Given how many prototypes I have seen Ian "gun Jesus" McCollum from ForgottenWeapons showcase over the years that never came to be, how many that even went to formal adoption trials that were...
Given how many prototypes I have seen Ian "gun Jesus" McCollum from ForgottenWeapons showcase over the years that never came to be, how many that even went to formal adoption trials that were ultimately rejected because they couldn't meet the US military's insane reliability standards (which I very much doubt this gun and its custom ammo will meet given how complex they are), and how many even "good/great" firearms were rejected simply because of politics, or being introduced at the wrong time (e.g. not being chambered in the NATO ammo standards that were ultimately adopted).... I very, very much doubt this is "the next rifle" the Army is going to adopt.
With all that said, this rifle still appears to be a pretty neat concept... and maybe one day something like it will be sufficiently developed enough to be formally adopted, I just think the headline and the article's framing of the subject is a bit clickbaity, unrealistic and naive.
With good reason. Troops have found themselves outnumbered in firefights with a dirty, wet gun and very little ammo and succeeded because of the M-16/AR-15. The trials make sure the people who...
With good reason. Troops have found themselves outnumbered in firefights with a dirty, wet gun and very little ammo and succeeded because of the M-16/AR-15. The trials make sure the people who give the final go-ahead on a new weapon platform aren't regretting it later due to loss of life because the new gun failed. They are exceedingly cautious to adopt new designs until they are absolutely proven.
Probably not a popular thing here on ~, but I'm an avid shooter. I only own two brands of gun: Glock and Colt. Glock because I bought a 19 (a popular model of 9mm with law enforcement all over the world) and basically never bothered to clean it, because I was younger and it "didn't look dirty." I'd oil it, but that was about it. Never had a single failure-to-fire in twelve years, with various reloads and garbage ammo fed through it. That's a reliable platform that won't let you down (although there's plenty of Glock hate out there, most admit the design is reliable to an almost silly degree). The Colts were my late Dad's, and too delicate in my mind to shoot.
I always ask the same in these threads (and possibly asked you already haha) but what would you recommend to someone curious but concerned about dangers of owning guns? Are there trainings in gun...
I always ask the same in these threads (and possibly asked you already haha) but what would you recommend to someone curious but concerned about dangers of owning guns? Are there trainings in gun safety that are worthwhile? Would you recommend starting by going to a firing range?
not the guy you asked, but yes, go to an indoor range and ask about classes. Often the range staff will help you and give you a small lesson with the basics and a .22 pistol, if you're no familiar...
not the guy you asked, but yes, go to an indoor range and ask about classes. Often the range staff will help you and give you a small lesson with the basics and a .22 pistol, if you're no familiar with firearms. It all starts there. Look for more formal classes (many indoors ranges offer these), and once you feel you have the basics of shooting down with the .22, move to a 9mm like a Glock 17 or S&W M&P.
I am not a gun owner but I do watch a fair few gun related channels (since I enjoy the history, engineering and sporting aspects), e.g. ForgottenWeapons, InRangeTV, C&Rsenal, DemolitionRanch,...
This a really interesting concept to me for a firearm, having served in the army and collected some guns after. This is the only video I could find about how it operates, from the designer. At...
This a really interesting concept to me for a firearm, having served in the army and collected some guns after.
There are so many odd questions about this: Electronic firing has been around for ages, yet has never become mainstream because of its disadvantages and problems, particularly with reliability....
There are so many odd questions about this:
Electronic firing has been around for ages, yet has never become mainstream because of its disadvantages and problems, particularly with reliability. How is this different?
The ammunition for this isn't caseless at all: it has a enormous case in what would appear to be a comparatively heavy block around the four (or five, as sources seem inconsistent) rounds. Ammunition, per round, would seem to weigh far more for this rifle than conventional ones, in addition to taking up far more space: given the images I've seen, I would have to assume that rounds for this would take up at least twice as much space as conventional rounds in a magazine.
From the video Autoxidation posted, it appears that the action on this, to reuse the ridiculous words in the article, isn't "that far removed from the ones used by George Washington’s army" compared to modern rifles: it appears to simply fire one round from each barrel, with no apparent advancement mechanism: that absurd "rounds per second" number is likely simply because it has multiple barrels. I suppose there's a motorized method for moving the giant blocks? That seems neither reliable nor fast.
On 1, I agree that electronic firing is probably going to be a non-starter for the current iteration of the rifle. 2, the current iteration of the ammo seems non-viable. It does look heavy and...
On 1, I agree that electronic firing is probably going to be a non-starter for the current iteration of the rifle.
2, the current iteration of the ammo seems non-viable. It does look heavy and rather voluminous. I'm really curious what the standard loadout weight for a soldier would be for this weapon. Currently, it's 6 magazines on the body and 1 in the weapon, totaling to ~14.3 lbs including a 6.36 lb M4.
3, I really only see a use for this style of weapon at close quarters. Mid to long range rifle combat is mostly about suppression tactics. You wouldn't want to fire 4 or 5 rounds simultaneously. At shorter ranges and CQC, that would be an amazing benefit.
Yeah, this doesn't seem practical at all, and I'm surprised the military has shown any interest in it whatsoever. I don't see any practical advantage for electronic firing. Generally, if you want...
Yeah, this doesn't seem practical at all, and I'm surprised the military has shown any interest in it whatsoever. I don't see any practical advantage for electronic firing. Generally, if you want to make a rifle that requires a battery to fire, there'd better be an extremely damn good reason. Especially if that rifle is to be put into military use.
There's no reason I can think of when you'd want to fire five shots at a time instead of one in a rifle, so what's really the purpose of having multiple barrels?
Electronic firing simplifies the mechanics. This gun has far less moving parts than a regular firearm. The battery doesn't seem to be a problem if it really lasts for 15 000 shots on one charge,...
Electronic firing simplifies the mechanics. This gun has far less moving parts than a regular firearm. The battery doesn't seem to be a problem if it really lasts for 15 000 shots on one charge, as the maker claims. You would've already had to change the barrel at that point on an M4.
From what I gathered, the ammo casings and multiple barrels dissipate heat very effectively. The casings act as the chamber, and are ejected taking the heat - that normal guns accumulate - with them.
The thing that concerns me is the weight. The ammo casings look pretty bulky, and the gun seems to take quite a few in its magazine, so it could be cumbersome. Especially when the magazine is mounted on the side.
Given how many prototypes I have seen Ian "gun Jesus" McCollum from ForgottenWeapons showcase over the years that never came to be, how many that even went to formal adoption trials that were ultimately rejected because they couldn't meet the US military's insane reliability standards (which I very much doubt this gun and its custom ammo will meet given how complex they are), and how many even "good/great" firearms were rejected simply because of politics, or being introduced at the wrong time (e.g. not being chambered in the NATO ammo standards that were ultimately adopted).... I very, very much doubt this is "the next rifle" the Army is going to adopt.
With all that said, this rifle still appears to be a pretty neat concept... and maybe one day something like it will be sufficiently developed enough to be formally adopted, I just think the headline and the article's framing of the subject is a bit clickbaity, unrealistic and naive.
With good reason. Troops have found themselves outnumbered in firefights with a dirty, wet gun and very little ammo and succeeded because of the M-16/AR-15. The trials make sure the people who give the final go-ahead on a new weapon platform aren't regretting it later due to loss of life because the new gun failed. They are exceedingly cautious to adopt new designs until they are absolutely proven.
Probably not a popular thing here on ~, but I'm an avid shooter. I only own two brands of gun: Glock and Colt. Glock because I bought a 19 (a popular model of 9mm with law enforcement all over the world) and basically never bothered to clean it, because I was younger and it "didn't look dirty." I'd oil it, but that was about it. Never had a single failure-to-fire in twelve years, with various reloads and garbage ammo fed through it. That's a reliable platform that won't let you down (although there's plenty of Glock hate out there, most admit the design is reliable to an almost silly degree). The Colts were my late Dad's, and too delicate in my mind to shoot.
I always ask the same in these threads (and possibly asked you already haha) but what would you recommend to someone curious but concerned about dangers of owning guns? Are there trainings in gun safety that are worthwhile? Would you recommend starting by going to a firing range?
not the guy you asked, but yes, go to an indoor range and ask about classes. Often the range staff will help you and give you a small lesson with the basics and a .22 pistol, if you're no familiar with firearms. It all starts there. Look for more formal classes (many indoors ranges offer these), and once you feel you have the basics of shooting down with the .22, move to a 9mm like a Glock 17 or S&W M&P.
I am not a gun owner but I do watch a fair few gun related channels (since I enjoy the history, engineering and sporting aspects), e.g. ForgottenWeapons, InRangeTV, C&Rsenal, DemolitionRanch, etc... A lot of them seem to recommend the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Training) courses, NRA Firearms Training programs, Shivworks ECQC (Extreme Close Quarters Concepts) course and one that many say is absolutely vital but way too often overlooked, some form of Battlefield/Trauma specific first-aid training.
This a really interesting concept to me for a firearm, having served in the army and collected some guns after.
This is the only video I could find about how it operates, from the designer. At first I was pretty skeptical but after seeing it operate, I think this really has potential for future development.
There are so many odd questions about this:
On 1, I agree that electronic firing is probably going to be a non-starter for the current iteration of the rifle.
2, the current iteration of the ammo seems non-viable. It does look heavy and rather voluminous. I'm really curious what the standard loadout weight for a soldier would be for this weapon. Currently, it's 6 magazines on the body and 1 in the weapon, totaling to ~14.3 lbs including a 6.36 lb M4.
3, I really only see a use for this style of weapon at close quarters. Mid to long range rifle combat is mostly about suppression tactics. You wouldn't want to fire 4 or 5 rounds simultaneously. At shorter ranges and CQC, that would be an amazing benefit.
Yeah, this doesn't seem practical at all, and I'm surprised the military has shown any interest in it whatsoever. I don't see any practical advantage for electronic firing. Generally, if you want to make a rifle that requires a battery to fire, there'd better be an extremely damn good reason. Especially if that rifle is to be put into military use.
There's no reason I can think of when you'd want to fire five shots at a time instead of one in a rifle, so what's really the purpose of having multiple barrels?
Electronic firing simplifies the mechanics. This gun has far less moving parts than a regular firearm. The battery doesn't seem to be a problem if it really lasts for 15 000 shots on one charge, as the maker claims. You would've already had to change the barrel at that point on an M4.
From what I gathered, the ammo casings and multiple barrels dissipate heat very effectively. The casings act as the chamber, and are ejected taking the heat - that normal guns accumulate - with them.
The thing that concerns me is the weight. The ammo casings look pretty bulky, and the gun seems to take quite a few in its magazine, so it could be cumbersome. Especially when the magazine is mounted on the side.