I move we have it in all the calibers and that the gun come with a cute little baggie of quick change barrels and receivers .

All barrels and all action configurations BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I feel this should be our design philosophy:

I feel we can do a lot better of a design philosophy than Ork. We should be shooting for at minimum Imperial Guardsmen or Spess Mehreens philosophy or late-war/post-war UNSC Marine Corps/Army. Probably the latter.

Name the AK!

Looks like a pretty damn modern variant, possibly a 100 series.

I spy with my little eye an AK-74 muzzle brake and a slightly not curvalicious magazine which tells me it's not in 7.62.

But the stock doesn't look normal.

My guess is that it's an AKS-74◊ with some cloth wrapped around the skeleton stock.

Can't tell if the rest of the furniture is synthetic or the wood has just aged though. Light might just be fucking with me.

edited 24th Jul '14 4:47:57 PM by LeGarcon

That's the thing. The 74-style muzzle brake appears to be one of the improved ones which points to either a newer version of 74 or a 100 series. It's not a 74M I know that but it ain't a classic 74 either.

Hmm, maybe but the lack of rails is making me unsure.

This is from Ukraine right? Did they ever have access to the AK-100 series?

I dunno, I'm still leaning towards an AKS-74

A little bit of digging around shows it could indeed be an AK-100 series. There were some hollow stocks and wood furniture parts made to fit the AK-100 series. If it is a civilian/militia armed it could be a modified version of either of those platforms though.

edited 24th Jul '14 7:24:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It could be an AK-100 series, but it's definitely a 5.45mm version. The magazine is too bendy to be a 5.56 variant.

The thing that interests me most in that piccy though is the tank. Is that a very dead T-72 in the background with a very dead crewman lying on the ground in the foreground?

- oh, let's play the make the perfect assault rifle game.

Bullpup. With extension at the back end so that the weapon can be fired from either shoulder without use of tools. This can and has been done before, especially with the bullpup version of the FN-FAL that some Australian kid designed and built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAL1_General_Purpose_Infantry_Rifle

In this page:

http://scn.youngeasy.com/list/bullpup/1.html

halfway down the page there's a picture of an Aussie soldier firing one of the prototypes from his left shoulder. Note how far forward the ejection opening is.

The calibre? 6.5mm Grendel, so that standard STANAG, PMAG or any other gucci 5.56mm NATO compatible magazines can be used, yet still outperform most 5.56mm ammunition at most ranges.

It should be modular, with easy change barrels for different purposes, like what Steyr did with the AUG, it should use high strength polymers and decent steel for the barrel and receiver.

edited 25th Jul '14 6:05:36 AM by TamH70

First off it will come modular assembly so it can change barrel lengths, calibers and accessories and such on the fly with little to no tools. Secondly it will come in three standard configurations we will call "Assault Rifle", "Service Rifle" and "Battle Rifle". All configurations can be either bullpup or traditional setup. Caliber will be 5.56x45mm M855A1 for the Assault and Service rifle variants and 7.62 NATO for the Battle Rifle. (Telescoped/reduced casing ammo is a possibility as well.)

Basic design features an M-16 style sightline stock in either fixed or adjustable standards possibly side folding at the same time. It will run on gas operation with a long stroke piston and balanced action like the AEK-971/AK-107. The barrel will be a heavy free-floating one with a massive AK-100 series style muzzle brake that can be swapped out for a sound suppressor. Bolt system is mixed-mode (closed bolt semi, open bolt auto) like the M-27. Fire selector is M-16 style with positions for Safe, Semi, Auto and/or Burst depending on configuration. Magazine well is lever released like AK's, FAL's and M-14s. Iron sights are flip up ring and barley corn front post like the F-2000 and a couple other designs adjustable for upwards of 1000 meters. (Area target.) The weapon will be adorned with multiple MIL-STD 1913 rails for use with optics, accessories and underbarrel grips or alternate weapons (underslung shotguns/grenade launchers). Can utilize standard NATO 20 and 30 round mags but is also built to handle 60 round casket mags and 100 round Beta C-Mag style drums.

The Assault Rifle configuration utilizes an intermediate barrel length of 16 inches and will always by default come with an adjustable stock. Standard issue configuration for all combat personnel not requesting or being issued an alternate. Fire selector comes in Safe, Semi, Burst and Auto.

The Service Rifle variant is restricted to Semi and Burst fire modes and uses a full size 20 inch barrel. Intended for second line troops or for soldiers qualified with and seeking a more accurate weapon than the standard Assault Rifle configuration.

The Battle Rifle variant is intended for DMR usage and heavier firepower users utilizing a minimum 20 inch barrel for maximum range and accuracy. (Or for long range battle in places like Afghanistan.) Can be issued with long range scopes and bipods. Fire selector Safe, Semi, Auto. Typically issued to Marksman or Expert qualified shooters.

edited 25th Jul '14 9:33:42 PM by MajorTom

Someone's going to cut that down to 11.5-inch or so. It might not be good for the ballistics at long range, but it'll happen regardless for the close-quarters guys.

The main thing I notice is that it'd have a lot more similarities than differences to modern-day rifles, thereby more or less confirming the position that we've done about as much as we can with current tech levels and ammunition design. It might be something of a challenge to build a reliable balanced-recoil system that'll work for both 5.56 and 7.62, but that can be fixed by making it possible to swap that out when you're changing calibers. I also see we're not switching over to 6.5 or 6.8, which is frankly a position I have to agree with. In a vacuum it might have advantages over the other two, but logistically introducing a whole new service cartridge alliance-wide is going to create no end of headaches. (The late-mover advantage strikes.)

Really, the challenge is going to be reducing the price on the thing so that it'd be competitive with extant service rifles, since the improvements are incremental, not revolutionary, and no army is going to agree to pay 100% more for a 30% increase in capabilities. (Economies of scale means that, at least at first, existing rifles are going to be much, much cheaper, making our job a lot harder.)

Just employ child labor to deal with cost issues.

Switching cartridges is no big deal. The US has had little trouble introducing a new cartridge. It really isn't that big of a headache. The biggest headache is getting the production runs up to the point where supply is at a minimum level. Swaps like that are ideally done in between conflicts with the prep for the change over happening before things draw down and the swap happening after ammo use drops off.

I personally like the 6.8mm cartridge. It's like the .40 cal S&W of rifle cartridges.

You are pretty spot on about the assessment about what we can honestly do that is new with weapons tech. Lightweight and effective recoil mitigation, caseless and semi-caseless, and guided bullets are the next big set of changes that are coming down the pipe into the realm of possibly becoming more common features. Computerized gun sights that help the shooter aim is another. But overall not much we can really do with gun design until we advance our sciences more broadly.

One area that is being looked at is new propellant and ignition systems with Electrothermal-chemical technology. But it hasn't reached useful maturity as tech yet.

They're idiots if they cut that down. (Especially since combat experience in the Middle East over the past 13 years kinda sorta destroyed the thought of all combat being less than 200 yards.) Triply so since the design can be either traditional build or bullpup. A bullpup build make them look awfully stupid since they could have a 16 inch or longer barrel on a platform that would with traditional setup have a 10 for the same size.

If you still think that's too big for CQB then you might as well start issuing P90s and other submachineguns because you'll be gutting damn near all the capabilities of what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle. And if you think CQB is all there is or that all warfare is Urban Warfare requiring the shortest ranges and lightest/smallest weapons you're gonna get shot to pieces by the first enemy symmetrical or not who doesn't comply with your doctrine.

Average combat out to about 300 yards not 200yds. It still holds true across the board and was still the average ranges of many of the engagements. The chief reason being the Ak is the most common weapon used by the enemy in that theatre and it is designed to fight at that kind of range. The number of sharp shooters and snipers was small. Those are easily countered with heavy weapons, DMR weapons, and sniper weapons of our own.

Then there are the many intense combat actions in built up areas which are dominated by a CQC environment with some medium and long range shooting. The two Battles of Fallujah ring a bell? Never mind all the city, town, and village fighting troops had to go through on a regular basis. A lot of house to house fighting with DMR troops and snipers giving support. There are accounts of fire fights happening across the streets with buildings being used as hard points exchanging fire between the buildings with their armed occupants. Even the M4 works effectively at that range. Its almost close enough a damn hand gun could be used.

The M4 carbine exists because CQC happens and the full length M16 is still a bit too long to work well in CQC. Before the end of WWII even the Germans had learned that lesson and had started using large numbers of automatic weapons like the MP 40 and STG 44 backed up by a couple of rifles for long range shooting. Same for the Russians. Large numbers of troops with intermediate to close range weapons backed up by a few rifleman. The weight of the fire power by the automatic weapon troops fixed the enemy while elements maneuvered with the riflemen picking off enemy strong points like MG's, sharp shooters, NCO's, and officers and then picking over tough pockets of enemy resistance.

None of that has changed and is in fact older then the modern era. The one thing you consistently find is an attempt to make guns more compact and easier to handle not just for CQC but high mobility troops like Dragoons, sailors, and marines. Modern cavalry have to climb in and out of cramped vehicles. Even helo cavalry needs a weapon that is reasonably compact. Paratroops still need them as well. They all utilize compacted weapons because of easy of handling in their situations and they are handy in CQC.

The hard fact is, even with a bullpup design there are going to be troops who'll want a shorter gun for house-to-house fighting, and troops who'll want a longer gun to hit targets at 300m. There's really nothing for it but to develop different barrel lengths and accept that the trooper who's fighting at point-blank range will have different design requirements than the trooper who's fighting at a longer range, and that the army will have both. I mean, the Steyr AUG was a relatively compact weapon as rifles go, but it didn't stop the special-forces guys from chopping it down further into the AUG Para. And that's not counting the nearly submachine-esque Close Quarters Receiver for the M4.

(Speaking of which: anyone knows if somebody's applied the ultra-modularity of the AR series to a good bullpup platform?)

I saw some homemade abomination somewheres. Had an over the shoulder thing like the M 82 A 2

I think the Polish MSBS-556B, like the one in COD: Ghosts, should be good enough. Decent layout, good modularity (both standard and bullpup versions use the same upper receiver, which is ambidextrous, and the same barrels). Oh, and it's piston-driven.

edited 26th Jul '14 12:47:12 PM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

The Radon thing?

I thought they were just ACR and Tavor knockoffs

You have pretty much nailed it on the head for the fact about different tools for different missions.

As for your question. TheFireamblog.com had an article on a 3d printed bullpup lower I think. I see no reason why someone hasn't tried it yet.

edited 26th Jul '14 12:50:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV

You thought wrong. We just jumped the bandwagon when it came to aesthetics, but came up with some pretty cool tech solutions ourselves. For example, neither Tavor nor ACR can be converted for left-side ejection by as much as putting the bolt in upside down and moving the ejector cover from left to right.

Hey, that does sound like a clever engineering fix.

edited 26th Jul '14 8:40:48 PM by TairaMai

A better engineering fix to the Bullpup Frage was that shown in that bullpup FAL pictured in the link I sent above. The KAL-1 GP didn't need further work on the end user's watch to make it go boom equally well from both shoulders - it could do that from the start.

Here's the page about the rifle from the guy who invented it. I couldn't find it earlier or else I would have posted that link instead.

http://www.nvtech.com.au/ProjPast/GP_Inf_Rifle/GPIR.html