Drider_it

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

sorry i know its a ammo hog but i just love this gun

__________________
It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

Stare At The Sun

Reminds me of the guns in Aliens.

MrTuffPaws

The pluse rifle was in Aliens.

Anyway, good luck loving it. It was desinged for a NATO compitition and it failed. As good as history, and no longer around. Not to mention that I bet the cost of the ammo would be EXPENSIVE!!!

MSD

The problem with this rifle is that nobody really needed anything that would deliver a three round burst before the recoil affected it. That was the sole purpose of building it, and when that need never materialized, funding didn't stay around long.

Suave

It does look really cool though.

FngKestrel

HK Pro has more info and pictures about this gun. It also has a link to the Caseless handgun prototype.

Drider_it

well like the calico... caseless in anyway looks good yet you get the "mag" wet its a bust.

its rotf is nasty yet its the recoil effect i liked about it.. Yeah i know its poof but still was a cool gun for me. Im into scifi rpg games and this was the bomb for me.

__________________
It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

Suave

Well it looks like a thousand or so were produced, so if they've hit the surplus market, and you happen to have the cash to pay for a collector's firearm, you might be able to get your hands on one.

ziadel

I think that its because of the cost of ammo that eventually we will all be shooting solid propelant firearms... Brass ain't cheap... steel cases are cheaper but will eventually eat up any gun, Kalashnikov's included (although it will take a LOT longer in one of those beasts)


When you think about it, caseless ammo makes sense, less weight for soldiers to carry, less cost, less functions the gun has to do (the majority of M-16 failures are failure to eject from what I have been told) and no ejecting spent cases means theres one less hole in the gun where stuff has to go out/come in, which means less gunk getting into your weapon.


I don't think the G11 was a terribly good idea, in the interest of simplicity, its prolly not a terribly good idea to design a gun that has the ammo making a 90 degree turn on its way into the chamber, but the caseless ammo, I think thats a great idea and is destined to be the norm in combat rifles.



just my opinion, I could be right tho



p.s. The U.S. will not adopt a bull-pup rifle until the problem of left handed shooters is solved (lefties can't shoot bull-pups unless they are lefty specific bull-pups, if they do shoot them they get hot brass in the face)


caseless ammo would solve the lefty bull-pup problem...

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

MSD

Get the mags wet and you're fucked. There's also the issue of cleaning residue from the chamber more often.

Drider_it

also the venting of the gas.. only other thing not mention is a missfire... you cant eject anything.. wont work like a paint ball gun either "blow though!!"

__________________
It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

ziadel

as solid propellant stands now, your right, water would be a big problem, but I am sure some super-chemist somewhere could come up with something that would go bang when wet.


as for cleaning out the chamber, I dunno, mebbe make the entire caseless round the same diameter as the bullet, bullet gets fired, next bullet gets shoved in, pushing all the gunk in front of it, gun goes bang, gunk gets blown out...

its not the best solution, and I am not saying there won't be problems, but if we dont goto some sort of energy weapons, caseless is definately on the horizon IMO...



I have complete confidence in our engineers to make it work, then make it work better than what we currently have.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

solo2020

What a needlessly complicated gun. Hasn't the AK47,M1,SKS,Enfield,Mauser,M16,M4 and all the other combat guns proven themselves to be: cost efficient, effective, and relatively accurate?

FngKestrel

The problem has been solved. The FN P90 ejects brass downward and is fully ambidextrous. The only counter argument for that weapon (which has nothing to do with the G11) is that the ammo is 5.7mm, which isn't NATO standard.

WillyPete

I almost signed up for the UK Territorial army, kinda like the US reserve.
I've done time in South Africa as a draftee and thought it might be cool to do somthing with all the spare time I had.

I had a look at the SA 80 and realised it wouldn't suit a lefty, asked the instructor what the options were for someone like me.
He told me that the rifle was made to be ambidex - you just swap the moving parts - but the UK Military never ordered them. Nice.

I never went back. I can't wink with my left eye and I'll be damned if I'm gonna either be shooting wide or wear a pirate eyepatch.

Suave

Probably exactly what people said when the first semi-auto was created, and then the first assault rifle...

I don't understand how you can classify any of those weapons in the same group anyways, aside from putting the bolt actions together, and the M16/M4 together.

Kestrel, the other issue with the P90 is that it's a personal defense weapon; not a rifle. There is, however, the FN 2000, which is chambered in 5.56 NATO and is modelled after the P90.

Drider_it

HARRR me buckos *burrriiippp* avast there mateys

lol i could just see it now the wacky lefthanded pirate bragaid

__________________
It means only one thing, and everything: Cut. Once committed to fight, Cut. Everything else is secondary. Cut. That is your duty, your purpose, your hunger. There is no rule more important, no commitment that overrides that one. Cut. The lines are a portrayal of the dance. Cut from the void, not from bewilderment. Cut the enemy as quickly and directly as possible. Cut with certainty. Cut decisively, resoultely. Cut into his strength. Flow through the gaps in his guard. Cut him. Cut him down utterly. Don't allow him a breath. Crush him. Cut him without mercy to the depth of his spirit. It is the balance to life: death. It is the dance with death. It is the law a war wizard lives by, or he dies.

FngKestrel

I took a look at the FN 2000, it looks like it wants to compete with the OICW or replace the M4/M203. Cool looking weapon.

ziadel

we already have a replacement for the M4, its called the XM8 and the XM8 looks to be quite promising...


the OICW is still a far way off anyways, its gonna take everyone a while to get the weight down to something our soldiers can manage, but in the meantime, the XM* is the first part of the OICW, they'll design the rest of the stuff around the XM8 from what I have been told...





the M16 and the M4 are accurate, but I would'nt rate them anywhere near the AK for reliability....

but yes, those are all very good guns, but what I ask myself is can we make something better, which we can, theres nothing that cannot be improved upon. progress man, its absolutely splendid






the 5.56 has got to have a good hard look, and when it does get that scrutiny, they'll prolly figure out that we need something bigger. the 6.8SPC is a good canidate, more oomph, not as much oomph as the .308, it's a nicely balanced cartridge that would be a welcome change for our soldiers.



the .223 just doesn't cut it to be an effective battle cartiridge, ESPECIALLY now that the M4 is everywhere with that short barrel...

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

raptor9k

deleted

mkultra

The G-11 is awesome, I have a vid clip of one of the test guns being fired. The main problems were:
1) It was way ahead of its time. Caseless ammo has a lot of advantages, but right now its not used by anyone else so it would be hard/expensive to produce.
2) It was put together like freaking clockwork. Look at the pictures of the interior mechanism of the HK Pro site (an excellent site by the way for everything HK makes) that FngKestrel linked to, no way you could work on cleanin that in a muddy trench.

It was an interesting idea, and it showed that caseless ammunition was atleast feasible if not quite practical.

__________________
In the words of Jello: "Punk ain't no religious cult,punk means thinking for yourself. You ain't hardcore cause you spike your hair, when a jock still lives inside your head."

FngKestrel

Checked out another site (it's what I do) and that thing looks beautiful. Can't wait to see that integrated into the XM29 and fully streamlined. I watched a demonstration on History Channel and I have to say, it's just not even fair.

What necessitates needing a larger caliber? What kind of enemies are we trying to take down with these types of weapons? Not asking any moral questions here, purely academic.

DelayedReaction

Actually, the 5.56mm is the result of extensive testing during the Korean and Vietnam era. The original idea was that large bullets that shoved a great deal of energy were the ideal; experimental testing revealed that small bullets at high velocities were even more effective. The 5.56mm is stable until it hits the target; then it goes nuts inside. If you look at the wound characteristics, you see a small hole where the bullet goes in and a gaping wound where it goes out.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

ziadel

the enemy of today is islamic fundamentalists...

basically, why I think we need a larger caliber is because the .223 is a varmint cartridge. Every vietnam vet I have talked to basically says the bullet is too small for jungle warfare (the bullet starts tumbling after it hits a leaf, thats not good) while muslim whackos are fer and far between in the jungle, its still good to have a bullet that works everywhere...
its just a lot of reports of people dropping a few rounds into someone and they are still not incapacitated... they are on the ground yeah, but that doesn't mean to me they are out of the fight.


did you see that video of the terrorist guy in Iraq getting hosed with a M249? He took a round in his left side and he didnt even fall to the ground, he just kinda fell on his but (which isn't at all spectacular as he was crouching when he got shot)

theres really a lot more to it than that, but to sum it up, hunters won't dream of shooting a .223 at a deer, because its just not enough. If its not enough for a 150 deer, what makes you think its enough for a person? theres a reason the army went ape-shit trying to keep us from moving to the .223, its just not enough.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

ziadel

see my above post, but from what I have been told, the 5.56's tumbling inside the body characteristic has basially gone out the window now that everyone is shooting the stubby little m4's.


just not enough barrel to get that lil bullet up to speed



also, keep in mine, the 6.8SPC was designed by soldiers who funded the project in the beginning with their own cash... there has to be something seriously wrong with the 5.56 for them to do that...


I don't wanna get on too much of a tangent here because it is considered quite trendy to bash the 5.56 nowadays, but its not a good cartridge for war IMO. Hunting crows yes, hunting terrorists, no.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

WillyPete

Don't get me wrong and think I'm bashing troops here, but the avg troop knows shit about ballistics. They wouldn't know that a 5.56 tumbled after hitting leaves unless you told them. And then they wouldn't care as long as it was tumbling real fast toward the guy the shot at.

The typical troop wants a weapon that is light, shoots where he aims it and that he can operate in the dark.
It has to hold a decent amount of rounds, 30 min and work under all sorts of crappy conditions without him having to care too much for it. If a 5.56 don't kill it with one hit, why hell, he'll pour 15 more into the same area.

A hunter or sniper worries about a kill with one round. they have to, it's their job. A grunt works with buddies. They move with a lot of noise and their job is to hold strategic ground, fighting for it if they have to. when they shoot, it's for area effect too. The nature of this dictates that the bullets don't have to be wonderstuff, just reliable.

ziadel

while the 5.56 round may meet all the criteria you just listed, the M16 family of weapons certainly does not

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

WillyPete

True.

Any kalashnikov based rifle appeals to me. with better machining they are just as reliable and more accurate.

ziadel

the first runs of Kalashnikov's were machined, because the ruskies could'nt get the stamping down...

as soon as their industrial capabilities caught up, they started stamping them so as to gain significant weight savings...
a milled weapon would not be a light one, and thus wouldn't qualify under your criteria


but the new XM8 is a gas operated piston design, ala AK, as opposed to the direct gas impingment (I think thats what its called) of the M-16...

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

WillyPete

like i said, based on the ak mechanism, but with better manufatured working parts.
Better quality materials = stronger and less of them, therefore, lighter.

The swedes, italians, South africans, Isrealis all make their own versions of the basic AK design. Some suck, others work well.

The_Dunedan

The big problem with the .223 is this: it's a great round INSIDE 250 METERS. Inside this envelope, when it hits something, the bullet yaws 90 degrees and then fragments, creating some truly hideous wounds. However, past about 250 meters, the round will neither tumble nor fragment; it punches clean through without dumping much energy as it does so. Without that energy-transfer, it doesn't create the hydrostatic shock needed to incapacitate the enemy. Loads of SF operators in Iraq and Afghanistan have been buying M1-A and FAL rifles in .308 for this express purpose. Another problem is that the shorter barrel of the M4 cuts down the "yaw and fragment" range of the .223 projectile to less than 200 meters.

The .223 is an extremely accurate round, and inside it's range it's a truly hideous thing. However, you have to realize that it was purposely adopted and designed to inflict devastating wounds without actually KILLING the enemy; the idea being that a wounded man ties up more resources than a corpse. However, a wounded man can still shoot back. Worse yet, outside that 250-300 meter range, a man hit by the .223 is going to take a LONG time in dying, because he's just recieved the ballistic equivalent of a hit from a .22 Magnum; painful, probably fatal, but not instantly -incapacitating.-

Suave

The 47, at least, is much less accurate than the M-16. It was designed so loosely (for reliability), that you can't get good long-range accuracy out of it. I don't know about the 74, but if it's built on the same principles as the 47, it wouldn't be as accurate as an M-16 either.

ziadel

you can get good accuracy out of a loose gun. you just need a good barrel, which the AK's generally do not have.


you can get 1MOA at 100 yards out of a VEPR...

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Suave

Thank you for clarifying.

DelayedReaction

Read The Technology of Killing, by Eric Prokosch. They conducted tests that showed the opposite of what you have; at close ranges the higher velocity of the bullet allows it to punch straight through the target, while at longer ranges the bullet fragments and tumbles. Research shows that most combat is at ranges below 300 yards. Other research concluded that most soldiers aren't very accurate beyond 100 yards under battlefield conditions. In other words, the 5.56mm is ideally designed for most battlefield conditions.

Honestly, are there any small arm rounds out there that, on average, can kill a man with a single shot? I'm not aware of any.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

ziadel

what kind of a single shot are we talking about here? are we talking about an average shot to the center mass, or just an average shot anywhere, like in the foot?


if its just to the center mass, then I'd say .308

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Suave

They'll probably just end up requiring a constant flow of anabolic steroids through the blood of soldiers so they can carry the OICW. :P

The_Dunedan

DR:
According to "Boston's Gun Bible" the issue is stabilization of the round. Inside 300 meters the projectile hasn't stabilized yet, allowing it to yaw/fragment upon impact. Past that range, it's stable and just punches straight through.

WillyPete

With correct placement, many small arms rounds can kill with one shot. But that's the role of a sniper, not a regular soldier and thus this question falls more within the realm of training and weapons/hunting skill and less within the boundaries of ballistic properties.