The Future of Small Arms

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
A fast projectile won't solve the weapon alignment issue. That's what I was suggesting - a way to get the user to be *sure* he's aimed at what he thinks he has, and to be *sure* the weapon is setup to fire at the optimal range (drop/dispersion/etc). Yes, you can remove drop, but you still need dispersion and a weapon with a tunable dispersion would allow perhaps the same dispersion at most ranges. And the issue of the soldier knowing he's aiming the weapon at his planned target still exists with fast projectiles.

The weapon has built in dispersion. That is the point of firing a high ROF burst. While a single round may miss, a dispersed cluster of projectiles makes a hit far more likely. In fact, we are totally ignoring what the single round will do.

Consider the SALVO study and duplex and triplex cartridge. Cartriges were loaded two or three projectiles, rather than just one. The bases of the projectiles were slightly angled to provide a small amount of dispersion.

When fired on combat courses, it was found that a second projectile increased hit probability by 67% and a third increased the hit rate almost 100%.

And we don't want a variable dispersion because 1) it adds complexity and 2) aiming errors are magnified by range, but then so it dispersion. We're playing probabilities here. We aren't trying to make the gun that never misses. We are tryiong to build the gun that increases hit proability over conventional weapons without relying on any complex technologies.

If the 3 shot 'burst' in the SAVO tests resulted in a 100% increase in hit rate, we should expect at least that from our 5 shot burst.

The problem traditionally has been that the burst is spead of a prolonged period where each subsequent round fired puched the weapon off target - the dispersion was far too large. With our proposed weapon, the rate of fire is very high, so that dispersion is held low, and the recoil energy itself is also much lower than a conventional weapon.

Rather that try to correct aiming errors, we are acknowledging that they will occur and building a weapon that compensates for them.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Well, I've never been keen on the idea od PDWs. I personally think it is a solution to a non-existant problem. And pistols have been relatively meaningless weapon for combat operations for about a century. They're primarily badges of rank of emergency arms when anything is better than nothing.

For strict combat, yes.

However, this ignores a *lot* of police, security, and concealed carry purposes. There are so many of these applications, I think you'd be remiss to call them *special purpose*.
</font>[/QUOTE]To my way of thinking, they would be better served with the same rifle. 'Every Marine a rifleman' as the saying goes. Adding a PDW means yet another weapon in the inventory with yet another round. Logistics is what wins wars.

Besides, it it takes something like our ACR to punch holes in enemy armor, what's the point in carrying a PDW.

Quite frankly, the PDW (IMHO and I am not alone in this) is a marketing department creation to convinve the militay that therea a weapon they need for a problem the didn't realize they had. HK and most of the other large arms makers have been facing a flat market since the end of the cold war. Most small arms contractors have a total lock military contracts that makes it hard for an outsider to get in.

Right now, Colt and FN are the inside players for US military rifles. HK has been looking for a way to prop up it's flagging military sale. HK was losing money when arms Giant GIAT sold them off to British Aerospace, and they have been looking for a way to turn that around. HK sees the US as the only serious market - they've had only moderate success in the civilian market. HK handguns are only a small slice of the civilian gun market that is dominated by Ruger, S&W & Glock. Even SIG has a larger share of the market.

HK has been trying to get a foot in the door of military procurement through OICW, and now XM-8. They are building a manufacturing facilityin Columbus, GA - which just happens to by the home of the infantry (Ft. Benning) They are even going so far as to build an in-house M-4 with the hope they can underbid Colt and get some of that US defense money.

http://www.hkpro.com/

The PDW is just part of this strategy. And while many civilian gun buffs think the PDW is cool, most militaries have been extremely underwhelmed. Nobody is lining up to buy

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Well, how far would it travel, given the high speed? Does this mean some alternate rule is required to handle the 'point blank' scenario before separation?

I suspect that flesh (or clothing) will be perfectly effective at stripping the sabot as well, so it doesn't really matter for performance reasons. The sabot might be a moderate fragment risk if someone is firing past you, but that's not a place you really want to be anyway.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The weapon has built in dispersion. That is the point of firing a high ROF burst. While a single round may miss, a dispersed cluster of projectiles makes a hit far more likely. In fact, we are totally ignoring what the single round will do.

Consider the SALVO study and duplex and triplex cartridge. Cartriges were loaded two or three projectiles, rather than just one. The bases of the projectiles were slightly angled to provide a small amount of dispersion.

When fired on combat courses, it was found that a second projectile increased hit probability by 67% and a third increased the hit rate almost 100%.

And we don't want a variable dispersion because 1) it adds complexity

Perhaps not at TL-8. But then again, I'm sure someone would say 'we don't want fancy optics, they add complexity' or 'we don't want fancy actions, they add complexity'. At some TL, this complexity becomes a triviality.

and 2) aiming errors are magnified by range, but then so it dispersion.

Not so in my example though.

Aiming errors would not be notably affected by range and variable dispersion would allow optimal round dispersion at all ranges.

We're playing probabilities here. We aren't trying to make the gun that never misses. We are tryiong to build the gun that increases hit proability over conventional weapons without relying on any complex technologies.

We're talking about flechettes that may or may not work, bullpup weapons, caseless rounds, alternate feed mechanisms, ranging sights, and we're not calling any of this a complex technology...

And I'm suggesting a weapon that could arrange to have identical dispersion character at 5m and 500m would be an asset perhaps. Your version would have some variance (and increase) in dispersion over the range of the weapon. (Perhaps this is an asset, I don't really care to speculate).

If the 3 shot 'burst' in the SAVO tests resulted in a 100% increase in hit rate, we should expect at least that from our 5 shot burst.

Never said otherwise.

The problem traditionally has been that the burst is spead of a prolonged period where each subsequent round fired puched the weapon off target - the dispersion was far too large. With our proposed weapon, the rate of fire is very high, so that dispersion is held low, and the recoil energy itself is also much lower than a conventional weapon.

But the dispersion varies with range. Hence at close ranges, if you are getting optimal dispersion, then at longer ranges you will be having too great a dispersion to be optimal. The converse situation is also possible where if your optimal dispersion is at 500m, 50m may not get the full benefit.

I was just suggesting looking for a mechanism to produce identical dispersion at any target range.

Rather that try to correct aiming errors, we are acknowledging that they will occur and building a weapon that compensates for them.

But not completely, unless I missed something. The variable nature of your dispersion across the effective range of the weapon means (I think) less than fully optimized performance at some ranges.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Problem with flechettes in Traveller is that they are not stable in vaccuum or thin atmosphere, so spin-stabilized APDS may be more common.

What would you be doing using a weapon with ANY recoil in vaccuum? (which is usually Zero G also)
</font>[/QUOTE]I was thinking about the surface of Mercury, Luna, Mars, several galilean satellites, the larger moons of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto itself. All real estate with substantial gravity and thin or no atmosphere.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Corejob:
To my way of thinking, they would be better served with the same rifle. 'Every Marine a rifleman' as the saying goes. Adding a PDW means yet another weapon in the inventory with yet another round. Logistics is what wins wars.

But if you're not at war? Are you going to give joe patrolman one of these? Or joe plainclothes bodygaurd or courier or IDEA agent?

Besides, it it takes something like our ACR to punch holes in enemy armor, what's the point in carrying a PDW.

If you're operating in the undercover world, which implies you can't be seen to be heavily armed and armoured, that same constraint may apply to your foes.

I wasn't, and am not, talking about military (primarily) situations here. Though some covert actions may count.

Quite frankly, the PDW (IMHO and I am not alone in this) is a marketing department creation to convinve the militay that therea a weapon they need for a problem the didn't realize they had. HK and most of the other large arms makers have been facing a flat market since the end of the cold war. Most small arms contractors have a total lock military contracts that makes it hard for an outsider to get in.

But a pistol and an SMG like the UZI/MAC/other concealable burst or AF capable weapon serve purposes NOT strictly military in nature and where a purpose built rifle, even a bullpup one, would not fit the bill.

The PDW is just part of this strategy. And while many civilian gun buffs think the PDW is cool, most militaries have been extremely underwhelmed. Nobody is lining up to buy

Yes, but I'll bet it would be useful for plainclothes security, for covert agents who need more firepower than a pistol, but not a much larger package, etc.

When I was commenting about the limited scope of gauss or flechette rounds for pistols, I have specific concealability issues in mind for the roles in question (or the more general need for less FP so a pistol might be sufficient). And in these, most mags go through the handle, and this limits flechette size.

But this is tangential to the main discussion, just saying different horses for different courses. The armour penetration may also not be required, so a large, slow moving, easily deforming bullet or something like Glaser ammo may be the ammo of choice for these situations. Or even the PDW may be sufficient, since it can penetrate some levels of armour up to 100m or more.

 

[kaladorn]

I was wondering if the sabot might cause additional damage up close (since it too is moving pretty fast and probably in fragmented bits). Also, the whole shooting past you thing... it isn't a great situation, but lord knows I've seen it enough in fiction and in paintball and even in some MOUT drills. Sometimes, that's the way the cookie crumbles.... (though I have alternate reservations about it given a day out with our unit with MILES gear... some people are entirely too indiscriminate with their fire, and in a real hot war situation, I'd be darn sure they weren't covering my bounds....)

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
We're talking about flechettes that may or may not work, bullpup weapons, caseless rounds, alternate feed mechanisms, ranging sights, and we're not calling any of this a complex technology...

Everything we are discussing has been demonstrated in the real world. This is all essentially 'off the shelf' technology. The only matter for speculation is whether flechettes tumble or hook in tissue or not. Winchester's fragmenting flechettes certainly did, so I don't think it's a stretch at all. Caseless rounds have been demonstrated, as has the alternate feed mechanism (both in the same weapon). I am not assuming any kind of ranging sights. The projectile makes such a sight unnecessary. The sight I have in mind is basically just a slightly modified EoTech HoloSight - available off the shelf today for about $300.

And I'm suggesting a weapon that could arrange to have identical dispersion character at 5m and 500m would be an asset perhaps. Your version would have some variance (and increase) in dispersion over the range of the weapon. (Perhaps this is an asset, I don't really care to speculate).

There is no change in dispertion. Dispersion is uniform - probably something on the order of 10 or 20 MOA. The size of the pattern will vary, as will the pattern density, but the dispersion remains the same.

Because aiming errors are multiplied by distance, the pattern must necessaryly be larger an extended ranges to compensate for the larger aiming error. The downside of this is lower pattern density.

Consider this. A one degree aiming error at 100 yards means missing the target by 62.5 inches. That same error at 500 hundred yards means missing the target by 313 inches. Because the miss is larger at longer range for the same error in aiming, you need a larger dispersion to compensate.

Put another way, assume a dispersion of 10 minute of angle (MOA). That represents a mean sporwad of 10 inches at 100 yards. If your aim happen to to be off by less than 10 inches, there is still a probability of a hit.

If you make the same aiming error but the target is 200 yards away, you miss by 20 inches, but your pattern is now 20 inches too, so there's still a chance of a hit.

If you had used a variable dispersion weapon that always threw a pattern of 10 inches regardless of range, in the first case you might hit, but in the second, you would miss because all rounds would be off the target. You trade a possible miss for a guaranteed one.

 

[Morte]

Originally posted by Corejob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kaladorn:
We're talking about flechettes that may or may not work, bullpup weapons, caseless rounds, alternate feed mechanisms, ranging sights, and we're not calling any of this a complex technology...

Everything we are discussing has been demonstrated in the real world. This is all essentially 'off the shelf' technology.</font>[/QUOTE]Dare I speculate that you guys are talking past each other. If I've read things right, you guys need two threads:

- One for Corejob's TL8 "improved G11 with fletchettes" weapon.

- One for Kaladorn's ?TL10? self-aiming "computer with built in micro-steered rifle" that can bring absolute ranging/windage/shake errors under three inches at 50-500 yards, but needs variable dispersion to always put the projectiles into an absolute 18 inch group over those ranges.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
But if you're not at war? Are you going to give joe patrolman one of these? Or joe plainclothes bodygaurd or courier or IDEA agent?

Of course not. We are dicussing the miltary rifle. Law enforcement is an al together diffeent proposition with totally different requirements. I'm not going to give them a PDW either. For the most part, a long arms is a hinderence. The job of a policement is not primarily combat. The gun is just one of many tools he or she carries around, and one that is infrequently used.

The handgun is ideal for this. If necessary, a shotgun or rifle can be carriues in the vehicle as a backup weapon. I'm not in favor of eveb giving police SMGs, although that is common proactice is some European counties.

Given that the average police officer actually fires a weapon only about 1-4 times a year, I really don't want him to try to settle a confrontation with an automatic weapon.

But a pistol and an SMG like the UZI/MAC/other concealable burst or AF capable weapon serve purposes NOT strictly military in nature and where a purpose built rifle, even a bullpup one, would not fit the bill.

True, but those are not within the normal operatiojn of military troops. There's nothing that says you can't issue different weapon to SpecOps people. You can't build a weapon that will be all things to all people. Or exemplar ACR is designed for infantry combat.

But this is tangential to the main discussion, just saying different horses for different courses. The armour penetration may also not be required, so a large, slow moving, easily deforming bullet or something like Glaser ammo may be the ammo of choice for these situations. Or even the PDW may be sufficient, since it can penetrate some levels of armour up to 100m or more.

My concern about the PDW for use in police operations is its accuracy. While high precision is not required in military operations, it is a major requirement in police operations were any collateral damage is unacceptable.

Certtainly, there may be a role for the PDW in undercover or special operations. I don't think there's a real role for it in regular military operations.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Morte:
Dare I speculate that you guys are talking past each other. If I've read things right, you guys need two threads:

- One for Corejob's TL8 "improved G11 with fletchettes" weapon.

- One for Kaladorn's ?TL10? self-aiming "computer with built in micro-steered rifle" that can bring absolute ranging/windage/shake errors under three inches at 50-500 yards, but needs variable dispersion to always put the projectiles into an absolute 18 inch group over those ranges.

We're working our way up the TL ladder. I think Kaladorns's ACR is next, along with laser weapons.

 

[jfwking]

Good Grief, I pop out for the weekend and then have three pages to catch up on.

Re corejobs final rifle, I'll have 2

Re flechettes, is anyone actualy testing them properly to settle the wound effects debate.

A question for those that play with pistols, how possible/useable is a PDW/pistol with a top mounter casette rather than a magazine in the pistol grip. The guass pistol for example with an internal battery in the hand grip which can then be smaller.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The Calico pistol/SMG/carbine has a large, top-mounted magazine.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg57-e.htm

So does the P90 SMG.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Captain Jonah:
Re flechettes, is anyone actualy testing them properly to settle the wound effects debate.

I've tried to obtain flechettes or flechettes rounds from both Steyr and AAI (now Aliant Techsystems) but without success. I've been testing bullets in 10% ordnance gelatin for some time now. We recently got a Phantom v7.0 digital camera that can record at over 220 pictures per second. I'd love to see a flechette caught in flight.

Shotgun flechettes (really just recovered artillery flechettes) are available, but they have the wrong design and don't have a sabot that can be loaded into a conventional cartridge so getting the required velocity is next to impossible.

A question for those that play with pistols, how possible/useable is a PDW/pistol with a top mounter casette rather than a magazine in the pistol grip. The guass pistol for example with an internal battery in the hand grip which can then be smaller.

Gauss pistol rounds (or any gauss rounds for that matter) don't have to be long. You get a long projectile if you assume a ferromagnetic projectile made of something simple like iron, in which case the canonical 4mm gauss rifle round has to be 40mm long to make the canon mass.

If you use a much denser material, the projectile winds up being much shorter. It depends on mechanism is used by you gauss weapon too - whether it's a railgun, or one of several types of coilguns.

 

[kaladorn]

Corejob, you make a good point about needing a wider dispersion to compensate for aiming errors. OTOH, if you could get rid of some of the errors, you could cut the long range dispersion and increase your pattern density. But that might be the higher level trick, I concede.

As to gauss weapons, nothing really precludes the gauss weapon firing a perfectly spherical slug. But the traditional gauss weapon wants mucho velocity and getting that is presumably easier with smaller and more aerodynamic rounds. So a dart shape is probably easier to deliver at velocity X than an equivalent mass 3:1 ratio rifle bullet.

I think the PDW, on the other front, might have a role for places where you want a bit more FP than a pistol, but want to be able to fit the weapon under a seat pad, or the like. Even an M4 is a little big for that kind of situation. It can be slung other places, but it still has some size to it.

 

[Anthony]

It's actually generally easier to accelerate projectiles with larger diameters for their mass, which makes spherical projectiles relatively easy to accelerate. The problem is that effective range in atmosphere is pretty much dependent on sectional density and drag coefficient, so spherical bullets would have pretty lousy range. Also, I suspect they're inaccurate.

The point of a sabot round, of course, is to have both a large diameter relative to bullet mass, and also a high sectional density.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Corejob, you make a good point about needing a wider dispersion to compensate for aiming errors. OTOH, if you could get rid of some of the errors, you could cut the long range dispersion and increase your pattern density. But that might be the higher level trick, I concede.

I'm looking forward to your input on the next idea - the 1st generation smartgun.

As to gauss weapons, nothing really precludes the gauss weapon firing a perfectly spherical slug. But the traditional gauss weapon wants mucho velocity and getting that is presumably easier with smaller and more aerodynamic rounds. So a dart shape is probably easier to deliver at velocity X than an equivalent mass 3:1 ratio rifle bullet.

Yep. Although it's not really velocity. You cann accelerate a sphere or a long ogive projecyilejust as well, but a sphere is a poor aerodynamic shape. It loses velocity a lot faster than a spitzer shape. And a flechette shape has an extremely low coefficient of drag - better than a boat tailed bullet.

I think that in the case of a gauss pistol, long range performance isn't going to be a major requirement, so you want a less ballistically ideal shape. Indeed, you may even want a projectile that intentionally loses velocity rapidly so that it's not a danger at longer ranges. Picture a gauss pistol round with an extremely high cD (coefficient of drag) and a high initial velocity. It could be absolutely deadly at 50 meters or so, but relatively harmless at a couple hundred meters - an ideal police round.

I think the PDW, on the other front, might have a role for places where you want a bit more FP than a pistol, but want to be able to fit the weapon under a seat pad, or the like. Even an M4 is a little big for that kind of situation. It can be slung other places, but it still has some size to it.

Again, you and I agree. The PDW seems like a better police weapon, or perhaps something for executive protection and the like - particularly if you are concerned about body armor. It is as compact as an SMG but has almost the hitting power of an assault rifle. Also, the fact that it fires a unique cartridge isn't a problem.

 

[kaladorn]

Yeah, well, amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics!

You make a valid point about the gauss pistol... no need for it to have such large rounds. A 3:1 might be fine, with a larger slug. The range isn't the issue. Penetration really shouldn't be either, per se. (I mean, if he's got good armour and you've got a pistol, you should be hiding or calling in air support...).

 

[Straybow]

I love it when this [M-1 clip] chestnut comes up. It's simply not true. Try this experiment. Take a garand to the range and without wearing hearing protection, fire 8 rounds of 30-06 and then see idf you can hear the en bloc clip being ejected.

First, I've heard (with light protection) the clip ping from 2-3 benches down on the firing range. It isn't just the release, it rings as it falls and pings again when it hits the ground. It won't be heard from 50 yds away, but in urban fighting your enemy is likely to be around the corner or behind the next door.

Second, plenty of WWII soldiers kept cotton in their ears. The assumption that your (future) enemy won't have some kind of superior hearing protection is unfounded, and this weapon won't be making the racket of a 30-06 report. How loud is the ~40cm cassette clattering on the pavement?

I know I can cange it IMTU. It just seems like one of those things that could bite you in the field exactly because the designer says, "It isn't that loud so who's gonna notice?"

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Straybow:
First, I've heard (with light protection) the clip ping from 2-3 benches down on the firing range. It isn't just the release, it rings as it falls and pings again when it hits the ground. It won't be heard from 50 yds away, but in urban fighting your enemy is likely to be around the corner or behind the next door.

I wouldn't run around a corner just because I heard a ping. What if there's more than one person?

It is common practice in an emergency (i.e) to drop empty magazines. I don't think autoejecting is going to be any louder than this. It certainly won't be anything like a Garand en bloc clip being ejected. Particularly (as I see the cassette being disposable) as the cassette will most probably be made out of plastic.

I thing the Garand clip, whether you believe the 'ping' story or not, is a bad example because it is rather unique. The K-98 was also clip loaded. Correct technique as taught in the Wermacht (and previously in the Imperial Army) was to insert the clip, load the magazine, and then ram the bolt home, letting the bolt eject the clip which then fell to the ground.

I suppose a better example would be to go to the range, fire a rifle with little or no ear protection, and then have someone drop a Glock magazine and see if you hear it.

If it really bugs you, you can disable the feature. However, on of the things noted in the ACR trials is that soldiers didn't always notice right away when they had run out of ammunition during a fire fight - particularly if the weapon didn't have a bolt hold-open device (like the G11). And reloads take time. It's not a big issue, so whatever works for you. My own perception comes from IPSC and tactical shooting courses. Anything that shaves time of a reload is a good thing. YMMV.