immortallove wrote:5.56mm, almost entirely constructed of space-age polymers, 30-round mag, accurate to within about 800m depending on who you listen to. not themost primal beast ever but a fine weapon with SMG kick and versatility, and a built-in battle-tough scope.
Sorry I have no more spec on it, im a lazy bastard, I'm Irish.
There is absolutely no way in hell you can hit targets at 800 meters with a .223 Remington. The .223 Remington is absolutely useless after 300 yards. Its trajectory drop at 300 yards is about 10 inches, by 400 yards it's 25 inches, and at 500 yards it's closer to 60 inches. For those of you who speak metric, 60 inches is about 1.5 meters. So unless you feel like doing some trig before you take your shot, you will not hit anything at over 300 yards with a .223 Remington. In fact, all assault rifle cartridges are useless at over 300 yards, and the 7.62 x 39 (aka 7.62 NATO) is useless at 300 yards, with its less-than-stellar trajectory drop of 20 inches. You may recall that half-power assault rifle cartridges were developed to begin with because it was found that combat exchanges did not occur at distances over 300 yards in general, making rounds such as the .30-06 Springfield overly heavy and too powerful for their use.
This thread has been totally worthless, and it began when Mr. Bill suggested the use of the AK-103 (no offense to Mr. Bill, he's generally a fine an knowledgeable poster). To begin with, the 7.62 x 39 is a crappy bullet, though I'll get back to that later. The choice of a Kalashnikov to begin with is puzzling. This is a thread for an Ultimate Infantry Weapon, so I would assume that we ought to suggest new technologies. Barring that, we should at least use the best available existing technologies. The Kalashnikov, though extremely rugged and reliable, is not the best. The accuracy of all weapons based on the Kalashnikov action, for one, is rather poor. At 100 yards with a Kalashnikov, it is impossible to groups several shots into a quarter, which is an unacceptably low level of accuracy. There are accurized versions, such as the Rk. 62, which retain the same reliability, but they are far from ideal.
The best
proven automatic-loading action is that of the short-action BAR Mk II (I like Benelli's R1 more, but it is unproven). Like the Kalashnikov, it is so rugged that you can pour sand down the barrel. Unlike the Kalashnikov, it is very, very accurate. The BAR is perhaps the only automatic-loading action (aside from, once again, the unproven R1) which is every bit as accurate as bolt-actions. The original M1918 BAR had a problem where its spring would overheat, but in 1937 that was corrected with a heat shield, and in 1964 the problem was eliminated altogether by manufacturing the spring out of a molybdenum alloy.
Much attention has been given to the G11, which uses sophisticated recoil suppression systems to allow three rounds to be fired at high speed before recoil affects the operator, or the AN-92 Abakhan (sp?), in which two rounds can be fired. However, these systems are very complex, difficult to manufacture, suspect to fouling and breakdown, and they require extensive training to use effectively. Additionally, the 4.6mm round by the G11 is absolutely worthless. The micro-caliber craze of the 80s disappeared for a reason. Suffice to say, these actions, while technically interesting, are functionally useless.
Now that the action is selected, the next move is to select the ammunition. Current, popular assault rifle cartridges are basically limited to the .223 Remington (5.56 x 45 NATO), the 5.4 x 39 Russian, the 7.62 x 39, and the relatively new Remington 6.8SPC. Of these, the Remington 6.8SPC is hands away the winner, the others are completely inferior. The 7.62 x 39, whose continued popularity is a complete mystery, deserves special debunking.
NOTE: These tests were accomplished with a 24 inch barrel. The weight of the 5.56 is 55 grains. The 6.8SPC is 117 grains, and the 7.62 NATO is 123 grains.
The 7.62 x 39 is a piece of shit. It's more or less useless at ranges over 250 yards, whereas the .223 Remington which replaced it is accurate enough to about 350 yards. If we ignore the range issue, let's look at what most 7.62 proponents always argue: impact energy. Namely, the 5.56 is just too small to get the job done. This is, to be blunt, total bullshit. At 100 yards, impact energy of the 7.62 is 1159 foot pounds, compared to 929 for the 5.56. At 200 yards, the 7.62 is at 865, and the 5.56 is at 660. At 300 yards, the 7.62 can't hit its target, so data is not available (the 5.56 is at 456). So yes, the 7.62 has a slight edge in impact energy. However, this ignores a phenomenon known as nerve shock. When a round strikes a human (or animal) at high speed, it can induce nerve shock, a situation where the central nervous system simply shuts down. The high velocity of the 5.56 can induce this, unlike the 7.62, so the 5.56 ultimately has an edge in lethality. Combine this with its greater range and reduced weight (allowing the soldier to carry more ammunition), and the 7.62 partisans look downright silly.
So why don't I support the 5.56? Simple. The existence of the Remington 6.8SPC. This round has an initial velocity of 2800 feet per second, as compared to 3240 on the 5.56 and 2365 on the 7.62. By 200 yards, its retained velocity is nearly equivalent to the 5.56, and surpasses it by 300 yards. The result is that it has similar nerve shock capabilities to the 5.56 and equivalent range, but a heavier bullet, which allows for far greater impact energy. Recoil is barely greater than that of the 7.62 x 39. Impact energy at 100 yards for the 6.8SPC is 1625 foot pounds at 100 yards, 1307 at 200 yards, and 1039 at 300 yards, making it far, far more lethal than the 5.56. So is the 6.8SPC the ideal round? I'm not so sure. There are a number of rounds which are not traditionally used with assault rifles which I would favor over the 6.8SPC. The 6.8SPC is nearly as heavy as the 7.62 NATO, so one cannot carry much more than 150 rounds into combat, as opposed the 400+ one can muster with a 5.56.
So what is the ideal round? I think the smaller caliber new Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSM) are ideal. Before I go on, it should be noted that short actions are less suspectible to jamming than long actions, and they are also more accurate. This was the original inspiration behind short and super short magnums. A side benefit which was unknown was that the new cartridge configuration, which resulted in a much fatter and shorter round, actually increased muzzle velocity. I believe the ideal round would be the .243 WSSM, with a 55 grain bullet (same bullet weight as 5.56 NATO). No metal jacketed .243 WSSMs exist, but manufacturing them would be easy. Initial muzzle velocity for the .243 WSSM is 4010 feet per second, which is similar the the speed of tank shells. At 300 yards it is still 2800 feet per second (equivalent to the initial velocity of a 6.8SPC). So at ranges of up to 400 yards, the .243 WSSM still has enough retained velocity to induce nerve shock, whereas a 6.8SPC will not do this at much over 100 yards (around 160 or so for a 5.56). Impact energy at all distances for the .243 WSSM is equivalent to that of the 6.8SPC, having about half the bullet weight. Furthermore, the .243 WSSM is accurate at over 400 yards, and it is usable at 500 yards. While this isn't entirely necessary for modern combat, it is an advantage. Recoil is equivalent to a 6.8SPC or 7.62 NATO, and weight is slightly greater than the 5.56. The one failing of the .243 WSSM is that it would be poor for brush shooting, as its velocity is too high--it results in deflection and blowup. However, the 6.8SPC and the 5.56 NATO share this defect, and the 7.62 has it in reverse--it's too slow. The problem could be remedied with a special cartridge with a super heavy bullet and less powder. Initial velocity of 2500 or so feet per second is ideal for brush shooting (which is why I favor the 6.5 x 55 Swedish for hunting in thick brush). So, ultimately, I believe the .243 WSSM to be the best cartridge for the job.
With our action and cartridge decided upon, it's time to move to configuration of the gun itself. First off, the receiver ought to be made of stainless steel. While this increases cost, it greatly reduces maintenence requirements and dramatically increases the life of the weapon. I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but I feel that the weapon ought to be in bullpup configuration. This shortens the overall length of the weapon, which makes it easier to handle and more capable of rapidly being trained on targets. Additionally, this allows longer barrels to be used without great difficulty. Longer barrels increase range and accuracy. The stock should be entirely synthetic, preferrably some sort of polycarbonate. The gun must be able to accept both box magazines and drum magazines. The top of the gun should be a flat plane, as this allows for easier sighting. Barrels should be interchangeable, with a barrel nut system such as used by Savage. The barrels ought to be stainless steel with a chromium lining, and with heavy-duty flash suppressors. The gun should not have a bayonette lug, as with variable barrel lengths that would be ridiculous. Barrels themselves can include bayonette lugs if necessary. The forestock should, however, include mounting points for accessories. I do not think any accessories should be permanently equipped, despite the appeal of Bill's laser designator or an OICW style semiautomatic grenade launcher. The gun ought to be as flexible as possible, allowing it to be used for multiple different missions. The only integrated accessory ought to be a foldable, collapsible bipod, which will allow for precision shooting and better automatic fire. In terms of fire modes, I think the standard setup of semiautomatic, three round burst, and full auto (with a fire rate of around 600 rounds per minute) would be reasonable. For weight, the gun should weigh around seven pounds. This is light enough for easy transport, but heavy enough to reduce recoil and ensure accuracy. To further reduce recoil, the stock should have a series of rubber-gel inserts in the style of Benelli's Super Black Eagle II shotgun.
http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/imag ... -large.jpg Those black things in the stock are what I'm referring to. They reduce recoil by as much as 20%.
The last issue to deal with would be the sights. I agree with Mr. Bill wholeheartedly about optics. Optics are expensive, they can break, and they require maintenence. It takes a long time to train on a target with optics, and you really don't need them at ranges up to 300 yards, which is where combat takes place. I disagree with him about dot reticle sights. These too can break, are not terribly cheap. As such, iron sights are the only real solution. Open sights are a little too difficult to use. I think an aperture sight (the ring) with an oversized rear ring (aka ghost ring) is the best solution. Ghost ring sights allow for the most rapid target acquisition possible. Only a rear sight should be included, as the front sight would be on the barrel, and barrels for this gun are interchangeable. This gost ring should have a post from the bottom stopping in the middle, allowing for more accurate shooting than standard ghost rings. In addition, the ghost ring must have screws to adjust for windage and elevation. I do concede that scopes are useful in some situations, so the gun ought to have some Weaver sight mounts included so that a scope may be rapidly mounted if necessary. Another optional addition could be a trigger-grip activated laser sighting system, which allows for even more rapid target acquisition than a ghost ring (as well as increased accuracy).
That's about it for now. This, I feel, would be the ultimate basic assault rifle. Now we can move on to accessories, like Mr. Bill's nifty laser designator.
Political forum vanguard.
- By SpecialOlympian
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Saeko
- By Tainari88
