and ...

https://gazette.com/military/army-m...6cd214c-c290-11e8-9d41-27b5a0e767a4.html


The size of the 4 round blocks looks a bit large; and the feed for them looks like it is bulky. But, innovation always looks unusual to begin with.

They better not find my Plasma rifle with 40 watt range in my garage.

Went looking for some more info and found a brief comment about a civilian version called the L4,

which is supposed to go into production in mid 2019.

There is always room for a Terminator quote!

Very interesting.

It looks quite revolutionary, but I have my doubts about relying on any type of electronic cartridge detonation for portable ballistic small arms---especially when subjected to harsh combat conditions. With no mechanical back up in case electronics fail--or are caused to fail by some possible enemy EMP device, these guns could become instantly useless.

Then there's the immense logistical chain of manufacture and supply that something like this which is so out of the norm might require. At least it was developed in the US and hopefully will remain only procured domestically if it comes to fruition.

Cheers

SPIW 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Found this on it from Popular Mechanics.com.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...ur-barrel-caseless-rifle-army-prototype/

And video of it from youtube.

I don’t really see any advantage it confers to the troops over the M16. Is a single bore used for non-power shot shooting? If not, how do you zero 4 different bores that are each a significant increase in distance from the sight line? How would malfunctions be cleared? Let’s say you have a case head separation, can you select a different bore to shoot from so another round isn’t forced into the remainder of what’s in the primary bore? What happens if a squib leaves one round half in the bore and half in its block? How much fouling or foreign matter would keep the blocks from properly aligning?

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel by not taking the corners off a square.

ETA read article before pic of “caseless” block loaded.

Here is their website. Long on promise, short on demonstration.

https://www.fdmunitions.com

Personally I think the personal long-arm weapon has gone just about as far as it can, like the bolt-action rifle design. Surely the AR-15 family is good for the foreseeable future?

Does it still use gun powder to propel the round? I couldn't quite figure that out from the article. I don't know much about it but I tend to feel what Forward Observer referred to. In so many areas nothing beats something that's mechanical in my mind. I don't like the idea of electrifying or computerizing everything. Couldn't someone come up with an EMP deterrent switch that they could flip and anything electric/computerized within the EMP jammer's sphere of influence instantly becomes useless? Why does he say our troops use the same "junk" as the enemy? Nothing is perfect but I would have thought the M-16 family has long since proved its worth and reliability especially with subsequent generations of improvements and refinements to make it the best possible rifle that the M-16 can possibly be.

I don't see any advantages of this that would outweigh the added cost and complexity.

How controllable would it be on full auto "power shot"? Not very I imagine.

Totally agree. I remember reading about troops in VN being killed while trying to clear stoppages in the then new M16 when an M14 would have worked just fine. Just because potential enemies use the same stuff means nothing. Training and professionalism is what counts. The Romans used much the same gear as their enemies and they were unbeaten for centuries. I reckon that me and my 303 Lee Enfield would clean up most Third World warriors in their fancy camo and uncleaned weapons.

EMP is not the problem with these kinds of designs

it's batteries and electronics failure. water. cold. battery drain, battery explosions.

give me mechanical stuff any day of the week, i'd trust it in -30 conditions more than i would the batteries needed to make the thing fire.

Certain third world groups like the Taliban also love to use the .303 Enfield.

"In the name of efficiency we are going to replace ten pounds of ammo with fifteen in batteries." - eager defense contractor.

On the early M16, the biggest problem was a complete failure in fielding the rifle to the troops.

My Dad was in Vietnam when the M16 was phased in, and he puts zero problems on the rifle itself and defends it to this day.

The problem was they simply took the M14 out of the soldiers hands and put in it's place the M16 without much comment. Say what one will about either rifle, but the maintenance demands are different. It doesn't take much to keep an M16 running even in extreme conditions, but one must perform daily maintenance that includes removing and cleaning the bolt carrier group, ensuring it's not dirty and lubed. Likewise, both the ammunition and the magazines require a look, and rotating rounds in and out if not fired once a week is good practice.

One of the many lessons learned in Vietnam, which is why today they have training teams that go out with new equipment when it is fielded, or use "train the trainer" systems to ensure that kind of SNAFU doesn't happen.

The gun was issued as requiring little maintenance, which coupled with a change in propellant to one with more fouling caused initial problems until the combination of bad factors was addressed. I also gather than the magazine preferred 2 rounds fewer than it's nominal fill.

I also don't understand the reason how or why four projectiles firing and hitting at once is somehow really any different or better than four rounds being fired one at a time in quick succession from a normal combat rifle. Its either four hitting at one time with the future weapon or four hitting one right after the other in the matter of mere seconds with the current military issued rifle. Four hitting at once just seems like a "cool" factor or perhaps a next generation, highly accurate buckshot.

I think the intent is to have a retarded recoil, and to have all four rounds fired with only dispersion round to round, rather than dispersion and disturbance from recoil/flinching from noise. Similar in intent to the G11 concept.

I think it is misguided though as there is a risk of more interference between rounds with simultaneous discharge than with rapid fire - not sure how much this would be an issue, but the firing by salvo is common on multi-ordnance turrets to avoid mutual interference in larger ordnance (but with significantly larger spacing between muzzles in terms of calibre too).

I don't know if 6mm is sufficiently larger than the 5.56mm to address the issues of long range penetration and lethality though, and the gun and ammunition supply looks bulky and awkward - and if every round fired expends four shots, this may be bulkier and heavier to supply than a 7.62mm battle rifle... and if you are firing single shots from a block you lose the ability to actually fire four rounds on demand in most cases (only possible one 'event' in four).

I like the Russian way of simple, reliable, affordable rifles - since the M-16 was fielded they must have released a dozen or more first rate AK models (if not more) with different sizes and calibers.