PDA

View Full Version : The perfect small-arm



sniperdude411
15 Feb 05,, 04:53
I've been reading many threads recently, and have sparked a new idea- What would the perfect small-arm be?
1. Lightweight - under 6.5 lbs
2. durable
3. accurate - under 2 MOA
4. low recoil
5. compact
6. extremely adaptable - rail mounts, easily changeable barrels/stocks
7. Extremely reliable
8. Inexpensive

1. Lightweight
The three main things that really contribute to the gun's weight is the barrel, bolt, and ammunition. The only way the ammunition part can be solved is with caseless rounds, but that would drastically increase the gun's complexity, so we cannot do anything about the ammunition. Secondly, current barrels are made of steel. Titanium-coated aluminium would decrease the weight and increase barrel life, but if we put a very thin coat of titamium/carbon-steel mix, the price would not increase in price drastically, possibly $10. Thirdly, the bolt takes a huge beating every shot. Chrome-plated aluminium, like the AK series, would suffice.

2. Durable
The xm8 is the perfect example of the best material to use for the stock and foregrips. A space-age plastic works best. Mildly flexible, waterproof, and resistant to all weather, plastics are the best bet.

3. Accurate
I don't know much on how exactly to mae a gun extremely accurate, but I do know that the tighter the parts, usually the more accurate the gun. The bullpup design is extremely accurate, but the muzzle climb is very high, and compensators can make the gun extremely complicated and terefore jam. Not to mention that that the gun could not be ambidexterous without complex ejection systems like the FN F2000. Semi-automatic sniper rifles use roller-delayed blowback to keep the movement of the shell minimal. Also, the barrel never moves.

4. Low recoil
The AK 107 solves this problem brilliantly. It uses two bolts to nearly cancell-out the recoil. However, this increases weight. But, if we use two lightweight bolts to equally take the blow, this can solve the weight problem.
Also, the action of the gun can be placed lower on the shoulder of the operator to reduce muzzle-climb. Also, the use of low-recoil ammunition can be used, but would sacrifice power and long-range capabilities. However, since most combat is done within 250 yards, the use of large pistol rounds or heavier light rifle rounds would be best. I'll explain this later.

5. Compact
The bullpup design mainly takes care of this problem, but most bullpup guns are very complicated, and therefore jam. A short barrel would help, but would reduce accuracy and power a bit. But an adjustable or retractable stock for CQB would solve this problem without major drawbacks.

6. Extremely adaptable
Rail mounts would help for flashlights and grenade launchers, but sights would require resighting every time they get reattached. Again, the xm8 solves this problem with a special sight mount. A simple rail-mount adapter could do -- put the sight on the mount on the rail, so you can remove the sight without having to resight it, while being able to use older sights.
Also, interchangeable barrels wouldbe nice, too.

7. Extremely reliable
Both the AK seires and the xm8 have this quality, however they have dfferent ways to solve this. The AK series has the parts of the action loosely fitted so they can move with little friction. The xm8 uses an ingenious gas piston to keep the gases from blowing into the chamber.

8. Inexpensive
Usually, an inexpensive gun has fewer parts, and those parts are of poor quality. But If we eliminate almot half of the parts, we can drastically reduce the price. But how would we reduce the part count? The use of electronic triggers in paintball guns acan solve the problem. These use an electromagnet to release the firing pin. This reduces the amount of parts, reducing maintainance and cost. It also could enable use of semi and full-atuo, as well as 2 and 3-round bursts.

Conclusion
Specs and qualities of the perfect gun:
6.5 lbs
Roller-delayed blowack w/ gas piston
10", 14", or 20" barrels (interchangeable)
plastic grips, most exterior
dual-bolt design
rails EVERYWHERE
xm8-style sight adapter
electronic trigger mechanism
collapsable/retracting stock
newer ammunition

Really, the perfect gun would be a combination of the AK 107, mp5, xm8, and the FN SCAR.

Now to ammunition.

Take a .222 shell and put an 7mm bullet in it. That's the perfect round. 5.45 rounds have a weird hollow-point design that causes alot of trauma, but is also highly inaccurate. What also causes much trauma is a wider hollow-point or frangible bullet. This doesn't mean more energy, an fact a bit less, but it has more impact and will incapacitate an enemy with fewer shots. Also, a .357 Mangum would do quite well.
For long-range shots, a 6.8 SPC does very well.
Please do not go extremely into detail into this subject, as this is a gun, not ammo thread.

Sinfulcurves_AK
15 Feb 05,, 05:06
depends what yer trying to narrow it all down to. For compactness, lethality in round, CQC etc.

I think these are worthy: HK53 (5.56), MP7 (4.6), P90 (5.7) all look to fit this category

sniperdude411
15 Feb 05,, 19:17
I think these are worthy: HK53 (5.56), MP7 (4.6), P90 (5.7) all look to fit this category

I definitely agree on the p90. The SS190 ammunition is perfect for an smg; wider than a 5.56, still able to penetrate kevlar, and accurate to 150 meters. Not to mention the capacity is insanely high (20 round mag capacity for the Five-Seven). A huge plus.
Up the size by about 15%, and you've got a perfect small rifle round.
I don't really like the 4.6mm at all. It's way too small. Same with the 5.56. Too thin and light.

Sinfulcurves_AK
15 Feb 05,, 23:45
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg49-e.htm

check this lil article out. Supposely 4.6 can penetrate armour. anyways, I think it looks good.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/ChrissyAK107/MP7-7.jpg

sniperdude411
16 Feb 05,, 04:40
The Bullet still only punches a small hole. Other than the 5.45 (whixh is extremely inaccurate), a wider standard bullet puts a person down faster. It's not always energy that'll put you down faster.
Take an airsoft gun vs. paintball gun for example.
A good airsoft gun has slightly more energy than a paintball gun, but if you've gotten hit by a paintball gun, it sure feels alot worse.
With a true AEG (Automatic Electric Gun), I've been hit by one about 10 times in a second. It's not all that bad. But 2 or 3 paintballs without armor and you're down.

Also, basically, the thinner the bullet, the faster the bulle, the better armor penetrating capabilities.

Terran empire
16 Feb 05,, 05:39
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg49-e.htm

check this lil article out. Supposely 4.6 can penetrate armour. anyways, I think it looks good.


The current US Army Future Soldier 2025 projects a 4.6-mm weapon with 4 HE heat seeking Rockets. personally i think The MP7 and 4.6-mm Would best be found on the battle field in the Hands of Special ops And Downed pilots ( it's size is only slightly larger than a MK23 and i think would make it perfect for a Downed pilot too use in E&E ). P90 Is better suited For Tank and Armored Vehicle crews ( who in Iraqi Freedom were seen picking up AK's as they were only issued a pistol for each and 1 or 2 M4 carbines for a 4 man crew). Infantry Needs Longer Ranges, M8 still gets my vote.

Sinfulcurves_AK
16 Feb 05,, 10:14
hehe, funny you talk about AEG, I just bought one over ebay for $40. it's a SIG 552. The Velocity is : 200fps.

What kinda futuristic rockets are they? I'm aware of the British NLAW (next generation anti tank weapon) and I've seen some interesting Israeli ones: ~SPIKE~

here's the NLAW: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/


and I can't remember where I read SPIKE...

sniperdude411
17 Feb 05,, 04:18
The true AEGs I'm talking about are the Tokyo Marui, ICS, Classic Army, the $400 ones that'll go 410 fps.

Sinfulcurves_AK
17 Feb 05,, 05:23
yah, I've seen those, they cost too much...I'd rather put that $ to buying a REAL one, lol

Terran empire
17 Feb 05,, 05:56
What kinda futuristic rockets are they?

IMO they are the Unworkable kind, but hay I cant see the future so we will see what we will see.
the FCS 2025 projection sees a 15-mm heat seeking fragmentation projectiles fired from a 5 pound Modular Weapon. of which the Base unit uses A 4.6mm pistol.

Mind you it also sees Soldiers dressed like Black Power Rangers ( Full face Motorcycle helmets and Tight Black under suits) with strength enhancing light weight Exoskeletons and Extreme Micro Management. personally i think 2035 would be a better Guess for this style.

Sinfulcurves_AK
17 Feb 05,, 07:11
~lol~ sounds familiar. Did they also show these guys on Ghost Recon II? I remember a li'l behind the scenes-like thingie about the Future soldier.

sniperdude411
17 Feb 05,, 18:49
It's been on a popular Science magazine or something. I've haerd they will cost (in 25 years) about 2.5 million. I don't really think that this'll make it even by 2050.

Sometimes you've got to read a good Popular mechanics or popular Science magazine from the 60's.
For some reason I've seen lots of laxative and get-fat pill advertisements.
Sorry to get off-topic.

The Chap
25 Feb 05,, 06:57
The gun? R4. But I'd swap to a smooth bore DFl. I believe it fits all your requirements. ARMSCOR. And those air soft? Living in the UK I have to go OS to practice. So I have some of the *** replicas you mention. Great fun. I recomend them to everyone. Unfortunately, they are quite expensive. The electric ones are an absolute riot - as long as one uses them on private land. Check the law in y'country first. :)

The Chap
25 Feb 05,, 07:01
I just noticed that " j a p " was edited. Why is that so awful if "Brit" is OK?
Some sage tell?

metalbeast
01 Mar 05,, 23:28
The Bullet still only punches a small hole. Other than the 5.45 (whixh is extremely inaccurate), a wider standard bullet puts a person down faster. It's not always energy that'll put you down faster.
Take an airsoft gun vs. paintball gun for example.
A good airsoft gun has slightly more energy than a paintball gun, but if you've gotten hit by a paintball gun, it sure feels alot worse.
With a true AEG (Automatic Electric Gun), I've been hit by one about 10 times in a second. It's not all that bad. But 2 or 3 paintballs without armor and you're down.

Also, basically, the thinner the bullet, the faster the bulle, the better armor penetrating capabilities.

sniperdude411, the penetration power is related to kinetic energy. A heavier bullet would carry more kinetic energy combined with velocity. The more velocity, the more energy, the heavier the bullet, the more energy. The two combined are directly related in ballistics of bullets. When you talk about width of bullet impacting something like human, you are talking about wound channel, but penetration too can knock down something like a human just as good depending on the penetration, and where you hit the target. The 6mm Optimum (100 grain) for example when compared to 7.62 NATO (147 grain) in ranges of 1,200 meters the kinetic energy gap closes as the bullets in comparison fly the distance. The 7.62 NATO loses kinetic energy much more quickly than the 6mm (which has superior ballistic coefficiency) the further it flys which translates in almost equal energy in it's late flight life. The 5.56 NATO may have a higher velocity, but still doesn't stand anything near the kinetic energy of the 7.62 NATO which fire at a lower velocity. 5.56mm NATO is not better at armor penetration than the 7.62 NATO. The 5.45 round has a compareable wound channel (if not better) to the 7.62 round, because it is designed to tumble twice in flesh.

Bill
02 Mar 05,, 00:28
Actually, a heavier bullet generally carries an edge in momentum, not neccesarilly in KE.

KE is weight x velocity 2.

Therefore, a faster lighter bullet will generally produce more energy than a slower heavier bullet.

Also, Ballistic Coefficient(BC) is a function of the specific projectile of a cartridge, it is not inherent to the cartridge itself. There are many different 7.62mm projectiles with a wide range of BC's, so stating that "6mm has a better BC than 7.62 NATO" is misleading, as not all 7.62 projectiles have the same BC.

The Sierra Matchking JHP as used by US snipers has a tremendous BC, far better than the M-118 Special match ball or M-80 ball projectiles do.

sniperdude411
02 Mar 05,, 19:20
sniperdude411, the penetration power is related to kinetic energy. A heavier bullet would carry more kinetic energy combined with velocity. The more velocity, the more energy, the heavier the bullet, the more energy. The two combined are directly related in ballistics of bullets. When you talk about width of bullet impacting something like human, you are talking about wound channel, but penetration too can knock down something like a human just as good depending on the penetration, and where you hit the target. The 6mm Optimum (100 grain) for example when compared to 7.62 NATO (147 grain) in ranges of 1,200 meters the kinetic energy gap closes as the bullets in comparison fly the distance. The 7.62 NATO loses kinetic energy much more quickly than the 6mm (which has superior ballistic coefficiency) the further it flys which translates in almost equal energy in it's late flight life. The 5.56 NATO may have a higher velocity, but still doesn't stand anything near the kinetic energy of the 7.62 NATO which fire at a lower velocity. 5.56mm NATO is not better at armor penetration than the 7.62 NATO. The 5.45 round has a compareable wound channel (if not better) to the 7.62 round, because it is designed to tumble twice in flesh.

That's exactly what i'm talking about. Wound channel. KE doesn't always equal trauma.

And by the way, "KE is weight x velocity 2" is a bit wrong. It's 1/2mass(Kg) x velocity (m/s) 2. Almost got it.

jame$thegreat
03 Mar 05,, 00:37
One thing id like to add: that if you are looking for a small gun you are most likely going to be fighting in doors, otherwise you would be picked off by snipers. If for example you were fighting in doors you wouldnt want something too high powered because the noise and ricochette factors (the silence of this "perfect small-arm" might also be a factor you might want to add to your criteria). Also for instance if your round went through a wall you may commit friendly fire or alert the enemies on the other side of the wall of your presence, therefor a silent gun that releases shrapnel may be effective due to the fact that you may shoot through walls. Though shrapnel would greatly decrease the accuracy of this gun(just a thought)

metalbeast
04 Mar 05,, 01:58
That's exactly what i'm talking about. Wound channel. KE doesn't always equal trauma.

And by the way, "KE is weight x velocity 2" is a bit wrong. It's 1/2mass(Kg) x velocity (m/s) 2. Almost got it.


Mass and weight is not the same thing? I got a unit converter here and mass has pounds, kilograms, etc.

7.62 NATO can break bones, because of it's energy.

metalbeast
04 Mar 05,, 02:06
Actually, a heavier bullet generally carries an edge in momentum, not neccesarilly in KE.

KE is weight x velocity 2.

Therefore, a faster lighter bullet will generally produce more energy than a slower heavier bullet.

Also, Ballistic Coefficient(BC) is a function of the specific projectile of a cartridge, it is not inherent to the cartridge itself. There are many different 7.62mm projectiles with a wide range of BC's, so stating that "6mm has a better BC than 7.62 NATO" is misleading, as not all 7.62 projectiles have the same BC.

The Sierra Matchking JHP as used by US snipers has a tremendous BC, far better than the M-118 Special match ball or M-80 ball projectiles do.


How much faster is the question? 7.62 NATO can travel around 2,800FPS and the 5.56 NATO around 3,100FPS. Velocity does add energy like a small space debris can travel billion miles an hour and go through anything, but we don't have that capability. 5.56 NATO produces more velocity, but the momentous energy is not the same. Infact nowhere the same. Ballistic coefficiency is the engineering design of the bullet itself. 5.56 NATO energy at point blank is 1323 pounds, 7.62 NATO at point blank is 2559 pounds. Even a AK-47 round which travels a little slower than the 7.62 NATO still penetrates better than the 5.56 NATO. If you were to compare armor piercing rounds of both, 7.62 NATO would win.

The Chap
04 Mar 05,, 05:30
Lets not forget the above. Comes in many different flakes. :)

sniperdude411
04 Mar 05,, 19:13
I really like the p90 alot. It's small and can easily penetrate armor. Not to mention extremely high magazine capacity.
I wonder what an assault rifle would look like with a p90-type magazine... effective bullpup design, with the barrel located much lower on the shoulder, so there would be much less (or possibly none) muzzle climb wihtout the need for any complicated system.

Maybe I'll draw a gun and possibly scan and upload it. When (or really if) I do, I'll include a mechanical diagram (without ejection system or magazine ramp; I have that working already)

Tinkertoys
06 Mar 05,, 07:51
The OICW was perfect. Too bad it was taken apart and made into the XM8.

-Tink

sniperdude411
13 Mar 05,, 17:53
The OICW was perfect. Too bad it was taken apart and made into the XM8.

-Tink

There are two reasons wy the Army didn't adopt the weapon yet. First, the OICW was too heavy (18 lbs.), and too expensive ($12,000 a piece). They might issue them to selct marines in about 10 yeaars, but until the gun gets to its objective 14lbs, it's going nowhere.
That's why there's the xm8.

Terran empire
13 Mar 05,, 23:51
There are two reasons wy the Army didn't adopt the weapon yet. First, the OICW was too heavy (18 lbs.), and too expensive ($12,000 a piece). They might issue them to selct marines in about 10 yeaars, but until the gun gets to its objective 14lbs, it's going nowhere.
That's why there's the xm8. And Army solders too But other wise he is right it weighed too much was too costly and not only the unit but the rounds cost in at $25 bucks a pop.

sniperdude411
16 Mar 05,, 01:11
The A-10 30mm HEAT rouds cost $55 a pop. And at 4000 rpm, every 2 seconds it costs the Army almost $7000 (including the expense of the cheaper, but still very expensive, APFSDS rounds).

Bill
16 Mar 05,, 02:58
The A-10 does not use APFSDS ammunition.

The HEAT ammunition costs approx. $18 dollars a round(last time it was ordered).

The HVAPDU ammunition is more expensive because of it's DU core.

The GAU-8/A fires at a cyclic rate of 3900rpm.

RANGER75
17 Mar 05,, 01:41
THE XM-8 is the most versitile assult rifle there is. it can change plates (* CAMO *)
abd it is lighter because it is plastic, but it wont break. it has a stable, but fast cycilic rate of fire, and it has, so far as we can tell a high kill zone, if you know what thet means

The Chap
17 Mar 05,, 08:17
THE XM-8 is the most versitile assult rifle there is. it can change plates (* CAMO *)
abd it is lighter because it is plastic, but it wont break. it has a stable, but fast cycilic rate of fire, and it has, so far as we can tell a high kill zone, if you know what thet means

I'd still take an R4 anytime. Ask any (boy) Scout/s ;) Ach man!

sniperdude411
18 Mar 05,, 20:09
The A-10 does not use APFSDS ammunition.

The HEAT ammunition costs approx. $18 dollars a round(last time it was ordered).

The HVAPDU ammunition is more expensive because of it's DU core.

The GAU-8/A fires at a cyclic rate of 3900rpm.

I'm not that much of an expert, so my facts are indeed a little off.
I'm just kinda trying to say that it's really expensive to run that thing. Not trying to be rude or anyhthing.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 20:42
No biggie. We all gotta learn sometime.

If you want to know anything about the A-10, try my website:

www.a-10.org

Lots of real pilots and crew dogs on the message boards there to answer questions.

sniperdude411
19 Mar 05,, 01:49
Sweet site.
BTW, what's the retiremant plan like for full-time in the Army for a long time (like 15-35 years)?

Bill
19 Mar 05,, 15:33
Ask Shek about that, or Antelope.

They both served a hell of a lot longer than me. Either one of them should be able to help you out.

leib10
23 Mar 05,, 18:44
The G36 is a fine weapon. A tad heavy, but that lends to better controllability on full auto.