I think that the article forgot about this accessory, which eliminates your problem:
Posted on 10/01/2018 12:25:29 PM PDT by george76
i misread the description as being essentially a portable railgun. Obviously, with something like that, you couldn’t use lead bullets. You’d need something that interacts with an electrical field better. I want a rail gun.
Prone firing was why the sten gun had a side mounted magazine
I would think a unitary discharge of four 6mm rounds would give you a heckuva sore shoulder, eh?
Probably.
That’s why my favorite gun of all time is the M1 carbine.
I used to envy the fellows carrying that, vs the M1 Garands that we ROTC boys had.
I take that as a feature to be used by mightier men than I am.
Come on, this is EASY!!!
1. Use the existing AR15/M16/M4 design concept.
2. Change it to a piston vs. the existing gas impingement system to increase reliability. Obviously, test it for millions of rounds on dozens of rifles to be sure.
3. Change the round used to the 6.5mm x 55. The decrease in the coefficient of drag, the increase in sectional density and the increase in weight of the round vs. any of the 5.56mm bullets will create greater lethality at any range, and greater range for effective engagements where necessitated by the terrain. For those who claim that the heavier weight means less rounds carried - you’re right, but the greater lethality means that you don’t NEED as many rounds.
4. Train our combat guys to be real marksmen - all of them, not just a select few.
Adopt the same round for the SAW and other supporting weapons, and you’ll also simplify logistics. Send all of the 5.56 mm rifles, mags and ammo to the NG, or sell it to civilians. Oh, and YES, repeal Title 18, Section 922(o) so that the CMP can sell full autos to the public and the feds will not only make money on the sale of rifles, but also $200 per on the tax stamp.
NO batteries, just a real long extension cord and or a few solar panels would work.
250 rounds/sec...out of 4 barrels? Hmmmm....
On a rifle held by a human?
Even with a large tree behind them, I doubt it, and if you do, find a good Doctor because your shoulder is done.
I think that the article forgot about this accessory, which eliminates your problem:
Depends. Could be far fewer moving parts since most of this is electromagnetic.
Feed and recoil are the untold stories here. 250 rounds a SECOND. Who cares if you have a ‘shotgun’ option? Doesn’t 250 rounds a second qualify?
I love stories like this, however, and I hope this pans out.
Running out of batteries and still having ammo would suck.
Thanks george76. It was just before my time of course, but I've read in the past that some US fighting men in Vietnam preferred the AK-47 to the M-16. OTOH, the US sent troops into patrol with more firepower than the typical Vietcong terrorist, making the exercise of such a preference through captured arms somewhat unusual and difficult in the eariy going.
The Kalashnikov is an old post-war design, and has been refined a little as needed, and been knocked off by more than a dozen different countries (China, and former allies of the USSR, and of China). More Kalashnikovs and knockoffs are in existence than there are people in the US.
“I used to envy the fellows carrying that, vs the M1 Garands that we ROTC boys had.”
Yeah, when you’re doing the marching manual of arms, but the M1 is a superior battle rifle.
When one is climbing hill after hill in tropical heat, the relative value of 5lbs of rifle becomes a much more disputable question than one would think.
“The Kalashnikov is an old post-war design, and has been refined a little as needed”
I used to have a knock-off before the boating accident sent it to the bottom of Lake Powell. Loved it.
Thing is, if I fired a 30-round magazine as fast as I could get back on target and pull the trigger, the barrel got really hot.
I never fired it to destruction, though, so I don’t know what would happen on the battlefield.
“When one is climbing hill after hill in tropical heat, the relative value of 5lbs of rifle becomes a much more disputable question than one would think.”
Yes, the Filipino guerrillas in WWII were supplied with carbines, but I am told the Americans with them preferred the M1. The carbine ammo was more a hot pistol round than a rifle round.
If you need to hit targets at 500 yards, you want the Garand.
Looks like it’s wide open to dirt and water.
I understand this max rate mode is a burst out of a single ammo module, each round through its own barrel. Like a shotgun blast, with a tiny delay between shots.
I.e., 250 rps but for four rounds only. Next module
Not sustained fire.
There are regular automatic and semiautomatic modes.
If it’s not gas operated, what cycles the ammunition through the chamber?
Test, improve, retest, improve more.
I think I would prefer the Carbine, especially in close in fighting.
Daddy used the Garand in WWII and loved it. I really don’t know why as it strikes me as heavy and clunky. That 30-06 really is powerful tho.
It seems like 20 or 30 round magazines and soft recoil should count for a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.