When you think your FallOut 4 inspired rifle will be the next combat rifle of the US Military

a reply to: BigDave-AR

i have found it. they say it is in the sanctuary.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Also, am I to understand that this thing takes batteries of a kind, to power the electrical trigger? It is enough of an imposition, I would have thought, for a trooper to have to worry about how many rounds they are carrying on their person at any one time, but a battery bank will have limited lifetime, and its running out at an inopportune moment would be potentially catastrophic in a crisis.

Say for example, that a unit is out on patrol, away from their base of operations. They get pinned, air support is unavailable because of a dust storm or other environmental effect. No other units are nearby, support is essentially too far away to be effective in the here and now. The best the unit can do is find somewhere to dig in, and avoid detection, with the caveat that they may have to shoot their way out of whatever hole they have to dig themselves, when support or exfil becomes an option.

What if the battery life is too short? What if a trooper simply couldn't get charge time enough to top off his battery bank? What if the battery becomes old, dendrites forming in the battery bank eventually connect, causing a short? There is so much that could go wrong with this from a technical point of view. People who say that these things have fewer moving parts, therefore are more reliable mechanically, forget that electrons moving through a system are parts, and if they do not move in the right way, if something is improperly connected, or there is a leak in the battery, a break, a puncture, a failure of any kind, this could cause the weapon to fail to function, or suffer a catastrophic loss of structural integrity, depending on the manner of the fault. Unless the design uses a solid state battery (technology which is in its infancy as far as I understand it), its unlikely to be stable enough for long term use.

But there are still M16s around from the Vietnam days, and while they might suck butts through a straw compared with the modern iteration of their design philosophy, I cannot see them being more prone to failure than one which relies on a clean flow of energy, around a system which is designed to be thrown around, beaten up, scratched, damaged, punched, used as a club in close quarters, and expected to survive concussive assault from nearby grenade detonations.

a reply to: trollz

AKs are only good out to about 300 meters. They always go bang, but the loose construction does not make for an accurate firearm.

To be sure it wouldn't work, it needs to be tested.

I, for one, would love to put it through its paces. I'm always up for a new gun to "test".

Send me two, and I will test 'em, clean 'em, test 'em some more. I'll even do it for free.

originally posted by: seagull
To be sure it wouldn't work, it needs to be tested.

I, for one, would love to put it through its paces. I'm always up for a new gun to "test".

Send me two, and I will test 'em, clean 'em, test 'em some more. I'll even do it for free.

You get one, I get one. Then we can meet up in Texas and really test them. :p

Some of America's greatest inventions happened in garages, a testament to American ingenuity.

If it performs, its performs, who cares how it looks?

Lets wait for the analysis of this weapon before we cast any hasty judgement.

I don't think of Fallout as a sniper game, but I'm just a Watcher, not a player.

I do sometimes think that other games such as Sniper Elite are in some ways training a whole new generation of shooters. Although with no gravity drop or instantaneous bullet travel times, even Red Eagle might have a hard time adjusting to the way things work in real life.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Now I think this design is ridiculous as much as the next guy, but batteries are already a big part of modern warfare and the systems are built to a higher standard with at least some hardening and shielding, the PCB would all be conformally coated and potted with epoxy to greatly increase resistance to physical damage and water and the like. Another possible solution would be to have a backup firing system that is simple as possible for example you could use a piezoelectric element that takes the mechanical input of pulling the trigger and converts it to a electrical impulse to fire the weapon. You could have two piezeos and redundant wiring to try to ensure reliability. That being said if it did have the backup ignition it would more than likely only be able to fire single shots and not salvos seeing as it would have no active control to switch between firing modes. I still do agree that this isn’t the way to go but it’s just not quite as bad as you’re thinking, still utter #e when compared to the mature mechanical designs used by today’s militaries.

Jason- Most combat fought on the modern battlefield is 300 meters and in so that’s not too big of a deal and I agree the AK isn’t anywhere near as inherently accurate as the M16/M4 (I.e less accurate lockup from only having two locking pigs opposed to many on the AR, the 7.62x39 isn’t a particularly accurate round, the iron sights are garbage and optics mounting solutions aren’t always ideal etc...)

Seagull- I wouldn’t mind playing with it either just don’t think this is the way to go for our military forces.

Arnie- I’m not just knocking the looks and I’m definently not knocking dude for trying but nothing is special about this system IMO just ideas that have failed on there own in the past all thrown together which in my mind make the chances of this thing being a frontline weapon is incredibly small IMHO. I mean just think about how much more of a pain in the arse it would be having all the extra ammo weight and complexity two things that your average grunt takes deadly serious.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Oh, I don't either. From the sounds of it, it's overly complex, and could be adversely effected by outside effects, such as an EM pulse of some sort. ...not to mention, is it soldier-proof, or can an average run of the mill GI, or Marine, fix it if it breaks, as these things do get broken.

Still, it'd be fun to find out!!!

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Oh, I don't either. From the sounds of it, it's overly complex, and could be adversely effected by outside effects, such as an EM pulse of some sort. ...not to mention, is it soldier-proof, or can an average run of the mill GI, or Marine, fix it if it breaks, as these things do get broken.

Still, it'd be fun to find out!!!

I’d still rather play with any of the Advanced Combat Rifle designs from back in ‘86 especially the G11, that thing was pretty BA if ya ask me!
en.m.wikipedia.org...
And that design dated to ‘68! Crazy stuff
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: BigDave-AR

I liked that one, too.

I wonder why no firearms manufacturer has come out with a civilian model? Not that it would matter, as I couldn't afford one.... Still, it'd cool to be able to at least dream.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BigDave-AR

I liked that one, too.

I wonder why no firearms manufacturer has come out with a civilian model? Not that it would matter, as I couldn't afford one...

. Still, it'd cool to be able to at least dream.

Mainly cost and lack of advantages for joe blow civi, caseless ammo is cool but still has major teething issues when it comes to things like durability, resistance to the elements, and the ammo itself is price prohibitive. Overall as much as I’d like to play with the G11 (mainly for that insane 3 round burst cyclic rate and single recoil impulse) I’ll stick to simpler weapons systems with conventional cases ammo. I’d love to see caseless ammo take off but it’s got a long ways to go. Right now I think sticking with what works is best, right now smallarms design is pretty stagnant and it’s going to take a revolution in design to make it worth switching IMO.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

True enough.

But can you think of a better group of people to iron out bugs? I knew enthusiasts who know more about their various firearms then the people who designed and built the things...

Give 'em two years, and caseless ammo would be a thing. IMHO.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BigDave-AR

True enough.

But can you think of a better group of people to iron out bugs? I knew enthusiasts who know more about their various firearms then the people who designed and built the things...

Give 'em two years, and caseless ammo would be a thing. IMHO.

I agree as far as mechanical ingenuity of some people in the field but right now the caseless ammo is held back by chemistry so in this case I’m not so sure the community would be able to make much headway, it’s pretty well stuck to being the play things of companies in the industry that have the money to develop plasticized propellants that can stand up to the robustness and reliabilty of cased ammo, and even they are not making near the headway required.

Its just a heavy stripper clip for four rounds at a time. If you fire all four continuously the middle two barrels will be useless in no time at all. Unless they are liquid cooled, which is just extra weight and more things to go wrong. This is a personal combat weapon. Its not like changing barrels on M-60's when they started glowing orange. Its supposed to be durable, fault free, light, and effective. I don't see that in this weapon at all.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Its just a heavy stripper clip for four rounds at a time. If you fire all four continuously the middle two barrels will be useless in no time at all. Unless they are liquid cooled, which is just extra weight and more things to go wrong. This is a personal combat weapon. Its not like changing barrels on M-60's when they started glowing orange. Its supposed to be durable, fault free, light, and effective. I don't see that in this weapon at all.

Agreed it’s also stretching the definition of caseless IMO since the “clip” encapsulates the charge on 3 sides and with the bullet pushed on top so essentially what you have is 4 big(ger) heavy(Er) cartridges all hooked together in one block which is far from the way to go for any military application. I didn’t even think of heat soak on the two center barrels good lord I was hoping someone might be able to pick the bright side out of this contraption but it seems to all be negative. Looking at the thing with my calibrated eyeball scale I wouldn’t be surprised if that thing tips the scale at 10lbs loaded without any accessories or optics and that’s pretty bad when compared to say oh IDK a proven weapon like the M4.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Buzzkill.



I suppose you're right, I hadn't really sat down and given it the thought necessary. The chemistry aspect does seem as though it would be the main issue...now that I'm thinking about it, I seem to recall reading that very thing. Heckler and Koch when they were developing the G11 had that very issue, if I'm remembering correctly.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

thats the thing though too...........

Even if it WAS lighter, look at the rounds out ratio and rate of fire.......now rate of fire isnt always a necessity.......but If need be I have a lot more ammo in my M4 to either take calculated shots, or rattle off a little cover......

Youre gonna be dropping mags outa this thing so often it wont be viable.......in fact it would end up being a detriment.........

Lets put you and me 1 on 1 on a battlefield space......same amount of ammo, same skill level......all odds things even......

Theres no way youre going to be able to perform and maneuver at that level having to change your mags that often....not to mention, I have WAY more at a time to put mine on target than you do.........

lol also.................sand..........

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Buzzkill.

I suppose you're right, I hadn't really sat down and given it the thought necessary. The chemistry aspect does seem as though it would be the main issue...now that I'm thinking about it, I seem to recall reading that very thing. Heckler and Koch when they were developing the G11 had that very issue, if I'm remembering correctly.

Yeah chemistry and material science is the hurdle for practical caseless ammo sadly I don’t see the breakthrough happening anytime soon. Don’t go selling your brass stocks yet.

Mask- Not arguing at all I’m all for well aimed shots over spray and pray and ultra high cyclic rates, cool on paper and in games and all but for battlefield practiciality also that 2,500rpm figure I’m guessing is just for the first burst of 4 rounds it’s going to get slowed down by feeding in the “clips” from the side feed mag. Like with G11 you could have a crazy high cyclic rate for 3 rounds but under true full auto it was “only” good for 450rpm or so. I doubt we’ll hear anything more about this after it fails hard under military trials (which I’m damn sure will be the outcome), I doubt he’s going to be bragging to the local paper after that. It’d be very interesting to see where it falls short though I think we’ve already fleshed out a lot of conceptual problems in the design, IMO this all comes down to the ammo in the end.

Apparently they’re showing this thing off at SHOT Show

m.youtube.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...

ETA it’s not even true electronic ignition! It just uses electrically fired solenoids acting on a standard primer so not only is this thing gibbing about the caseless ammo but also the electronic ignition.... What a fail SMH claimed weight is 6.5lbs (I’m positive that’s not loaded) once you throw in the extra weight of the charge blocks it’s going to be heavier than a a M4 when they’re both loaded with 30 rounds.