Comments on: The Gun That Never Was

By: Eric Daniel

Eric Daniel — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:20:14 +0000

Guy,
In the event of a misfire/dud where you need to clear the chamber, the G11 is equipped with an ejection port at the bottom of the chamber. To clear the round you rotate the bolt downward and the round falls out. Not sure what the “stuck” round procedures are though, though I’m sure it’s something that was thought of.

By: ADyer

ADyer — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:08:25 +0000

Big problem with caseless rounds: heat. An enormous amount of waste heat is transferred to the brass casing in conventional firearms, which are of course quickly ejected from the weapon. On the G-11, all of that heat goes directly into the weapon. This necessitates a much thicker and heavier barrel and/or some other system of cooling the thing.

By: justsome guy

justsome guy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:58:22 +0000

G-11. I wonder how you go about unchambering a round? Depending upon the mission, you may have a loaded weapon that needs to be cleared other than firing the round.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:03:43 +0000

The first question to ask in any engineering problem is ‘what problem are you trying to solve’?
As far as I am aware (lifetime civilian…) the two big issues with the m4/m16 in current conditions are ’rounds too small’ and ‘sand screws it/pain to clean’. The first of those is by no means a clear case, we’ve all heard the arguments for and against heavier rounds, no reason to repeat them here. But if there is a problem the solution is in the ‘bigger round’ direction, not the other way.
The second problem is being a pain to clean and needing regular cleaning in desert conditions. Well,the solutions to this are either lower tolerances (ie AK47) or an otherwise more reliable /easier cleaning mechanism.
In both these cases, it would appear the g11 goes the wrong way. Cool? Sure. Solution? No way.

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:34:44 +0000

Yeah, it’s a nice concept, but there are some very pointed negatives brought up here too. Not being able to remove a “dud” or do maintenance on the bolt is a huge deal for me. If it can be broken, a soldier will find a way. I still say the next evolutionary step will be one of four things:
a.)caseless ammo
b.)liquid propellant fed in behind projectiles
c.)metal storm type launchers
d.)electro-magnetic propulsion
All of these seem a pretty long way off, so the next weapon will probably use the same old principles of mechanical operation.
Somebody mentioned the field testing of the xm-8 and wondered why it disappeared. Last I heard, the handguards melted in sustained fire. Don’t know if that got fixed. Between that and the debate/dis-satisfaction with the 5.56, I think they tried to wait it out.

By: Kestrel

Kestrel — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:21:41 +0000

I always thought that velocity was a big factor in a quick killing round? Hydrostatic shock and CNS shutdown?
Wasn’t there an issue with the 5.62 years ago where they lowered the effective velocity of the round?

By: Dumb Marine

Dumb Marine — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:18:03 +0000

Well I hope the country can afford bread lines I hope that, I WILL QUALIFY FOR THE COFFIE. With the country going down the tolet, the military indusral machine is planning on how to steal the last dollar they can get. A fool got us into a war, that we can not win,
Forest gumps moma said, stupid is as stupid does, Bush has proven his moma point. We get four more fool that want to grind our country into dust, no matter which one we pick,
The revulation to save the country is long over due. No one with what it takes to fight to take back the government is willing to stand up and do so, Talk and more Tals, Spend money till the wheal berral we carry it in is worth more than the money in it. Shame on the USA.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:16:46 +0000

Lots of good posts.
But lets face it, the Army will switch to something better when our guys start dying by the truckload because someone has something better.
The AK-47 is better than the M-16 in many respects. But not on the level of difference between the Mauser and the rifle the Army was using during the Spanish American War (I forget the name. You had to load it from the top. They did this due to concerns that the infantrymen would use their ammo too fast.
Once they realized that it was all about how much lead you could put up, they switched.
Fielding a new weapon, which may have problems, may end your career. Keeping the status quo gets you easy retirement.….

By: cdr p.w. prawl, usn ret

cdr p.w. prawl, usn ret — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:58:47 +0000

I’m NOT a firearms expert, BUT a new “system” needs to be developed, caseless cartridges have been around for years (daisy mfg-1960’s) but not fully developed.
1. cartridge weight lowered. why carry weight, just to throw away?
2. recoil impact on accuracy
3. firepower-large bullet vs. many small bullets
4. modular-upgrade to sniper, SAW, etc. using same ammo-for logistics support & training purposes-i.e. 30 cal carbine, .45 Thompson of wwII
should have been combined, therefore pistol/carbine/submachine gun same cal.
5. we must get out of the box! Logistics MUST be a part of the matrix.

By: Draq Wraith

Draq Wraith — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:31:03 +0000

Um from what i have seen in th research departments i think we would have a better army if we switched to the XM-8. It’s versatile multiple configurations and ability to switch ammo types would have won over the troops. My personal favorite would have been the 6.8 SPC round for choice caliber in a rifle form of the xm-8 in pistol form the 5.7. I have no doubt that the 5.56 nato rounds are killing folks i have the problem of how long it takes for them to die while they are still firing at our troops.
D~W