The Gun Thread

You wouldn’t want the bores exactly parallel. All of them firing at once is not the main mode the weapon would be used in, you’d want all the barrels to be pointed slightly inward so that they could all have a single zero for when you used it in semi-auto mode. Unfortunately, like mentioned, this makes the weapon somewhat useless for sharpshooting, since the zero couldn’t be adjusted. Whatever range the barrels naturally zeroed at would be it. That’s a huge issue for a combat rifle.

As far as hitting one target with multiple rounds, again, someone can only be so dead. You’re getting diminishing returns, and the design of the ammo blocks means you really can’t afford that.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 5th 2020 at 5:19:55 AM

There's no need to shoot someone 5 times center mass at the same time, especially not if you need so much more mechanical complexity.

There's a reason burst fire modes have fallen by the wayside, interesting Russian experiments in "hyperburst" modes aside.

And yet full auto is still a thing, generally used by firing controlled bursts. They do this both to increase the probability of a hit, and to increase the probability that enough damage to neutralize the target. Being hit by a single bullet does not guarantee the target will cease resistance, a hit with multiple bullets increases the odds.

I think the are designing this thing to come as close to parallel paths as possible, not zeroed in to a specific distance. Going by the pictures, it appears that the bor es are separated by a cm or so. I believe the intent is that the entry sounds will be as well.

Semi-auto is the primary mode military rifles are used in. They’re on that setting the majority of the time, and rifle doctrine is built around that. Even with automatic fire a conventional rifle is going to serve you better, given the limitations of the multibarrel ammo blocks.

Having the bores fully parallel is going to be even more hassle than having them zeroed to a specific point, I can’t imagine that it would be set up like that. That would make aimed semi-auto fire incredibly difficult.

Yep, full-auto on rifles is exclusively for clearing rooms and suppressive fire. Semiautomatic fire is still the norm, especially in 99% of all Afghanistan firefights.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on May 5th 2020 at 6:42:14 AM

Yeah, it looks like an interesting range toy, but if I wanted to haul something heavy and marginally useless around the battlefield, I'd just kidnap a congressman.

Some are dense enough to act as decent shields, though. See, utility!

Why would parallel bullet paths make semi auto fire difficult? They already use it for that successfully. And its lighter than an M4.

Up close it wouldn't even be noticeable.

At 500 meters out however,

It would definitely be noticeable even up close, given the barrels seem to have a few cm between each of them. Depending on where exactly the optic was zeroed you’d notice a massive POI shift on rounds fired from different barrels. At even standard combat ranges you’d have a very hard time aiming. Also, note that it hasn’t “successfully” been used for anything other than a handful of range demos.

The bottom line is it’s simply not a practical design.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 6th 2020 at 11:02:42 AM

What does "massive" mean in this context, and why would point of impact change that much?

I’d imagine the POI shift could be inches or more at combat ranges, which alone renders the weapon utterly impractical. If you only get one aimed shot in semi auto and then the rest fly wide that’s not good. That’s if the weapon didn’t have a natural zero for all the barrels, but it’s already been discussed why a natural zero has its own problems. And that’s without even mentioning the numerous other issues that have been brought up.

As an avenue of research it’s interesting, but a practical firearm this is not.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 6th 2020 at 2:24:33 AM

Curiously, it looks like a gauss rifle.

I second the idea it is fine as a range toy but as a practical weapons platform it really doesn't stack up to tech we already have in place.

It's not supposed to be practical weapons platorm. It's a test bed for new rifle techologies.

1 MOA is 4 inches at 400 meters. That's considered acceptable for military use. So as long as the four bullets do not stray more than 2 inches from the point of aim, it's all good, right?

Let's see, weight—dealt with.

Ammunition—one of the videos show how this was done. There is a large squarish opening on one side of the weapon, and something that looks like a box magazine sticking out the other side (except it isnt-it's more like a storage container; I know there is a term for this but I cant remember what it is). The bullets come in four or five round "charge boxes" that are shaped like flat squares. You push them in the squarish opening, they go through the weapon and they are stored in the container on the other side. As the weapon is fired, the charge boxes are fed into the chamber from the large side container, the bullets are fired, and the charge block is expended out the squarish opening. To reload at any time, one simply pushes another charge block into the weapon (provided there is room in the storage container). It sounds pretty simple, and the ammo weighs no more than the equivalent number of cartridges would.

What new technology is it supposed to be a test bed for, though? The multibarrel concept is dead on arrival, and that loading mechanism is a huge step backwards.

I also don’t believe for a second the claims that those blocks are weight equivalent to conventional ammo, or that anywhere near the same rate of fire can be kept up.

The only interesting things here are the electronic trigger and the process used for manufacturing the barrels.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 6th 2020 at 4:51:58 AM

We have a trope for these types of weapon concepts. As a history student, I'll wait for hindsight so I can react accordingly if this does end up becoming viable and renders this little thread moot, but for the most part I rest my case.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on May 6th 2020 at 4:48:28 AM

There is very little credibility in pretty much any of the claims. Even the basic layout of the rifle is cringeworthy.

The need to play legos with your ammo blocks and the need for catcher coming out the other side should already highlight a big issue in both increasing carried weight and carried physical bulk. We leave spent brass on the ground in combat because it is cheaper and frankly less cumbersome than using a brass catcher bag unless you're going to use the spent brass for reloads.

You're not going to ever approach 1 MOA with that weapon. The multiple barrels and limits on what you can do with zeroing pretty much guarantee that. That would also be the MOA per barrel and further dispersion for any spacing between barrels meaning your overall spread is appreciably greater than the MOA of a single barrel for a full spread for all barrels. At this point, you may as well just start using a shotgun.

There is next to no reason at all to have the extra barrels in this particular arrangement or to have more than one barrel at all. It introduces numerous and unneeded and frankly unwanted complications. One barrel gets even a little out of whack or out of tune with the whole weapon and it will throw off all the other barrels. Working with any multi-barreled weapon is a colossal pain in the ass.

The way the blocks load is clumsy in the extreme. We abandoned side-feed magazines quite a while back because they were ultimately clumsy and got in the way of most normal use. Having too much around with stacking blocks and messing with a catcher is an unneeded and unwelcome complication.

The ammo weight claims are unbelievable to an extreme and fail even a casual examination and application of simple knowledge of metal density per square inch. I am sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is a solid metal block arrangement going to be lighter than what we have now for the same number of rounds. Not only is the brass casing scheme reasonably light the magazines that hold them are pretty light even using aluminium alloy mags. Polymer mags are even lighter. A solid mass like the one used in the blocks is added density and those ammo blocks are large chunks of solid metal except for a very small central cavity. That means greater density per shot not less. Which means more weight per shot not less. If you want to see less weight, again, we have far better and less clumsy and heavy options we can turn to with new Poly Casings and CTA offerings.

This weapon is not showcasing any new or innovative technologies, in fact, it is recycling several technologies that have been present on other older weapon systems. Multi-barrels are not new and the last weapons to seriously use them outside of shotguns were black powder weapons. Removable breach systems have been around since the medieval era and disappeared when more traditional breaches and better metallurgy allowed practical muzzleloader designs come to the fore. Electric ignition of ammo is old old tech and is really the only option that has any future promise. Ammo blocks have been tried before and failed.

This gun is a walking can of gimmicks with no practicality in its design. Also, tech demonstrators are supposed to demo some form of practicality not just random bits of tech slapped together into a questionable whole. By that measure, this device is destined for failure.

At best this is a gimmicky range toy. At worst is someone trying to make a buck suckering the military complex into buying a questionable contract.

Well, if you don't believe him, then you don't believe, but I know of no reason to dismiss his claims out of hand. Remember, he has a working prototype and the Army has tested it, if his claims were nonsense he wouldn't have gotten their endorsement. So for anything that can easily be checked, he's probably right. He says the gun is light because no chamber or action is included, the four bores are parallel to each other and therefore there is no significant bullet dispersal (and why should there be?), the charge blocks do not weigh any more than four or five cartridges would anyway, the barrel is thin because the charge boxes take most of the heat away. The four bores are not zeroed on the same point of impact, the wounds are intended to be separated by a few centimeters, which is still a heck of a lot of damage. The reloading process does not seem inherently any more clumsy than inserting a magazine.

That said, this weapon will never be adopted and put into service. That's not the point.

Being tested by the Army proves nothing other than some curiosity at what is in the weapon. The Army tests and examines a large number of weapon and equipment ideas every year with the vast majority being rejected either outright or shortly after an initial test and examination. Also, the possession of the working prototype doesn't back up his claims or lend what he claims any real credibility either. All it means is that he has it and it can shoot, a very low bar to clear.

Last I checked he didn't get any endorsements, deals, or credibility other than the army briefly testing the weapon before walking away without much of a look back. More telling is the general lack of interest in any aspect of the design after a very limited initial test. There is no record of continued testing, development, or even initial development deals or offers to buy the design despite the creator bragging about his weapon. The only showing in the time frame supposed military-specific test prototypes was a showing at the shot show in 2019 which alone has shown a number of weird and functional but not necessarily practical weapons over the years. They had a small booth and very little coverage from the 2019 shot show. That alone speaks volumes as does the overtly janky, yet another defense contractor, website. No production models for civilian or military use, no news or press past 2018 beyond self-promotion, and no other examples making a showing.

There are lots of reasons to dismiss his claims because he provides highly questionable claims with almost nothing in the way of proof. The only source of info is from the creator an already dubious source, who makes big claims with no actual proof or demonstration of said claims. Literally nearly every aspect of his weapon is questionable using even the most basic understanding of firearms and ballistics nevermind to anyone who actually has a more detailed knowledge of how weapon internals and ballistics actually work.

His claims about heat are seriously questionable as a big chunk of the heat is from hot propellant gasses and rounds traveling down the barrel ejecting anything only removes a relatively small portion of the heat. Traditional action designs at least offer some direct ventilation as the bolt cycles and push a small portion of air into the barrel space. Unless he is venting the hot propellant gasses before it travels down the barrel and eliminating a significant amount of friction from the bullet engaging the rifling he is still dealing with a large amount of heat from firing. And unless the block is ejected almost immediately after firing, remember it fires four before it ejects so unlikely in normal function, some of that heat bleeds back into the weapon. Last I checked he makes no such claims of venting just the questionable claim of ejecting heat. If he is using thin and lightweight material for the barrel block it will reach heat capacity rather quickly.

He has created an ammo system that has more mass per cartridge than a traditional cartridge. He shows off an individual cell with a cutaway and you can easily see how much more material is in the equivalent of a single cartridge. Again an individual traditional cartridge design made of similar material would have less overall mass. That is in part because he incorporated the chamber into the ammo system instead of the weapon itself. he has to use thicker layers to contain the pressure of firing. Your not getting a lighter ammo block for cartridges made of the same material for the same number of shots.

The weight of most parts of the actions he claims he doesn't have are minimal parts of the weight of a weapon. He adds that weight back quite visibly. You have to ask how much weight is in the magazine system, the extraction and ejection system, the ammo feed system, the electrical and power supply system. He may have shaved weight down in the barrels but that presents its own unique problem.

Again for the barrels. Each barrel will need its own unique zero relative to the sight and the sight would have to be zeroed for each individual barrel. All of them share one sight meaning each shot will have varying amounts of dispersal from point of aim for each barrel unless you change the zero after every shot for each barrel. Each barrel will have its own shot dispersal pattern as they are not the same barrel or even in the same position as the other barrels. You're not escaping or negating this with any form of arrangement or alignment. The spacing between barrels adds to the over dispersal pattern between each barrel increasing with the amount of space between barrels. The top barrel and the bottom barrel will have wildly different spreads relative to each other from the same point of aim. The whole pattern will not have the dispersal of a single barrel and each barrel will not have the same pattern as another barrel. At short ranges the shot disperal isn't that big of a deal but once you start talking a few hundred meters and more out you will notice a difference fairly quickly. You're not escaping this cold hard fact.

As an armorer when you work on multi-barrel systems like Mini-guns for example, you have to zero each barrel to the weapons site. But for weapons like mini guns have each barrel firing from the same position this is far less of an issue but you still have to make sure the barrel in its mounting is bore sighted and zeroed for each barrel.

To top it off the barrels are bored through a single solid piece of stock. I seriously question the weight savings of that approach given the cold hard fact there is simply more physical material present than with a single barrel cut from the same material. If the material is low density like aluminum alloy instead of gun steel there are several problems there as well.

There are exactly two ways to address the barrel alignment issue. One is to have all the barrels aligned in such a way they are zeroed at a fixed point. This is what is done with systems that use multiple gun barrels with one sight such multiple machine gun mounts on fighter craft. The upside is they will fire into the same general space with reasonable accuracy. The downside is this has fixed effective distance and past that dispersal widens significantly. His weapon doesn't do that. The next is to have each barrel individually articulated by a mechanism that adjusts the fine point of aim to account for differences in individual barrel orientation. This sort of system is present in platforms that have system error bias correction systems and multiple gun systems on the same mounting. Last I checked nothing short of cannon caliber weapons possess such systems and he makes no such claims. Which puts us right back at the same ballistic problems already laid out for you.

The reloading and handling process is easily more clumsy partly because you have to muck around with overtly bulky ammo stacks and side feed, a method repeatedly proven to be more clumsy than the bottom or top feed magazine systems and consistently got in the way of normal operation. The magazine shown is huge and way larger than any equivalent of a traditional magazine. I am sorry but no matter how you slice it that is just more difficult to handle. The side-mounted magazine box loads like an old stripper clip magazine on loading without the advantage of a stripper clip holding everything together and in alignment. The standard traditional bottom load magazine is far more easily handled.

The multishot impact produces nothing magical or unique to shooting someone several times to begin with or just shooting them with a shotgun. Literally no advantage there and adding overall greater shot dispersal to a grouping is a negative not a positive. It increases the odds of missing a given target area. Tighter shot groups are preferred not looser. Part of that is because during combat the actual hit in shot groups tends to spread further out. If you want shotgun like effects use a shotgun.

It's great you think it is a neat weapon but that by no measure lends it credibility. Neither does re-iterating already questionable claims.

Frankly, I am more interested in their fabrication process especially the barrel cutting and if they did anything new with an electromechanical system to trip the mechanical hammer. If it is as effective as they claim that alone could be worth its own unique consideration.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 6th 2020 at 11:07:28 AM

“Tested by the Army” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. DoD buys and tests all kinds of stuff, all that means is that it caught someone’s attention. All the claims as to the characteristics of the weapon come from the inventor, not the military, and given their outlandish nature and the fact that DoD dropped this thing like a hot potato I’m not inclined to believe them.

The four barrels being perfectly parallel is honestly far worse than the already not-great alternative of having them zeroed on a specific point. That alone renders it essentially useless, and repeating “the loading process is fine” doesn’t make it true. Volume of fire, reloads under pressure, it’s a massive step back in every department.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 6th 2020 at 10:35:45 AM

"Tested by the Army" doesn't even mean the Army liked it. The guy who passed out drunk in the middle of a PT test was "tested by the Army" but you still probably wouldn't want to take him into combat.

I stand by my first impression, it looks like a heavy kludgy series of solutions that haven't found their problems yet. The magazine alone, which you have to pack full of chunky 4-round clips, sounds annoying as hell. You carry that thing, I'll make do with the M4 and some 30-round magazines.

Edited by AFP on May 8th 2020 at 5:45:20 AM

They would catch any obvious lies, like the weight.

Where is the statement from the Army on this topic? The only claims that seem to be available are the ones from the inventor.

The results of the Army’s testing have not been made publicly available, and given how quickly they lost interest I can’t imagine they’re good.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 8th 2020 at 11:57:19 AM

Again, the only source of claims is from the creator. The US Army did nothing to acquire the weapon or its technology and walked away after only one round of testing. There is no comment or official record from the Army on the device even on DTIC. Since then there have been no further appearances beyond one small showing at Shot Show last year. One that even the creator leaves almost no info from the shot show. There is plenty on it the year before but almost nothing after. Not even a timeline for the supposed civilian variant.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on May 8th 2020 at 5:10:56 AM