The "Perfect" Combat Rifle Concept
The "Perfect" Combat Rifle Concept
In WWII, the basic conundrum arrived, of, how do we create a weapon that will ultimately fulfill every role we could possibly need it to on the battlefield? While the Germans had the MG42, a heavy machine gun, the Americans eventually got the M16, a light assault rifle. But what was this concept based around? The simple comparison would be the Submachine gun, rifle, and machine gun, or the Thompson M1, M1 Garand, and Browning automatic rifle. The submachine gun had a magazine of 20-30 rounds, fired very quickly and was only 30 inches long, making it very easy to maneuver in close quarters. It's powerful hard-hitting .45 ACP was good at close ranges, but lacked the range of a rifle, effectively making the weapon completely useless past 150 yards in most circumstances, and barely serviceable past 100, and couldn't pierce armor. The M1 Garand could get out to 400-500 yards and theoretically 800 or more with the right ammunition, but only held 8 rounds, and was comparatively long and heavy. While it was able to be used in close quarters far easier than say, a bolt action rifle, it still lagged behind the Thompson. The solution to all of this could be found in the BAR, with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity as the Thompson, and light enough recoil to be used accurately in rapid fire. However, it was 16-20 pounds, used very heavy ammunition, and ultimately was too big and bulky for most soldiers to reliably and effectively use. So, the issue came up; how do we make a light, reliable, high-speed weapon that's also maneuverable and capable of being used in close quarters?
Perhaps the first example would be the m1 Carbine. Produced in higher numbers than the m1 garand, at 6.5 million compared to 6.25 million, it was reliable, light, and had a magazine capacity of up to 30 rounds, giving it the ability to essentially replicate the thompson. However, it had a much longer range, of approximately 300 yards, giving it the ability to be used at realistic combat engagement distances, which the military found to be generally under 300 yards, and usually under 100. This meant it wasn't completely useless at long ranges, but was well suited for close ranges, making it an ideal all purpose weapon. The main problem was the stopping power. Notoriously a very weak cartridge, it was reported to have less stopping power than a .45 ACP, especially at long ranges, and couldn't penetrate through light armor or heavy clothing. So the design for a more powerful, armor piercing weapon began. Also on the mind of U.S. commanders at the time was the study that found the side which fired the most rounds most often won, irregardless of round type, giving the military the idea that faster, higher rates of fire normally won the day. Now while this statistic ignored a lot of other factors such as numbers of troops, realistic rates of fire in the field and the fact the rounds being used did actually matter, it nonetheless shaped the military's perspective on their choice of the "perfect" general purpose combat rifle, that could replace all three main types of guns (the submachinegun, rifle, and machine gun).
Perhaps the first attempt at this was the M14. It was essentially a heavily modified m1 garand with a 20 round detachable box magazine, designed to remain competitive with the BAR, m1 and thompson. While a very suitable m1 Garand replacement, in rapid fire it's recoil was too high to be used practically as a machine gun, and it's weight and size made it poor for close quarters combat. In Vietnam, it was found that soldiers with the Ak-47 could out maneuver their own men and carry more ammunition, and in the close quarters combat of the jungle soldiers found the M14 overweight and very cumbersome. It got so bad that at one point, the fully automatic selectors of the guns were welded to semi auto, as they were afraid soldiers would waste ammo on full auto, as was often the case. The desire for a lighter, smaller weapon came around and had been bounced around for quite some time. While the bullpup EM-2 was perhaps the best contender at the time, using a very streamlined, aerodynamic bullet that mimicked the ballistics of the .30-06 and was generally very accurate and long range, for it's low power, the M16 was eventually picked. Based off of the AR-10, which was itself a .30-06 based weapon, it's incredibly low weight of only 7.5 pounds, combined with the built in suppressor and muzzle break, as well as the recoil reducing system known by most as the Direct impingement system, removed most of the moving parts of the mechanism and simplified the design, allowing for vastly reduced recoil. This came at the expense of a large size due to the recoil buffer tube, in effect making the weapon incapable of becoming bullpup, and somewhat reduced reliability. So, the question become, do we want a longer weapon worse at CQB, but with great power, or a weapon with slightly less power, but did amazingly well at close quarters combat? The EM-2 would have been the natural pick for soldiers at the time, as it would have fit the environment of Vietnam the best and been in direct competition of power with the Ak-47, despite having the same range as the .30-06, and better armor penetration.
Instead, the military went with the M16, which was an even smaller, weaker bullet than the EM-2, that had an even shorter range despite only being slightly lighter weight. This was despite perhaps ironically the military rejecting the EM-2 initially because the weaker bullet could never be accepted by the command officials, stuck in the view that the .30-06 was the minimum level of power that was needed on the battlefield. Even worse, this very weak, low-recoil round was put in to the AR-10, which was very finicky and needed proper gunpowder to not jam, a weapon itself designed to reduce recoil. Why put a heavy recoil reducing gun with the smallest bullet available? Soldiers could have easily handled the recoil of an M14 with a .223 in it instead, but they went with an even more recoil reducing weapon. Beyond this, the weapon was generally prone to malfunction and not very resistant to environmental hazards such as sand, mud or water, issued without cleaning equipment or instructions, and had 20 round magazines that were only reliable if loaded with 18 or less. Furthermore the higher rate of fire offered by the more powerful gunpowder caused the weapon to overheat quickly, which overheated quickly regardless of what round was being used. Irregardless the weapon was adopted and in the hands of trained infantrymen did fairly well, with soldiers in Vietnam getting 1 to 18 kill ratios fairly easily even in infantry combat. While the numbers vary according to some authors, most will claim that for every U.S. soldier causality, 3-18 of the enemy experienced casualties. The weapon's ammunition was half the weight of the .30-06, allowing a soldier to carry 600+ rounds in to combat for every round the M14 could fire. Consistent with the belief that more rounds = a higher chance of victory, the weapon stuck, and has remained in U.S. service for over 50 years.
While many obvious problems existed with the firearm, it nonetheless was able to fullfill the role for the most part. Today, the competition is between the M4 carbine and M16, the shorter, carbine length variant that is only 30 inches with the stock collapsed but is much weaker and less reliable due to the shorter gas tube and shorter barrel length, or the M16, the full sized, but cumbersome bigger brother. The honest truth is that, a resolution to the size of compactness, that is small size, low recoil, and light ammunition, can be made without compromise. A weapon with various recoil reducing facets, lighter weight ammunition, and being a bullpup can eliminate all these issues, allowing it to fullfill the role of both an assault rifle, and submachine gun. While replicating a machine gun to it's fullest extent may become impossible, it's ability to fullfill the role say, a BAR, or a light machine, is in actuality a feasible reality. Just like the M27 IAR, a weapon in the middle of a heavy machine gun and assault rifle can be found, and thus give a weapon capable of fulfilling all the roles needed in a squad. In numbers, the weapon can replicate the effect of a machine gun, if needed, and a machine gun can still be issued to some members of the squad. Because most gunners fire in short bursts and not fully automatic fire, it is almost unnecessary to have such a high rate of fire on the battlefield irregardless.
Enter the Bullpup
While the bullpup rifle is not a new concept, it has only recently become the standard across the world. Better in almost everyway compared to the traditionally laid out rifles, it is able to shorten the weapon by some 6.5 to 10 inches, allowing it to remain the size of a compact CQB weapon like the M4 carbine, while still having a full length barrels. Shorter barrels have less power, and in the AR-15 platform less reliability, which means a trade-off between accuracy, range, and power when going to a CQB weapon. This trade-off can be completely eliminated just by using a bullpup weapon, which means it can be used to replaced both the M4 carbine and M16, and is better than both individually. The EM-2 was perhaps the first well known example, made in 1948, just 3 years after WWII was over.
The Tavor however is perhaps the most popular and prolific bullpup firearm used by military's today, next to the Steyr Aug, and is a long-stroke gas piston weapon with the same reliability of the ak-47 or M14, despite being the size of the M4 carbine. It's reliable function doesn't impact it's accuracy or recoil however, being very easy to shoot, nearly as much so as the AR-15. The weapon is only 30 inches long with a 20 inch barrel, giving it the length of a fully collapsed m4 carbine, with the barrel length of a full sized rifle. Being very back heavy, it's easy to point down range and maintain, eliminating the issue that longer rifles tend to have by being more front heavy, and thus harder to hold up. Furthermore, it's superior ergonomics allow it to be very easily held with one hand, and obviously well supported with two, giving it a superior feel and comfort than the AR-15, which is known for being a very comfortable gun to hold and shoot. While the Steyr aug achieves all of these same things over the AR-15 platform, it came 30-40 years before the tavor, and thus lacks some of the modernized features and isn't as good on all fronts. Other notable and widely used bullpups is the French FAMAS, the British SA80, and the SAR-21. All of these weapons are just as short as any carbine, but with the full length barrel of a full sized rifle, and thus all the benefits that entails.
High BC Rounds - 6.5mm Grendel and other alternatives
A big issue has always been the concern of power. Finding a round that has light enough recoil to compete with the lighter, intermediate cartridges such as the .223, but is powerful enough to compete with the .308. While every round truly has some sort of compromise, shortening the gap between them is legitimately possible. While there's more to it than just having a high ballistic coefficient, a large part of the equation is a high BC round. The ballistic coefficient of a bullet is essentially it's aerodynamics, how much energy the round maintains out to longer ranges, and a higher Ballistic coefficient allows for more energy retention. Larger more powerful rounds tend to be less velocity dependent on their stopping power, in addition to maintaining higher energy levels. The 6.5mm Grendel for example, at the muzzle has approximately 2,600 joules, which is 45% more than the .223, but still 35% less than the .308. However, at 600 yards, it has more energy than the .308 at 600 yards, giving at least as much power at long ranges as the .308. At 1,000+ yards, it vastly outperforms the .308, giving it the ability to reach targets out to a long range and still incapacitate them. The round is twice as heavy as the .223 round, but still 20% less heavy than the .308. It's recoil is only approximately twice that of the .223 compared to 4 times that of the .308, which is still very manageable at close ranges, and it's only 30% heavier than the .223, compared to twice as heavy with the .308. In addition, the round is as heavy as an Ak-47, with even more power, and maintains more power out to approximately 250 yards. The incredible ballistic coefficient means that at while close range it has less power than the .308, it has the same or more at longer ranges. As in general the .223 or 7.62mm x 39mm is more than sufficient at close ranges, at least according to military requirements, it stands to reason that more power is not needed at close range, but long ranges. High BC bullets essentially allow for a lighter recoil impulse at the muzzle, but greater performance at long ranges. They also tend to be more accurate.
Reports by the military found that past 300 meters, the 5.56mm began to become rather ineffective, lacking the stopping power or accuraccy for long range target engagement, and thus many units began to switch over to the 7.62mm. While simply providing a handful of soldiers with more powerful guns allowed for longer target acquisition, it slowed down the entire squad when only a single soldier could engage the enemy at those distances. With rounds like the 6.5mm Grendel, every soldier could engage targets out to long range, and still have enough not only enough stopping power, but also the ability to penetrate through armor. The 7mm British, 6.8mm Remington SPC, and a number of other rounds fullfill the same role, with varying degrees of capabilities. For instance the 6.8mm Remington does extremely well from short barrels, where as the 7mm British mimics the ballistic trajectory of the .30-06. The 6.5mm grendel is by far the most accurate with the best long range performance, and would do well in bullpups, but the 6.8mm remington would be the best out of a carbine. While the 6.5mm Grendel has between .48 and .53 G1 BC and the 6.8mm Remington has around .35 BC or higher, the .223 has a G1 BC of .200. The best sniper rounds for the .223, such as the Mk. 262, have a BC of .35, but are much more expensive than either the 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel, and the best variants of these rounds have even better ballistics.
Recoil reduction - Muzzle breaks and recoil buffers
One of the key problems of more powerful rounds is of course, recoil. One of the primary reasons the M14 was replaced by the M16, was the recoil and difficulty in controlling the M14 in fully automatic fire. While certainly a problem, it is not entirely unmanageable. Various methods can be used to mitigate the felt recoil of most weapons or help control, thus solving this fundamentally as an issue. Muzzle breaks, depending on the type and ammunition can help reduce recoil by 30-40% at least with rifles, and various recoil buffers and dual-recoil springs, can also help reduce felt recoil. The HK USP
Weight Reduction - Caseless rounds
Better Barrels
In WWII, the basic conundrum arrived, of, how do we create a weapon that will ultimately fulfill every role we could possibly need it to on the battlefield? While the Germans had the MG42, a heavy machine gun, the Americans eventually got the M16, a light assault rifle. But what was this concept based around? The simple comparison would be the Submachine gun, rifle, and machine gun, or the Thompson M1, M1 Garand, and Browning automatic rifle. The submachine gun had a magazine of 20-30 rounds, fired very quickly and was only 30 inches long, making it very easy to maneuver in close quarters. It's powerful hard-hitting .45 ACP was good at close ranges, but lacked the range of a rifle, effectively making the weapon completely useless past 150 yards in most circumstances, and barely serviceable past 100, and couldn't pierce armor. The M1 Garand could get out to 400-500 yards and theoretically 800 or more with the right ammunition, but only held 8 rounds, and was comparatively long and heavy. While it was able to be used in close quarters far easier than say, a bolt action rifle, it still lagged behind the Thompson. The solution to all of this could be found in the BAR, with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity as the Thompson, and light enough recoil to be used accurately in rapid fire. However, it was 16-20 pounds, used very heavy ammunition, and ultimately was too big and bulky for most soldiers to reliably and effectively use. So, the issue came up; how do we make a light, reliable, high-speed weapon that's also maneuverable and capable of being used in close quarters?
Perhaps the first example would be the m1 Carbine. Produced in higher numbers than the m1 garand, at 6.5 million compared to 6.25 million, it was reliable, light, and had a magazine capacity of up to 30 rounds, giving it the ability to essentially replicate the thompson. However, it had a much longer range, of approximately 300 yards, giving it the ability to be used at realistic combat engagement distances, which the military found to be generally under 300 yards, and usually under 100. This meant it wasn't completely useless at long ranges, but was well suited for close ranges, making it an ideal all purpose weapon. The main problem was the stopping power. Notoriously a very weak cartridge, it was reported to have less stopping power than a .45 ACP, especially at long ranges, and couldn't penetrate through light armor or heavy clothing. So the design for a more powerful, armor piercing weapon began. Also on the mind of U.S. commanders at the time was the study that found the side which fired the most rounds most often won, irregardless of round type, giving the military the idea that faster, higher rates of fire normally won the day. Now while this statistic ignored a lot of other factors such as numbers of troops, realistic rates of fire in the field and the fact the rounds being used did actually matter, it nonetheless shaped the military's perspective on their choice of the "perfect" general purpose combat rifle, that could replace all three main types of guns (the submachinegun, rifle, and machine gun).
Perhaps the first attempt at this was the M14. It was essentially a heavily modified m1 garand with a 20 round detachable box magazine, designed to remain competitive with the BAR, m1 and thompson. While a very suitable m1 Garand replacement, in rapid fire it's recoil was too high to be used practically as a machine gun, and it's weight and size made it poor for close quarters combat. In Vietnam, it was found that soldiers with the Ak-47 could out maneuver their own men and carry more ammunition, and in the close quarters combat of the jungle soldiers found the M14 overweight and very cumbersome. It got so bad that at one point, the fully automatic selectors of the guns were welded to semi auto, as they were afraid soldiers would waste ammo on full auto, as was often the case. The desire for a lighter, smaller weapon came around and had been bounced around for quite some time. While the bullpup EM-2 was perhaps the best contender at the time, using a very streamlined, aerodynamic bullet that mimicked the ballistics of the .30-06 and was generally very accurate and long range, for it's low power, the M16 was eventually picked. Based off of the AR-10, which was itself a .30-06 based weapon, it's incredibly low weight of only 7.5 pounds, combined with the built in suppressor and muzzle break, as well as the recoil reducing system known by most as the Direct impingement system, removed most of the moving parts of the mechanism and simplified the design, allowing for vastly reduced recoil. This came at the expense of a large size due to the recoil buffer tube, in effect making the weapon incapable of becoming bullpup, and somewhat reduced reliability. So, the question become, do we want a longer weapon worse at CQB, but with great power, or a weapon with slightly less power, but did amazingly well at close quarters combat? The EM-2 would have been the natural pick for soldiers at the time, as it would have fit the environment of Vietnam the best and been in direct competition of power with the Ak-47, despite having the same range as the .30-06, and better armor penetration.
Instead, the military went with the M16, which was an even smaller, weaker bullet than the EM-2, that had an even shorter range despite only being slightly lighter weight. This was despite perhaps ironically the military rejecting the EM-2 initially because the weaker bullet could never be accepted by the command officials, stuck in the view that the .30-06 was the minimum level of power that was needed on the battlefield. Even worse, this very weak, low-recoil round was put in to the AR-10, which was very finicky and needed proper gunpowder to not jam, a weapon itself designed to reduce recoil. Why put a heavy recoil reducing gun with the smallest bullet available? Soldiers could have easily handled the recoil of an M14 with a .223 in it instead, but they went with an even more recoil reducing weapon. Beyond this, the weapon was generally prone to malfunction and not very resistant to environmental hazards such as sand, mud or water, issued without cleaning equipment or instructions, and had 20 round magazines that were only reliable if loaded with 18 or less. Furthermore the higher rate of fire offered by the more powerful gunpowder caused the weapon to overheat quickly, which overheated quickly regardless of what round was being used. Irregardless the weapon was adopted and in the hands of trained infantrymen did fairly well, with soldiers in Vietnam getting 1 to 18 kill ratios fairly easily even in infantry combat. While the numbers vary according to some authors, most will claim that for every U.S. soldier causality, 3-18 of the enemy experienced casualties. The weapon's ammunition was half the weight of the .30-06, allowing a soldier to carry 600+ rounds in to combat for every round the M14 could fire. Consistent with the belief that more rounds = a higher chance of victory, the weapon stuck, and has remained in U.S. service for over 50 years.
While many obvious problems existed with the firearm, it nonetheless was able to fullfill the role for the most part. Today, the competition is between the M4 carbine and M16, the shorter, carbine length variant that is only 30 inches with the stock collapsed but is much weaker and less reliable due to the shorter gas tube and shorter barrel length, or the M16, the full sized, but cumbersome bigger brother. The honest truth is that, a resolution to the size of compactness, that is small size, low recoil, and light ammunition, can be made without compromise. A weapon with various recoil reducing facets, lighter weight ammunition, and being a bullpup can eliminate all these issues, allowing it to fullfill the role of both an assault rifle, and submachine gun. While replicating a machine gun to it's fullest extent may become impossible, it's ability to fullfill the role say, a BAR, or a light machine, is in actuality a feasible reality. Just like the M27 IAR, a weapon in the middle of a heavy machine gun and assault rifle can be found, and thus give a weapon capable of fulfilling all the roles needed in a squad. In numbers, the weapon can replicate the effect of a machine gun, if needed, and a machine gun can still be issued to some members of the squad. Because most gunners fire in short bursts and not fully automatic fire, it is almost unnecessary to have such a high rate of fire on the battlefield irregardless.
Enter the Bullpup
While the bullpup rifle is not a new concept, it has only recently become the standard across the world. Better in almost everyway compared to the traditionally laid out rifles, it is able to shorten the weapon by some 6.5 to 10 inches, allowing it to remain the size of a compact CQB weapon like the M4 carbine, while still having a full length barrels. Shorter barrels have less power, and in the AR-15 platform less reliability, which means a trade-off between accuracy, range, and power when going to a CQB weapon. This trade-off can be completely eliminated just by using a bullpup weapon, which means it can be used to replaced both the M4 carbine and M16, and is better than both individually. The EM-2 was perhaps the first well known example, made in 1948, just 3 years after WWII was over.
The Tavor however is perhaps the most popular and prolific bullpup firearm used by military's today, next to the Steyr Aug, and is a long-stroke gas piston weapon with the same reliability of the ak-47 or M14, despite being the size of the M4 carbine. It's reliable function doesn't impact it's accuracy or recoil however, being very easy to shoot, nearly as much so as the AR-15. The weapon is only 30 inches long with a 20 inch barrel, giving it the length of a fully collapsed m4 carbine, with the barrel length of a full sized rifle. Being very back heavy, it's easy to point down range and maintain, eliminating the issue that longer rifles tend to have by being more front heavy, and thus harder to hold up. Furthermore, it's superior ergonomics allow it to be very easily held with one hand, and obviously well supported with two, giving it a superior feel and comfort than the AR-15, which is known for being a very comfortable gun to hold and shoot. While the Steyr aug achieves all of these same things over the AR-15 platform, it came 30-40 years before the tavor, and thus lacks some of the modernized features and isn't as good on all fronts. Other notable and widely used bullpups is the French FAMAS, the British SA80, and the SAR-21. All of these weapons are just as short as any carbine, but with the full length barrel of a full sized rifle, and thus all the benefits that entails.
High BC Rounds - 6.5mm Grendel and other alternatives
A big issue has always been the concern of power. Finding a round that has light enough recoil to compete with the lighter, intermediate cartridges such as the .223, but is powerful enough to compete with the .308. While every round truly has some sort of compromise, shortening the gap between them is legitimately possible. While there's more to it than just having a high ballistic coefficient, a large part of the equation is a high BC round. The ballistic coefficient of a bullet is essentially it's aerodynamics, how much energy the round maintains out to longer ranges, and a higher Ballistic coefficient allows for more energy retention. Larger more powerful rounds tend to be less velocity dependent on their stopping power, in addition to maintaining higher energy levels. The 6.5mm Grendel for example, at the muzzle has approximately 2,600 joules, which is 45% more than the .223, but still 35% less than the .308. However, at 600 yards, it has more energy than the .308 at 600 yards, giving at least as much power at long ranges as the .308. At 1,000+ yards, it vastly outperforms the .308, giving it the ability to reach targets out to a long range and still incapacitate them. The round is twice as heavy as the .223 round, but still 20% less heavy than the .308. It's recoil is only approximately twice that of the .223 compared to 4 times that of the .308, which is still very manageable at close ranges, and it's only 30% heavier than the .223, compared to twice as heavy with the .308. In addition, the round is as heavy as an Ak-47, with even more power, and maintains more power out to approximately 250 yards. The incredible ballistic coefficient means that at while close range it has less power than the .308, it has the same or more at longer ranges. As in general the .223 or 7.62mm x 39mm is more than sufficient at close ranges, at least according to military requirements, it stands to reason that more power is not needed at close range, but long ranges. High BC bullets essentially allow for a lighter recoil impulse at the muzzle, but greater performance at long ranges. They also tend to be more accurate.
Reports by the military found that past 300 meters, the 5.56mm began to become rather ineffective, lacking the stopping power or accuraccy for long range target engagement, and thus many units began to switch over to the 7.62mm. While simply providing a handful of soldiers with more powerful guns allowed for longer target acquisition, it slowed down the entire squad when only a single soldier could engage the enemy at those distances. With rounds like the 6.5mm Grendel, every soldier could engage targets out to long range, and still have enough not only enough stopping power, but also the ability to penetrate through armor. The 7mm British, 6.8mm Remington SPC, and a number of other rounds fullfill the same role, with varying degrees of capabilities. For instance the 6.8mm Remington does extremely well from short barrels, where as the 7mm British mimics the ballistic trajectory of the .30-06. The 6.5mm grendel is by far the most accurate with the best long range performance, and would do well in bullpups, but the 6.8mm remington would be the best out of a carbine. While the 6.5mm Grendel has between .48 and .53 G1 BC and the 6.8mm Remington has around .35 BC or higher, the .223 has a G1 BC of .200. The best sniper rounds for the .223, such as the Mk. 262, have a BC of .35, but are much more expensive than either the 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel, and the best variants of these rounds have even better ballistics.
Recoil reduction - Muzzle breaks and recoil buffers
One of the key problems of more powerful rounds is of course, recoil. One of the primary reasons the M14 was replaced by the M16, was the recoil and difficulty in controlling the M14 in fully automatic fire. While certainly a problem, it is not entirely unmanageable. Various methods can be used to mitigate the felt recoil of most weapons or help control, thus solving this fundamentally as an issue. Muzzle breaks, depending on the type and ammunition can help reduce recoil by 30-40% at least with rifles, and various recoil buffers and dual-recoil springs, can also help reduce felt recoil. The HK USP
Weight Reduction - Caseless rounds
Better Barrels
Comments
Post a Comment