Next Rifle Upgrade Possibility

runsforcelery wrote: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.

One of the benefits of being the Creator is that you get to design your weapons and weapons capabilities from scratch. IMHO, the lack of range is only one flaw in the 5.56 NATO round. A 6.5mm or 7.62mm or even an 8mm bullet in a cartridge like the 6.5x39 Grendel cited above gives back some of the range and hitting power lost to "assault rifle calibers" without incurring the weight penalties "Assault rifle calibers" seek to avoid.

I look forward to seeing your solution.

There is a lot of stuff in the "Real World" which makes hash of simple ballistics and other assumptions.

The British had done their operational research after WWII, and concluded that the .280 round (similar in size to the 5.56 X 45 NATO round we use currently) would serve most soldier's needs. The EM-2 rifle was developed around that round, and even was accepted by the British Army, but politics in the form of the US having vast quantities of 7.62X51 and the facilities to produce it compelled NATO to adopt that round instead.

When operational research eventually caught up with the US military, they used the same political and economic muscle to introduce the 5.56 X 45 round. As an interesting aside, something like a 6mm round was considered ideal from a ballistic POV for LMG's, but the logistical headaches of having a multiplicity of rounds quashed that idea.

Looking at history, rifles have been designed for flechettes (SPIW), "micro calibre" rounds (4.7mm caseless ammunition for the HK G-11) and various other things. No one round or type of ammunition is ideal for every circumstance (modern NATO 5.56 ammunition does not resemble the initial issue American 5.56 in terms of weight, composition or even the rifling).

Now we know RFC doesn't like Barbie Guns. I still say Charis should design towards the M14 with semi-auto and 3 round bursts for infantry instead of something like the M1. The M1 had to be designed heavy because the design did not deal with the recoil nearly as well as the M14.

Having a semi- auto that doesn't kick the snott out of the GI should do wonders for marksmanship and an increased percentage of actual aimed fire. I may very well be all wet. However, there is something to be said about forcing design to jump several steps ahead the logical progression of rifle design.

Hi Jgnfld,

The Brits before WW I [around 1912 IIRC] discovered a 7mm that had the best ballistics in our atmosphere but were too committed to the .303 etc; I believe Safehold's atmosphere is less dense than ours, so any Terran design will need to be tweaked to adapt it to Safehold regardless of which.

The original M-1 Garand was made in .270 with a 10 round charger, but because of all the .30-06 ammo in stock, MacArthur as CoS of the Army had it changed.

Besides the preference for long range fire our fearless storyteller has indicated, for those still with a assault rifle preference there are compromises; like the 40 round .30-18 pistol round Pendersen device for the slightly modified Springfield in WW I, which could answer both desires, having a high semi-auto rate of fire at close range by removing the bolt, and still retain long range capability.

L

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 wrote:*quote="PeterZ"*...
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.*quote*

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).

Thanks, RFC! I had the misfortune to serve when the British Army changed over from the Lee-Enfield to the SLR (as we knew it: Self-Loading Rifle). Wow, no need to flip the bolt any more to load the next round! What a big advantage - NOT. The SLR was less accurate and not actually any faster to fire. I'd been used to snap-shooting with the L-E, 6-inch targets exposed for 5 seconds at 200, 300 and 400 yards. I could get three shots into the target before it disappeared at those ranges. With the SLR I could only manage one aimed shot to hit at 200 yards, because the recoil threw off the sight picture which had to be re-acquired after each shot and it took too long to do so. Over 200 yards I couldn't even acquire the target before it vanished.
Cheers
John

John Prigent wrote:Thanks, RFC! I had the misfortune to serve when the British Army changed over from the Lee-Enfield to the SLR (as we knew it: Self-Loading Rifle). Wow, no need to flip the bolt any more to load the next round! What a big advantage - NOT. The SLR was less accurate and not actually any faster to fire. I'd been used to snap-shooting with the L-E, 6-inch targets exposed for 5 seconds at 200, 300 and 400 yards. I could get three shots into the target before it disappeared at those ranges. With the SLR I could only manage one aimed shot to hit at 200 yards, because the recoil threw off the sight picture which had to be re-acquired after each shot and it took too long to do so. Over 200 yards I couldn't even acquire the target before it vanished.
Cheers
John

And I still go HUNTING every fall with my 303 Enfield circa 1914 with its ten round magazine... and I hardly need more than two rounds to bag and tag my deer or elk... though I nearly had to use a second magazine when a bear decided he wanted what I was trying to haul back to camp... Glad I did not have a Barbie gun at the time.

John Prigent wrote:Thanks, RFC! I had the misfortune to serve when the British Army changed over from the Lee-Enfield to the SLR (as we knew it: Self-Loading Rifle). Wow, no need to flip the bolt any more to load the next round! What a big advantage - NOT. The SLR was less accurate and not actually any faster to fire. I'd been used to snap-shooting with the L-E, 6-inch targets exposed for 5 seconds at 200, 300 and 400 yards. I could get three shots into the target before it disappeared at those ranges. With the SLR I could only manage one aimed shot to hit at 200 yards, because the recoil threw off the sight picture which had to be re-acquired after each shot and it took too long to do so. Over 200 yards I couldn't even acquire the target before it vanished.
Cheers
John

Agree, 100% although I only used the SLR for a very brief time in the TA.

I was once given the chance to fire a SMLE that had been "re-chambered" to accept the NATO ammunition and it was as good as the old .303" version.

And I REALLY used to like the BREN.

Ooh yes, the Bren! I loved it, but they wouldn't let me have one as a technician. I had to have a Sterling SMG as personal weapon - horrible thing.
Cheers
John

chrisd wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Thanks, RFC! I had the misfortune to serve when the British Army changed over from the Lee-Enfield to the SLR (as we knew it: Self-Loading Rifle). Wow, no need to flip the bolt any more to load the next round! What a big advantage - NOT. The SLR was less accurate and not actually any faster to fire. I'd been used to snap-shooting with the L-E, 6-inch targets exposed for 5 seconds at 200, 300 and 400 yards. I could get three shots into the target before it disappeared at those ranges. With the SLR I could only manage one aimed shot to hit at 200 yards, because the recoil threw off the sight picture which had to be re-acquired after each shot and it took too long to do so. Over 200 yards I couldn't even acquire the target before it vanished.
Cheers
John

Agree, 100% although I only used the SLR for a very brief time in the TA.

I was once given the chance to fire a SMLE that had been "re-chambered" to accept the NATO ammunition and it was as good as the old .303" version.

And I REALLY used to like the BREN.

runsforcelery wrote:
*snippage*

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]

Speaking as a former Cavalryman/Tanker (Yes, both), and a guy that spends hours playing around with how to build up a notional army from the ground up down to the last sock in a ruck (And yes, I have run numbers to that degree: how much gear a guy would carry, how would it fit in a track, how much spare ammo in track.. all the way to regiment level, yes, I am that bored some nights...) I agree, that this makes perfect sense. In a way, its been done before with very great success. Take the notional German Squad of WW2, depending if they was infantry, or PanzerGren, they would have (At book levels) 10 men in a squad: 2 MG's, and the rest with rifles. The idea was the MG was the killing power of the squad, all the rest was there to support the MG by providing ammo bearers and local protection for the Machine-gun. Of course, simplifying it a bit, but it can be summed up that way. For example, K.St.N.1114 (1.11.1941), PanzerGren Company, breaks the company down to how many pistols are present, and how the squads are built up thusly. I think we all would agree, the german infantryman of the period was world class.

If I was to build a formation in the modern times, I would do the same: two fire teams, each consisting of a LMG/Autorifle such as the SAW, 2 rifleman with rifles of the same calibre, and a team leader with the same rifle with a GL mounted. I have no issues with the rifles being SA: after all, like the Germans before, they are there to support the Machinegunner, who would be the most experienced soldier in the team with the exception of the team leader. I could go on, but we all would be bored no doubt.

But thats my educated two cents.

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.

I have long thought the same. The jump from 5.56mm to 6mm might not seem that great on paper, but it does offer significant advantages in range and stopping power. IIRC, some of the early prototypes of the SAW were chambered for a 6mm round and performed well. However, the decision was made to make the SAW a 5.56 in order to make logistics easier.