US Army might have found its new rifle

[wave.jaco]

To progress, the concept has first to overcome it's own basic flaw, the assumption that US infantry has fallen behind the rest of the world in term of basic infantry rifle technology (it has not), and that such a disadvantage can be better addressed by adding rate of fire options, as opposed to addressing caliber.

One of the thoughts in my mind is, in a highly tense military situation, is the shooter going to take the time to ponder on what "fire option" he is going to use before commencing to shoot?

As you said, it has to overcome a basic, but very well defined flaw - there several things that the M-16 and M-4 do better than the M-14. What are the problems with the rifles used today? If the XM-8 project has been cancelled after it offered view advantages over the current rifles, then how will this rifle outweigh the current rifles?

"Our guys have the same junk weapons as our adversaries" is a very bold statement to make when the US has some of the most advanced weaponry systems today...

[Vaal]

One of the thoughts in my mind is, in a highly tense military situation, is the shooter going to take the time to ponder on what "fire option" he is going to use before commencing to shoot?

As you said, it has to overcome a basic, but very well defined flaw - there several things that the M-16 and M-4 do better than the M-14. What are the problems with the rifles used today? If the XM-8 project has been cancelled after it offered view advantages over the current rifles, then how will this rifle outweigh the current rifles?

"Our guys have the same junk weapons as our adversaries" is a very bold statement to make when the US has some of the most advanced weaponry systems today...

What I see is: "They see there are some problems, lets throw a couple billion $ at it and then we can say to the tax payer, look at least we tried." And that way they even boost their economy.

[marcvbsa]

Imho, outside of calibre changes there won't be a platform change until we get handheld railguns, plasma guns, laser blasters, phasers or whatever.

There is just nothing else that offers the simplicity and modularity of the modern AR platform rifle.

[pblaauw]

As a handheld infantry weapon I see limited chance of success and use, BUT, as a vehicle mounted weapon system in my mind it holds great potential. Imagine it upscaled to something like a 50cal. Four round burst in to a light vehicle all on target (think suicide bomber vehicle), hell yes! Your standard CROWS mount would be perfect for this, as it's already powered, with optical targeting etc integrated. Feeding those ammunition blocks should be easily (in relation to the rest of the product) adapted from current linkless belt fed weapon systems.

[Zuku]

Imagine the CFR trying to license this FA

[Piet vWdVries]

As a handheld infantry weapon I see limited chance of success and use, BUT, as a vehicle mounted weapon system in my mind it holds great potential. Imagine it upscaled to something like a 50cal. Four round burst in to a light vehicle all on target (think suicide bomber vehicle), hell yes! Your standard CROWS mount would be perfect for this, as it's already powered, with optical targeting etc integrated. Feeding those ammunition blocks should be easily (in relation to the rest of the product) adapted from current linkless belt fed weapon systems.

I agree. But I think the technical stumbling block there is that the concept of replacing the brass casing with a disposable breech (or chamber if you will) for each shot presents an upper limit regarding the pressures that can be handled. It is nice idea to move away from overheating, but it does so at the expense of being able to handle very high pressures, and to do so at an acceptable weight/size ratio. Which is why the quoted "2500mph" velocity is probably either a number fetched from standard 556 performance (it is not mentioned anywhere on the manufacturer's site), or was achieved firing very light projectiles at puff loads, so as to achieve safe detonation in a lighter disposable chamber.

[M43]

Sorry to flog a half dead horse but I actually read the whole article / links just now...

This thing does not exist, and if it does then it is nothing more than a 4 shot manually operated rifle limited to special low pressure ammo...

It uses the almost equivalent of a revolver cylinder to hold "caseless" ammo, but it has no mechanical parts to advance (feed, align & eject) the ammo? No mag (or spring) to push ammo into position ? So the pure awesomeness of the electronics will do it... I think not...

If no reciprocating parts actuated by recoil or gas are present, no feeding or ejection will happen without an electrical motor and a few gears...and more batteries...

And to provide useful ballistics they need to push roughly 50 000 PSI at least. The flame cutting of the top strap (and bottom) as well as "forcing cone" erosion should be spectacular. and aluminium will not contain those pressures, in fact not even the pressure of standard .38 Special ammo. USAF already knew that in the 50's with their "Aircrew survival" revolvers that fired special low pressure ammo.

But in Airsoft Lala Land this just might be the next big thing

[Againstthegrains]

I think the problem the US military have, is that in a close combat street fighting situation, you want to put a guy down before he can do any damage to you or your mates. Hence the problem with firing a .223 FMJ. Its just not enough in some situations, which is why the US is looking at the bigger caliber 6.8 SPC, as it will hopefully stop an enemy quicker. In open fighting you want cover fire, and you want to wound as many as you can to slow the enemy down hence the usefulness of an M16. Now imagine you can put 4 x 5 mm bullets into someone in one shot at close quarters. I would say that would be pretty deadly, or at least the equivalent of being hit with a bigger caliber and then when you hit the open field, to get a 4 barrel rifle to fire lots of small bullets on full auto, would be awesome for cover fire. I see where they are going with this, but hell, it will be a long trip to see if they ever get this right.

[GAZZAMCK]

I think the problem the US military have, is that in a close combat street fighting situation, you want to put a guy down before he can do any damage to you or your mates. Hence the problem with firing a .223 FMJ. Its just not enough in some situations, which is why the US is looking at the bigger caliber 6.8 SPC, as it will hopefully stop an enemy quicker. In open fighting you want cover fire, and you want to wound as many as you can to slow the enemy down hence the usefulness of an M16. Now imagine you can put 4 x 5 mm bullets into someone in one shot at close quarters. I would say that would be pretty deadly, or at least the equivalent of being hit with a bigger caliber and then when you hit the open field, to get a 4 barrel rifle to fire lots of small bullets on full auto, would be awesome for cover fire. I see where they are going with this, but hell, it will be a long trip to see if they ever get this right.

would be easier to go back to 762x51

or 7.62x39 M67 YUGO, some tumble there
not too sure how 5.45x39 compares to 5.56x45

[bcs]

Is this a new iteration of the old Metal Storm concept?

Regardless, it seems to me the biggest edge a military can give itself is thorough training of its soldiers as opposed to relying on gizmos to win.