchongese.

with the advent of smokeless powder and increased bore pressures - decrease the diameter and go for velocity as well as semi auto.

The M1 either standard or Garand seems like the ideal progression at this point - Hmmmmmmm

Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.

The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.

PeterZ wrote:

dwileye13 wrote:Correct - the M96 takes this class of rifle to war in the spring - in time to meet the Harchongese.

with the advent of smokeless powder and increased bore pressures - decrease the diameter and go for velocity as well as semi auto.

The M1 either standard or Garand seems like the ideal progression at this point - Hmmmmmmm

Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.

The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.

Dropping the caliber to circa 7.6mm / 0.3 inch would permit a longer ranged gun with much lighter ammunition. Weight of ammunition goes up at the cube of the caliber for the same velocity. Which is why 5.56 mm ammunition is now popular - a balance between useful military range (cc 300m) and force on target. 50 caliber is fine if you want to punch holes in trucks a 2km but not particularly useful if the choice is carrying a quarter as much ammunition and hitting a quarter as many targets at a tenth the range. (Firing a M-16 is way more comfortable than a Barrett - particularly off hand and in auto - unless you are a built like former Californian Governor ,and the difference on the receiving end is marginal).

PeterZ wrote:
Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.

The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.

You are correct, but my point was the semi-auto in simple form. The Garand action with an external magazine would provide simple action and awesome firepower without getting tooooo complex. M-1 was a reference. The .30 caliber would offer the ability carry more ammo with a solid punch in volume.

dwileye13 wrote:You are correct, but my point was the semi-auto in simple form. The Garand action with an external magazine would provide simple action and awesome firepower without getting tooooo complex. M-1 was a reference. The .30 caliber would offer the ability carry more ammo with a solid punch in volume.

While it was an outstanding battle rifle, the M1 Garand was a heavy, cumbersome rifle. I'm not familiar enough with the construction of the M1 Garand, but I believe it was entirely machined and required fairly tight tolerances.

That's why I've proposed the AK-47 or similar Assault Rifle or SMG that is built with stamped metal receivers and fairly liberal machining tolerances on the forged parts. It also used a .30 caliber round, but the 7.62x41 is smaller and lighter NATO 7.52x51 or 30-06.

The AK and derivatives provide all of the benefits you claim for the M1 Garand (or the M14) plus select-fire up to full-automatic.

I think the next weapon we see will use the .45 black powder cartridge of the new Bolt Action rifle either a Gatling gun, or Gardner gun clone. Two early hand cranked MGs to add firepower to trench warfare.

Next with smokeless powder something like the .30-06 cartridge used in the 1903 Springfield, BAR, and 30 cal browning MG of WW 1 and 2 fame.

However it should take a book to just equip the bulk of the army with the bolt action black powder 0.45, Not only must the rifles be produced, but also the ammunition, lots of ammunition. A plant to produce ammunition in in Sidermark, closer to the action, should be a priority!

Poker

pokermind wrote:I think the next weapon we see will use the .45 black powder cartridge of the new Bolt Action rifle either a Gatling gun, or Gardner gun clone. Two early hand cranked MGs to add firepower to trench warfare.

Next with smokeless powder something like the .30-06 cartridge used in the 1903 Springfield, BAR, and 30 cal browning MG of WW 1 and 2 fame.

However it should take a book to just equip the bulk of the army with the bolt action black powder 0.45, Not only must the rifles be produced, but also the ammunition, lots of ammunition. A plant to produce ammunition in in Sidermark, closer to the action, should be a priority!

Poker

Poker,

I don't think this phase of the war will see anything beyond the M96 firing smokeless powder. The next progression of rifles/MGs won't see action until the next phase. That will be some time in the future. Why design a black powder using weapon when it won't be needed immediately and better propellants are available? If this phase of the war ends within the year and the OBS is still limiting technology, I believe the next rifle to see action will be a .30 Cal automatic. I sustect there will be a heavy MG mounted on self powered vehicles also. I see a steam tank hissing its way to Zion in phase 2 of the current war.

To this day I think a 6mm would have been the way to go way back when when the 5.56mm replaced the 7.62mm. Not a full size .243 necessarily, but something like a 6mm version of the 6.5mm Grendel. Or maybe just the Grendel in any case. Or maybe a 25 cal (6.25mm) version.

AirTech wrote:

PeterZ wrote:...
Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.

The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.

Dropping the caliber to circa 7.6mm / 0.3 inch would permit a longer ranged gun with much lighter ammunition. Weight of ammunition goes up at the cube of the caliber for the same velocity. Which is why 5.56 mm ammunition is now popular - a balance between useful military range (cc 300m) and force on target. 50 caliber is fine if you want to punch holes in trucks a 2km but not particularly useful if the choice is carrying a quarter as much ammunition and hitting a quarter as many targets at a tenth the range. (Firing a M-16 is way more comfortable than a Barrett - particularly off hand and in auto - unless you are a built like former Californian Governor ,and the difference on the receiving end is marginal).

jgnfld wrote:To this day I think a 6mm would have been the way to go way back when when the 5.56mm replaced the 7.62mm. Not a full size .243 necessarily, but something like a 6mm version of the 6.5mm Grendel. Or maybe just the Grendel in any case. Or maybe a 25 cal (6.25mm) version.

AirTech in response to PeterZ wrote:Dropping the caliber to circa 7.6mm / 0.3 inch would permit a longer ranged gun with much lighter ammunition. Weight of ammunition goes up at the cube of the caliber for the same velocity. Which is why 5.56 mm ammunition is now popular - a balance between useful military range (cc 300m) and force on target. 50 caliber is fine if you want to punch holes in trucks a 2km but not particularly useful if the choice is carrying a quarter as much ammunition and hitting a quarter as many targets at a tenth the range. (Firing a M-16 is way more comfortable than a Barrett - particularly off hand and in auto - unless you are a built like former Californian Governor ,and the difference on the receiving end is marginal).

PeterZ wrote:...
Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.

The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.

My own feeling (which, I am sure, will have nothing to do with the ultimate decisions made in Charis) is that (a) the value of full-auto fire for every trooper is way overrated and (b) that the notion of deliberately range-limiting your weapons is Not A Good One.

Waaaaaay back in the 1950s, the Brits deliberately went with a semi-auto version of the FAL (the L1A1) chambered in 7.62 NATO rather than a full-auto or a selectable design. Now, admittedly their current assault rifle (the SA-80), chambered in 5.56 NATO is selectable for full-auto fire, but it's also capable of ripping through ammo at well over 750 RPM, whereas the L1A1's rate of fire is only about 20 RPM. That means the SA-80 is capable of firing off its ammo (which weighs about half as much per round as 7.62 and is about 64% as long and has about 80% the diameter) the next best thing to 40 times as quickly. There are assuredly going to be situations in which having that rate of fire available to you will be a Good Thing; there's also the minor problem of inculcating sufficient fire discipline to know when not to use it. The fact that you can carry twice as much ammo (being generous; the actual number is lower than that) will be a great comfort when you realize you've fired it all off in a sustained fire fight.

The modern tactical tendency has been towards lavish use of suppressive fire, especially in fire-and-move tactics, and I am not arguing that this is a bad tactical doctrine. I do know, however, that if I were the Bad Guys and I knew my enemy used a "spray and pray" approach, I'd be much more likely to take some chances exposing myself than I would if I knew the other side was waiting to take aimed shots only when a target presented itself. A lot depends on the standards of marksmanship and fire discipline one decides to train into one's troops, of course. And given the fact that studies show that, historically, only about 10% of troops in combat have actually aimed at the enemy when pressing the trigger, the hill the trainer has to climb may be just a tad steeper than some people might anticipate.

Rather more to the point, however, as one consequence of weighing less than half as much as the 7.62, the 5.56 has less than half the normally cited maximum effective range. Fighting in close country or in an area broken up with terrain obstacles, that's fully adequate. In open country, or where intervening terrain features do not break up firing lanes, that extra 500 meters or so of range can be a make-or-break factor. A persistent request from the front lines in Afghanistan, for example, has been for greater range in mountain and desert fighting conditions. As one of my friends (a small arms instructor for many years) pointed out to me, you can always use a long-ranged round at shorter ranges if you have to; the reverse is a bit harder to achieve.

Ammo consumption was one of the factors in the US going to a 3-round burst capability on the M-16 and probably represents a reasonable compromise between full-auto and semi-auto given current tactical doctrine. However, there are strong arguments in favor of making the SAW the focal point of your full-auto capability and equipping the supporting riflemen with semi-autos which can reach out and touch someone at longer range when needed, are much more miserly in rate of fire, and expect your riflemen to take aimed shots at specific targets.

I'm just saying someone in Charis might feel that way. Ain't saying it's agonna happen.

[walks away, hands in pockets, whistling]