NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been having a devil of a time finding an appropriate website where I could find easily accessible information regarding several standard infantry rifles. I would like to create at least one or two rifles for my army (such as a standard infantry rifle and a sniper rifle), but I'm not sure exactly how to go about doing so.

Some of the things I would want to do would be to create munitions that I can sell on my army storefront (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394656), but I don't want to create something that's identical to RL technology. I could use RL tech as a basis and/or combine some of the best two or three of the best rifles into one model, but I don't want to just rename RL tech or use RL tech. I've looked through Army Technology (http://www.army-technology.com/projects) but haven't been able to find what I'm looking for there.

If anyone has CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, please let me know. I don't want to create a Godmode, but I also want to be able to create something original that gets the job done and is something I can use as standard equipment for my army.

Use this site for a basic idea of modern guns of multiple types
http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

I'll be on AIM in about an hour, I'll help you then, if you want.

Drop me a line on AIM, MSN, or ParaChat. I can give you a pointer or two on guns.

Ignore this if it's not useful (I know it may not be) - but does it really matter? Does the kind of rifle your troops carry really have a serious affect on RP (I suppose it does if you combat the ub3rbattlesuits 0f d00m, but I tend to IGNORE them)? Do you even mention what type of gun they use? Maybe it matters in small scale RPs... but just a thought.

Ignore this if it's not useful (I know it may not be) - but does it really matter? Does the kind of rifle your troops carry really have a serious affect on RP (I suppose it does if you combat the ub3rbattlesuits 0f d00m, but I tend to IGNORE them)? Do you even mention what type of gun they use? Maybe it matters in small scale RPs... but just a thought.

Well, I think it does matter to some degree if he/she wants to put them on his/her storefront.

Thanks everyone for your help/suggestions.

I think for the sake of authenticity, I'd rather be able to describe the gun, especially if I'm selling it on my storefront. Not only that, I like to be able to have a least a basic idea of how it's supposed to work.

Take these points into account:

Function: What exactly your rifle is supposed to do? A battle rifle for shock infantry will have different design parameters than a paratrooper's rifle or a tanker's rifle.

Weight and Size: The reason the OICW was dumped was because it was too heavy and bulky. Consequently, any rifle you design should be of good weight.

Ammo: On average, 20,000+ rounds are expended for a kill. Thus your rifle should carry plenty of ammo and the ammunition it fires should be light enough for your troopers to carry lots of it.

Accuracy: Your rifle should be able to consistently hit a man sized target up to 300m at minimum (given the that the shooter does his/her part). A corollary to this is that the sights have to be accurate.

Round damage: Don't make another prairie dog round like the 5.56mm. Your rounds have to kill or at least prevent your enemy from fighting back with 1 shot.

Reliability: A gun that won't fire is useless. Make sure your weapon can fire 99.99999% of the time in the conditions you plan to deploy it.

Maintenance: Complicated is not good, make the weapon easy to maintain and clean.

Ergonomics: Is the weapon easily useable for both left and right handed shooters? Is it easy to reload quickly? How easy is it to use the sights, how easy is it to make adjustments? Is the weapon comfortable to hold or to sling?

Cost: This is NS, so infinite money is the order of the day. But if you want to be realistic, don't give your troops $10,000 match rifles.

Sarzonia if you need somebody to make a pic for a gun, I'm right here :P

I reccommend one of Tyrandis's excellent products.

Battle rifles... Battle rifles are not Assault Rifles, though they may look similar.
Battle rifles fire a full-power round (Think .308 Winchester, 8mm Mauser, .303 British). They average between 8 and 10 pounds, and include the FN-FAL, FN-49, MAS-56, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE), H&K G3, M1 Garand, and M-14.

In WWII, the average shots-to-kill ratio was around 10 to one for the United States. This is a combination of training and firepower.
After the near-global adoption of a study comissioned by the Wehrmacht that placed most decisive engagements at less than 300 meters, most military designs were "Downgraded" to be mainly effective at that range or below-this was to reduce the weight carried by soldiers and increase the load of ammunition carried.

Assault-Rifles: Definition is, put simply, a medium-bore rifle capable of select-fire (Semi and full auto) with a large magazine, that weighs less than a battle-rifle. Assault Rifles are kind of in-between submachineguns and full-powered rifles in power. Classic examples of Assault rifle technology are the AK-47, AKM, STG-44, AR-15(Military version),HK G36, M-16, and FN-LAR. Assault rifles use smaller cartridge cases and at times smaller bullets (7.62x39, 5.56x45, 6mmx45 and the newly developed 6.8x43, which was developed to supply certain special operations units in the U.S. army).
The first war that saw extensive use by both sides of Assault rifles was Vietnam, which war averaged around 50,000 rounds per enemy kill (Using Westmoreland's bodycount-math).
Assault rifles run from 5.5 Pounds to around 7.75 pounds, they tend to have magazines between 25 and 30 rounds' capacity, though there are some militaries that issue the 40 round magazine.

Assault-rifle tactics are NOT battle-rifle tactics, Assault rifles are designed for close-range engagements and rapid-fire, only occasional long-shots are possible (the M16 A2 includes sight settings out to 800 meters, this is a situation you almost never get a chance to utilize due to the round's loss of impact-power past 250 meters), and they aren't what most armies train for.
(Massed fire in the general direction, with designated sharpshooters-the Soviet model, is what most armies employ today, as opposed to aimed-fire that was common prior to the 1960's.)

for sites, I recommend looking at ammunition first,

google "Federal Ammunition", "Hornady", "Norma", and "Remington". Those sites have good info on bullet, caliber, and velocity/downrange energy for different cartridges (Norma's got a nice Ballistics calculator that shows you how a given round will perform).

For mechanism descriptions, there are a number of useful links on the NRA site, and Shotgun News has a monthly column that examines military-style rifles in current production, including DSA's Gas-trap Carbine (an M-16 with a piston!), and Barrett's little 6.8mm carbine.

Other sites to look at are Strategypage.com, Janes, and the FAS Military Analysis Network.

Really, your rifle choice goes with your tactical choices-if you follow a soviet model tactically (highly centralized command structure, mass armies of conscripts) you'll be happier with an AK-Variant (reliable with minimal cleaning), than you will with an M-16/AR-15 variant (Lots of cleaning, must be defended from dust and mud, picky about ammuntion).
If your tactical doctrine relies on every-soldier-aims, you might want to consider taking a step backward in doctrine, and pick up something more like the FN-FAL, M-14, etc, rifles that can reliably inflict lethal wounds at distances greater than 500 meters, or you might just go with a 5.56 round that allows you to carry almost as many bullets as you need.

Cadillac-Gage said it pretty much all. I'd suggest a sub-calibre round rather than a light rifle round. According to one site advocating the 6.5mm Grendel round, it offers good all-round capability, but I'm not certain how truly accurate that site is. If you are going to change the calibre of your standard service rifle, you should do the same for your light machine guns as well to simplify your logistics. You could decide whether to maintain your current general purpose machine guns at a larger calibre, or simply provide your troops with a standard single section/squad and platoon machine gun.

The FN website is also fairly informative, with details on weapon operation, weight of spare barrels, barrel length (same as the Russian guns site, though only on FN arms), and even ammunition weights.

Cadillac-Gage's mention of Norma's ballistic calculator is a superb suggestion that should allow you to decide on the best weapon for your tactical needs.

And don't forget all the add-ons! Laser aiming devices, EOTech sights (holographic weapon sights -- not really as high-tech as it sounds, but very useful), picatinny rails (on which to fix those and other sights), grenade and non-lethal projectile launchers (M203 or FN303 are two respective examples).

Mekugi has a good small arms storefront that should give you some ideas, or him some sales.

Mekugi has a good small arms storefront that should give you some ideas, or him some sales.*sniffles* I feel loved :p

Well, i'd suggest a cartridge that offers low recoil and is easy to fire with minimum training (7.62x39mm), seeing as how Sarzonia's army is quite shitty.

Well, i'd suggest a cartridge that offers low recoil and is easy to fire with minimum training (7.62x39mm), seeing as how Sarzonia's army is quite shitty.

5.56mm > 7.62mm

Yes, the bullet is marginally smaller, but it is much lighter. Also, if you use enough powder, 5.56mm will actually have a higher muzzle velocity since the force propels less weight. I know the US SOCOM is planning on adopting a 77 Grain cartridge to improve 5.56's killing power.

5.56mm > 7.62mm

Yes, the bullet is marginally smaller, but it is much lighter. Also, if you use enough powder, 5.56mm will actually have a higher muzzle velocity since the force propels less weight. I know the US SOCOM is planning on adopting a 77 Grain cartridge to improve 5.56's killing power.
5.56 x 45mm round is about 1/2 the weight of a full-sized 7.62 x 51mm round. The benefit of a 7.62 x 39mm round over a 5.56 x 45mm round is that the larger bullet has better penetration power while the 7.62 x 51mm will kill things at over 300m.

OOC: Interesting thread. However, I must differ a bit on the actual utility of the 5.56mm rounds. Though they do have a rather shorter range and lack of a lot of penetration power, once it gets in the human body is another matter. Whereas rounds like the 7.62mm tends to have much better penetration qualities, the 5.56mm round tends to tumble more when it enters the human body, which means that it can injure a person at a greater degree where the 7.62mm round would often pass right through. Another benefit of the 5.56mm round is its lighter weight, which translates to less hassle on logistics. I'd recall that this is also one of the reasons why the Soviets adopted a smaller round on their AK-74s, as each supply depots would be able to hold more of such ammunition and transport them easily.

As for the other comments, I'd recall (though I could be wrong) that the 20,000+ rounds/kill figure is for the American forces in Vietnam only, where spray and pray is generally more common than taking precise shots and using different firing rates for different situations. The OICW isn't intended to be a "mainstream" weapons for riflemen anyways, as it is more of a grenade-launching weapon with computers and a "kinetic module" for grenadiers within a fireteam or squad. With the ergonomics, keep in mind that another factor must be taken into consideration is that for many people, ne of their eyes are weaker than the other, which is still pretty important if your shooter's right eye is instead much weaker than the left.

But the US, Russia, and China are all considering -- they haven't decided -- on opting for a slightly larger round. The tumbling and shattering aspect of the 5.56 round is true, and 5.56 rounds such as the SS109 have decent penetrating power. However, the tumbling nature of the round has to be considered that it's measured against a full-powered 7.62 round rather than a sub-calibre 7.62 round. The weight and stopping power of the new round would both have to be considered as well as the Sarzonian Army's tactics, as Cadillac-Gage noted.

No, i got the 20,000 figure from Allanea talking about the Arab-Israeli war.
I was about to suggest a 6.5 or 6.8mm round. 6.5x55 seems like a good compromise between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm.

No, i got the 20,000 figure from Allanea talking about the Arab-Israeli war.
I was about to suggest a 6.5 or 6.8mm round. 6.5x55 seems like a good compromise between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm.

6.5mm Swede is more appropriate to a full-on battle rifle than to an assault-rifle design. While it has less recoil than 7.62 nato, it's still a full-power round and has signficant recoil compared to the soviet 7.62 round, or the 5.56.
The Ljungman was a fine piece of engineering though-reliable, accurate, but it's a battle-rifle, not an assault-rifle.

During the Arab/Israeli conflicts, ground combat tactics were soviet-style on both sides, The Israeli Air force won both the 1967 and 1973 wars. Without air-support, the Israeli army was in real trouble in 1973-Had the Egyptians not outrun their SAM coverage, it likely would have gone the other way.

I consider 5.56mm to be fine for killing groundhogs, coyotes, and other small, thin-skinned vermin. It's less than satisfactory against most larger animals, and lacks the ability to penetrate a truck-door and still kill the man behind it at ranges over about 100 meters. Given the widespread use of body-armour, that's a major defect.

Similarly, the 7.62x39 round lacks enough velocity to really serve as a mainline round-it lacks range and has horrible drop-off ballistically-like the 5.56, it's a round that's really lethal inside a fairly restricted range-effectively about 300 meters again.
(ballistically, using the same bullet weights, the russian round is a match for the .30-30 winchester, both make good heavy-brush hunting rifles, but may not be what you need in combat if you intend to control the infantry battlefield).

Effective-Killing-range dictates where your infantry CAN engage, all other things being equal. For my own NS country, I went with the new 6.8x43 round as a compromise between assault-rifle benefits (light weight, lots of shots, quick 'engagement' time), and Battle-rifle requirements (Lethality at long range, accuracy, penetration of light structure). Your effective range with a rifle can influence your axis-of-decision (where you open fire). If you have lethal power and accuracy at longer ranges, your infantry can engage enemy forces further away, this gives an edge in the 'initiative', and can influence attritional rates. (i.e. inflicting casualties on him, before he can do it to you).
It also may reduce (depending on the quality of your training) your resupply needs-if you're spending 20 rounds to kill one enemy soldier, it's certainly cheaper than spending 100 to do the same thing-you don't have to reload as often.
This has to be balanced against the understandable desire of your enemy to remain alive-he's going to try and avoid getting shot, just like you will...
Again, it really does depend on your doctrines-but that goes back to training, and troop quality.

Here's what I came up with:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402455

and

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404276

Hope that helps.

Hmm... then a 6.8x45mm round. I know that Sarzonia's army isn't that good.

world.guns.ru is good, I also use remtek.com and hkpro.com

BTW: G-11 is the best AR there is...

Everyone seems to be focussing on the improved killing power of the 7.62. Remember that a dead man only takes one man to romove from the battle field, whereas an injured soldier takes 3+ people. If you are fighting a smaller army it can be benefitial to injure their soldiers as they could run out of fire power quicker so a smaller round could be better. Or if you are ignoring the geneava convention, a hollow tip or soft nose bullet

world.guns.ru is good, I also use remtek.com and hkpro.com

BTW: G-11 is the best AR there is...
that is debatable on several counts. the obvious ones being that the ammunition is fragile in comparison with standard rounds, but also the weapon itself, while advanced, relies too much on ammunition quality. Octagon is a doped explosive, under peacetime production constraints, it's more complicated to manufacture the caseless ammunition used in the G-11, under wartime, you're looking at "Cost reduction" that could lethally affect the soldiers carrying those weapons.
Also, it's short-ranged, relies on an even smaller bullet, and relies on burst-fire exclusively. It's a short-range wounder, not necessarily what you want to rely on in the field.
Which is why the German army passed on it, and adopted the G-36 instead.

Problem: A wounded man can still fire back.

Everyone seems to be focussing on the improved killing power of the 7.62. Remember that a dead man only takes one man to romove from the battle field, whereas an injured soldier takes 3+ people. If you are fighting a smaller army it can be benefitial to injure their soldiers as they could run out of fire power quicker so a smaller round could be better. Or if you are ignoring the geneava convention, a hollow tip or soft nose bullet

The experience in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq shows that you wound the guy, he shoots you and kills or wounds you anyway-invalidating that argument (which was also invalidated in Vietnam, Central America...).
Wounding only works against an enemy that is going to devote the resources-or who acts the way you want him to. Dead, on the other hand, is dead. He isn't goign to keep fighting if he's a corpse, and he isn't going to come back if he's a corpse (unless you're RP'ing a setting where zombies can be created and used.)
"Wound Math" relies on an enemy that will stop fighting to come to their buddy's aid. While this would be nice, in wartime, this is also rare.

Problem: A wounded man can still fire back.

depending on how he is wounded ofcourse. the biggest target to hit on a standing soldier is their torso, and a prone soldier has their head facing you. A soldier with a hole in stomach, chest, face or simular has bigger things to worry about than launching rounds around. They are likely to go for cover and demand medic attn.

If you want something cheap and easy, but maybe not the best type around, Sten models are nice. They're light and compact too... just no power and can jam a bit. They are simple though, with something like 44 parts.

depending on how he is wounded ofcourse. the biggest target to hit on a standing soldier is their torso, and a prone soldier has their head facing you. A soldier with a hole in stomach, chest, face or simular has bigger things to worry about than launching rounds around. They are likely to go for cover and demand medic attn.
Your argument is based on a huge number of assumptions. You assume that a man with a wound is going to go for cover and call for a medic-this assumes there is a freindly medic about who will come when called.
You also assume the enemy will cease firing, that he will be concerned with his own well-being, and that his buddies will be willing and able to provide him with aid.
NONE of these is a Given, and a strategy of issue based on those assumptions would have rapidly left U.N.Troops even more swamped by the Human-Wave tactics of the Chinese in Korea, and resulted in higher than necessary American casualties during the Tet offensive in 1967. SF units in Afghanistan drove the programme for a higher-calibre, more lethal, round, because merely wounding an enemy was proving ineffectual-the "One to five" theory is fundamentally bullshit-and has been proven to be bullshit in actual battlefield practice.

Weapons are tools you use in a military to kill the enemy, and break their stuff. trying to 'wound' the enemy (and thereby swamp their logistics) has proven to be a non-starter on both the tactical, and strategic, levels in the real world-though it's a nice, round, mathematically sound-looking idea.

Just a though, if you are outfitting an army, remember that you are going to have different units, branches, etc. You will want different weapons for different units. Special Forces will be different from snipers wo will be different from basic infantry. You want to remember that all those elements are necessary for a really good army.

Just a though, if you are outfitting an army, remember that you are going to have different units, branches, etc. You will want different weapons for different units. Special Forces will be different from snipers wo will be different from basic infantry. You want to remember that all those elements are necessary for a really good army.
I think he's just looking mostly for a standard service rifle at the moment, but your points have validity.

Paras will need shortened, possibly lightened versions of standard service small arms (rifles and machine guns with folding butts and shorter barrels, or bullpup rifles, etc.), mechanised infantry will need shortened rifles (either or both extendible butts or shorter barrels, or bullpup rifles) for easier ingress to and egress from IFVs, mounted troops will need small arms that can be easily stowed within vehicles, officers (and NCOs and other forces) would require sidearms, submachine guns, shotguns, and similar weapons for urban and other CQB, etc.

Hey, Sarz, I'd talk more, but sleep calls to me.

Here's a linky to some of my gun designs in the NS Wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:SAG_Weapons_Corporation). These are specialty weapons, intended to be fielded in small numbers, for elite purposes.

My main weapon is a modified version of the XM8 Weapons System, firing either a 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 x 43 cartridge. The former for squad marksmen, the latter for most else. The weapons have been modified for in-field reconfiguration and even calibre change, resulting in a universal weapons platform for almost all purposes, cutting logistics drain (and allowing the fielding of my uber special weapons.)

For truly special forces, I like this one: The Sag ACR (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sag_Advanced_Combat_Rifle)

If you really have money to blow, and peacetime constraints, consider a Blended Metal Bullet. These new ammunition types, fired from any weapon, are for more dangerous than standard FMJ, and technically aren't illegal.

I've been talking with Sarz on AIM and helping him a little, and he decided on a modular bullpup capable of switching between calibers, so he could have a short barreled, 5.56mm carbine, or a 7.62x51mm dedicated marksman weapon. Kinda like with the XM-8.

I've been talking with Sarz on AIM and helping him a little, and he decided on a modular bullpup capable of switching between calibers, so he could have a short barreled, 5.56mm carbine, or a 7.62x51mm dedicated marksman weapon. Kinda like with the XM-8.
Sounds more like the Steyr AUG, which is a good weapon.

Sounds more like the Steyr AUG, which is a good weapon.Could be, but the template Doom and I are using is the XM-8, which itself looks like an excellent weapon.

The XM8 is an excellent weapon....

A bullpup rifle however, has a few issues, like beinging ergonomically less sound than a front barreled weapon, harder to reload etc. The recoil's a bit worse too.

Okay, if you want to save yourself a headache, try this dude. An M-16 with an attached M203 Grenade Launcher.

Sarz i know you've proably seen my (crookfur's) various mentions of guns now and then on the OMP board (msot recetn being my attempt at a workable caseless round).

As far as i know the XM8 can't switch calibres but i would imagine that a bullpup rifle using it's mechanism could be designed to have a AR15/M16 style repalceable barrel/upper receiver, which would give you the ability to switch between calbires (although switching from 5.56mm to 7.62mm NATO would be very tricky as the 7.62 is much longer and won't fit hrough the lower reciever/magazien well unless you design for it in the first palce and use adaptors for smaller rounds).

personally i still advocate the intermediate (6-7mm) round, where you have a lot of scope for different calibres and case lengths.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ has loads of info (one day i will buy his book!) and soem interesting thoughts on intermediate round design.

The XM8 is an excellent weapon....

A bullpup rifle however, has a few issues, like beinging ergonomically less sound than a front barreled weapon, harder to reload etc. The recoil's a bit worse too.
Harder to reload, possibly. Ergonomically difficult, not really, not if properly designed. If properly designed it is actually easier to fire because the weapon's centre of gravity is over the strongest arm. The Canadians have had to shorten the barrel of the C7A2 because the adoption of a telescoping butt made the rifle front-heavy. With regard to recoil, I don't see how it could be worse.

Okay, if you want to save yourself a headache, try this dude. An M-16 with an attached M203 Grenade Launcher.
One can attach a grenade launcher to a bullpup rifle (FN F2000, FAMAS, others).

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But he has a whole thread dedicated to finding an infantry rifle. Why go through all the trouble? The M-16 is simple, inexpensive, reliable, lightweight, accurate, and mobile. My old man's a Green Beret, and they swear by M-16s.

One of the biggest flaws with the bullpup is that it's going to be damn near impossible to shoot left handed, without some serious reworking of the case ejection system. As a left-handed shooter, I find it extremely uncomfortable to work with bullpup designs, unless they can compensate for the hot casing flying at my face.

As for the convertable XM8: the original model was conceived as convertable, but has settled on simply being a multicaliber weapon (ie: different models). The SCAR (Special Purpose Combat Assault Rifle) on the other hand, looks to be field convertable, including recievers for 7.62x39 R and possibly even the new 5.8 Chinese round, designed to be fielded in enemy terrain, without supply lines, to use the enemy's ammunition in a quality weapon. But, beh, the SCAR is still in competition among Colt, FN, and a few others, with FN holding the lead.

The XM8, meanwhile, is heading for mass deployment, with some obstacles, since there was no bidding, and other gun companies besiders Heckler und Koch are protesting.

EDIT: I believe both weapons, as well as the mainstay M16/M4, are capable of taking Barrett 6.8x43mm Uppers to fire the Remington SPC. The M4 variant is the M468, short for "M4, Firing 6.8x43mm SPC". Cute, huh?

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But he has a whole thread dedicated to finding an infantry rifle. Why go through all the trouble? The M-16 is simple, inexpensive, reliable, lightweight, accurate, and mobile. My old man's a Green Beret, and they swear by M-16s.By that same argument, why should I go through the trouble of designing my own ships/weapons systems/aircraft, etc? Why don't I just buy every RSIN Corp or IPS design known to man and not bother with trying to design my own stuff?

ICly, Sarzonia has a policy of self-designing what it needs, partly to ensure employment of its people and partly out of a sense that it can control what it has through that means.

OOCly, I'm doing it because I want standardised weapons that are original and effective, and I want to feel like I'm learning something by trying to design my own weapons. Plus, I feel like it will help me become a better RPer in the long run if I'm not just shrinking away from doing ground combat RPs because I'm better at naval RPing.

WIKI its all the terrorists need. tells you how to operate them

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But he has a whole thread dedicated to finding an infantry rifle. Why go through all the trouble? The M-16 is simple, inexpensive, reliable, lightweight, accurate, and mobile. My old man's a Green Beret, and they swear by M-16s.
M16s can be a pain in the arse due to direct gas impingement and the comparitive daintiness of the gas tube. I know this from personal experience: my direct-from-the-armoury C7 decided to become a single shot rather than a semi-automatic on the firing range. (Not that it made any difference to my shitty marksmanship.) Like most 5.56 rifles, they require a lot of attention to make sure they don't get fouled. Still, 5.56 rifles using gas pistons (indirect gas impingement) such as the M8, the G36 (on which the M8 is based), FNC, FN F2000, and the Steyr AUG (as well as the trying L85) are reliable. The Steyr AUG may be easily converted for left-handed shooters in the field without special tools and the FN F2000 ejects cartridges from the front. The big problem with the FN F2000 system is how can you avoid the ejection port from being fouled and clearing the rifle (yes, yes, unload, cock twice, but one can't see the empty chamber to verify there's nothing there (round with stripped base lodged within, or other) and one doesn't know until the spring's released.

that is debatable on several counts. the obvious ones being that the ammunition is fragile in comparison with standard rounds, but also the weapon itself, while advanced, relies too much on ammunition quality. Octagon is a doped explosive, under peacetime production constraints, it's more complicated to manufacture the caseless ammunition used in the G-11, under wartime, you're looking at "Cost reduction" that could lethally affect the soldiers carrying those weapons.
Also, it's short-ranged, relies on an even smaller bullet, and relies on burst-fire exclusively. It's a short-range wounder, not necessarily what you want to rely on in the field.
Which is why the German army passed on it, and adopted the G-36 instead.

actually the germans went witht he G-36 because of political turmoil assosciated with the reunification of Germany (in fact, without pressure by East Germany to strengthen the unified germany through an integration of manfacturing facilities, the G-11 could very well be the standarg German assault rifle today), the G-11 despite its smaller cartidge has a unique breech that negates recoil during a three round (Because of the breech design and because the action 'floats' within the casing, recoil does not affect aim until after the third round has left the barrel) burst giving the weapon a superior shots to hit ratio and very good accuracy ratings. coupled with a high muzzle velocity and rate of fire the G-11 has an easily underestimated stopping power at combat ranges (less than 60 yards).
The round while originally fragile, if modernized could become highly durable and much cheaper to manufacture than orginally (Current caseless sport rifles utilize more durable propllants and rounds are cheap enough that with larger production runs they could become equally priced with 5.56mm and similiar ammunition).

actually the germans went witht he G-36 because of political turmoil assosciated with the reunification of Germany (in fact, without pressure by East Germany to strengthen the unified germany through an integration of manfacturing facilities, the G-11 could very well be the standarg German assault rifle today), the G-11 despite its smaller cartidge has a unique breech that negates recoil during a three round (Because of the breech design and because the action 'floats' within the casing, recoil does not affect aim until after the third round has left the barrel) burst giving the weapon a superior shots to hit ratio and very good accuracy ratings. coupled with a high muzzle velocity and rate of fire the G-11 has an easily underestimated stopping power at combat ranges (less than 60 yards).
The round while originally fragile, if modernized could become highly durable and much cheaper to manufacture than orginally (Current caseless sport rifles utilize more durable propllants and rounds are cheap enough that with larger production runs they could become equally priced with 5.56mm and similiar ammunition).
The rounds the G11 uses (4.7mm) are simply too small, and just because a rifle is accurate doesn't mean it's what you need on the battlefield. Look at the British L85. A very accurate weapon, but not nearly as good a service rifle as the M16 or its variants (Diemaco C7, among others), the Galil, the FNC, the CETME, the G36, the Steyr AUG, etc. (The FAMAS is problematic as well.) Besides, the M16, G36, and the Steyr AUG are all accurate weapons, so why go for a lower calibre bullet that's more expensive to produce fired by an over-engineered weapon?

Why exactly? Because the higher velocity will result in more damage, as the hydraulic shock and post-impact spawling result in massive internal carnage. Also, the penetration of the smaller round would devastate almost any armor, and the multiple impact salvo would make swiss cheese out of almost any target.

Accurate, controllable, and deadly, the G11 was killed by the politicians, and it was a drastic stepback for modern firearms.

Why exactly? Because the higher velocity will result in more damage, as the hydraulic shock and post-impact spawling result in massive internal carnage. Also, the penetration of the smaller round would devastate almost any armor, and the multiple impact salvo would make swiss cheese out of almost any target.

Accurate, controllable, and deadly, the G11 was killed by the politicians, and it was a drastic stepback for modern firearms.
Higher velocity at the muzzle does not translate to higher velocity at distance. The smaller the projectile, the lower the mass and the greater the effect of the environment (wind, for instance) on the projectile. Much of the velocity is required simply to stabilise the round to reach minimum combat range, ca. 300m. Rifles with effective ranges under 300m are useless because that is where most combat starts according to World War II statistics. Those statistics, however, failed to consider colonial engagements, where trained soldiers -- not specialist marksmen, mind, but your average Tommy Atkins or US Marine -- were able to hit and kill people at 600 yards or more, often more. The British soldiers facing the Argentines in the Falklands were likely damn glad they had their heavy old 7.62 NATO-firing SLRs instead of that very accurate, high rate of fire L85 Individual Weapon, especially as the Argentines had FN FALs themselves. Politics had some reason behind why the G11 was dropped, same for the British EM-2 in the fifties (brilliant weapon scuppered by the Americans insistence on a full-powered rifle round rather than the very sensible British 7mm intermediate round). Tumbling rounds are only effective if they can hit something, and any armour that can stop a 5.56mm round will stop a 4.7mm round fired from the same distance. Besides, 5.56mm (or 0.223" Remington, if you prefer) rifles are perfectly controllable -- hell, a wuss like me can fire one somewhat accurately, and I'm a shit shot -- have very little recoil, even with the lightweight M16, nevermind the heavier Galil, FNC, or L85, and are equally deadly. Something with a slightly larger round, say, a 7mm intermediate round, might be even more deadly, and over a greater range, making your soldiers better able to reach out and touch someone.

Besides, making pink mist out of your enemies is something for your machine gunners to do, if at all. Fire discipline -- controlled, aimed shooting of as few rounds as necessary -- ought to be the order of the day. Soldiers can carry only so many rounds along with their equipment, food, and other essentials. Making them carry ammunition boxes because they have to fire a multitude of rounds to kill something is simply counterproductive, which is why I advocate an intermediate round (6.5mm Grendel) that offers a decent effective range -- though an upscale varmint-hunting round -- for not much additional weight, and others go for the small rifle round, the 5.56mm.

Why exactly? Because the higher velocity will result in more damage, as the hydraulic shock and post-impact spawling result in massive internal carnage. Also, the penetration of the smaller round would devastate almost any armor, and the multiple impact salvo would make swiss cheese out of almost any target.

Accurate, controllable, and deadly, the G11 was killed by the politicians, and it was a drastic stepback for modern firearms.
Higher MV does not always equate to a higher terminal velocity at the other end-small-caliber bullets of light weight lose velocity quick, and with it, penetration power and knockdown-your Hydraulic Shock theory falls out the airlock after 2-300 yards as the round sheds speed more quickly-this was one of the reasons behind SOCOM research into larger-diameter bullets that resulted in the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8x43-they retain lethal killing power at longer distances, even though with the 6.3x43 round, you're losing 300 fps versus the 5.56mm round-inertial velocity retention, and thus killing power, are superior with the 6.8, just as teh 5.56 retains its velocity better (and thus killing power) over the 4.7mm caseless.

This has been demonstrated time and again in the fields of hunting, as well-the .25-06 (.25 Niedner) cartridge will kill most large N. American game out to about 250 yards, but becomes a wounder out past that on animals larger than deer at ranges above that-the early "Lightning bolt" kills with .22 hornet on deer had more to do with the shooter being at ranges suitable for the .32-20, than with the superiority of "Hydraulic Shock" (indeed, one result of those experimental days, is that it is considered inhumane to pursue game larger than 'varmint' sizes (over 50 pounds) with bullets below .243, or 6mm, and is thusly illegal in most of the continental U.S.)

The G-11 loses velocity faster than most rounds, because the bullet is made of a relatively low-density material, and has a rather poor Ballistic Coefficient, which both increases the effects of aerodynamic drag in proportion, and reduces the sectional density of the impacting round. This may be fine for urban fights in house-to-house, but it fails miserably in other settings where range and penetration are needed.

However, you both fail to consider that the G11 was not the only rifle being fielded, as it was to be completemented with the G41, a heavy hitting, accurate auto rifle firing the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge. The heavier weapon was to be mixed with the new caseless design to give the high-range attack. Not only that, but the G11 would have higher penetration at combat ranges because of the concentrated mass and high quality of the round, which would produce let surface shattering and elastic cavitation, in return for plastic cavitation.

An assumption that bothers me is that "Rifles with effective ranges under 300m are useless because that is where most combat starts according to World War II statistics." Aye, that is what happened with WWII statistics, but A LOT has happened since then. Back in WWII, the US Army followed the procedure of "every soldier is a marksman", firing high powered, accurate cartridges. However, it was during that war that the discovery was made that most combat takes placed under several hundred meters, not over it, and thus produced the assault rifle, as opposed to the old battle rifle.

The first nation to follow onto this was the USSR, but Germany fielded quiet a few units under this doctrine, with suppress and advance, and mass fire with submachine guns and later, shortened autorifles (the Sturmgewehr 44). The US abandoned the "aimed shot" principle before Vietnam, as it had proved quiet worthless in Korea, and almost all modern militaries have followed the "small, fast, and a lot of it" idea of engagement since, leaving the heavy battle rounds in the hands of special forces.

"But wait!" You cry. "What about Afghanistan?" Ah, yes, in the mountains of Afghanistan, where shots can reach the vey limits of modern cartridge's limits, many have been calling for a new, heavier round that can reach out across the distances. This has led to the (re-) development of the midpower cartridges, such as the 6.8x43 SPC, and the debate over a militarization of such as the 6.5mm Grendel. However, Afghanistan represents a fluke in modern warfare, a throwback. The fighting is sparse, in the vast open area between the cities, engaged with small units on either side, firing over mountain passes. In this circumstance, the high-powered cartridge would be nice, but reverting back would hardly be a boon.

Remember, the complaints coming out of Afghanistan have not been mirrored in Iraq, where the combat has been much more in line with what the military has seen in recent decades (ie: post WWI). In the urban warfare which is expected to DOMINATE the coming era of combat, the light rounds fare far better, for engagement rarely gets above 300 meters, and the benefits of lighter, accurate, controllable rounds speak clearly.

There will always be a niche for the powerful battle cartridges, and there will always be some luddites who fall for the quaint little notion that bigger is always better, but the near future of warfare is not in flinging the largest chunk of metal imaginable, but in these light, maneuverable, rapid-firing weapons. As I said, I expect the SPC to gain some (worthy) acceptance in the SoF community, and more idol worship among the troops, but I cannot see any modern army regressing to a full on battle rifle combat system. It has been tried, tested, and disproven.

However, you both fail to consider that the G11 was not the only rifle being fielded, as it was to be completemented with the G41, a heavy hitting, accurate auto rifle firing the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge. The heavier weapon was to be mixed with the new caseless design to give the high-range attack. Not only that, but the G11 would have higher penetration at combat ranges because of the concentrated mass and high quality of the round, which would produce let surface shattering and elastic cavitation, in return for plastic cavitation.

An assumption that bothers me is that "Rifles with effective ranges under 300m are useless because that is where most combat starts according to World War II statistics." Aye, that is what happened with WWII statistics, but A LOT has happened since then. Back in WWII, the US Army followed the procedure of "every soldier is a marksman", firing high powered, accurate cartridges. However, it was during that war that the discovery was made that most combat takes placed under several hundred meters, not over it, and thus produced the assault rifle, as opposed to the old battle rifle.

The first nation to follow onto this was the USSR, but Germany fielded quiet a few units under this doctrine, with suppress and advance, and mass fire with submachine guns and later, shortened autorifles (the Sturmgewehr 44). The US abandoned the "aimed shot" principle before Vietnam, as it had proved quiet worthless in Korea, and almost all modern militaries have followed the "small, fast, and a lot of it" idea of engagement since, leaving the heavy battle rounds in the hands of special forces.

"But wait!" You cry. "What about Afghanistan?" Ah, yes, in the mountains of Afghanistan, where shots can reach the vey limits of modern cartridge's limits, many have been calling for a new, heavier round that can reach out across the distances. This has led to the (re-) development of the midpower cartridges, such as the 6.8x43 SPC, and the debate over a militarization of such as the 6.5mm Grendel. However, Afghanistan represents a fluke in modern warfare, a throwback. The fighting is sparse, in the vast open area between the cities, engaged with small units on either side, firing over mountain passes. In this circumstance, the high-powered cartridge would be nice, but reverting back would hardly be a boon.

Remember, the complaints coming out of Afghanistan have not been mirrored in Iraq, where the combat has been much more in line with what the military has seen in recent decades (ie: post WWI). In the urban warfare which is expected to DOMINATE the coming era of combat, the light rounds fare far better, for engagement rarely gets above 300 meters, and the benefits of lighter, accurate, controllable rounds speak clearly.

There will always be a niche for the powerful battle cartridges, and there will always be some luddites who fall for the quaint little notion that bigger is always better, but the near future of warfare is not in flinging the largest chunk of metal imaginable, but in these light, maneuverable, rapid-firing weapons. As I said, I expect the SPC to gain some (worthy) acceptance in the SoF community, and more idol worship among the troops, but I cannot see any modern army regressing to a full on battle rifle combat system. It has been tried, tested, and disproven.

I will point out the obvious at this point: The U.S. and allie were winning in Korea, but were forced into accepting a cease-fire, using aimed fire doctrine. In Vietnam, using suppress-and-advance, we LOST.
Iraq was all-about aimed-fire when it came to infantry engagements (Both Iraq wars)-it's the qualitative difference in training-american troops are trained to take aimed shots (even today), their opponents aren't.
Suppress-and-advance only works if the opposition will stand, rather than manuevering.

As for the G-11/G-41 combination-that's two kinds of ammunition you have to issue at the fireteam level, two different training regimes, and twice as much logistical tracking. It's three types if you have a pistol issue, as well. This is dumb from a Logistics point of view, and costly from an attritional view.

It also 'fixes' your tactics-you're not flexible enough to handle more than one kind of mission.

However, you both fail to consider that the G11 was not the only rifle being fielded, as it was to be completemented with the G41, a heavy hitting, accurate auto rifle firing the full powered 7.62 NATO cartridge. The heavier weapon was to be mixed with the new caseless design to give the high-range attack. Not only that, but the G11 would have higher penetration at combat ranges because of the concentrated mass and high quality of the round, which would produce let surface shattering and elastic cavitation, in return for plastic cavitation.

A concentration of low momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) bullets does not mean higher penetration values. And the high quality of the round, if other German products -- or anyone's military products -- can be considered the basis, means that they would be expensive. In other words, soldiers would be firing a vast quantity of very small, swiftly decelerating, easily deflected (by wind, temperature conditions, etc.), but very expensive bullets. Not very useful.

An assumption that bothers me is that "Rifles with effective ranges under 300m are useless because that is where most combat starts according to World War II statistics." Aye, that is what happened with WWII statistics, but A LOT has happened since then. Back in WWII, the US Army followed the procedure of "every soldier is a marksman", firing high powered, accurate cartridges. However, it was during that war that the discovery was made that most combat takes placed under several hundred meters, not over it, and thus produced the assault rifle, as opposed to the old battle rifle.

Yes, a lot has happened. Armies have found that when you equip soldiers with small bullets that don't go through things, like trees, but the enemy's bullets do (M16 v. AK-47), you start to have problems. Also, in Iraq, which has lovely flat deserts and other rather horizontal areas as well as urban settings, soldiers can see one another from great distances. Well, I'll be, combat could occur at ranges over 300m, as I'd noted above. Which is why the British during the first war in Iraq started re-equipping some soldiers providing base security with the old SLR, which was effective up to 600m.

The first nation to follow onto this was the USSR, but Germany fielded quiet a few units under this doctrine, with suppress and advance, and mass fire with submachine guns and later, shortened autorifles (the Sturmgewehr 44). The US abandoned the "aimed shot" principle before Vietnam, as it had proved quiet worthless in Korea, and almost all modern militaries have followed the "small, fast, and a lot of it" idea of engagement since, leaving the heavy battle rounds in the hands of special forces.

The Germans were the first nation to implement intermediate rounds on a significant scale. The Russians provided the mass of their soldiers -- who didn't have a great deal of training -- and partisans with submachine guns firing pistol ammunition because those were cheaper and quicker to produce than either the ridiculously long Moisin-Nagant rifle or their SVT semi-automatic rifle, which was only issued to the occasional sergeant. The Germans had tried to produce other, shorter weapons that provided specialist troops with automatic fire capability (FG42), but as they used full-powered rifle ammunition, those weapons were dangerous. The MP44/StG44, using 7.92 kurz ammunition filled the gap between the Mauser and the unnecessarily difficult to produce (compared to Soviet and British mass-produced models) German sub-machine guns.

And contrary to what you noted, it was the special forces who needed weapons that were small, light, and whose ammunition of which they could carry a lot, and who first received such weapons (StG44 and Stoner weapon system in Vietnam). That was because the special forces new how to maintain those smaller calibre weapons, with all their small parts, in environments that threatened to foul the rifle out of usefulness, as regular combat troops found once issued with the M16 (a situation which admittedly was made worse because the ammunition used had a far dirtier powder (left more residue in the barrel) than that used in the Stoner weapons, and the rifle wasn't provided with a cleaning kit. Purportedly, soldiers were told they needn't clean their rifles. Consequence? Many soldiers and marines were found dead in the process of correcting immediate action faults in their weapons.) Also in Vietnam, the spray and pray method of firing expended a welter of ammunition without hitting much of anything. Which is why most armies, including the American army, train their soldiers about the importance of fire discipline.

"But wait!" You cry. "What about Afghanistan?" Ah, yes, in the mountains of Afghanistan, where shots can reach the vey limits of modern cartridge's limits, many have been calling for a new, heavier round that can reach out across the distances. This has led to the (re-) development of the midpower cartridges, such as the 6.8x43 SPC, and the debate over a militarization of such as the 6.5mm Grendel. However, Afghanistan represents a fluke in modern warfare, a throwback. The fighting is sparse, in the vast open area between the cities, engaged with small units on either side, firing over mountain passes. In this circumstance, the high-powered cartridge would be nice, but reverting back would hardly be a boon.
Mountains occasionally allow long range fire, but they are also pocketed with caves. It's more the valleys and plateaux. But Afghanistan isn't a fluke in modern warfare. Look at the French in West Africa, the British in the Falklands, Oman, Iraq, and elsewhere, and the Americans in Iraq.

Remember, the complaints coming out of Afghanistan have not been mirrored in Iraq, where the combat has been much more in line with what the military has seen in recent decades (ie: post WWI). In the urban warfare which is expected to DOMINATE the coming era of combat, the light rounds fare far better, for engagement rarely gets above 300 meters, and the benefits of lighter, accurate, controllable rounds speak clearly.
Not quite. In Iraq there have been concerns about the inadequate stopping power of the 5.56mm round. And there are those flat areas I mentioned, like the desert. Urban warfare is simply one -- admittedly important -- area of modern warfare, but it won't be the exclusive battlefield in the future. As so many wars have taught the armies and navies of the world, don't plan to fight future wars according to past war doctrines. Even supposedly low-intensity conflicts.

There will always be a niche for the powerful battle cartridges, and there will always be some luddites who fall for the quaint little notion that bigger is always better, but the near future of warfare is not in flinging the largest chunk of metal imaginable, but in these light, maneuverable, rapid-firing weapons. As I said, I expect the SPC to gain some (worthy) acceptance in the SoF community, and more idol worship among the troops, but I cannot see any modern army regressing to a full on battle rifle combat system. It has been tried, tested, and disproven.
The 6.5mm Grendel is an intermediate round, providing a mid-point between the underpowered, under-ranged 5.56 x 45mm round and the over-powered 7.62 x 51mm round. The gain in weight of the round in comparison to the 5.56 round is minimal (they are also about the same length) while the increase in capability is great. Arguing for something that flings a vast quantity of underpowered metal at an enemy rather than a single or a pair of slightly larger bullet(s) is simply wasteful and expensive.

First off, logistics:

The G11 ammunition, once industry was converted, would not be that expensive, since significantly less material (ie Casing) would be needed, allowing for much more production than was seen in a first generation prototype. Remember, any first gen technology will be expensive at first, but drops as it becomes common.

It is also smaller and much lighter, allowing a soldier to carry vast amounts more than even 5.56 NATO. (And remember, boys, that more ammunition means more rooms cleared.) In keeping with this, the supply train could carry enourmous amounts of the octagon rounds without strain, allowing plenty of room.

The G41 was not an every-other soldier weapon, but a form of squad support. Normally, the support weapon shares ammunition with the assault weapon, but since the room is now available, it could be bumped "up" a notch to a normal brigade support level weapon. Therefore, the infantry would be able to level more firepower, and the squad machinegunner would take in some features of a marksman as well, a blend of Soviet and Western doctrines, removing a role by combining it with another, resulting in less logistical drain. (And yes, the roller-blowback G41 was capable of sufficient accuracy.) This would reduce the training, as well, as these are already specially trained roles. Thus, your logistical concerns are a moot point.

In momemtum equations, please remember that the parts vary inversely, that is, as one component grows, the other may be smaller to still achieve the result.

(Here's the math for you: If x=y: 2x * .5y = z, and .5x * 2y =z. Whoa.)

Therefore, the G11's higher velocity bullets (not to mention that there are MULTIPLE of them striking simultaneously) can do just as much damage as a slow moving, heavier bullet.


On Close Range Combat:

Most modern combat has been under the ranges mentioned, as demonstrated in Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, and the hundreds of African bush wars. This is the reason for the AK47's popularity. The 7.62x39mm Russian round is notoriously cheap, and terribly innacurate over 300m, but is excellent for use at point blank shooting. The success of the Kalashnikov design (cheap and cheerful) has been largely do to the effectiveness of this close in engagement ability.

The use of squad level marksmen (a Soviet tactic spread to the West) stems from this. While most combat happens right in your face, the possibility for long range combat does exist, as you so carefully put forth, so there is a better trained squadmate with a Dragunov or M24 standing ready to help out.

In WWII, there was a documented problem of soldiers not firing, waiting for a "perfect shot" that never came, relating directly to higher fatalities. (The counterpoint in Vietnam was the insane bullets-fired to kills ratio, mainly do to undertrained draftees with fully automatic weapons, which was rectified with the "burst" setting.) This led to the shift to the fire and advance tactics which have successfully served the US (and most other) militaries successfully since the mid-twentieth century.


On SoF:

SOCOM has long tested the various new technologies (such as the Stoner in Vietnam, or the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol [yes, that existed]), but my point stands. It is among the SoF community that the heavier weapons remain, from the M14 7.62 NATO rifle to the Mk23mod0 .45 pistol. This community is also the one which drove the developement of the modern midrange cartridges. The name of the 6.8 even spells this out, as its designation is "Special Purpose Cartridge".


On the M16:

The G11 is not the M16, which suffered many problems initially, many dealing with the powder you mentioned, as well as the un-lined barrel and "self cleaning" label. The M16, however, has since gone to prove itself one of the most versatile weapons in the world, with only its "weak" cartridge holding it back. However, we are not here to debate the M16, or the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. We are talking about the Gewehr 11 and its 4.7mm Caseless amunition, so lets keep the tangental arguments to a minimum.


Finally, On Ballistic Coefficients and Penetration:

And now, the part you've all been waiting for, wherein I disect the ballistic coefficient argument. Earlier reading, I granted you the benefit of the doubt, and let stand the mass argument for wind sheer do to low mass. However, I felt that the argument was lacking, for it did not count in aerodynamics, and so I did some researching. After all, surely the boys at H&K did their research?

After some fact checking, I realized that I was right, originally. The G11 has a superior BC (ballistic coefficient) than most other ammunition, resulting in higher impact velocities at effective ranges. Do to the highly efficient design of the bullet, the G11 retains energy at impact, as well as accuracy. Firing in a perpendicular crosswinds at 3.28 ft/s, the G11 demonstrated the following:

300m - 755 joules at impact, 0.058m of drift, 0.38s flight.
500m - 523 joules at impact, 0.182m of drift, 0.92s flight.

To break this into qualitative statments, the G11 was able to penetrate a steel helmet at 600m and to blow through 30 inches of pine, both reliably. It also maintained measures of accuracy on par with many markman rifles throughout the world, demonstrating exactly why H&K is known as one of the best gunmakers in the world.

In comparison, the G11 impact specific energies, while lower than the ~700 joules of the 7.62x51mm, are substantially higher than the 5.56 NATO, which hits at ~200. The G11 is also significantly more controllable, more accurate, and more logistically sound, with each soldier carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition. This makes it a far superior weapon to either of the others, and truly deserving of its "Advance Combat Rifle" designation. Gee, I guess small doesn't equal weak.


Upkeep:

Oh, I'd better adress this before it gets dragged out of the muck. The G11, since it lacked an extraction cycle (no casing), was actually a very simple gun, allowing easy maintenance. While the initial powders were fragile, by the time of the ACR competition in the USA, the caseless rounds were durable and dependable, able to fire reliably in horrid conditions and upkeep, even being sand blasted or submerged.


Summary:

All in all, the G11 was exactly what it promised to be, a weapon far beyond its time. However, the costs of initial implementation were far to great, when combined with the stress of reunification. Also, with the loss of the Soviet Union as an enemy, the need for a salvo-firing, pinpoint accurate, highly penetrating weapon fell away, and a cheaper, older system was acceptable. The politics of the "post war reward" (which also killed many other Cold War projects worldwide) made the G11 stillborn.

It will be interesting to see if the caseless design returns in the future, especially in the event of a Sino-American war.

EDIT: Just as a side note, I think the Grendel also has an insanely good BC.

As a follow on, you do realize that all three of us are pissing into the wind? I don't even know if Sarz is reading anymore. :)

Anywho, aside from the debate on the G11 (if you didn't read my last post, please do, especially the part where I break down the Ballistic Coefficients), the most important thing to remember is to pick a weapon that fits your nation's tactics.

Do you believe in "every man is a marksman"? Do your soldiers have a high degree of training, and do you mostly plan to engage in open, long range battles? If so, something like the FN FAL might be in your best interest.

Do you plan to engage in urban warfare? Do you believe in getting up close and personal? In these harsh conditions, you're going to want plenty of ammunition for short range pissing-contests, and maybe a Calico weapon would work.

Are you engaging in a jungle or desert? Are the conditions miserable? Perhaps you need something rugged, like the classic AK.

Are your soldiers conscripts, barely trained and hurled en masse? Maybe you should look to the value of a cheap and cheerful submachine gun, with a few snipers mixed in.

Do you field a small, uber-trained force to counter much larger threats? If this is the case, then maybe you could afford to follow on the G11 or the Steyr ACR, and use superior engineering to confront a larger foe.

Do you maintain a strong sniper corps, acting independantly, or are they just markmen in a unit? A Dragunov works great for a marksman, but a true sniper might want a true sniper weapon, like the M40.

Do you believe in special weapons, like the 15.7mm IWS 2000?

Do you plan on fielding shotguns for trench clearing? Flamethrowers? (Those are soooo illegal under Geneva, btw.)

Are the infantry important, or do they just "mop up" from your all-powerful armor/air/naval power?

These factors can completely change your military, as well as the type of weapon you need.

Oh, and remember, on lethality importance, it goes like this:
1.)Quality of training.
2.)Quality of ammunition.
3.)Quality of weapon.
4.)Type of weapon/ammunition.

Remember, you need to field what's appropriate for your military, and "quality" relates to that.

Peace Out,
K-stan the Tech Man

There was definitely a lot of information here; in fact, it could be considered information overload. :) Having said that, the range of opinions and the feedback regarding weapons for my military is quite expansive and very instructional once I finally swim my way through all the discussion.

As far as deciding on the basics for my army is concerned, I think what I'm going to end up doing is settle on the 7.62/51 rifle Doomingsland said earlier (based on the X-8 with bullpup) as my standard infantry weapon. I'd use a 5.56 mm cartridge for urban warfare when it comes time to clear a room. Sidearms would go to officers and special ops forces, soldiers would come equipped with body armour, night vision goggles, and right now, standard US Army camoflague.

Once I finish getting my army an education in the Inkanan Civil War, my new Army Chief will be instituting several reforms that he'll have been calling for since he was hired as a "consultant," but the combat experience will give Parliament a reason to act on his recommendations. I'll probably be casting about for combat exercises after the RP finishes.

Anyway, thanks for making this thread an educational experience! :)

ooc: Sarz, could you please come online?

*bump*

I'd love to help, I can swap a few ideas with you if you'd like over MSN; all I lack are your contact details, if you'd like to T/G post your MSN addy, I'll add you and we can be on our way!

I'll TG you my MSN and AIM names. I'm rarely on MSN (as Sanctaphrax will attest :p), but I get on AIM fairly often.