The Army's Next-Generation Rifle Will Be "The iPhone of Lethality," Officials Say

aaronspink said:
All modern bullpups are ambi.
Click to expand...

You're correct that they can be converted to left- or right-handed shooting, and that is an advantage over the M-16, which uses a little plastic ejection port guide to keep the brass away from your arm. But in the moment, I can't decide to shoot left- or right-handed. The Steyr's ejection port position is so close to the butt that your face would cover 2/3rds of it if you switched sides.

Some modern bullpups (Kel-Tech, Desert Tech MDR) eject forward, but that still doesn't solve the off-side ejection problem since the hot cartridge will bounce off whatever you're hiding behind. Hot brass sucks.

And I don't like the extra serving of spent gasses I get when shooting a bullpup. :sick:


P.S. In spite of some of the arguments surrounding the gun, I do have a small yearning for an MDR in 7.62.
 
seanreisk said:
You're correct that they can be converted to left- or right-handed shooting, and that is an advantage over the M-16, which uses a little plastic ejection port guide to keep the brass away from your arm.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't on DI guns. 9mm and other blowbacks may use a stick on or insert but non slick side guns are made from aluminum as it is part of the upper forcing.

And AR pattern rifles can be either left or right handed.....just depends on the upper.
 
Lunas said:
then he should not have used iphone as a buzzword
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a complete picture of what the military is looking for.

What they're looking for is a powered chassis. An electronic MIL-STD-1913 in concept. They've been talking about it for years.

The chassis will deliver power from a battery pack to any attached devices. These could be pointers, rangefinders, optics, smart grenade launchers, and whatever else the future may yield.

This chassis could be built into an all-new rifle, but most likely it will be rolled into existing rifle inventory components.

Imagine if you could look down your scope, push a button, and wirelessly send a digital package with your position, the target's position, and real-time imaging to your support, planes, drones, whatever. This data can then be used to call in overwhelming air superiority. No need to have force-on-force contact. The old zerp-and-brrrt. That is the direction the military is headed.

Don't need a new gun for all that. Plus it's future-proof to an extent. As new electronics come into play, they can just drop into existing systems.

That assumes that it even needs to be on a gun. I'm not sure it does, but a universal power system could be nice. Or a liability. We'll see.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
No, it doesn't on DI guns. 9mm and other blowbacks may use a stick on or insert but non slick side guns are made from aluminum as it is part of the upper forcing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, let me clarify - these weren't part of the gun, they were a little clip-on doo-dad the Army would to issue to lefties. They just snap on to the ejection port. I used to keep one all the time, they stop the ejected brass from bouncing towards the face (mostly - you still get more burns being a lefty). I guess they solved this with a permanent block after the M16A2.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.
Click to expand...

M110 is based on an AR. SR-25/Mk 11 is based on an AR.
 
lcpiper said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

I'm an Army guy, not a Marine, and I see that this platform is HK's version, based off the M416. Is the HK M416 based off the M16 platform or is their something significantly different?

I am asking, it's looking like the Marines are going to make me eat crow.
Click to expand...

It has rather significant parts commonality. Whether the differential between DI and SSGP disqualifies it is really a matter of debate.
 
seanreisk said:
Sorry, let me clarify - these weren't part of the gun, they were a little clip-on doo-dad the Army would to issue to lefties. They just snap on to the ejection port. I used to keep one all the time, they stop the ejected brass from bouncing towards the face (mostly - you still get more burns being a lefty). I guess they solved this with a permanent block after the M16A2.
Click to expand...

Modern bullpup have the same functionality built into their designs. Take a look as the TAVOR for example.
 
lcpiper said:
Are you leaving out the rest of the discussion? Where is the light machinegun part of this?

The author is pointing to the Army who is saying they want to go with a common platform for all.

Someone else said that we have that with the M-16. Well we don't, we only have part of that, and it hap-hazard, and not common.

And I challenge you to find any of those weapons you are pointing to and show me the "M" designator in the name that means it's an officially fielded peace of gear and not a prototype pushed out into the field do to need.

Ohh, and an M-16 lower doesn't make the weapon full-auto. The Army Marksmanship Unit produced several of these but they used target triggers which were not full-auto capable. But that's beside the point, everything in the world got cobbled together and thrown into the sane over the last decade. But if it doesn't have an "M" in front of it's designation it's not fielded equipment.
Click to expand...

You can put a belt fed upper on it. The original AR-10 had a belt fed variant in the 50s. Just because the US military doesn't purchase it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Same can be seen with the older HK style weapons. The G3 expanded into sniper rifles, SMGs, belt fed LMGs, automatic rifles and whatnot. Colt produced automatic rifle versions for years and they were adopted by some countries.

maxresdefault.jpg


It is certainly possible, but in a lot of instances it may not be ideal. A purpose built LMG may make more sense. That way the rifle can be optimized around being light weight. If you're just using the lower receiver it may not be too bad as all of the LMG stuff would be on the upper half anyways without adding unnecessary weight or cost to the rifles. So it is possible... whether the military wants to pursue it is another matter.

Sometimes excessive modularirty has draw backs though.
 
Crackinjahcs said:
Like people's preference for firearms differs so do our experiences, Icpiper. In Iraq sometimes we pushed into neighborhoods and buildings, other times we backed off a bit and hit it with a JDAM. Also, we are, by and large, a mounted force where getting in and out of vehicles multiple times in short periods is much easier and faster with something short like an M4 vs. an M16. The variable length of pull (adjustable buttstock) also accommodates smaller users better than a full-size M16.

On the other hand, while in Afghanistan most of my experiences were much longer range. But the effective range of an M4 vs. an M16 in the average Soldier's hands is not much different, no matter what the TM says.

The flexibility that the AR platform offers, swapping attachments, sights/scopes, barrel groups and receivers has given the platform much greater mileage than most other weapon systems, which is why time after time with these "future weapon" contests we end up with the same rifle after millions of dollars in R&D and trials. The platform's main drawbacks are limiting ammunition and magazine choices to what fits through the fixed-size magazine well and how much of a PITA it is to clean the chamber.
Click to expand...

Love the post.

So the futures guys are always going to be looking for the "next" rifle that's supposed to be better than what we use now. But of course, the new rifle has to past the money test and the bean counters will have their day. You know it, anyone with real time in the military knows it. A huge part of why the Army adopted the M16 was because of the weight savings. A lighter rifle and lighter ammo means a soldier can carrier a larger basic load of ammo, and other gear as well. Such things are important and many times can be more important than a little more accuracy or a little more range.
 
Flogger23m said:
You can put a belt fed upper on it. The original AR-10 had a belt fed variant in the 50s. Just because the US military doesn't purchase it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Same can be seen with the older HK style weapons. The G3 expanded into sniper rifles, SMGs, belt fed LMGs, automatic rifles and whatnot. Colt produced automatic rifle versions for years and they were adopted by some countries.

View attachment 141379

It is certainly possible, but in a lot of instances it may not be ideal. A purpose built LMG may make more sense. That way the rifle can be optimized around being light weight. If you're just using the lower receiver it may not be too bad as all of the LMG stuff would be on the upper half anyways without adding unnecessary weight or cost to the rifles. So it is possible... whether the military wants to pursue it is another matter.

Sometimes excessive modularirty has draw backs though.
Click to expand...


I think there is a problem here in that we are not arguing the same argument.

I haven't been saying that these options do not exist. I'm saying they have not been formally adopted in their entirety as a single homogeneous solution. Someone claimed that it has existed for a long time, and I said it hasn't. The gentleman who brought up some Marine solutions stumped me and made me back off because I am actually not all that familiar with the Marines, but then again, this article and the subject is about an Army initiative, not a Marine one.

But again, I'm not saying these options are not out there. I'm saying the Army hasn't bought into one as a single homogeneous, single platform, multi-configuration solution. Everything so far has been bits and pieces and rapid prototyping or rushed procurement for stop-gap fixes to immediate needs.
 
Riccochet said:
Everything I've read is that the military is looking for longer range, flatter shooting, higher energy rounds. I've not read anything about them wanting shorter barrels since all the optics they use can't account for that kind of bullet drop over distance.

Even 110 or 125 grain 6.8 SPC has considerably more drop at 200-300 yards than 5.56. Beyond that it plummets like a rock.
Click to expand...

Read from where? Yes, low BC is nice but it always seems like lower BC comes at cost to poor wound performance at closer ranges as well as stability in shorter barrels. The 6.8 does great with 95-100 gr bullets where drop is similiar to the 5.56. Engagements are still rarely past 300m and there is much more to bullet performance than simply reading a ballistics charts.

As for the cost issue of switching calibers, it is pretty much chump change compared to programs like the F35 and even C-27J. Let's not forget that wars are still won on the ground.
There is also the issue now of how the new M855A1 'wonder round' is tearing up durablock in the cqb houses. That is going to cost a crap load of money as well as taking away valuable training time.
 
M76 said:
So it will be only an incremental upgrade to the old rifle, but cost 40% more?
Click to expand...

that actually sounds about right lol slap some taticool furniture and a overpriced red dot/scope on a existing ar/scar platform and charge 10x as much
 
Holy necro-thread Batman!
I thought to myself, 'why don't I remember this thread' as I read the month and day scrolling back to see the past comments, then I looked at the year.....
 
Darunion said:
I think after a thread is inactive for 6 months, the background should change to old tattered parchment paper so people know when they post.
Click to expand...
Should start on the OP.
Only thing I want to be reminded of is stuff from my childhood like this little jem I been trying to find these past few decades I just found today. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_&_Rule
Now if only I can find that early 80s toy line whos figure featured glow in the dark weapons......
 
1. It costs more and you'll want a new one every year.

2. To make it work right you have to hold it in really awkward looking positions.

3. If you drop it, it breaks.

4. If you sit down with it in your back pocket, it may bend.

5. You have to look at it all the time which means you may run into many non-friendly situations.
 
M76 said:
So it will be only an incremental upgrade to the old rifle, but cost 40% more?
Click to expand...
And they’ll arbitrarily make your old guns stop working even though they’re perfectly fine and they won’t be able to use the latest ammo.
 
Something like 1 in 4 combat infantry positions will be eligible for the new guns which means 1 in roughly 20 to 30 enlisteds and officers and I doubt 1 in 100 will be issued anything before the whole thing gets scrapped.

My prediction is that a couple of units will continue to use them, they will be scouts and special forces, and for some reason no one can possibly fathom an entire cavalry regiment stationed in Texas.
 
Overlooking all the sarcastic, even if deservedly so, remarks, first they have to convince the rest of NATO that all of NATO needs a new NATO cartridge for this small arms weapon class.

Or.... the US decides fuck what NATO wants, they can follow, or go their own damned way, we don't care and we're changing.

But mostly, I think they care because man that's a lot of sales potential.
 
The US is NATO; the US doesn't care about NATO. We currently field plenty of non-NATO munitions, and while .277 whatever is less political than the calls to go back to 7.62 NATO, I'm highly skeptical that it will see any success because combat is moving away from force-on-force tactics. Politicians and profiteers are complaining about cheap foreign body armor and saying we need better guns to shoot through it when what soldiers will be using are better binoculars to call in for support fire.
 
Nato rules on standardized ammo are probably outdated, or perhaps better worded, those rules used at the time that the more recent 'standards' were set (such as 5.56). 5.56 nato isn't the best round, its generic enough spec wise that 20 different manufacturers can make it and the guns and everything works together. But it's not super accurate.. accurate enough is what they were going for, but I would expect a new modernized rifle to be made with a different, new caliber, so that more modern, tighter specs could be put in place. They can't do that with 7.62 or 5.56 or 2.23, its already out there in 100 different flavors...

Regarding the smart rifle, the Apple comparison was not the best analogy, but I seriously doubt that the firing of the weapon will be completely computer controlled. Support information, windspeed, range adjusted scope, locations of friendlies, etc on a hud in the scope, or display are possible. Nothing so fancy that the computer "locks on" to a target and fires automatically, is going to be mass manufactured for infantry. That's a million dollar rifle. For elite sniper units, probably. But not the average joe soldier.
 
Axman said:
The US is NATO; the US doesn't care about NATO. We currently field plenty of non-NATO munitions, and while .277 whatever is less political than the calls to go back to 7.62 NATO, I'm highly skeptical that it will see any success because combat is moving away from force-on-force tactics. Politicians and profiteers are complaining about cheap foreign body armor and saying we need better guns to shoot through it when what soldiers will be using are better binoculars to call in for support fire.
Click to expand...

Although you are correct that the US has great influence over NATO, and that NATO adoption may not prevent the US from adopting a cartiridge against NATO objection, I think you are way off base on your tactics comment. Although it's true that in given situations, bring to bear novel weapons is a great option, force on force combat is going to happen whether we like it that way or not. The only reason we haven't seen more is because we haven't faced enemies capable of standing toe to toe with us in the field. Provided a suitably capable opposition force we'll see how much everyone loves in your face combat. I used to hear Young Army Officers walking around Ft. Huachuca saying "We'll never fight another conventional war" right after the first gulf war, and how did we open up the beginning of the Iraq Invasion? Damned if it wasn't a conventional attack with Mechanized Units advancing in classic spearheads acrossed the desert and an Airborne Assault and capture of an airbase from where we fly in Armor and Mech Infantry where they again, charged off to seize objectives and destroy any conventional force that tried to resist.

This was while Shinseki said we didn't need the main battle tank any more, armored cars could do what needed to be done, but the world is still building tanks all over. Keep thinking these visionaries have it all figured out, see how it stands over time.
 
I don't disagree. I said moving away from, not escaping the possibility of. Soldiers are still going to fight soldiers in any conflict, but when it comes to defeating armor, body or otherwise, a new rifle isn't going to cut it much more than they can do it now.

Darpa and Ardec have some new projectiles they're evaluating for 5.56 and 7.62 that will do better than green tips and EPR that they've said perform as well as the new hybrid ammo; they're probably real barrel-burners that can't fly straight but for armored targets and far-away targets my bet is on other weapons not rifles that will continue to see more use.
 
About every three years the Army decides (rightfully) that the M16/M4 platform needs to be replaced.
  1. Procurement posts specs... based 99%+ upon some politically already preferred new weapon 'X' their favorite consultants (retired generals) have already preselected.
  2. Weapons go to official testing...
  3. The 'Annointed' weapon X gets it's clock cleaned by at least 3-4 other competitors (usually H&K)
  4. Results get analyzed and more cherry-picking field testing results are ordered to make weapon X look better
  5. Senators/Congressmen on armed services committee complain behind closed doors that weapon X isn't being made in their district -and/or- that maker hasn't made any campaign donations
  6. Procurement decide to rethink all current bids for procurement and cancels the current process
  7. Six months later.... back to step 1
/USAF vet
//Nephew is USMC vet (got to use a M14 in Afghanistan!) and their recon elements were using HK417's
///See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
////war (and military procurement) never changes
 
Last edited:
Army is certainly looking into to calibers because modern body armor does a decent job of stopping 5.56. And it seems like China is producing a lot of these and selling more to other countries, including shady ones. Also terrorists like ISIS are often using western/American armor taken from the Iraqi military/police. Modern body armor is simply becoming more common. Not saying they will switch anytime soon, but it seems to be the direction they want to go it.

I'm going to assume SIG will get any contracts and it will be MCX based. They're getting a lot of SF contracts for things like the MCX Rattler, a new GPMG, pistols and I believe they will also get the M249 replacement. Whether it is 5.56 or a new caliber I'm not sure, but it will probably be SIG.

This is SIG's SAW and rifle they previously entered, no idea if this program is dead yet.

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/me....jpg?80b76736b0a08f5c884450e4186bb6c768fa641e
 
Optics with realtime aiming solutions that I've seen, let alone what's in development, usually have long or infinite eye relief and and can be used from all sorts of wonky positions.

Also IIRC SIG didn't get any Rattler contracts (early versions had an integral flash hider? what were they thinking) and B&T picked up the last published sub-gun contract. It was small, like 1000 units, for military security personnel.

But yeah, SIG is the new Colt in a lot of respects. They make what the Army asks for and sells it to them for a price the Army sets. Then they make up their profit margins by selling commercial versions on the civilian market (which is unlike Colt).
 
Axman said:
Optics with realtime aiming solutions that I've seen, let alone what's in development, usually have long or infinite eye relief and and can be used from all sorts of wonky positions.

Also IIRC SIG didn't get any Rattler contracts (early versions had an integral flash hider? what were they thinking) and B&T picked up the last published sub-gun contract. It was small, like 1000 units, for military security personnel.

But yeah, SIG is the new Colt in a lot of respects. They make what the Army asks for and sells it to them for a price the Army sets. Then they make up their profit margins by selling commercial versions on the civilian market (which is unlike Colt).
Click to expand...

Rattler is different from the Copperhead (that is the fugly 9mm SMG thing based on the MPX). They did sell Rattler is .300 BO kits, I believe they are called SURG (Supressed Upper Receiver Group). I think they were uppers only for their M4 lowers, which require an adapter. But for all I know maybe they cancelled it, but again it is more of a niche for SF guys.

Colt is kind of sad and pathetic. They supply the world's largest military, sell to the biggest civilian gun buying population in the world and still end up in financial troubles. All the while other companies start up and proceed to make superior AR rifles within a decade or so. They'll be around for a while longer, but they can't seem to put out anything relevant anymore.
 
Axman said:
Optics with realtime aiming solutions that I've seen, let alone what's in development, usually have long or infinite eye relief and and can be used from all sorts of wonky positions.

Also IIRC SIG didn't get any Rattler contracts (early versions had an integral flash hider? what were they thinking) and B&T picked up the last published sub-gun contract. It was small, like 1000 units, for military security personnel.

But yeah, SIG is the new Colt in a lot of respects. They make what the Army asks for and sells it to them for a price the Army sets. Then they make up their profit margins by selling commercial versions on the civilian market (which is unlike Colt).
Click to expand...

I own a Colt "Green Label" AR-15, actually I've owned two, I bought my first back in 1980 I think. I sold it, my dad had liked it, so my mom bought him one for x-mas, with the 4xs scope, by-pod, and .22 LR conversion kit. Now I have it. For those that don't know what they are here's a pic;
ar15sp1.png
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
Rattler is different from the Copperhead
Click to expand...
You're right, I got them mixed up. I was thinking about the sub-gun.

lcpiper said:
I own a Green Label AR-15
Click to expand...
I totally get what you're saying but Colt has a difficult relationship with the commercial market. It's not just that it's a secondary market for the company after military contracts, it's that they have a dealer program that everyone hates because their sales department doesn't cooperate with dealers.

This came up in the gun sub here...today, if you want a nice Colt rifle, you buy an FN.
 
i don't think i would want electronics in my weapon. all it would take is for the enemy to make some kind of emp grenade/rocket and you're fucked.
 
d3athf1sh said:
i don't think i would want electronics in my weapon. all it would take is for the enemy to make some kind of emp grenade/rocket and you're fucked.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it would have failsafes for manual operation in that case.
 
d3athf1sh said:
i don't think i would want electronics in my weapon. all it would take is for the enemy to make some kind of emp grenade/rocket and you're fucked.
Click to expand...
Usually the military incorporates traditional systems as backup for such reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top