The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States

[sgtgunn]

I have not had a chance to fire either the SCAR-H or L yet. I have fired the M14, M21, AR-10, FN-FAL (including the folding stock para model), M24, and the G3. I have the Bundeswehr Schützenschnur in Gold (German Armed Forces Badge for Weapons Proficiency) - which is essentially qualifying "expert" with the G3 Rifle, MG3 Machine Gun and P1 9mm Pistol. While 7.62x51mm rifles certainly have more felt recoil than 5.56x45mm ones and can be a little more challenging to shoot as a result, it's nothing that can't be mitigated through proper training. The armies of the world in WW1 and WW2 had no problems with their variety of heavy, full caliber, mostly bolt action rifles (in most cases, being fired by conscripts).
A good example - British Army Infantrymen were expected to be able to fire 15 aimed shots at a 300 meter target (and hit) in 60 seconds with their .303 Lee-Enfields. Given that the Lee-Enfield only has a 10 round magazine, that time included throwing another 5 round charger in. Many soldiers could exceed this rate, and fire 20, 25 or even 40 rounds in 60 seconds. That is also factoring the recoil of a bolt-action rifle, firing a full sized cartridge. There are anecdotal stories from WW1 of German soldiers who thought they were facing a machine gun, but in fact were being fired on by a British Rifle Squad, firing their Lee-Enfields at a high ROF.

I have two friends who both served in OIF with the 101st Airborne (AASLT) Division and frequently carried M14s (by choice) on missions instead of their M4.

I don't think that 7.62mm is the perfect cartridge. It's just convenient since it's in the system, readily available, and there are already several issue rifles in use chambered for it (M14, M21, SCAR-H, M110, M24) and in some circumstances it is superior to the 5.56mm. If I had my choice I would prefer 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel or the like. I've fired some 6.8mm M4s and was impressed. I have not yet got had the chance to shoot a 6.5mm, but I've heard good things. FN initially developed a 6.8mm version of the SCAR, but the Army wasn't interested since there were no plans for a cartridge chance any time soon.

Again, ultimately it is the training that matters, not so much the weapon.

Adrian

ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.

When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.

My agency finally retired the last GLOCK 17's in my district. They were kept for several years past their intended retirement out of fear that those officers issued them would not be able to transition to the .40 caliber H&K that we are now issued.
In fact, several officers are now marginal qualifiers while previously, they shot better scores.

RECOIL is a real factor. Hand an M14 to a 5'9" 160 pound male and train him to the same standard as used now. Then hand the same gun to a 5'3" 115 pound female or even small statured male and see what happens.

Also, according to the U.S. ARMY, the guy who did the most shooting and hitting was not armed with a SPRINGFIELD or GARAND, he was carrying a BAR.

Let me ask. If the requirement for a heavier round is that important, why keep the 7.62x51? I would drop it and issue a long range round like the .260 REMINGTON or 7 MM-08. They both shoot flatter and have nearly as much power. The lesser recoil would also mean more hits and only hits are going to drop an opponent.

Jim

 

[golden]

It was not what they wanted

GENTLEMEN,

PRIOR to WWII, both BRITAIN and the U.S. looked at adopting alternate, smaller caliber rounds. At the beginning of WWI (the poorly named WAR TO END ALL WAR), the BRITISH planned to drop the old SMLE and adopt a MAUSER pattern rifle, the P13 in a 7m.m. round. The obvious reasoning was the beating they took from the SOUTH AFRICAN Boers who used the 7x57 MAUSER round in an 1895 MAUSER rifle.
WW1 came along and the 7m.m. was dropped for production reasons. The P13 was a very good design and was produced for the BRITISH by REMINGTON and WINCHESTER in the U.S. When the BRITISH decided they did not need TWO rifles in production, REMINGTON and WINCHESTER then produced it as the 1917 ENFIELD in .30-06 for the U.S. forces.
The BRITISH stayed with the .303 and the SMLE, even though they found it wanting. THEY WERE BROKE and the .303 proved if anything, too powerful in the trenches.

After the war, REMINGTON produced a modified 1917 as the model 30 for many years.

The U.S. has just replaced the .30-03 which had just replaced the .30-40 KRAG prior to WWI. The new .30-06 was supposed to restore the advantage over the 7x57 MAUSER rifles used by the SPANIARDS during the SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (please note, both countries were adopting new calibers and guns to deal with the LESS POWERFUL 7x57 MAUSER round. They both had been on the receiving end and did not like it.
The U.S. even went to the trouble of adopting a modified MAUSER and then had to pay royalties over it to the MAUSER company.

During the BETWEEN WARS period, the U.S. planned to replace the BAR, 1903 rifle and .30-06 round with a 7m.m. round in the GARAND and a new light machine gun. They got 1 out of 3 and only after they were already fighting in WWII.

Roy BRAYBROOK, a well known BRITISH aviation writer pointed out that militaries always plan to use equipment and tactics that worked in the last war that they had won.
So after WWII, the U.S. ARMY decided to buy a shortened .30-06. After all, it had won WWII with it. Other countries did not agree, but their vote did not count. The U.S. was bankrolling NATO, so you bought what the U.S. told you to buy or paid for it yourself.


BRITAIN, had gotten a much worse beating in WWII than the U.S. They wanted to adopt a more modern round and rifle. They came up with a series of pioneering BULLPUP rifles and a 7m.m. INTERMEDIATE round that would have launched a 139 grain bullet at @ 2530 fps. This would have been simply the 6x55 SWEDE round in a shorter form.
The U.S. did not want it or anything else but the 7.62x51. So that was the end of all that was learned the hard way during WWII.
The RUSSIANS on the other hand, had taken a terrible lesson from the 7.92x33 KURZ round used in GERMAN assault rifles and adopted the 7.62x39 round. Several years later they chambered this round in the AK-47 and a world wide legend was born.

My belated point is that the 7.62x51 was not chosen because it was the best round or had proven itself superior. It was a political choice and not a very good one from an infantry point of view.
In combat, both the various 6.5m.m. and 7m.m. have proven they can do just as well, if not better than the 7.62x51 used by the west.
LESS RECOIL, FLATTER TRAJECTORY, LESS WEIGHT TO CARRY OR MORE AMMO FOR THE SAME WEIGHT & A LIGHTER GUN, what is not to like.

One last thing. RUGER recently dropped the 6.8 SPC round from the MINI-14. I may be jumping the gun, but if this round does not find a niche soon, I think it will die off and we will be using the 5.56 until caseless ammo replaces it.

Sorry for the long winded, history lesson. I wanted to be thorough.

Jim

 

[Marc 1]

GENTLEMEN,

PRIOR to WWII, both BRITAIN and the U.S. looked at adopting alternate, smaller caliber rounds. At the beginning of WWI (the poorly named WAR TO END ALL WAR), the BRITISH planned to drop the old SMLE and adopt a MAUSER pattern rifle, the P13 in a 7m.m. round. The obvious reasoning was the beating they took from the SOUTH AFRICAN Boers who used the 7x57 MAUSER round in an 1895 MAUSER rifle.
WW1 came along and the 7m.m. was dropped for production reasons. The P13 was a very good design and was produced for the BRITISH by REMINGTON and WINCHESTER in the U.S. When the BRITISH decided they did not need TWO rifles in production, REMINGTON and WINCHESTER then produced it as the 1917 ENFIELD in .30-06 for the U.S. forces.
The BRITISH stayed with the .303 and the SMLE, even though they found it wanting. THEY WERE BROKE and the .303 proved if anything, too powerful in the trenches.

After the war, REMINGTON produced a modified 1917 as the model 30 for many years.

The U.S. has just replaced the .30-03 which had just replaced the .30-40 KRAG prior to WWI. The new .30-06 was supposed to restore the advantage over the 7x57 MAUSER rifles used by the SPANIARDS during the SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (please note, both countries were adopting new calibers and guns to deal with the LESS POWERFUL 7x57 MAUSER round. They both had been on the receiving end and did not like it.
The U.S. even went to the trouble of adopting a modified MAUSER and then had to pay royalties over it to the MAUSER company.

During the BETWEEN WARS period, the U.S. planned to replace the BAR, 1903 rifle and .30-06 round with a 7m.m. round in the GARAND and a new light machine gun. They got 1 out of 3 and only after they were already fighting in WWII.

Roy BRAYBROOK, a well known BRITISH aviation writer pointed out that militaries always plan to use equipment and tactics that worked in the last war that they had won.
So after WWII, the U.S. ARMY decided to buy a shortened .30-06. After all, it had won WWII with it. Other countries did not agree, but their vote did not count. The U.S. was bankrolling NATO, so you bought what the U.S. told you to buy or paid for it yourself.


BRITAIN, had gotten a much worse beating in WWII than the U.S. They wanted to adopt a more modern round and rifle. They came up with a series of pioneering BULLPUP rifles and a 7m.m. INTERMEDIATE round that would have launched a 139 grain bullet at @ 2530 fps. This would have been simply the 6x55 SWEDE round in a shorter form.
The U.S. did not want it or anything else but the 7.62x51. So that was the end of all that was learned the hard way during WWII.
The RUSSIANS on the other hand, had taken a terrible lesson from the 7.92x33 KURZ round used in GERMAN assault rifles and adopted the 7.62x39 round. Several years later they chambered this round in the AK-47 and a world wide legend was born.

My belated point is that the 7.62x51 was not chosen because it was the best round or had proven itself superior. It was a political choice and not a very good one from an infantry point of view.
In combat, both the various 6.5m.m. and 7m.m. have proven they can do just as well, if not better than the 7.62x51 used by the west.
LESS RECOIL, FLATTER TRAJECTORY, LESS WEIGHT TO CARRY OR MORE AMMO FOR THE SAME WEIGHT & A LIGHTER GUN, what is not to like.

One last thing. RUGER recently dropped the 6.8 SPC round from the MINI-14. I may be jumping the gun, but if this round does not find a niche soon, I think it will die off and we will be using the 5.56 until caseless ammo replaces it.

Sorry for the long winded, history lesson. I wanted to be thorough.

Jim

Jim, an interesting history lesson, and there was quite a bit there that I didn't know about - thanks for the info. Adrian, however wasn't questioning what was the perfect calibre, rather he was pointing out that he disagreed that 7.62 x 51 produced worse accuracy due to flinching compared to smaller calibres. When I served the weapon I was most accurate was the L1A1 SLR in 7,62 x 51. I could not achieve the same scores with M16 or later suprisingly the F88 Steyr despite the optical sight (mind you that was just the basic handle optic, not the new fangled doo hickeys fitted these days). I was on shooting teams for a couple of units and a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62 being fired didn't seem to worry me. For long range accuracy I liked the L1A1 (strange that that weapon was fairly accurate due to the rear sight being on a totally different part of the frame located by a fairly basic hinge pin). Close combat sneaker ranges the M16 worked best, overall I liked the Steyr.

No weapon is perfect and training and proficiency will certainly disguise any shortcomings pretty well. I would put my money on a well trained soldier with a bolt action Mauser/Springfield/SMLE 303 against a poorly trained soldier armed with a SCAR.

 

[golden]

Put my money on the trained soldier

Jim, an interesting history lesson, and there was quite a bit there that I didn't know about - thanks for the info. Adrian, however wasn't questioning what was the perfect calibre, rather he was pointing out that he disagreed that 7.62 x 51 produced worse accuracy due to flinching compared to smaller calibres. When I served the weapon I was most accurate was the L1A1 SLR in 7,62 x 51. I could not achieve the same scores with M16 or later suprisingly the F88 Steyr despite the optical sight (mind you that was just the basic handle optic, not the new fangled doo hickeys fitted these days). I was on shooting teams for a couple of units and a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62 being fired didn't seem to worry me. For long range accuracy I liked the L1A1 (strange that that weapon was fairly accurate due to the rear sight being on a totally different part of the frame located by a fairly basic hinge pin). Close combat sneaker ranges the M16 worked best, overall I liked the Steyr.

No weapon is perfect and training and proficiency will certainly disguise any shortcomings pretty well. I would put my money on a well trained soldier with a bolt action Mauser/Springfield/SMLE 303 against a poorly trained soldier armed with a SCAR.

MARC,

I would also put my money on the trained soldier as long as I was sure of how much training they had. Some training works better than others. I would give points for actual combat experience.
The U.S. Navy found that if a pilot could survive his first 6 dogfights, he survival chances went way up. I am willing to be the same rule applies to infantrymen.

Because of the differences in individuals of the same size, some will handle recoil and be effected by it more than others. This is before we even get into people of different sizes. It is interesting how the fastest growing feature in handguns lately is the interchangeable grips that WALTHER put on the P99 and have now spread to BERETTA, GLOCK, RUGER, SIG and SMITH & WESSON.

No one rifle will be perfect. By the way, do you remember how much that L1A1 (FN) rifle weighed? It probably did not kick that much, but how about an 8 pound carbine? I still think for most troops, the 6.8SPC is the way to go, but I would take the 5.56 over the 7.62 if I could only pick one. It would cover more situations.
However, we will not know if the 6.8 or 6.5 or whatever is an improvement until it sees field issue or shows a big change in qualification scores.

Jim

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have not personally fired either the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, or the .30-06 Springfield (yet) and understand that there is some concern regarding recoil.

I have fired 30-06 rounds and .300 WIN MAG rounds before. The 30-06 rounds have a little bit of recoil but their not too bad and you get used to them. The .300s have a little bit more recoil though and does take some getting used too. I used to flinch every time I've fired a .300 at first. But now I'm used to it. 30-06's are low in recoil IMO.

 

[golden]

That is for you

F-15

To me it depends on the rifle. I fired a REMINGTON 700 ADL in .30-06 and thought it was horrible. My M-1 GARAND was fine. It also depends on the experience level and tolerance of the shooter. I know people who insist that the .300 REMINGTON ULTRAMAG is not a heavy recoiling round.

My point is that the service rifle is not designed for the 1 in 10 or 1 in 8, but for all 10 shooters. Pick 10 shooters at random. Train them on a .30-06 and a .223. Then see which one get all the hits!

I know where I would put my money.

This is the reason that what rile is picked in .308 by SOCOM is not relevant to the choice of a general issue rifle. It has to be useful by everyone and for some, no amount of training is going to overcome stature and personality.

I prefer the 9m.m. over the .45ACP for the same reason. Only hits will count.

Jim

 

[F-15 Eagle]

golden

Everyone is different, and how they react to recoil just depends on the person.

Personally I like a little bit of recoil. It makes the gun have a feel of power IMO.

I'm more of a .45 ACP person than a 9mm, I just prefer bigger bullets.

But thats just me.

 

[Mufasa32]

The thing is, is that the M16a1,a2,a3,a4 and the M4 Carbine will soon be very outdated, with Russia developing more complex Kalashnikov variants and the rest of NATO moving on to new weapons being produced in Europe.

There was while testing for the XM8 assault riffle, however was canceled.

I believe that the next candidate for a new Infantry riffle of the United States is the SCAR-L which is already in a lot of use in the US army rangers.

Not only that the SCAR 'variants' can be deployed as Assault and Heavy Battle riffles as well as CQB and CQBR forms

I want to know if there are any other better options?

What do you think:ar15

The Barrett M468 (REC7) is a very accurate and reliable rifle. It is a M4-pattern rifle, which unlike a lot of people think is a good thing seeing that our infantrymen are equipped with M4's and M16's. With that being said they can pick up the M468 and put rounds down range with no problem. When your in the heat of battle nothing is better than familiarity with your weapon (don't have to think because you already know the ins and outs of your weapon). It comes in the 5.56x45mm NATO round BUT what makes this gun special and superior is that it also comes in a specially made round, the Remington (6.8 × 43 mm) which is compatible with a standard-size lower receiver currently in use by the United States military (basically you don't have to change out any receivers or barrels when you change from the two different rounds). It is midway between the 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO in bore diameter and velocity. A 6.8mm round is the best compromise between the two, providing accuracy and reliability. The 6.8mm round has 44% more kinetic energy than the 5.56 mm round. Another great innovation of this gun is that unlike the M4 and M16 which has a direct gas-impingement system, the M468 incorporates a short-stroke, piston-driven system that offers cleaner and cooler operation than one with direct gas-impingement. This gun is the real deal. If you like the M4 or M16, you will LOVE this gun. Ronnie and Chris Barrett are doing big things in the rifle industry. Who doesn't love the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle? That is a mans toy. lol Props go out to the Barrett family.

I am also a huge fan of the HK416. Which is also an M4 variant. Basically almost exactly like the M468 without the specially made round. You can NEVER go wrong with any gun made by Heckler&Koch. Delta has been using them for 8 years. Matter of fact H&K collaborated with a Delta legend (Larry Vickers) to develop the HK416. And if Delta is using them, that's all you need to know. lol

 

[ngatimozart]

MARC,

I would also put my money on the trained soldier as long as I was sure of how much training they had. Some training works better than others. I would give points for actual combat experience.
The U.S. Navy found that if a pilot could survive his first 6 dogfights, he survival chances went way up. I am willing to be the same rule applies to infantrymen.

Because of the differences in individuals of the same size, some will handle recoil and be effected by it more than others. This is before we even get into people of different sizes. It is interesting how the fastest growing feature in handguns lately is the interchangeable grips that WALTHER put on the P99 and have now spread to BERETTA, GLOCK, RUGER, SIG and SMITH & WESSON.

No one rifle will be perfect. By the way, do you remember how much that L1A1 (FN) rifle weighed? It probably did not kick that much, but how about an 8 pound carbine? I still think for most troops, the 6.8SPC is the way to go, but I would take the 5.56 over the 7.62 if I could only pick one. It would cover more situations.
However, we will not know if the 6.8 or 6.5 or whatever is an improvement until it sees field issue or shows a big change in qualification scores.

Jim

The L1A1 SLR (FN FAL) weighed in at 4.45kg (empty) Modern Firearms - FN FAL It has a gas regulator that allows you to adjust the amount of gas that is diverted to the piston to reload the next round. Hence you could adjust the recoil and I used to have mine set about 4. IIRC the settings went from 0 - 8. IMHO 4 was a good setting because you didn't get the full recoil but you still sent enough gas to the piston to reload. The real trick was to mitigate the recoil but ensure enough gas went to the piston. If enough gas didn't then you had reload issues, hence jamming etc. I also had opportunity to use both M16 and the Steyr and found M16 useless and Steyr ok, but I have a solid preference for the 7.62mm round and the L1A1 or AK. Like others have said it is the training and instruction and not necessarilly the weapon calibre that is important.

As an aside I used to own a Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1* .303 rifle. It was a full wood and I used it for hunting deer. I bought it in 1977 for NZ$15.00 ex RNZAF in its original packing and grease. It shot true and was the best firearm I owned.

 

[Raven22]

The L1A1 SLR (FN FAL) weighed in at 4.45kg (empty) Modern Firearms - FN FAL It has a gas regulator that allows you to adjust the amount of gas that is diverted to the piston to reload the next round. Hence you could adjust the recoil and I used to have mine set about 4. IIRC the settings went from 0 - 8. IMHO 4 was a good setting because you didn't get the full recoil but you still sent enough gas to the piston to reload. The real trick was to mitigate the recoil but ensure enough gas went to the piston. If enough gas didn't then you had reload issues, hence jamming etc. I also had opportunity to use both M16 and the Steyr and found M16 useless and Steyr ok, but I have a solid preference for the 7.62mm round and the L1A1 or AK. Like others have said it is the training and instruction and not necessarilly the weapon calibre that is important.

As an aside I used to own a Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1* .303 rifle. It was a full wood and I used it for hunting deer. I bought it in 1977 for NZ$15.00 ex RNZAF in its original packing and grease. It shot true and was the best firearm I owned.

I think you'll find that the gas setting has an almost negligible impact on the amount of felt recoil. Recoil is caused by Newton's third law. The amount of gas going through the gas port isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you'll find that the gas setting has an almost negligible impact on the amount of felt recoil. Recoil is caused by Newton's third law. The amount of gas going through the gas port isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.

I found butt leangth to be a bigger factor in felt recoil, the ADF SLR originally had the option of short, medium and long before pretty much standardising on medium. Personally I found the long to be the most comfortable with the least felt recoil as it was easier and more natural to pull it hard into my shoulder.

 

[Krijger]

It seems to me that what the Army needs is a “bullpup” rifle. Such a weapon would be compact enough for use in confined spaces and in CQB, but the barrel would be long enough for accuracy and stopping power over longer ranges, as well as reducing muzzle noise. It could use the 7.62 x 51 cartridge, thus making it more powerful, while not upsetting the rest of NATO.
I think all of the current bullpups are 5.56mm, but I'm sure one of the firearms manufacturers would be willing accommodate a customer the size of the US Army!

 

[Milne Bay]

It seems to me that what the Army needs is a “bullpup” rifle. Such a weapon would be compact enough for use in confined spaces and in CQB, but the barrel would be long enough for accuracy and stopping power over longer ranges, as well as reducing muzzle noise. It could use the 7.62 x 51 cartridge, thus making it more powerful, while not upsetting the rest of NATO.
I think all of the current bullpups are 5.56mm, but I'm sure one of the firearms manufacturers would be willing accommodate a customer the size of the US Army!

Not all.
See here:
Defense Review - SRSS BullDog762 Bullpup M14/M1A 7.62mm Battle Rifle Goes to Combat: SpecOps Tests BullDog’s Bite

Seems that this was tried in Afghanistan. I wonder what the evaluation showed.
It would be interesting to find out the feedback.

 

[Krijger]

A-ha! Thank you for that. I did research as many bullpup rifles as possible, but I missed that one!
It would indeed be interesting to see the result of that test.

 

[an94stalker]

Looking into my crystal ball. The next U.S rifle will probably be a greatly improved bullpup version of russia's AN-94. I say this because hyperburst is the next step in capability that's proven and reliable enough to adopt in a standard infantry rifle, and recently the military announced they wanted it in their future rifle. (no caseless ammo rifle for example) (and the AN-94 also has 60 quad stack magazines available.)

This new bullpup AN-94 will probably be developed by Australia who will be looking to replace their steyr aug based rifle in 2020-25. (They adopted it in 1988) Since Australia's new EF88 is already a bullpup, has rails, electronic control system and the the latest ubgl (even 40mm airburst is coming). They will need to develop a new rifle themselves if they want more capability, as a significantly better rifle off the shelf won't exist.

Seeing as Australia and the U.S are so close, and by then the u.s will be desperate to upgrade their rifle, they will probably choose to develop this rifle together with the u.s. (Britain and canada joining in is possible too).

Also at 20 years of patent protection, the AN-94's patents will expire in 2024, which means they probably won't even need to pay for any licesing fees. The calibre will remain the same for obvious reasons, but nations using the same rifle is the first step to making a calibre change possible, as it will enable a calibre change modification, much cheaper than fielding a new weapon. Already, the u.s closest allies use the same rifle or a similar one.

Also given the complexity of the AN-94 mechanism, probably only the most highly trained regular infantry soldiers in the world will be able to adopt it as their standard rifle.

So hopefully it's an Australian led co-Canada-U.S-Britain weapon project. Modelled after the u.s socom M4 package. Australian Thales (formerly ADI) is a good leader for this project as they are small, formerly government owned and their EF88 project is similar to this new rifle project.

 

[the road runner]

I was under the impression that Australia's next small arms would be along the lines of the "Advanced Individual Combat Weapon."

It has been developed by DSTO and metal storm and has a 3 round stacked 40mm grenade launcher,attached to a F-88 bullpup.I know it was being tested in mid 2000 but dont know how the results panned out

http://www.vostokstation.com.au/Advanced Individual Combat Weapon.pdf

As for choosing a Russian AN-94 why would we do that? We would be better off sticking with our F-88 i would assume.This is due to having a licence to build these, and a number of weapons in the ADF inventory.

What would we gain in choosing a Russian AN-94 ,besides wasting 1-2 billion dollars for technology that is 20 years old?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you'll find that the gas setting has an almost negligible impact on the amount of felt recoil. Recoil is caused by Newton's third law. The amount of gas going through the gas port isn't going to change that in any meaningful way.

There is more to felt recoil than just the Newtonian physics of the bullet and propellant gas leaving the weapon. This is the first impulse contributing to recoil and movement in the weapon. The second impulse is caused by the bolt group moving back and forth in the receiver. The third is if the weapon has the bolt group strike a buffer in the rear of the receiver and the fourth when the bolt group comes to a halt against the chamber while loading a new round. While the bolt group doesn’t move at the same velocities as the bullet) and gas leaving the barrel (about 10-20 feet per second) it is much heavier (500 g rather than 4 g) and its impulses take place over a lot longer time. Typically a bullet and gas has left the barrel in under 2 milliseconds and the action of the bolt group takes about 10-20 milliseconds. Anyway opening up the gas port has the down side of increasing the velocity of the rearward movement of the bolt causing stronger impulses.

Designing a weapon to try and balance some of these non-bullet impulses can actually be quite successful. The American designed, Singaporean built Ultimax 100 is noteworthy for its bolt spring that stops the bolt group from striking the buffer. While some are talking about the AN-94 its competition rival the AEK-91 used a balanced design with a second gas piston linked to a balancing steel weight that moved in opposite direction to the bolt group. Testing indicated that this rifle was 10-20% more accurate than the non-balanced but otherwise very similar AK-74. It was especially effective in firing long bursts of 3-5 and 7-10 rounds per trigger pull.

Anyway all this is academic. The future of small arms is light weight and digital integration. Spending huge on balanced and fast firing mechanical systems provides limited benefits compared to a digital sighting system that insure the first round hits.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was under the impression that Australia's next small arms would be along the lines of the "Advanced Individual Combat Weapon."

The AICW demonstrated the technology the Army wanted in a new rifle but it wasn’t the grenade launcher. It was the second half of the program: the digital sight integration. Which is why the new Army rifle will be the EF 88.

You can see some nice pictures and a basic explanation of this weapon here:

The Firearm Blog » Thales/Steyr F90 and EF-88 AUG Rifle Review

 

[My2Cents]

Looking into my crystal ball. The next U.S rifle will probably be a greatly improved bullpup version of russia's AN-94. I say this because hyperburst is the next step in capability that's proven and reliable enough to adopt in a standard infantry rifle, and recently the military announced they wanted it in their future rifle. (no caseless ammo rifle for example) (and the AN-94 also has 60 quad stack magazines available.)

The current experience in Iraq and Afghanistan does not indicate that hyperburst will provide a significant improvement, just the opposite because you would need to haul twice as much ammo for the same endurance in combat. Proper training to shoot well is seen as more important.

The floating internal mechanism of the AN-94 that delays and reduces the peak recoil, on the other hand, is likely to offer some advantage, particularly if a more powerful cartridge is needed.

I agree that caseless ammo is unlikely in the next iteration, but plastic case telescoped ammunition is very likely, and will mostly likely require fundamental changes in the breach mechanism (it appears that you have to use a ‘push-through’ design to eject the spent case). This may make a simple caliber change for existing weapons impossible.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The current experience in Iraq and Afghanistan does not indicate that hyperburst will provide a significant improvement, just the opposite because you would need to haul twice as much ammo for the same endurance in combat. Proper training to shoot well is seen as more important.

That’s a significant misunderstanding about how salvo fire weapons improve accuracy. It’s not necessarily about compensating for aiming errors but providing a hit solution against combat targets that are moving and/or require snap shots to engage. All things being equal a salvo fire weapon provides much better combat accuracy than conventional single shot and automatic weapons. It’s just the weight and cost of the mechanical action of the salvo fire weapon probably isn’t worth it, especially with the advent of digital fire control systems for small arms.

Further to argue it would result in twice as much ammo being shot is plain ridiculous. The great majority of shots fired by riflemen in contemporary combat are suppressive fires. Between a salvo fire weapon like the AN-94 and the G11 and other rifles there will be no appreciable difference in suppressive fires. They will be fired either as single shots or full automatic bursts. But for those handful of shots where an enemy is being directly engaged a salvo burst will be fired. Since most soldiers are likely to double tap or use a three round burst mechanism or small burst against such targets anyway what’s the difference?