The Evolution Of The Smart Gun

Well that's extreme. Not too far off from the U.S. failed XM29 OICW weapon system. I doubt it wi make it past prototype. These type of things rarely make it to the troops for one reason or another, mostly political to be honest. It is Canada though, so who knows.

Take the recent U.S. Army trails to find a new rifle for our troops. Many different rifles were presented in various trials to compete against the current M4 carbine. When the other rifles beat the M4 on various different levels, the army ended the trials and did nothing. There is an issue with changing up the entire armed forces standard issue equipment, re-training troops being the most tedious and if there's a change in ammunition then that's just as big of an issue. But the problem for us has always been political. Some shit bag senator or politician made this deal or that deal, and because of that some things do not change despite better alternatives being available.

But like I said its Canada, so who knows what will happen. I seriously doubt it will make it into service though. It's just too damn big for a soldier to handle. Yes, it's made for a soldier. That prototype may say "not man fire able" but the end product goes to the troops.
 
That thing has to weigh around 20 to 30 pounds fully loaded. Many of these future/next-gen soldier programs also want to have soldiers haul around all sorts of extra sensors/communications/computer gear with their batteries and even recharging systems (solar cells). Watch out you don't make the batteries too energy dense otherwise they could kill the soldier if they explode. So to carry all this stuff around you then have to develop an exoskeleton...
 
MrAgmoore said:
"Smart gun" = biggest oxymoron since "military intelligence".
Click to expand...

A gun, like any tool, is only as good as the person using it.

You can have the smartest, most sophisticated computer, but if the user is an idiot...well, you get out what you put in.
 
Is it me or does this thing look like a serious nail gun? I think I saw some roofers using this device over the summer.
 
Converge said:
Well that's extreme. Not too far off from the U.S. failed XM29 OICW weapon system. I doubt it wi make it past prototype. These type of things rarely make it to the troops for one reason or another, mostly political to be honest. It is Canada though, so who knows.

Take the recent U.S. Army trails to find a new rifle for our troops. Many different rifles were presented in various trials to compete against the current M4 carbine. When the other rifles beat the M4 on various different levels, the army ended the trials and did nothing. There is an issue with changing up the entire armed forces standard issue equipment, re-training troops being the most tedious and if there's a change in ammunition then that's just as big of an issue. But the problem for us has always been political. Some shit bag senator or politician made this deal or that deal, and because of that some things do not change despite better alternatives being available.

But like I said its Canada, so who knows what will happen. I seriously doubt it will make it into service though. It's just too damn big for a soldier to handle. Yes, it's made for a soldier. That prototype may say "not man fire able" but the end product goes to the troops.
Click to expand...

A lot of the rifles submitted used the standard round and even could take the M4 magazines. It sadly usually comes down to the lobbyist/politician. For example, if HK wants the 416 to replace the M4. They'd have to put all manufacturing in the state of the politician who's making the decision. As well as lobby lobby lobby.

Luckily, our special forces can get around this and do what they want to get what they need. It's sad our standard soldiers don't get the same respect.
 
It has the Canadia? Please tell me they are taking the White House again......
 
MH Knights said:
That thing has to weigh around 20 to 30 pounds fully loaded.
Click to expand...

Given materials these it's probably to the 20 side, but it's still bulky and definitely heavier than a more practical rifle made with the same materials. If the rifle is huge and heavy you have to carry less of something else.

I really have a hard time thinking of a hole in any army for this sort of weapon to fill. When a "smart" rifle is the very close to same size and weight of a standard AR it will be time to deploy them.
 
That lucky .02 cent bullet from the guy with the 50-year old AK-47 with the barrel shot smooth will make that an expensive paperweight real fast. Same with a chunk of mortar shrapnel. That's one of the biggest problems with this sort of thing. You throw expensive high-tech stuff into a sandbox with a lot of people with cheap crap that's pretty tough cheap crap and the high-tech stuff gets beat up and costs a lot of money to replace, while the people with the cheap crap just hammer the dents out, cannibalize the parts, and it doesn't cost them much of anything. Just like the OICW, this is an expensive solution that's looking for a problem. You need to shoot someone? Use a rifle. You need to blow something up? Use grenades or a rocket launcher. You need to blow something bigger up? Use a tank or call in an air or artillery strike. Maybe there's a use for this thing somewhere, but there's no way it's replacing the standard infantry rifle any time soon.
 
Not that it matters but I couldn't get the video to do anything but buffer. And yeah it reminds me of the OICIW in a way.
 
Converge said:
Take the recent U.S. Army trails to find a new rifle for our troops. Many different rifles were presented in various trials to compete against the current M4 carbine. When the other rifles beat the M4 on various different levels, the army ended the trials and did nothing. There is an issue with changing up the entire armed forces standard issue equipment, re-training troops being the most tedious and if there's a change in ammunition then that's just as big of an issue. But the problem for us has always been political. Some shit bag senator or politician made this deal or that deal, and because of that some things do not change despite better alternatives
Click to expand...

You mean the test where:

- Used M4s of unknown condition were pitted against hand picked samples

- The evaluators did not I understand how the burst mechanism worked and mistakenly thought the weapon failed to fire when it functioned fine

- Did not use the superior Pmag and instead used the crappy aluminum magazines

Also telling that the majority of the worlds elite units use them, such as the British, Australians, all the way to Poland and Egypt (over their own Klashnikovs).

Now, you'd have a point if you were talking about the Marines new 1911.
 
I'm surprised we're not at the point of a computer aided targeting system one step above that tracking-point thing that got linked. We have the tech for someone to have what is essentially just a laser pointer for an overwise unaimed firearm that could be located either in your hands like a gun or even just mounted onto you, like your shoulders. Basically Ironman but with just rounds not mini-rockets.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Given materials these it's probably to the 20 side, but it's still bulky and definitely heavier than a more practical rifle made with the same materials. If the rifle is huge and heavy you have to carry less of something else.

I really have a hard time thinking of a hole in any army for this sort of weapon to fill. When a "smart" rifle is the very close to same size and weight of a standard AR it will be time to deploy them.
Click to expand...

I think this thing is very close to the same size and weight of a standard AR. It says in the article it weighs less (with the grenade launcher) than a C7 (with a grenade launcher) which is basically a Canadian M16. What's making it look big is the (detachable) grenade launcher. You put a grenade launcher on an M4 carbine and it becomes ridiculously heavy/bulky too.

I'm not sure about putting the sight on top of the grenade launcher though. Generally you want your sights as close to the barrel as possible. And any time you detach/reattach the grenade launcher you have to move and adjust the sight which seems a bit cumbersome.
 
Was the "Smart Gun" headline meant as some kind of joke?

This is a normal human-use gun. The sticker on the side saying "Not Man Fireable" is because it is in testing and they don't want it to blow up in someones face. They have probably outfitted it with a trigger so heavy only a machine can operate it, or given it a fake trigger and attached it to some kind of computer control instead. Either way, that is probably why it is "Not Man Fireable".... Not because it won't rely on a human to fire it once it goes into production.
 
Converge said:
Take the recent U.S. Army trails to find a new rifle for our troops. Many different rifles were presented in various trials to compete against the current M4 carbine. When the other rifles beat the M4 on various different levels, the army ended the trials and did nothing. There is an issue with changing up the entire armed forces standard issue equipment, re-training troops being the most tedious and if there's a change in ammunition then that's just as big of an issue. But the problem for us has always been political. Some shit bag senator or politician made this deal or that deal, and because of that some things do not change despite better alternatives being available.
Click to expand...

A large part of the issue is that none of the M4/M16 competitors really offers enough advantage to justify the cost of replacing everything. All the competitors were still non-bullpup M4/M16 pattern rifles with variants of DGI and SSGP. All of them still used simple hammer forged barrels. All of them still used ~100 year old ammo technology.

It is highly unlikely the US will get a new weapon until they decide to adopt a different ammo technology. The most promising ammo technology in development is certainly polymer CTA. It gets you the majority of the advantages of caseless ammo without any of the downsides. You get both significant weight and volumetric efficiencies presented by caseless but you still have a chamber sealing capsule. Chamber sealing being the fundamental Achilles heel of all attempts as caseless ammunition so far.

CTA has finally achieved its first actual military orders in the form of the 40mm CTA cannons that are on order by both the British and the French. In addition, the reports from testing by the US military of a potential PCTA based SAW replacement have been overwhelmingly positive with no hints so far of any downsides vs current LMGs(aside from ammo commonality). It likely won't be long until the US military looks at a PCTA based assualt rifle in earnest at which point it becomes simply a matter of time before there is a full switch over to PCTA based weapons. One nice advantage of PCTA is that we could switch to a larger caliber bullet and still have volumetric and weight reduction vs current 5.56mm.

And when you combine PCTA with bullpup configurations and hybrid composite barrels, you can deliver weapons with 20-24" barrels, larger ammo capacities, and lower weight AND total length than current M4/M16 designs.
 
lilbabycat said:
I'm surprised we're not at the point of a computer aided targeting system one step above that tracking-point thing that got linked. We have the tech for someone to have what is essentially just a laser pointer for an overwise unaimed firearm that could be located either in your hands like a gun or even just mounted onto you, like your shoulders. Basically Ironman but with just rounds not mini-rockets.
Click to expand...

You mean like the prototype guided .50 cal system developed by, IIRC, Sandia? If so, its still in the relatively early stages of prototyping and actually solves a completely different problem than the tracking point like systems.
 
good to know what security will be getting at work one day. they already carry around C7s :p
 
aaronspink said:
A large part of the issue is that none of the M4/M16 competitors really offers enough advantage to justify the cost of replacing everything. All the competitors were still non-bullpup M4/M16 pattern rifles with variants of DGI and SSGP. All of them still used simple hammer forged barrels. All of them still used ~100 year old ammo technology.

It is highly unlikely the US will get a new weapon until they decide to adopt a different ammo technology. The most promising ammo technology in development is certainly polymer CTA. It gets you the majority of the advantages of caseless ammo without any of the downsides. You get both significant weight and volumetric efficiencies presented by caseless but you still have a chamber sealing capsule. Chamber sealing being the fundamental Achilles heel of all attempts as caseless ammunition so far.

CTA has finally achieved its first actual military orders in the form of the 40mm CTA cannons that are on order by both the British and the French. In addition, the reports from testing by the US military of a potential PCTA based SAW replacement have been overwhelmingly positive with no hints so far of any downsides vs current LMGs(aside from ammo commonality). It likely won't be long until the US military looks at a PCTA based assualt rifle in earnest at which point it becomes simply a matter of time before there is a full switch over to PCTA based weapons. One nice advantage of PCTA is that we could switch to a larger caliber bullet and still have volumetric and weight reduction vs current 5.56mm.

And when you combine PCTA with bullpup configurations and hybrid composite barrels, you can deliver weapons with 20-24" barrels, larger ammo capacities, and lower weight AND total length than current M4/M16 designs.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like I have some new google/bing material...

You brought up something very important here, cost. The amount of money it would take to replace all several hundred thousand rifles in service, plus spare parts, plus develop new marksmanship programs, plus train armorers.... it adds up real fast. That's not to mention the per-unit cost: the Colt M4 is just plain cheaper to make than the HK 416. It's not like you or me going to the store and picking up a new rifle to play around with.

Is the M4 the best rifle ever? Meh, I doubt it. It does have a higher failure rate than the M16A2/4, but that's probably due to higher gas pressures (shorter barrel, shorter gas tube). It's also less accurate due to barrel length. On the positive side, it's MUCH easier to maneuver in CQB. You could short-stock the A2, but I like the M4's maneuverability. What it is is good enough. Outside I'd take my M1A because I don't mind humping the weight, but inside I'd take my M4.

(honestly I'd take my old M240G but it's been a while and I don't think my neighbors would like it :D )
 
If the US military ever moves away from the 5.56 NATO round, they're not going to go with something exotic like a 6.8mm round. Cost would be the prohibitive factor there. If anything, they'll repurpose existing 5.56 NATO rounds and turn them into .300 AAC Blackout rounds, and swap barrels on the existing M4/M16 and SAW. Or they'll just move back to the much more potent 7.62.
 
SRTie4k said:
If the US military ever moves away from the 5.56 NATO round, they're not going to go with something exotic like a 6.8mm round. Cost would be the prohibitive factor there. If anything, they'll repurpose existing 5.56 NATO rounds and turn them into .300 AAC Blackout rounds, and swap barrels on the existing M4/M16 and SAW. Or they'll just move back to the much more potent 7.62.
Click to expand...


The M855A1 is the latest round we're using, just an updated 5.56 round.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/art...ng-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/

I agree they probably wouldn't adopt something like a 6.8 because of the reasons you stated. It is a great round though, albeit expensive right now because not many manufacturers are making rifles to shoot it. If the U.S. took the 6.8 round the price would drop significantly and we would eventually have access to surplus and factory 2nds. If love to build a piston AR in 6.8 if the price of ammo fell. I really doubt we would adopt 300 blackout though for anything other than SF. It's a great round to run suppressed. I'm sure our SF already uses it if they choose to do so.

I'm not sure if we will see an end to the 5.56 anytime soon. I'm not a huge fan of it, I wouldn't care for it much in battle but it is a great round for home defense. Out of 9mm, 40 cal, .45, and 12g, the .223/5.56 is actually a safer round to use indoors inside a house because the round is so small and goes so fast that once it hits barriers like drywall it immediately breaks up and fragments and doesn't penetrate past a few boards of drywall. This isn't ALL .223/5.56, like M855 with its mild steel penetrator (which is actually going to be banned soon for civilian use) would penetrate much further. However, soft point rounds and certain others have proven to penetrate less drywall then other standard pistol/rifle/shotgun rounds. This makes it great for home defense IF you use the correct anmo. To some, that might not make sense since the .223 is such a high velocity rifle round but if you do your research you will realize that even standard pistol rounds like 9mm and 45 penetrate more drywall then lots of .223 does. A lot of people would hate to see it go. Although you can definitely find plenty of complaints from guys in the front lines that don't like the round and want something bigger. I don't blame them. I'm not so sure I would want anything less then some variation of a .30 cal in a war time situation. I wouldn't want to shoot someone twice center mass and watch them continue to fight until they bled out. That would not be a good feeling.
 
Converge said:
I'm not so sure I would want anything less then some variation of a .30 cal in a war time situation. I wouldn't want to shoot someone twice center mass and watch them continue to fight until they bled out. That would not be a good feeling.
Click to expand...

Especially since the military is stuck with FMJ. It's OK to blow someone up with a 500 lb bomb, or fill them full of shrapnel from a grenade or claymore, but using expanding bullets is somehow "cruel". Stupid rules, but if you have to play by them then all you have left at that point is hole size + energy, so larger caliber, heavier weight bullets are going to be more effective at stopping someone, as well as being better for barrier penetration. If you're stuck using small, fast, light bullets then you're going to have to use multiple hits or aim for the head. I've heard the arguments about being able to carry more rounds with 5.56 vs other calibers, but if it takes 4+ rounds to do the job then it's a bad tradeoff. You get some muji hopped up on opiates and unless you shoot him in the head with a 5.56 or fill him so full of lead he can be used as a pencil he's not going to stop. That's why the Marines in Fallujah had two guys to a squad armed with an M249 SAW, and the rest of the squad were using M16-A4's that shoot full auto instead of just 3-shot burst like the Army's A2. Put one 7.62xanything into someone's chest and they go down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top