small arm evolution and body armour

[adultery]

any of the grogs know what the next evolution of the small arm is going to be?

seems like with the advent of effective body armour these days...and over the next 50 years that the merry go round has come a full circle and personsal armour is getting pretty good......carbon nanotube and all that goodness doesnt seem far away either

whats the counter? are they still trying to get caseless ammo sorted?

flechette rounds?

[Nidan1]

This should provide a good starting point.

[RMC]

Caseless ammo was sorted before the end of the cold war. The H7K G11 was going to be issued to the Bundeswehr before the money dried up when the wall fell.

Not sure of the next step in small arms themselves, but I suspect that armies may move away from military ball ammo to armor piercing as body armor becomes more common.

[Barleyman]

As anyone knows, an assault rifle will "shoot through" it's price in ammo fairly quickly during peacetime not to mention any shooting occasion. Therefore manufacturing fancy-schmancy AP ammo for 5.56mm would definitely be possible but expensive proposal. Mind you, since US Army likes to use man-portable AT missiles to replace RR, maybe they do not have a problem with the concept.

Things get interesting since the guys *without* big resources want to shoot guys with fancy body armour. Not the other way around. Now on the cheap, you have a few options, basically an engineering problem. There are some fairly "low GDP" approaches to the problem I could think of.

Basically you would want a relatively low caliber round with high muzzle velocity.. I'm sure 5.45x54r round would be bad for body armour on 100-200m ranges assuming the barrel is long enough to allow the powder to burn completely. However, making a new assault rifle (battle rifle?) using this new round would be non-trivial especially as we have to assume we do not have a few dozen billions USD to throw at the project.

At least you could use a lot of existing machine tools since you'd basically use standard 5.45 bullets and barrels (maybe a bit longer than ak-74?).. More importantly, you could probably keep most of the parts of an existing AK-74 and sort of upgrade-as-you-go.

I'm sure our ballistics experts will put my armchair gunsmithing to it's place, but there you are. Syrians wouldn't necessary have the resources to hire the absolute best either..

['Card]

Until body armor provides complete coverage, there will always be weak spots and openings. As long as there are weak spots and openings, I suspect the most cost-effective ways to defeat the armor will be increasing either the precision of fire, or the volume of fire, or both.

When it comes to developments in ammo, an explosive round could produce a lot of shrapnel, and shrapnel has a way of finding the vulnerabilities in the armor. Wounds would probably be less lethal, but could definitely be incapacitating, which is almost as good in a tactical situation.

[Cuirassier]

Is the OICW still being developed?

[YankeeDog]

Quality body armor is overwhelmingly a luxury of the wealthy. As such, until there is a significant chance of an infantry battle between two first world countries, I really doubt you'll see the largest, best funded armies in the world paying all that much attention to defeating body armor. Worth noting that the US Army (But not the Marines, yet) has actually taken a step back in penetrating capability, switching to the smaller, but lower MV M4 from the M16.

So the US has at least a couple of fairly easy steps to increase penetrating ability if the need arises. First, back to the longer barrel, higher MV M16, and then a switch more expensive AP ammo, rather than ball. Worth noting that the expensive AP ammo would only have to be issued to troops entering active conflict zones; training could probably continue to be done with ballistically matched ball ammo. Above and beyond that, the SF guys have access to bigger, higher energy firearms and special ammos that can easily penetrate body armor for those special, limited engagements.

In any event, the First World nations are increasingly relying on bigger weapons systems to accomplish kills; the infantry firearm is there to finish off what few don't get killed by the JDAMS, guided rockets and artillery shells, etc. The US is in the lead here, but pretty much everyone with the money is close behind. Not to say infantry firearm capabilities are irrelevant, but they haven't been the dominant killer since before WWI.

So for the next couple of decades or so, the problem of how to penetrate body armor is really an issue that the Terrorist/Insurgent/Guerilla/Freedom Fighter (depending on the specific conflict and your perspective) has to worry about.

One adjustment you're already seen; greater reliance on overkill devices like IEDs to kill US troops in Iraq. The insurgents have figured out that the American public is more willing to accept wounded but more or less whole soldier heros coming home, than it is sons and daughters killed or permanently maimed, with missing legs, arms etc. Unpleasant to think about, but that's the way it is.

In addition to continuing higher use of IEDs, it wouldn't surprise me to seethe more and more experienced irregular forces present in Iraq and Afghanistan start to use some higher caliber, higher MV weapons, like modified hunting rifles. Even in the most highly gun control-regulated countries, you can buy a high MV hunting rifle for killing big game. These firearms will easily penetrate body armor, at range.

So when they're not just planting IEDs at every street corner and culvert, inexperienced insurgent "rabble" may continue to sport the easy-to-use AK-47 and the like, and hope that at least one round in the spray-and-pray finds a weak spot. But the more experienced insurgents lurking in the shadows (their equivalent to our special forces) may be sporting a bigger bangstick. This insurgent would let his less skilled compatriots draw out the US forces, and wait until he's pretty confident he can put a killing round on target, before retreating to fight another day.

At least, that's what I would do if I had the limited resources of an insurgent force, and I was trying to kill American Soldiers. Give the 1 guy out of 100 who's proved his skill and ability by surviving the culling of 24 months of fighting a big caliber sniper rifle. Give the rest of the fresh meat suicide bomber vests and/or AK-47s. Tell the experienced guy he's too valuable to play martyr, and to take advantage of the opportunities his less able compatriots create with their blood.

Don't know if this is actually happening; I don't have the security clearance to know. But it's what I would do if I were an Islamic Fanatic, bent on killing US soldiers, but at a considerable financial and technological disadvantage, this is what I would do.

Cheers,

YD

[M1A1TC]

I think pistols will be replaced by weapons like HK PDW MP7 A1 with AP rounds

[Spindry69]

This is an interesting weapon. http://world.guns.ru/assault/as56-e.htm

[adultery]

yes it is.....990m/s MV at 600m is pretty quick

almost like a laser beam in trajectory

[jomni]

This will cut through all those body armor:

[Barleyman]

It's not like these things are too expensive or hard to get for anyone with reasonable resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVD

[Cpl Steiner]

If the insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan suddenly got a massive shipment of expensive and highly effective body armour tomorrow, what would the US military change about the way it fights the insurgents?

Answer: Probably very little. The US already relies on Apache helicopters and fixed-wing fighter-bombers to destroy its enemies once the fighting starts, and the sorts of weapons systems they employ are not bothered by a few mm of Kevlar.

By the way, did you know that the word "Taliban" means "seekers of knowledge" or "students". Quite ironic when you consider their favourite pastime seems to be the beheading of school teachers!

[luderbamsen]

As to the original question, well...

There will be a continuous interest in developing caseless or composite/polymer cased ammunition. Particularly to reduce weight, but also in the hope of reducing cost (at least long term cost, as implementation is bound to be expensive).

Cost is a major factor. Not so much the cost of the individual item, but the cost in relation to performance improvements over existing systems.

The XM-29 OICW was canned because it was too heavy and didn't work properly. But even if that hadn't been the case it would probably have been canned anyway because it only added so much to the soldier's performance, yet it bloody expensive.

The flechette-firing Steyr ACR was noted for its laser beam-like ballistics, very low recoil and excellent body armor defeating properties. But terminal ballistics remain an issue.

It is also noteworthy that the only weapon that has been a serious bid to replace the M16 so far is the XM8. Apart from the extensive use of polymers and the gas piston system, it was almost identical to the M16: A selective fire 5.56x45mm assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. It might have been a little bit lighter and a little bit more reliable, but overall performance would be extremely close to the M16. The primary reason for introducing it would have been reduced cost over the lifetime of the weapon.

The metal cartridge firing small arm as we know it today will not only exist but be dominant for many years to come. Apart from increased used of plastics, there quite simply hasn't been that much development in the basic mechanics of firearms for a long time:

For all their hi-tech gadgetry, one of the most popular weapons among US forces today is a heavy machinegun introduced before WW2 (M2 .50 cal. HMG). And the handgun everyone has the hots for, and still use in battle, was introduced before WW1 (Colt M1911 .45 ACP).

On the other hand, we will undoubtedly see continued development and deployment of small arms accesories: Optical sights, night vision devices, lasers and illuminators, on-board cameras, target designators and probably an awful lot of gadgets none of us have heard of yet. Basically, the kind of hi-tech stuff currently found in jet fighters and main battle tanks will eventually trickle down to the individual infantryman.

The notion of airbursting munitions also seem to have come to stay. Eventually, weapons like the stand-alone XM-25 grenade launcher and the XM-29 OICW combo will appear on the battlefield.

But as for the foreseeable future: If defeating body armor suddently becomes a problem, they'll just issue everyone with 7.62x51mm rifles.

[adultery]

yeah...secretly i wanted to hear stories of sharks with laser beams attached to thier head......but a bigger rifle is probably cheaper

[Nemesis Lead]

One point on caseless ammunition. No one fields it because spent brass is actually a great way to get heat out of the weapon. Without the spent brass (and the heat it takes out of the weapon), a caseless weapon heats up to the point that reliability becomes impaired and ammo cookoffs are more likely. This was the major issue with the G11 (that and budgetary issues from the Berlin Wall coming down).

It sounds great in theory (less weight = more ammo), but in practice is has not worked. In the future.....who knows.

I think that someone above also mentioned that often there is a tradeoff between penetration and terminal ballistics. Penetrative bullets that poke a tiny hole in you are not the best manstoppers.

[adultery]

thats a good point on removing heat...i didnt think of that

considering ive had a case from a styer bounce off the range post i was firing next to, and land down my collar

giving me a casing shaped blister and amusing my NCO as i squealed like a stuck pig trying to get if off me

[tiny_tanker]

Well if Sci-fi writers are correct we'll see soldiers carrying around .50cal assault rifles some day soon. In the mean time I think luderbamsen is right, well transition back to the 7.62.

[Omenowl]

You are probably looking at rounds that create an explosive to stun or cripple the enemy.

Theoritically if the soldiers can carry large enough rounds you are going to look at some kind of HEAP round to penetrate the newest armor.

I am all for mobile infantry suits.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

In the mean time I think luderbamsen is right, well transition back to the 7.62.

Why?

Use 7.62 rifle cartridge with 5.45 bullet with possibly a bit longer barrel and you have much greater muzzle velocity and armor piercing capability while being able to use most of the existing machine tools..

[acrashb]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

In the mean time I think luderbamsen is right, well transition back to the 7.62.

I don't know why. The wound profile of 5.56 FMJ is more effective than that of 7.62 FMJ. Things change with OTM, but I doubt we'll see wide-spread deployment of that ammo type.

Let's remember that troops fight in teams. Some light weapons, some heavy, and a radio for the really heavy stuff. Not everyone needs to punch holes through walls, and when they do someone in the team has something (from SMAW to 40mm GL) that will do it.

[tiny_tanker]

Because the 5.56 doesn't have the penetration power of the 7.62. You also don't use a SMAW or 40mm to defeat a soldier in body armor. Theres also the fact that 7.62 ammo is easily and readily mass produced and there are quite a few weapons already designed to use it that are very modern.

[Nemesis Lead]

The 5.56mm/45 does not have a better wound profile than the 7.62mm/51. The 7.62mm is superior--simple physics. And before you talk about the 5.56mm "hypervelocity" effect, realise that any copper/lead bullet moving faster than 2600 fsp is going to do terrible things due to spalling (but that same spalling reduces penetration). If 5.56mm had a better wound profile, hunters would use it on big game. They don't.

However, we wont be going back to 7.62mm anytime soon. A soldier with an M4/M16 can carry more than twice the ammo of a soldier with an M14/AR-10. The 5.56mm recoil is also far lower so it is easier to put rounds on target (albeit with lower terminal effect).

US doctrine is to engage the enemy and fix them for destruction by heavier weapons, air strikes and artillery. You need a lot of ammunition to do this. Men with 7.62mm/51 rifles would not be able to pin the bad guys for very long.

Finally, we are also not facing opponents with body armor.

The best solution is to keep using 5.56mm ammo--but go back to rifles with 20 inch barrels.

[Gopblin]

Don't forget about the rocket weapons guys...

That was tried in the 70s and use small rockets has its advantages - notably no recoil, long range and very large projectile.

The problems back then included faulty ammo and the fact that a rocket needs space to speed up - so shooting point-blank is ineffective.

However, the possibility of a fullauto .50 cal pistol with no recoil that can punch through walls at 200m using explosive ammo...

Best wishes,

Daniel.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

The 5.56mm/45 does not have a better wound profile than the 7.62mm/51. The 7.62mm is superior--simple physics.

[...]

If 5.56mm had a better wound profile, hunters would use it on big game. They don't.

1) see below. Physics includes terminal ballistics, which takes out some of the "simple".

2) people aren't animals, and hunters have unlimited bullet choices, while armies do not. Hence my comment about OTM.

Note the permanent wound cavity from the M80 ammo. Narrow, and too long to be useful in a human target:

Now note the permanent wound cavity from the M855. Wide, and at depths that are useful in human targets: