Future trends in firearms?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

hmmm depends on how far ahead you set it and how advanced you mke the setting. Self targeting 3mm railguns firing darts at 4000 mps((meters per second)) are possible(( and old CP2020 fans will know where I got this one from)).

Smart bullets may be used(( think smart bomb only a .50 cal rifles fires em))

we may see the return of the .30 cal round but then again we may see something totaslly different.Liquid propellant rifles battery in thestock explodes the liquid for firing and the soldier can set the estimated range he wants on the rifle using the "Land Warrior"tm gear


Grenades may change as well more aerodynamic shapes for offensive grenades may happen or posibly *L8 the grenade chucker seen in Tiberian sun

Note to Arthur_Tuxedo: I highly recommend you don't include this kind of stuff in our upcoming early 21st century-era RPG.

*Goes back to looking for butterfly knives and upcoming handgun models*

Don't worry Utsanomiko. I hope you don't take offense Typhonis, but a desire to avoid this kind of stuff was the reason I created this thread in the first place. Somehow I don't see super high-velocity tiny darts that would inflict superficial injuries most of the time at best, "smart bullets" (read: tiny homing missiles that would most likely cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per round), guns that have to be reloaded twice as often (once for the bullets, once for the propellant), and the like being used for combat of any kind in the near or far future.

[The Dark]

What about the old gyrojets? Yeah, they're almost useless for a small but significant portion of their range, but they're not firearms under most laws in place. I could see them returning to use if laws concerning the purchase of firearms became stricter in the future (hey, it's hypothetical).

[Knife]

Because you can carry less lithum because it's rechargeable, and
you don't have to have a steady supply of AAA batteries (i've read
that all that gearuses up the AAA batteries in it on average of once
a night.)

True, but strictly speaking in a grunts perspective, five pounds is five pounds. Though you're sort of right on the AAA lasting. Take a 7b NVG, using the AAA's you'll get about two nights of use out of them before needing to replace the batteries. However, you'll only get about three nights with the lithium.

*Slaps Knife*

You want to put a GPS system that shows your LOCATION on wireless? Nuh huh. Can we say enemy SIGINT?

Perhaps I need to clarify. Personal GPS units with a digital compass would be extremely usfull for the individual soldier/Marine. Placing the system interface on say a HUD so that the azmith or heading is sitting just with in eye shot of the soldier/Marine would make navigating especially easy and percise. Connecting the system to a comm unit that could transmit the info back up the chain of command would enable the commanders a larger picture (think range card digitized).

Squad based communication is an area that has traditionaly been neglected but has always been an issue. With current situations, the lack of proper squad level comm has been brought off the back burner per say. I would expect that small limited comm for every soldier/Marine are comming and that with that capability, linking personal GPS locations of individual soldiers/Marines to the Company?Battelion would help the commander manuver his troops.

Obviously jamming and ECCM would come into play yet as long as the system is used to inhance the communications rather than totaly replace it, it wouldn't be much of an issue if the system is jammed. Besides, Armored and Ariel units already use such systems. If they can be mirconized to a manpack version, expect them to be used.

That would indeed be very cool/good. All you'd have to do is look at
the target and push a button on your NVGs to lase it for the air strike.

Yup, I'm all for two in one device to cut down on complexity and weight. Though I am weary of ubber do it all devices. They tend to encreas complexity and weight.

I agree, whenever I hear people talk about digitalizing the
battlefield or making precision munitions down at ever decreasing
scale such as 81mm mortar rounds, I roll my eyes.

The entire point of a mortar is lightweight, cheep firepower, and
adding all that stuff to a mortar round decreses the explosive charge,
and adds in the factor of being damaged in transit...it's very hard
to damage a simple fuze, but laser guidance systems....uhm...
not very soldier proof.

Agree and disagree. If they can make a smart mortar round with out decreasing the range and/or firepower much, I'm all for it. If the add on pack to a 81mm fucks up the performance, then ditch it. The 81mm is pretty acurate anyways though I could think of quite a few situations where total percision would come in handy.

Any way, weather you like it or not (and I like some and not others) percision on an increasingly smaller scale to include small arms, is on its way and probably the wave of the future.[/quote]

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I had a rather nice post all typed up, but the board hiccuped and it went bye-bye . Oh well, here we go again.

Thanks everyone for the input. Free flow of information between intelligent minds is what SDN is all about, and this thread is a great example of it. I'm not bullshitting, I really mean that.

Let me try and summarize the most salient points so far:

1. Increased use of polymers. Advantages being lighter weight and better environmental tolerance, disadvantages lesser accuracy and greater recoil.

2. Increased use of high-precision munitions, preferably with rangefinding and airbust capability. It hasn't been field tested yet, but it's a great concept and I agree. One thing to keep in mind though is that in a cyberpunk setting, sending fragments everywhere is often not an option.

3. Increased use of integrated NV, IFF, GPS, and other information-providing systems. I agree, especially in an urban setting as opposed to a harsh forest, desert, etc. where these components can degrade and break.

The only thing I would add is that this is an urban setting with the combatants being street gangs, police/security forces, and private individuals. I don't want to try and curtail interesting discussions about military hardware, but keep that in mind.

[Knife]

The only thing I would add is that this is an urban setting with the combatants being street gangs, police/security forces, and private individuals. I don't want to try and curtail interesting discussions about military hardware, but keep that in mind.

If you can make an airburst frag round, then you can make a non-lethal varient with say pepperspray or CS (teargas). Same type of tech on the weapon system yet with a different ammo load out for police/riot duty.

Sub velocity rounds or bean bag rounds would work as well for a non-lethal option. Is this what you are talking about?

[Chardok]

Not very suprising. The M4 is a fairly well built Urban Combat rifle. It is easy to carry and can deal with most situations. However, it is lacking when it comes to range. This is where the M16 and even the M14s come into play. Equiping all soldiers with one rifle is stupid. Equiping soldiers with a variety of weapons gives flexibility. Some M4s for urban combat, M16s for general assault and M14s for long range combat and firepower.

IMO the military ought to try and design a new 7.62mm rifle for special issue. Use new technology and lessons learned in the past to create a good high powered assault rifle.

Another thing I noticed about the M4...We got them when they were brand fucking new. The short barrel on the thing, for some reason, makes ALOT of smoke...it could have been the cosmolene (sp?) residue in the barrel, but That shit was smoky as hell. We took those bastards out to the range for the first time, and did a familiarization fire on burst. 60 rounds per soldier. there was so much smoke you could hardly see the targets. I liked the fact that they were light and all... (Not that I got to carry them....Fucking SAW...) but the smoke could be a large tactical disadvantage.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The only thing I would add is that this is an urban setting with the combatants being street gangs, police/security forces, and private individuals. I don't want to try and curtail interesting discussions about military hardware, but keep that in mind.

If you can make an airburst frag round, then you can make a non-lethal varient with say pepperspray or CS (teargas). Same type of tech on the weapon system yet with a different ammo load out for police/riot duty.

You're right. I didn't think about that.

EDIT: Well, the thing is though that gas grenades can't just airburst and be effective, so the high-velocity, high-precision element is pretty much out as far as that goes.

Sub velocity rounds or bean bag rounds would work as well for a non-lethal option. Is this what you are talking about?

I wasn't really going for the non-lethal angle so much, just pointing out that weapons that focus on things going boom and sending shrapnel everywhere aren't so great when there are apartment buildings in the middle of your firefight.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wasn't really going for the non-lethal angle so much, just pointing out that weapons that focus on things going boom and sending shrapnel everywhere aren't so great when there are apartment buildings in the middle of your firefight.

That's combat for you, and bullets have much better penetration then grenade fragments anyway.

[Knife]

You're right. I didn't think about that.

EDIT: Well, the thing is though that gas grenades can't just airburst and be effective, so the high-velocity, high-precision element is pretty much out as far as that goes.

Untrue, there is/was a baseball style CS grenade that was thrown and burst in the air, thus spreading CS down on the crowd/target. The shrapnal was uncomfortable yet not damaging being it was fiberglass.

I was, IMO, not as effective as a smoke grenade style CS grenade yet it still was effective against a dense target (crowd). Just because it burst, doesn't necessarily mean its lethal.

[Shortie]

Most futuristic universes I've looked at have the same (wrong) ideas for what guns will be like. They seem to think they will all use caseless ammo (overheating city), excessive caliber (13mm SMGs and shit are pretty standard), gigantic magazines, etc. Ugh.

So what are some significant improvements on firearm design and technology that are likely to surface within the next 30 or so years?.

Well, you could look at the Advanced Rifle Competition the US did a few years back. You had a caseless rifle (the HK G11 which seemed to have solved the overheating problem), one which fired flechettes (by Steyr), and IIRC something else strange as well. Or there's the OICW which is slowly appearing, with 20mm (or is it 25mm?) rounds and a little 5.56 carbine for backup. A couple of guns exist which use a really fast ROF (2 or 3 rounds before any recoil is felt to shift the aim) to make up for small caliber rounds. Even Metalstorm guns are possible, if unlikely as a standard weapon. Big ammo loads on the gun aren't impossible either (the G11 had 40 round magazines with two spares on the gun, there are various SMGs with huge magazines, and I think there's a 100-round one which can be used on an M-16, a C-Mag or something)

I see no reason why there couldn't be any or all of these technologies around in a more advanced state. OTOH, I also wouldn't be too surprised if 90% of the weapons being used in 2033 are pretty much the same as ones we've got today, with the stranger stuff limited to a few nations and to special forces.

The various attatchments should become more common and smaller though (grenade launchers with somewhat programmable ammo, cameras, IR sights, whatever), and as several people said plastic is the way to go. I've seen some people saying that everyone will inevitably go to bullpups, others that they're a failed experiment, so take your pick with that as with everything else. There are a load of non-lethal weapons that are being experimented with too, and some countries will no doubt work on them, while others might ignore the Geneva Convention.

[CmdrWilkens]

Something you may want to read about the M-4. Makes me wonder.

http://www.sftt.org/article06102003a.html

Not very suprising. The M4 is a fairly well built Urban Combat rifle. It is easy to carry and can deal with most situations. However, it is lacking when it comes to range. This is where the M16 and even the M14s come into play. Equiping all soldiers with one rifle is stupid. Equiping soldiers with a variety of weapons gives flexibility. Some M4s for urban combat, M16s for general assault and M14s for long range combat and firepower.

IMO the military ought to try and design a new 7.62mm rifle for special issue. Use new technology and lessons learned in the past to create a good high powered assault rifle.

1) Sure flexibility is great...however what you are asking for would be a gross logistical and training burden. By alternaitvely ahving some team members with M4s, some with M14s, some with M16s, some with M249s, some with M240/M60, some with M40s, etc you can begin to see the logistical nightmare that is evolving.

2) The M-14 is, i believe, an unneccessry appendage. while the range is significantly better than that of the M-16 or M-4 you encounter two seperate problems. a) Logistics, already discussed and b) overlapping missions. The M-14 today operates in the range between the M-16 and the M240/M60E. Here's the problem: the mission is already filled by the SAW. At that range if you want to engage with volume you are better off going with the SAW and if you want precision shooting the SAW is STILL a more stable and thus equally reliable choice. Furthermore if you are doing preicision shooting at that range (500-800 yds) you are better off with the M40.

3) Long range fighting which needs a solid high powered, higher caliber assault rifle is not what we are doing the most of. There is a move to emphasis on MOUT and similair close quarters combat where the extra power is actually a bad thing.

Personally I think we would be better off trying to get more oomph out of the 5.56 round.

[Knife]

2) The M-14 is, i believe, an unneccessry appendage. while the range is significantly better than that of the M-16 or M-4 you encounter two seperate problems. a) Logistics, already discussed and b) overlapping missions. The M-14 today operates in the range between the M-16 and the M240/M60E. Here's the problem: the mission is already filled by the SAW. At that range if you want to engage with volume you are better off going with the SAW and if you want precision shooting the SAW is STILL a more stable and thus equally reliable choice. Furthermore if you are doing preicision shooting at that range (500-800 yds) you are better off with the M40

Indeed, while I am a fan of the M-14 (I really want to own one) providing one in a squad or a team for long range fire support is redundent. SAW or machinegun support can easily take out threats at that range as well as provide other missions when the 14 can only be used as a long range rifle. Over specialization is a bad thing. Those few instances where US forces in Iraq encountered enemy fire from medium to long range had other option avaible to them besides trying to engage with M16/M4's.

[MKSheppard]

However, you'll only get about three nights with the lithium.

Actually, more like unlimited, before the battery burns out finally...
because you see, you could plug your lithum batteries into special
power ports on your M113s/M2s vehicles to recharge them when
they're not in use, sort of like how my new Sony CLIE, I've never
had to replace the battereis yet, and I use it in backlight mode
on much more than I did with my old Palm III.

Obviously jamming and ECCM would come into play yet as long as the system is used to inhance the communications rather than totaly replace it, it wouldn't be much of an issue if the system is jammed. Besides, Armored and Ariel units already use such systems. If they can be mirconized to a manpack version, expect them to be used.

My POV on wireless communication has admittedly been biased by
an article I read in the Washington Post a while back about this Army
instructor who teaches a network security class at a military school,
he set up a bluetooth reciever on his laptop and rigged an antenna on
his car and had his laptop log the number of unsecured bluetooth networks
along his commute to work.

Wireless is not totally secure, witness the problems we had in WWII
when the Germans sent Enigma-encoded stuff over land lines
rather than in the open over the airwaves - we could still crack
the landline stuff, since it was the same code as the airwave version,
but we simply couldn't listen in on the landlines without a direct
tap at some point, as opposed to simply setting up an antenna and
sucking in all the Engima messages floating around...

A soldiers personal digital equipment should rely on shielded cables
as much as possible, and you should only use wireless when it
becomes inconvient to use cables, such as inter-soldier
communications across 100m - that's a hell of a long cable to
lay, or when you are on offensive operations.

And besides, all the enemy needs to do is set up a simple reciever
and hook it up to a cheap and simple system to "listen" for the
digitally encoded signals transmitted by a US infantry unit. It doesn't
need to decode them. All it has to do is show that someone in
the area is using said signals, providing easy advance warning
of an attack by US soldiers...I'm all for cutting down those signals
when not necessary needed.

For example:

Using shielded cables to transmit signals from a soldier's
digital equipment, such as from his IR rifle sight to a eyepiece
that folds down from his helmet, or from his GPS reciever to
said eyepiece.

The soldier should ONLY use wireless for talking with other soldiers
over distances or with higher command, not for personal equipment.

The 81mm is pretty acurate anyways though I could think of quite a few situations where total percision would come in handy.

No, we don't need precision 81mm mortars, as much as that might be
fun - We need laser-guided ATACMS with unitary warheads

We must not let the Russians get ahead of us in the precision blowing
up of apartment buildings with SRBMS (they used a SS-21 SCARAB
that homed in on a Chechen leader's freaking cellphone to get rid
of him):twisted:

Any way, weather you like it or not (and I like some and not others) percision on an increasingly smaller scale to include small arms, is on its way and probably the wave of the future.

If only they can work the bugs out. They sidelined the OICW and will
probably kill it, because they just can't get it to work in something light
enough to be a soldier's primary arm.

[Sea Skimmer]

Personally I think we would be better off trying to get more oomph out of the 5.56 round.

As long as the Army is stuck only using ball there's real limits to what can can do. Heavier and more powerful 5.56 bullets exist, but they'll break existing rifles with prolonged use and tend to result in inaccurate fire. And if new weapons are bought then ought to just be a higher caliber.

I don't have the exact quote handy, but Ian Hogg has said several times in his books that every time a military goes to determine the ideal infantry weapon caliber they always settle on 7mm or .276 and always for some other reason fail to adapt it.

[MKSheppard]

1. Increased use of polymers. Advantages being lighter weight and better environmental tolerance, disadvantages lesser accuracy and greater recoil.

There's a point where polymers can only go....for example, all Glocks have
a metal brace installed in their frame to allow them to handle the recoil,
and major parts are still going to be metal.

[MKSheppard]

1) Sure flexibility is great...however what you are asking for would be a gross logistical and training burden.

Then snitch some 7.62mm Ball off your Bradley from the coax, etc.

Here's the problem: the mission is already filled by the SAW. At that range if you want to engage with volume you are better off going with the SAW and if you want precision shooting the SAW is STILL a more stable and thus equally reliable choice.

There's a small problem with the SAW falling apart, and hence not being
as accurate as it used to be, and of course ammo requirements - it only
takes a few shots from the -14 to hit something at those distances versus
about 30+ rounds to hit it with the SAW.

Long range fighting which needs a solid high powered, higher caliber assault rifle is not what we are doing the most of. There is a move to emphasis on MOUT and similair close quarters combat where the extra power is actually a bad thing.

Then why do we have an endless stream of people complaining that the
5.56mm lacks stopping power? From Somalia to Iraq, there have been
examples when people have been hit with 5.56mm and still continued
to fight. SS109 only works great against Soviet Motor Rifle troops wearing
armor, not turban clad morons.

It's very interesting that 5.56mm is not a legal hunting round in
many states, even with hollowpoint rounds, and Deer are roughly
the same mass as a human being.

[Knife]

Actually, more like unlimited, before the battery burns out finally...
because you see, you could plug your lithum batteries into special
power ports on your M113s/M2s vehicles to recharge them when
they're not in use, sort of like how my new Sony CLIE, I've never
had to replace the battereis yet, and I use it in backlight mode
on much more than I did with my old Palm III.

There is not always a IFV around you know. Light infantry operates without vehicle support. That is why I come from the side of they're roughly the same. I realize you can recharge lithium, but the ability to recharge them stems from the ability to have the facilities availble to do so.

But you're right that I would perfer the lithium ones but I'd also like to retain the ability to use AAA's too. Nothing better than a back up plan. If your lithium dies out and you don't have a charger, raid the local store for energizer.

My POV on wireless communication has admittedly been biased by
an article I read in the Washington Post a while back about this Army
instructor who teaches a network security class at a military school,
he set up a bluetooth reciever on his laptop and rigged an antenna on
his car and had his laptop log the number of unsecured bluetooth networks
along his commute to work.

Wireless is not totally secure, witness the problems we had in WWII
when the Germans sent Enigma-encoded stuff over land lines
rather than in the open over the airwaves - we could still crack
the landline stuff, since it was the same code as the airwave version,
but we simply couldn't listen in on the landlines without a direct
tap at some point, as opposed to simply setting up an antenna and
sucking in all the Engima messages floating around...

A soldiers personal digital equipment should rely on shielded cables
as much as possible, and you should only use wireless when it
becomes inconvient to use cables, such as inter-soldier
communications across 100m - that's a hell of a long cable to
lay, or when you are on offensive operations.

And besides, all the enemy needs to do is set up a simple reciever
and hook it up to a cheap and simple system to "listen" for the
digitally encoded signals transmitted by a US infantry unit. It doesn't
need to decode them. All it has to do is show that someone in
the area is using said signals, providing easy advance warning
of an attack by US soldiers...I'm all for cutting down those signals
when not necessary needed.

For example:

Using shielded cables to transmit signals from a soldier's
digital equipment, such as from his IR rifle sight to a eyepiece
that folds down from his helmet, or from his GPS reciever to
said eyepiece.

The soldier should ONLY use wireless for talking with other soldiers
over distances or with higher command, not for personal equipment.

Oh, I'm not saying a constant signal needs to go out. Nor am I saying that the equipment needs to constantly talk to each other. Upon thinking about it more, hard wiring the equipment on the body to the body would be perferable but still the ability to transmit location as well as audio comm would still be a good idea.

As far as loosing your element of suprise do to broadcasting, there is such a thing comm disipline and procedures. If you're sneaking up on a target, you don't use either the comm or GPS systems until you light them up.

If only they can work the bugs out. They sidelined the OICW and will
probably kill it, because they just can't get it to work in something light
enough to be a soldier's primary arm.

Which is why I suggested that in the future, these systems would come into their own. The XM-29 needs a little work. They should just drop the 5.56 carbine to reduce the weight and turn it into a modern day 'blooper'. IIRC, they are persuing this idea though.

[MarkIX]

you can do some pretty good things with fibre optics and IR/ Laser comms that will reduce the signature and reduce interference hazzards Spread spectrum systems are pretty good these days too for LPI type situations

BTW has anybody heard anything recent about metal storm? All I have seen is the same old stuff.

[Sea Skimmer]

you can do some pretty good things with fibre optics and IR/ Laser comms that will reduce the signature and reduce interference hazzards Spread spectrum systems are pretty good these days too for LPI type situations

Infrared and laser systems need LOS, even the thinnest cover or any significant smoke will block them. That makes them useless for infantry and almost useless for armored vehicles.

BTW has anybody heard anything recent about metal storm? All I have seen is the same old stuff.

Metalstorm is a pointless money sink and it's unlikely it will be adapted by any military in any form. That's about all you need to know.

[MarkIX]

Infrared and laser systems need LOS, even the thinnest cover or any significant smoke will block them. That makes them useless for infantry and almost useless for armored vehicles.

I'm talking about inter personal system communication with very short paths and they arent as LOS as you seem to think

Metalstorm is a pointless money sink and it's unlikely it will be adapted by any military in any form. That's about all you need to know.

thats what I was thinking since the development appears to be stalled and barrels as magazines doesn't seem to me to be a good concept for a side arm.[/quote]

[Sriad]

I seem to recall an article in Popular Mechanics about five years ago that described a handgun that could accept a wide range of different calibur bullets. Was this ever developed, or am I just hallucinating the whole thing? (or neither.)

[Sea Skimmer]

I seem to recall an article in Popular Mechanics about five years ago that described a handgun that could accept a wide range of different calibur bullets. Was this ever developed, or am I just hallucinating the whole thing? (or neither.)

There several handgun designs which are easily convertible between 9mm, 10mm and .45cal but that's all I've ever heard of, and its nothing new. Anything beyond that, or any gun, which can accept different caliber bullets without modification, you're very likely hallucinating.

[Typhonis 1]

one trend may be sub calibre .17 cal bullets with explosive heads but this isn`t really a good idea it would be enough to piss of the target unless you criple him with the first shot

[Utsanomiko]

one trend may be sub calibre .17 cal bullets with explosive heads but this isn`t really a good idea it would be enough to piss of the target unless you criple him with the first shot

I've seen .17 rounds and heard they're becoming a bit more common commerically due to their level trajectory and cost effectiveness compared to the .22lr (or maybe it's the .22lr that's has better cost but worse trajectory? I forget).

But outside of target shooting and JHPs, I wouldn't count on seeing anyone else use it, let alone explosive-tipped versions.

[Audrie_Dawn]

Something you may want to read about the M-4. Makes me wonder.

http://www.sftt.org/article06102003a.html

Not very suprising. The M4 is a fairly well built Urban Combat rifle. It is easy to carry and can deal with most situations. However, it is lacking when it comes to range. This is where the M16 and even the M14s come into play. Equiping all soldiers with one rifle is stupid. Equiping soldiers with a variety of weapons gives flexibility. Some M4s for urban combat, M16s for general assault and M14s for long range combat and firepower.

IMO the military ought to try and design a new 7.62mm rifle for special issue. Use new technology and lessons learned in the past to create a good high powered assault rifle.

USMC's been kicking around the idea of bringing back the M14 as a squad marksman's weapon, kinda like the Russians use the Dragunov SVD.