Let's design the US Army a new battle rifle

[Rem 742 30-06]

Steyr Aug fits all that except the bullet size

[nathangdad]

I wish we could but one must face the reality that
even the best of ideas must survive a mesh of
military attitudes, input from politicians who want things manufactured by firms in their area, what big business does and does not want to build, and
the agony of post contractual changes and amendments to the design between the military and the contraction that exclude the inventor.
However, take heart in the fact that the Russians actually did make their new battle rifle as submitted in a contest open to all. Perhaps we will someday use this method.

[Bravo]

However, take heart in the fact that the Russians actually did make their new battle rifle as submitted in a contest open to all. Perhaps we will someday use this method.

Currently we are. Look at how many DA Striker fired handguns have come out in the past few years (Springfield XD, S&W M&P, Ruger SR-9, Beretta Px4, etc). There is believed to be a military contract for a new side arm in the very near future, and a lot of companies want in on it.

[knightRider]

Originally Posted by meatloaf

The masada is a sweet looking gun is it available for civilian purchase?

will be this summer , i called there is no waiting list even if you can pay for it now and wait < yes i like the design that much i was willing to pay before it came out>

Originally Posted by stitchclimber

I checked out the MASADA. That's one sweet gun.

IT ROCKS

[Bravo]

Lol...I just looked up the MASADA and it is pretty much EXACTLY what I described. You can change barrels for length (11.5" to 18") and also caliber (5.56mm / 6.8mmSPC / 7.62Soviet).

Looks like a winner. I wonder if they'll make a semi-auto civilian model?

[meatloaf]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

My opinion of the Stoner system is that it maximizes two factors against everything else.
1. Inherent accuracy
2. Full auto controllability
This is done by using an action spring that is directly behind the center of mass of the bolt and carrier. Everything else has a spring above or below the center of mass. In order to achieve this, the Stoner design uses a bolt carrier that has a slot for the hammer to reach through while reaching around behind it to contact the spring. The downside of this is that you sacrifice buttstock versatility. You can have only a fixed or telescoping stock, not a true folder or a classic style like the M1.
Also, the bolt carrier group is kept concentric to the bore by being circular and cycling through a circular tube. The downside is that grit doesn't have anywhere to go and the surface to surface contact is high, making it sensitive to the type of lubricant or absence thereof. What you want is the minimum contact area that will still have enough strength to resist breakage and wear. Using certain kinds of steel or treatments to aluminum can have an effect.

Of course they make everything concentric in the receiver and then take a lug off of the bolt to serve as the extractor. Brilliant. Leave it loaded eccentrically like the AK bolt. (The M1 bolt has eccentric lugs, but its head centers in the area behind the chamber.) And the only way to have perfect rearward force is to use a blowback operated action, like the G3. So using any gas system counteracts this advantage.

The M16 was also designed for light weight, but the current barrels are heavier, so with all the disadvantages of a lightweight receiver, including the large area of carrier group contact and significant machining, they lost most of the advantages.

The AR design still has accuracy to offer due to the concentric locking of the bolt in the barrel extension and the integral optics mounting platform in the upper receiver, which is rigid and connected directly to the barrel. But for combat accuracy (vs sniper accuracy) the balance needs to be tilted more towards reliability.

Ah, this balance between reliability and accuracy. When will people ever learn. You actually can have both, and it's not that complicated. Tightness vs looseness. Here's an idea - be tight where it needs to be and loose where it needs to be. The bolt lockup needs to be tight, or more specifically tightly on center and headspaced carefully. The action needs to be loose so that everything can cycle through whatever might get in its way, and feed the next rounds forward with a vengeance that will overcome a sticky round in the magazine. But how do you make sure your bolt doesn't get stuck in the tight tolerances of locking up? Give the bolt carrier enough oomph (also known as momentum) going forward. To do this without too stiff an action spring, you need to put as much weight as possible on your bolt carrier (not your bolt). While a FAL type short stroke piston is attractive, a long stroke AK or M1 Garand type piston adds more mass to this system. If you do use a short stroke piston, make the piston as light as possible, say out of titanium. The main disadvantage to high reciprocating mass is a lower cyclic rate. This becomes a moot point if you use it primarily in semi-automatic mode.

So the bolt carrier needs to have freedom inside the receiver and the bolt needs to have freedom inside the carrier. In order for the bolt then to lock up tightly, it needs to be guided in. The AR design actually doesn't do this very badly with the beveled edges of the lugs on the barrel extension. The AK and M1 Garand do this extremely well with such edges on the bolt lugs and their counterparts on the receiver or trunion.

In my opinion, the AK design is pretty good for what we would need except for a couple points.
1.) The stamped receiver doesn't really give us what we need in terms of an optical mounting platform.
2.) The milled receiver version was designed when machining labor was cheaper and equipment was more expensive, also before certain advances in machining technology and materials. Same with the M1 Garand.
3.) The eccentric lugs have to be superceded by something that will hold better on center and deflect straight back. The Saiga-308 bolt is a good advance here with the typical eccentric lugs and a 3rd lug that both sustains the balance of the forces and helps to center the bolt as it locks.

So what I think we need is a rotating bolt rifle with a machined receiver designed with optics mounting in mind. It will probably need a three or more lug bolt and a carrier group that offers maximum receprocating mass.

As far as a cartridge goes, I think 6.5mm to 277 is the way to go, but I don't think the 6.8 Rem SPC is it. The 6.8 Rem SPC was selected over the 6.5 Grendel only because it had a slight edge on short range ballistics, but I think it was really because the 6.8 was designed to meet the military's request and is the first major military 270 caliber round (the 270 Win being a distinctly American round too), while the 6.5 bullets have been long known to be some of the most optimal bullets out there, and have already been used in military cartridges by Italy, Japan, and Sweden.

If there was a way to maximize commonality of parts without reducing the usefulness of either, I'd say make one version sized for the 6.5mm round and another sized for 308. Or make a more powerful round that would be on a par with the 300 Win Mag with the same rim and overall length but instead of a belt give it a little bit of a taper.

What I think our military needs for this kind of a project is actual engineering capabilities within the military. Not just throwing criteria on paper and selecting the rifle that is the most impressive that meets the technicalities. Actually put some input into the design, not just numerical specs. And give some leeway in some areas if the rifle does very well overall, ie if they wanted a folding stock but the AR system worked for eveything except allowing a folder.

I'm just wondering if the people making these decisions have any clue how the concepts of lockup concentricity, reciprocating mass, dynamic bearing surfaces, and the like all make a difference. Much more than the type of buttstock, the rate of fire, a quick barrel change, and other things that seem to make all the difference.

Uh, nope. Where did you learn all of this ? I have learned more from this reply than I have all year talking to self proclaimed experts! Holy SH*T! Thanks!

Originally Posted by knightRider

will be this summer , i called there is no waiting list even if you can pay for it now and wait < yes i like the design that much i was willing to pay before it came out>



IT ROCKS

Did they say how much?

Hey BRG3, Whats your opinion on the masada platform?

[BattleRifleG3]

I like pretty much everything I've seen about the Masada platform. Using AR-15 bolts and barrels is a double edged sword, however. That was one of my gripes above. But if I was designing a new 223 rifle, I would probably do the same thing. I'm not sure, and would have to actually test both versions, but it's possible that the AR bolt may actually have less stress if you remove the lug opposite the extractor. Armalite actually machines the rear surfaces of their bolt lugs differently to accomplish a similar result.

[FutureMarine9]

i thought id give a link to the military.com website's article on the masada
The Masada Test Shoot

[stikbutter]

Here is a video on the testing of the masaada suppose to be around 1400.00 from what I got on another forum.

[Cyrano]

Well, stikbutter, I'll admit I'd like it better if it were a bullpup, but I like it a lot. Especially configured for 7.62 x 39. That's a GREAT capability!

It's not perfect, but it's a quantum jump over the Jam-A-Matic. How do we pressure the Defense Department to buy about a quarter of a million of these for our troops in the field - and leave the 5.56 NATO barrels home?

[Bravo]

I'm not so sure if the 7.62mm Soviet is the answer. It's a great short range round, but beyond 100 meters, it really suffers.

I think a 21st Century rifle needs a 21st Century cartridge:

6.5 mm Grendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6.8 mm Remington SPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by Bravo

I'm not so sure if the 7.62mm Soviet is the answer. It's a great short range round, but beyond 100 meters, it really suffers.

I think a 21st Century rifle needs a 21st Century cartridge:

Bravo, I think you may have a point there about the 6.5mm Grendel. One major objection I have to the 5.56mm NATO round is its piss-poor performance at anything past 250 meters, no matter what kind of slug tops the cartridge case. I've said it before: you can't take a round developed as a varminting round and expect it to work as a man-killer at intermediate to long ranges! It's why I was in favor of the Masada in 7.62 ComBloc. The Grendel seems to be a superior round in every respect by comparison to the 7.62 x 39.

So let's compromise here. As a nominee replacement battle rifle for the M-16 and its subvariants, how's about a Masada configured as an AK-47 but chambered in 6.5mm Grendel?

(And where can I get one that's strictly semi-auto for civilian use, huh? Huh? Please?)

[Reddbecca]

Here's my thoughts. The basic M4/AR platform isn't bad, it's just not cut out for the desert envrionment, being run hard without lubrication, in a short package.

This, to me anyway, is the most cost effective plan and has the best chance of succeeding. We get M4 uppers produced in 6.5 or 6.8 caliber depending on what would work best, we have them made with a gas piston system, and we reduce the tight tolerances by about 10% so it takes more than a little bit of pixie dust to lock one up tight as a drum, needing it to be taken down entirely and scrubbed out good in the middle of a firefight.

[BattleRifleG3]

The Masada should have no trouble being rebarreled for 6.5 Grendel due to using an AR-15 barrel. See my above comments about the US military and the 6.5.

[cremley]

has anyone seen the Heckler & Koch HK416 SYSTEM. I saw it used on a show called future weapons. he buried it in sand and shook it up a little bit to get the sand inside of it. Then he pulled it out and just fired off a whole mag without a single jam! He also tried it right out of water and while he was shooting it upsidedown. it looks like the m16 but I think it is better than an AK47. here is the link to the website.

Heckler&Koch

[meatloaf]

I am going to buy it! Going to check on it this weekend!

[LarryO1970]

The Steyr Aug is a POS. .... not to be too confrontational. The Aug was put against the M16 and Ak47 ... and came in a dismal last place.
M16 are getting old, and in some cases, have been found to be quite ineffective. It's no longer a matter of if the US will change rilfes, but when. With XM8/OICW program being canceled, I wonder what the military will chose.

Here are some interesting new assault rifles that are worth looking at. The US may not buy them, but they're still worth taking a look at.

Barrett M468
The good: This rifle does not fire the 5.56mm round (which is said to have too little stopping power) the m16 fires; instead, it fires a 6.8mm (.270) round. So far, I haven't heard any downsides to this round, just more stopping power.
The bad: Other than that, this weapon doesn't have to much to show for. Anyone could modify an M16 to be exacty like that if it wasn't for the new caliber (in fact, this new rifle is really just a conversion kit for the M16).

Ak-94
The good: This gun is interesting for one reason: It's two round burst mode. This mode allows the rifle to fire two rounds VERY quickly (1800 rpm, I believe); in effect, doubling the firepower and recoil at the flick of a switch, very useful for a close-in fight.
The bad: Awkward controls that are apparently difficult to use. Probably not as accurate as U.S. forces would like.

XM8
The good: We've all heard it: Light weight, good sights, compact, 4 different weapons in one design.
The bad: Apparently some issues with some pieces of the gun falling apart in extreme situations. At this point, only HK products can be attached to the mounts, limiting what modifications can be added. A short barrel for the length of the weapon.

TAR-21
Note: There doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this weapon out there, so if this seems incomplete, it probably is.
The good: Very compact due to the bullpup (action behind the rear grip/trigger) design and still has a nice long barrel (the weapon is much shorter than the XM8, but has a longer barrel). Lightweight.
The bad: Expensive. No backup iron sights. It may be difficult to add modifications to the weapon.

HK-416
Note: This technically was designed as a SF rifle, but I think it's worth a look.
The good: Ok, let's face it, this is an M4 conversion kit. It solves the reliability and overheating issues with the M4. It adds a ton of room for modifications.
The bad: It's fairly heavy for a carbine. The M4 has apparently had problems with stopping power; this does nothing to solve that.

FN SCAR
Note: This technically was designed as a SF rifle, but I think it's worth a look.
The good: It can be put into TONS of configurations (more of a good thing for SF, which will be transitioning to this rifle). Many modifications can be added. Compact for a standard rifle (just a bit longer than an M4).
The bad: Probably too complex/expensive for the avarage infantry. Heavy for it's size. Likely some reliablity issues due to the complex nature of the design.

RobArm XCR/M96
The good: Seems overall like a steady, conventional weapon (which could be a bad thing too I guess). Fairly good barrel length. The ability to add tons of modifications. Has been used with the 6.8mm round.
The bad: VERY long, do not think this rifle is compact, at all (it's only a bit shorter than the M16). No standard iron sight. A bit heavy (not too bad for it's size though).

Research this stuff, make your own opinion on what the U.S. should switch to, and post it here.

Thanks Joel.

[BattleRifleG3]

The AN-94 is exotic, plain and simple. It's good as a proof of concept, but for pete's sake, it has a cable in its action. The only thing its innovations do is speed cyclic rate, and I thought that was something we were trying to slow down from the M16. If they really want that, send them to me, I think I have a design that's closer to a viable version (which BTW has nothing to do with the full auto components, so no I am not designing automatic firearms).

The Barrett-468 and HK-416 have all the drawbacks of the M16 except the gas system.

The XM-8 is basically a G36 with most of the same tradeoffs, and its main drawback is relying too heavily on polymer in its receiver frame.

The FN SCAR is based on the FNC, which I don't know as much about as I'd like. From what I understand, it's like a cross between the M16 and the FAL.

The Robarm XCR has many good features, but I'm not sure Robinson Armory is up to supplying a military arm. They don't have the best reputation for supporting their products. If it's because they've been focusing all their efforts on doing so for the XCR, unfortunately they've blown their chance to build such a reputation. I'm not saying I wouldn't consider an XCR, but I don't think it's up to being a standard issue rifle.

The Sig-556 is nothing new, just a new inferior lower receiver and inferior furniture. I'm not a fan of the thin forgings of aluminum used by the AR-15, and the Sig mates just such a lower to their current upper design. Once again, not saying I'd never consider one, but that's a downside that I think the US military needs to get away from.

The Masada is for the most part something new and competitive, and the only things that aren't proven are mass production related. Ie, do their heat treated parts keep stable dimensions under all circumstances, do their polymer parts hold up, does their receiver align the AR-15 parts correctly, are their aluminum parts forged or machined correctly and efficiently, and such. Their design looks great, it just seems as though it should cost much more. If they can hold their pricing and answer affirmative on all of my above concerns, I think they will have a real winner. The fact that they're not so big a company may hurt their ability to mass produce for a military contract, but between them and Robarm I have a slightly better expectation that they could manage the engineering and oversee the manufacturing if it were done by other military contractors.

[big boomer]

The new AR set up with the gas port piston in the handguard not the action it the most reliable system yet. Then change the cal. to 260 or 280 for the best ballistic coef.

[meatloaf]

Cant wait till friday I am going to buy me a MASADA rifle (order at least)!

BRG# you sold me on it buddy. Ill shoot the hell out of it and let ya know how she does.

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

The Steyr Aug is a POS. .... not to be too confrontational. The Aug was put against the M16 and Ak47 ... and came in a dismal last place.
M16 are getting old, and in some cases, have been found to be quite ineffective. It's no longer a matter of if the US will change rilfes, but when. With XM8/OICW program being canceled, I wonder what the military will chose.

Here are some interesting new assault rifles that are worth looking at. The US may not buy them, but they're still worth taking a look at.

Barrett M468
The good: This rifle does not fire the 5.56mm round (which is said to have too little stopping power) the m16 fires; instead, it fires a 6.8mm (.270) round. So far, I haven't heard any downsides to this round, just more stopping power.
The bad: Other than that, this weapon doesn't have to much to show for. Anyone could modify an M16 to be exacty like that if it wasn't for the new caliber (in fact, this new rifle is really just a conversion kit for the M16).

Ak-94
The good: This gun is interesting for one reason: It's two round burst mode. This mode allows the rifle to fire two rounds VERY quickly (1800 rpm, I believe); in effect, doubling the firepower and recoil at the flick of a switch, very useful for a close-in fight.
The bad: Awkward controls that are apparently difficult to use. Probably not as accurate as U.S. forces would like.

XM8
The good: We've all heard it: Light weight, good sights, compact, 4 different weapons in one design.
The bad: Apparently some issues with some pieces of the gun falling apart in extreme situations. At this point, only HK products can be attached to the mounts, limiting what modifications can be added. A short barrel for the length of the weapon.

TAR-21
Note: There doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this weapon out there, so if this seems incomplete, it probably is.
The good: Very compact due to the bullpup (action behind the rear grip/trigger) design and still has a nice long barrel (the weapon is much shorter than the XM8, but has a longer barrel). Lightweight.
The bad: Expensive. No backup iron sights. It may be difficult to add modifications to the weapon.

HK-416
Note: This technically was designed as a SF rifle, but I think it's worth a look.
The good: Ok, let's face it, this is an M4 conversion kit. It solves the reliability and overheating issues with the M4. It adds a ton of room for modifications.
The bad: It's fairly heavy for a carbine. The M4 has apparently had problems with stopping power; this does nothing to solve that.

FN SCAR
Note: This technically was designed as a SF rifle, but I think it's worth a look.
The good: It can be put into TONS of configurations (more of a good thing for SF, which will be transitioning to this rifle). Many modifications can be added. Compact for a standard rifle (just a bit longer than an M4).
The bad: Probably too complex/expensive for the avarage infantry. Heavy for it's size. Likely some reliablity issues due to the complex nature of the design.

RobArm XCR/M96
The good: Seems overall like a steady, conventional weapon (which could be a bad thing too I guess). Fairly good barrel length. The ability to add tons of modifications. Has been used with the 6.8mm round.
The bad: VERY long, do not think this rifle is compact, at all (it's only a bit shorter than the M16). No standard iron sight. A bit heavy (not too bad for it's size though).

Research this stuff, make your own opinion on what the U.S. should switch to, and post it here.

Thanks Joel.

Some of these guns are in the new movie RAMBO. Its a great gun porn movie just saw it lots of death, and words dont explain the gore, awesome.