# Canada‘s Next Assault Rifle..



## JasonH (30 Nov 2003)

Well we know the US has the OICW.  Isreal, Britain, Australia, and isreal are all working on there own respective AR‘s for the next generation.  I was just curious, what are we doing about ours?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Nov 2003)

There was a thread quite recently about the upgrades to the C7, including photos.  Collapsible stock, mounts for different accessories, and lots of green parts (including a CADPAT sling, cause God knows, we need one...     )

Perhaps someone can post a link to that thread, I don‘t recall what it was called.  Or you can try the search feature and see what it nets you.

IIRC the photos were at the Army site??


----------



## dano (30 Nov 2003)

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm 

The site for info on the C7A2.


----------



## jonsey (30 Nov 2003)

Yeah, there is the C7A2, but that‘s just an updated version of an existing rifle, based on a, what, 30 year old design? A great design, as it has been one of the standard assault rifles during that time. 

Is the Canadian Army looking at a new design for the future, after they have updated the C7 as far as it can go, or are they thinking about licencing a Canadian version of the OICW, or are they not thinking about it at all?


----------



## scm77 (30 Nov 2003)

The current C7s have been in service since about 1986, they will be 20+ years old by the time they have their "mid-life" upgrade.  That means after the upgrade they still have about 20 years left.  There is no sence thinking about what weapon to use after the C7A2 until about 15 years from now.  If they come up with a design now, it will be outdated by the time they need it.


----------



## Enzo (30 Nov 2003)

scm77 has a good understanding of the situation.

We‘ll be using descendants of the M-16 for a long time. It works well, tons of accessories and is used by so many, just keep upgrading.

A shift will come when either our Allies pressure us to accept a new technology (calibre or something as yet to be deveoped, etc...) or when so many years have passed, a new rifle will make sense to embrace.

Don‘t expect any OICW‘s up here anytime soon.


----------



## Slim (30 Nov 2003)

I think that there are military units from other countries that are busy buying our rifle (C7 family).
I was in England last year doing a security course and some of the instructors had more than a passing familierity with the weapon. Kind of neat that they "buy Canadian".
I know they can‘t stand the SA-80. The opinion on it from the Brits is that it‘s garbage!!!
The Brits asked us specifically to deploy in theatre with the Coyote when we first got it...the Marines (U.S. ) have bought the thing now as they like it so much!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Nov 2003)

Apparently the SAS and SBS have it, not to mention the Dutch, Danes and Norwegians. Pretty good I think.


----------



## Slim (30 Nov 2003)

Wow...I didn‘t realize it was THAT MANY countries that had the thing. How did you find that out, do you get to play with them?


----------



## northamericanrebel (30 Nov 2003)

marines c7? LOL... i think not....and the xm8 is on the main stage...the oicw takes a back seat


----------



## jonsey (30 Nov 2003)

The xm-8 is basically the assault rifle part of the OICW, but as a stand-alone version, right?


----------



## ninty9 (1 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by northamericanrebel:
> [qb] marines c7? LOL... i think not....and the xm8 is on the main stage...the oicw takes a back seat [/qb]


He was talking about teh Coyote, not the C7.


----------



## northamericanrebel (1 Dec 2003)

canada imports the Coyote if i am not mistaken built by general motors


----------



## xFusilier (1 Dec 2003)

No,

All LAV variants were manufactured by GM Diesel Division which is located in London, Ontario.  I believe GM Diesel was recently sold to General Dynamics, however the entire LAV series of vehicles with is actually a swiss design manufactured under licence are built in London.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Dec 2003)

MOWAG was bought by GM Canada a few years ago and now has been bought by General Dynamics.


----------



## northamericanrebel (1 Dec 2003)

at least gm is an american company


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Dec 2003)

Yes but Canada made it a viable one with the Coyote


----------



## northamericanrebel (2 Dec 2003)

canada has made its contrabution with john garrand and his m1 and yall make bomb suits for my cities swat team     forgive my horrid spelling   :crybaby:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Dec 2003)

You do know that the M1 Garand has not seen front line use since Korea right?


----------



## northamericanrebel (2 Dec 2003)

no ****, i figured they used it in afganastan LOL that would be interesting


----------



## jrhume (2 Dec 2003)

As for the M-1, it‘s not really correct to say Korea was the last use.  The M-14 was an update to the basic M-1 design and is still in service with the US Army and probably the Marines.  Many units carried them in Iraq because of the need to engage targets beyond the effective range of 5.56 rifles.  Garand‘s design isn‘t gone yet.

Also, GM is an American company only in terms of its history and origin.  It is an international conglomerate now and has been for many years.  As for who produces what -- I can‘t keep up.  I thought General Dynamics was a GM subsidiary.  



Jim


----------



## northamericanrebel (2 Dec 2003)

the ceo is american....is he not     You honestly think the m-14 is still in use...**** thats news to me.... i heard the seals used it  back in 1994 but i figure they would use something different by now...but than again they have anything they want at their disposal and if it aint broke dont fix it   :warstory:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Dec 2003)

Wasn‘t some M14s brought in for use by the designated marksman in each squad?


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (2 Dec 2003)

The A-Team is part of the US Army and they use M-14‘s.  So they have to be a pretty **** good weapon if they are they standard rifle for the best Spec Force unit in the US.


----------



## jonsey (2 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan:
> [qb] The A-Team is part of the US Army and they use M-14‘s.  So they have to be a pretty **** good weapon if they are they standard rifle for the best Spec Force unit in the US. [/qb]


Mr. T pitties the fool who don‘t use the M14


----------



## Enzo (2 Dec 2003)

I‘m wondering if they are using M-14‘s or M-21‘s. The M-21 a M-14 modified for use as a sniper rifle. Usually has a 10rd magazine (although standard 20rd M-14 magazines are acceptable also), scope and bipod, etc... This has been a tactical military sniper rifle since approx. 1971.

 http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m21.shtml 

The M1A Scout Squad Rifle is an interesting option also, but more of a law enforcement/civilian rifle.

 http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-scout.shtml 

A few years ago, Springfield Armoury came out with a Bullpup modification kit for the M-14. It was an interesting design. Apparently called the G2, it was intended for use by the SEALS, but wasn‘t adopted. It is now for civilian sale. (A search of the net brought up a photo on this site, I think it‘s some sort of game site? But the photo‘s and the firearm are real)

 http://www.wapahani.com/dcsmall94.html


----------



## jrhume (2 Dec 2003)

I posted an Iraq, lessons learned link in Military History.  There are one or more reports there indicating usage of the M-14.  Some units (regular infantry/airborne) issued them in varying numbers before the invasion.  Others merely had them on hand -- somewhere.

Check out the link.  It‘s interesting.

Jim


----------



## Redeye (2 Dec 2003)

I pity the fool who thinks that the A-Team uses M14‘s...  They don‘t, they use Ruger Mini-14s with chromed working parts and folding stocks that are apparently permanently folded.  The Mini-14 is sort of similar in desing to the M14, but fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round as opposed to the 7.62mm.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (2 Dec 2003)

My mistake, I‘m ready for the hatless dance now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Dec 2003)

I‘ve never seen any unit in the military use Rugar Mini-14s. Only government branch i‘ve seen use them is corrections services and some police forces. Mini-14s dont have a heavy barrel which prevents rapid rates of fire and a gun smith told me that the rugar mini-14 has a somewhat weak seer or trigger mechanisim and when they are modified to fire automatically it breaks often.

The reason why folding stocks on rugar mini-14s are welded like that is because of canadian gun laws, nothing to do with  "a-teams".


----------



## The Hide (3 Dec 2003)

Wy not something like HK-XM8 ?


----------



## pteharrity (5 Dec 2003)

i was serving 6 weeks in England, training with the Royal Marines Commandos and other British Forces, and i was forced to use their SA-80 and LSW. These are carbines, very short and in acurate. The only have desent thing about them is the SUSAT sight, but we all have that anyways. The SA-80 is as heavy as 2 Fully loaded C-7A‘s. As far as i can see, the C-7A1 is great, rugged and get‘s the job done. Along with the C-8. I think if anyone needs to think about updating there equipment its the british forces, there weapons don‘t work in the following conditions:hot,dry,wet,cold, dusty...ect... The US should also completely phase out the M-16, they still use it way too much. What is the point of a rifle that can only fire on repetition or 3 round burst. Even if you are trying not to be triger happy, its nice to know u have the automatic if you need it.....


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (5 Dec 2003)

The SA-80 is a bullpup, not a carbine.  If you noticed, when you were firing them or using them, that when you put the mag in, you inserted it behind the trigger mechanism.  A carbine is basically a regular sized rifle with a couple of inches of barrel chopped off.  The SA-80 is, according to the ex brit para guy in my regt, an outstanding marksmanship rifle because of its accuracy, but a piece of poop in the field.  And why should the US phase out the M-16?  We use the C7, which is a variant of the M-16 and like you said its an outstanding weapon.  The 3 rnd burst thing is no big deal.  The only reason is that americans tend to like being machine gunners and empty mags in 30 round bursts.  So the 3 rnd Burst feature keeps them from using up ammo and relying more on the accurate and controlled fire of repetition mode.  Anyways, the M16A3 has full auto capability.  

  :fifty:    :gunner:


----------



## Enzo (5 Dec 2003)

Harrity - I posted a link about Bullpups awhile back, you might want to check it out. As Kurrgan states above, the SA-80 is supposed to be sweet on the range, but a pig in the field. In addition, the 80‘s are heavy and complex due to their inner workings. Bullpups are traditionally more complex than standard rifle‘s and as was mentioned earlier, the C-8 isn‘t much bigger and get‘s the job done nicely. No real advantages yet.

As for our C7‘s, upgrading‘s just fine.


----------



## hoganshero (6 Dec 2003)

If the US 6.8mm project works out(apparently a stop gap for the x-8?)and the US adopts Barretts(?) 6.8mm upper reciever for the M-16 and NATO follows suit, perhaps the next generation Canadian rifle may simply be adding a 6.8mm Diemaco upper reciever to the the C7.


----------



## jonsey (6 Dec 2003)

****, this looks cool. 








From Here

  http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm 

Looks almost like a Phaser Rifle from Star Trek.


----------



## RCD (6 Dec 2003)

Yes it‘s nice to have a new weapon, but can we afford the bullets?


----------



## chrisf (6 Dec 2003)

As the old saying goes, if it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it... I‘d like to point out, the .50Cal M2 was designed shortly after WWI, and is still serving today.

Just because somthing has been around for a while doesn‘t automatically mean it needs to be replaced.


----------



## Redeye (6 Dec 2003)

Kurrgan, I‘ll forward the charge papers over to your RSM post-haste, fool!


----------



## chrisf (6 Dec 2003)

Of course, the M2 isn‘t being replaced because it isn‘t functional, it‘s being replaced because they‘ve got the money to do so...

If it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it.

Gortex kit? Great! Camo uniforms? Great, though why we need EVERYTHING in CadPat, I‘ll never know. I‘m curious how long before we see the cadpat toothbrush.

As far as the C7 goes, it‘s a perfectly functional weapon. Rather then buying a new weapon, why not just purchase enough C7s and C8s?


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Gentlemen,
> 
> I have a friend that works in the XM-8 program.  The reason for the XM-8 rifle program is not because the M-16 and the M-4 are not excellent weapons, it is because the US Army is trying to incorporate an updated grenade launcher system.
> ...


The bankrupt and useless OICW project has spun off an aborted fetus, the XM-8

 The EGLM can fit into the FF Rails on the URXII or SIR systems already available on the SOPMOD Block II upgrade.

 This is the R&D weenies selling out troops to make their failure look sucessful


----------



## JasonH (6 Dec 2003)

Heh... It looks like an oversized MP5 if you take off the handle.


----------



## Slim (7 Dec 2003)

U.S. Army Delta uses the M14 for their snipers at the section ( excuse me, squad) level.

As for weapons being old...anyone check the age of the Browning M2 .50 HMG lately?

And...I do believe that the U.S. Marines were looking awfully hard at the LAV Coyote. All nationalistic nonesence aside the Coyote is an excelent recce platform with the surveillance kit in the rear.
Cheers


----------



## scotty884 (7 Dec 2003)

just to clarify the coyote is built in Canada at the GM plant in Ontario. They also build the recent lav 3 and the other variants as well


----------



## Slim (7 Dec 2003)

Did they ever proceed with the name "KODIAC" for the Lav III?

Maj. Baker
I thought the Marines used the LAV 25 Pirana now?!


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [QB] U.S. Army Delta uses the M14 for their snipers at the section ( excuse me, squad) level.


SFOD-D and the rest or ARSOC use a variety of weapons.  The most prevant 7.62mm gas gun is the KAC SR-25 MK11 Mod0 and the little bro the SR-25K (16" bbl)

 M14‘s are found in some ARSOC units but they are beign rapidly replaced everywhere but NAV SPEC WAR for they do over the beach better than the current runs of SR‘s


----------



## Brock (12 Dec 2003)

Personnally, the upgrade of the C-7A1 to A2 standard has a major flaw, the weapon will be very heavy at the barrel making for a less accurrat rifle particularly when adding on the laser pointer and/or flashlight.  I have fired with both and it really effects accuracy and it is not a lack of training we had lots of ammunition and time.  Personnaly, the slight reduction in effective range with the shorter C-8/M-4 length barrel is minor particularly when it is still effective to 300m-99% of combat is less than 300m.  However, I would suggest that any upgrade of the C-7A1 with a C-8 butt and barrel length incorporate, if possible, the heavy barrel as described on the Diemaco website because of the advantages over the less durable and effective standard barrel.


----------



## D-n-A (12 Dec 2003)

the soldier on the right has a new C7 varient


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (12 Dec 2003)

So what now. Bush is short on pop-up targets so now the Canadians have to stand out on the range?  :warstory:  

At least they are not RCR‘s.   

If that is the case then the trooper with the C-7 should at least have a mag to fire back with.


----------



## JasonH (12 Dec 2003)

American‘s aren‘t taken a likeing from the looks of it to Full auto.

Only Single fire and Burst.

But Canada has Single shot and Full auto.

Personally I‘d like ot have the full auto on, be nice to doubletap instead of 3 round.


----------



## Enzo (12 Dec 2003)

Jay - Ever fire a C7?


----------



## Redeye (12 Dec 2003)

Jay, I‘m guessing you‘ve never fired an automatic rifle, since a double-tap is done in semi-auto, not full automatic.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm 

That‘s where I got the info on the M16A3.  I figured there must have been an A3 anyway.  Why would they skip a number?  From A2 to A4?  Oh well.  Whatever.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

Whatever man.  I really don‘t care.  All I‘m going by is stuff I‘ve read out of books and on the internet.  The A3 is also mentioned in a Modern Weapons of War book I have.  It also said that the A3 has full auto capability and is a flat top with a rail for mounting different sights.  But since you say there isn‘t one, and you are in the US Military, then I believe ya.  :fifty:    :gunner:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2003)

The Janes site seems to indicate otherwise:

  http://www4.janes.com/K2/doc.jsp?K2DocKey=%2Fcontent1%2Fjanesdata%2Fyb%2Fjiw%2Fjiw_0467.htm@current&Prod_Name=JIW& 

Here is another site as well:
 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm 

Might not have seen use by the US military but its out there.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

Like I said.  Why would you go from A2 to A4?  There has to be an A3 of some sort.  Unless the people at Colt took the short bus to school, never learned to count and failed Kindergarten.  :fifty:    :gunner:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Dec 2003)

Seems like a decent rifle not sure why the US would pass it up.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

Basically a C7A1 I‘m thinkin‘.


----------



## Redeye (13 Dec 2003)

According to a few sites I‘ve looked at that are not Airsoft sites, and from my memory, the "M16A3" never came into American service, but is a Colt Model 901.  It is identical to the A4 except it is a flat-top rather than a fixed carrying handle.  The IDF uses it and calls it the A3.  By description it seems it would be identical to the C7A1.  The original C7 is a Colt Model 715 rifle, being a hybrid of the M16A1 and A2 types.  (Its US Army designation when prototyped was the M16A1E2).  The C8 is the Colt Model 725, and the flat top version of it is the 925.

There are other versions of the A3 with various types of selector switch options, including the Colt model 905 (3-rnd burst), 925 (see above), 941 (Heavy Barrel version), 942 & 950 (full-auto only, ie a support weapon).

Hopefully that clarifies a bit.

Source:    http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/variants/   - an exhaustive table of all variants of the Armalite rifle.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

See, I knew they were too smart to skip A3.  I never said the A3 was in US Military service.  I said that there is one. So the Orginal design C7 could be designated M16A2.5    :blotto:   
   :fifty:      :gunner:


----------



## JasonH (13 Dec 2003)

Wow post been flyen left n right in here. 

To those asken no I havn‘t and I was assumeing (That I could)      Don‘t beat me.


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan (13 Dec 2003)

Double tap is when you come in contact with an enemy.  You fire either 2 quick shots to keep his/her head down then you hit the dirt, or in close combat you fire 2 shot at centre of mass to drop that badguy before he double taps you.  Double taps are done on repetition for greater control.


----------



## JasonH (13 Dec 2003)

That‘s what I ment.. hrmm I didn‘t say what I was meaning to say right.

Having full auto on still allows you to fire off single shots does it not?

*Edit*  

Okay this is what I ment, between being able to Single fire, double tap, or need be go full auto without switchen with the safety.


----------



## Redeye (13 Dec 2003)

Jay, setting on full-auto does allow you to fire single shots, but you have to have really good trigger control to from from firing a burst.  It‘s very rare that you‘ll find a rifle set on full auto  - during FIBUA it used to be that way for room clearing, but that‘s a thing of the past now.

Full auto fire is mainly used if you need to get a lot of rounds downrange in order to suppress an enemy position for an extended period or if a section is providing a fire base and needs to pour a tremendous volume of fire onto a target.  When you need to ensure accuracy, repetition (semi) is the better choice because only the first round (maybe two if you aim low and to the left) of automatic fire is accurate anyhow!


----------



## JasonH (14 Dec 2003)

Thanks


----------



## Da_man (14 Dec 2003)




----------



## JasonH (14 Dec 2003)

Eh, I like OICW‘s look better.  Though I know there not the same gun.


----------



## KevinB (15 Dec 2003)

Well from some of my buddies in the Ranger BN‘s they have M16A3‘s - basically an A2 with full auto.


----------



## LMcL (20 Dec 2003)

The US Special Operations Command uses the XM-25, an upgrade of the Vietnam-era M-21 (a tuned up version of the M-14) that uses a McMillan stock, Harris bipod, and a new scope mount that retrofits to the old scope rail so it mounts a Picatinny Rail (or "flat top") on the receiver. It is a medium range rifle.It is used when a fast second shot is more important than one slow well-aimed one.
BTW Jonsey, TV‘s "The A-Team" used AC-556s, assault carbine versions of the "Mini-14".


----------



## LMcL (20 Dec 2003)

The M16A2 (AR-15A2) is selective fire. (SAFE, SEMI, BURST).
The M16A3 (AR-15A2) is full auto and was issued to Special Operations personnel who needed the ability to lay down supressive fire (SAFE, SEMI, AUTO). It was used by the US Army Rangers, US Special Forces, Navy SEALs, etc. 
The M-16A4 (AR-15A3) is selective fire and has the C8A1/M4 style "flat top" Picatinny Rail and the SOPMOD M5 Rail Interface System forend(like the SFW and SFSW). It is used by Mechanised Infantry units and may serve with Special Operations forces when they are in wide open areas like the desert.  
The US Army‘s TRADOC website has a manual for the M-16 series that gives the stats for the M16A1, M16A2/A3 and M16A4. 
Since most people have never seen the M-16A3, they don‘t know about its existence. Civilians also get confused by the designation for the civilian AR-15A3 (the "flat tops") and think the M16A4 is the M16A3.


----------



## LMcL (20 Dec 2003)

The 7.62mm NATO Knight‘s Armament Corporation (KAC) SR-25 is a different weapon than the XM-25. It is based on a modified AR-10 design and is used by the Navy SEALS as a "Sniper Support Weapon".

The XM-8 series is projected depending on whether the US buys the OICW. It may or may not be adopted in any large numbers by the US Army.
Remember the HK G-11? The ACR? The Armored Gun System?)


----------



## LMcL (20 Dec 2003)

The British SA-80 IW and LSW has recently been upgraded by Heckler und Koch to the tune of US$93 million(?). 
There are still reports of jamming and feed problems in the Southwest Asia theater, but that may be due to a more lax cleaning regimen (the US armed forces clean their M16s frequently due to 40+ years of experience with it, especially in rough conditions) and the faulty NATO STANAG 30-round M16-style magazine (the magazine cannot hold a full thirty rounds without jamming...sand creeps into the magazine spring to cause feeding problems...the aluminum magazine lips deform easily..etc.)
US soldiers and Marines interviewed in the same theater by the British press confirmed that their M16s had similar problems.


----------



## yoshi (21 Dec 2003)

The C7A1 have been in use since 1996 with the RNLMC(Royal Netherlands Marine Corps),And proved to be a good weapon in all weather use from Norway to Iraq.We only got another sling that works more easy


----------



## Mogrok (29 Dec 2003)

It looks like the american military is going away from the OICW concept at least for a national main weapon.  C-7 works for us now and it‘s simplicity is obvious when you consider the conditions it is put thru.  We will see more lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq (m16 issues) I am sure in the future.  One being range.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2005)

Fifties: I think the USA built something like 4,000,000 fifty cals during WW2.   The bulk would have been air-cooled M2s for use on armoured vehicles, fighters and bombers. 

M4/C8: A problem with short barrelled 5.56mm carbines is the drop in velocity to sub-sonic past 100 metres, and the loss in terminal effects that it entails.  This may be a cause of the gentle push towards 6.8mm or similar in some circles.  Remember the Brit .280 EM2?  Everything old is new again!


----------



## KevinB (16 Feb 2005)

Uhm dude even a 10.3" C8CQB is supersonic past 100m

 2500-2700 fps is the 100% fragmentation threshold.

 C77 has a MV of 3150fps out of the C7A1/A2, and it drop below 2700 fps around 130m, and 2500fps
@ 185m.
From the 14.5" C8 it has a MV of 2925 fps, dropping below 2700fps @60m and 2500fps @ 130m.

With the 16" C8SFW MV is 3009fps and it drops below 2700fps @ 90m and 2500fps @ 160m


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

Damn Science!


----------



## KevinB (16 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Damn Science!


----------



## honestyrules (16 Feb 2005)

From the U.S side Somalia inquiries...

5.56mm cal. doesn't have the punch required for urban warfare...


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

You have a reference, or are you just going off assumptions from "Blackhawk Down".

How about something from the handful of major Urban battles that the US has fought in the last two years?


----------



## Ralph Wigum (16 Feb 2005)

.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2005)

That made about as much sense as the real Ralph Wingum. What are you on about?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2005)

Until something really new pops up, I think it is safe to assume we will keep the M-16/C-7 family of weapons for many years to come. The _only_ possible alternative with current technology is something based on the AK-47 action, which would make a fine weapon almost immune to dirt and environmental factors, but is it worth the cost or buying all new rifles?

The attempts to replace the assault rifle have been going on for years. The SPIW project was launched in the 1960s in an attempt to bring extreme engineering to the high velocity/low mass paradigm of the 5.56 round, eventually settling on tiny darts moving at over 4000 ft/sec. The HK G-11 was an attempt to increase PK by firing at such a high cyclic rate on 3 round burst that the shooter felt the impulse after the last round left the barrel. OCIW is/was a project to put "smart rounds" into the hands of the Infantry soldier. The Australian "Metalstorm" company is currently working on a weapons system where the barrel also serves as the magazine and firing mechanism; current efforts are focused on area weapons, but the inventor had built a SMG sized weapon that could fire at 1,000,000 rpm.

All these ideas have flaws, mostly involving the fact they were not "soldier proof". Maybe some day.....


----------



## chrisf (17 Feb 2005)

On the subject of soldier proofing, I think that's probably one of the biggest problem in building an assault rifle... no matter how complex and fine tuned you can make a weapon, you have to accept the fact that it's entirely possible the thing will be needed as a club at some point.


----------

