Quad bore rifle

[watcher1]

For Katiebee,


US Army is Investigating a Quad Bore Rifle


The army abandoned their search for an M16 replacement last year, but a man working out of his garage in Colorado Springs snapped them out of that hiatus. Martin Grier's "ribbon gun" features 4 6mm bores carved out of a single steel barrel, and special ammunition blocks fired by electromagnetic actuators. Despite all that, whole thing only weighs 6.5 pounds and represents a $500,000 investment. Grier claims the prototype can fire 250 rounds a second, or fire all 4 barrels at once as a "power shot". The rifle will still work even if one of the barrels fail. The Army expressed interest in the design, and asked for a prototype to test for themselves.

"A multibore firearm, with several bores within a single barrel, could potentially exhibit many of the advantages of a multibarrel design, while reducing the size, weight and complexity disadvantages," Grier wrote in his 2016 patent application. "All the best stuff comes out of somebody's garage," he said.

[psiberzerker]

I've been looking into the design too, since it came up.  The EFCS (Electronic Fire Control System) has some promise, as it would offer some of the controlability that similar systems offer Internal Combustion Engines.  However, there's really no battlefield application for an infantry (It's ergonomically based on the Stoner Carbine platform) micromachinegun with 4 barrels.  What's the recoil supposed to be like on a carbine with Minigun RoF, and weighing a little more than a carbine designed for vehicle crews?  Spray and Pray?  Spray and Pray isn't really useful in urban combat, where there's civilians, IEDs, chemical weapons, and media coverage of every embarrassing tragedy.  The last thing the American military needs is a hail of high penetration projectiles going through a wall, and a bunch of hostages on the other side or hitting a critical objective like a Saren lab.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=aMLXXMVeQak

Accuracy is a lot more important, to kill the people you should, avoiding the people, and objects you shouldn't while saving money on ammo/logistics.  This looks like a Gamer Gun, and we already have a carbine designed by a Stoner.

Also, look at that block of 30 rounds on the side, hanging out like a brickbat.  The advantage of electrically fired small caliber caseless ammo is you can carry more of it, and here you've got 30 rounds in the same space as 3x20 round magazines, taped to the side of the rifle.  Then what?  Pick up those blocks, and bring them back for reloading, or just leave them littered all over the field?  I notice in the video, they pretty much just showed the right side of the rifle, and a close-up flash of the big box on the other side being loaded.

How many of those blocks of ammo is the soldier of the future supposed to carry with this lightweight "efficient" design that can fire 4/5 shots at once, and empty itself in a fraction of a second?

[Katiebee]

The US Army modified the M16 from full auto selectability to 3 round burst because they found that soldiers would simply use full auto all the time and run out of ammo. Same problem here. High consumption of ammo. There isn’t a viable reason to go to a design like this.

[psiberzerker]

The US Army modified the M16 from full auto selectability to 3 round burst because they found that soldiers would simply use full auto all the time and run out of ammo. Same problem here. High consumption of ammo. There isn’t a viable reason to go to a design like this.

Sort of.  It was originally H&K with Rheinmetall, and while some burst-fire designs resulted from it (Notably the Navy Trigger Group for the MP-5/G-3) none of them were adopted by the US military without also including Full-Auto fire.  It was also thought that multiple rounds (Including some experimental Duplex loadings) would increase the chance of a hit.  Unfortunately, that also almost guarantees a lot of misses, higher ammo consumption, more reloads, and cost to supply ammo.  It was decided that it's a lot cheaper to just teach Trigger Discipline, along with blanket creases you can bounce a silver dollar off of.

I like the idea of the rifle still being able to fire with 1 barrel down, but that doesn't explain why you need 4, or 5 of them.  A 2 barrel configuration, with automatic double-taps would give you that.  Also, electrically fired caseless ammunition (Truly caseless, not "Caseless" in 4-5 round blocks) was designed a long time ago, for the G-11.  (Also, the son of John Browning tried the "Harmonica Rifle") It still didn't make it past military testing.  In other news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFazmslebG8

This is what happens when you cut Education, and shovel money into DARPA.  They waste a lot of money on bullshit, because they can.  Want more examples?  Because we've been doing this for decades, so there's thousands of them

[watcher1]

The US Army modified the M16 from full auto selectability to 3 round burst because they found that soldiers would simply use full auto all the time and run out of ammo. Same problem here. High consumption of ammo. There isn’t a viable reason to go to a design like this.

I am curious how the M-16 was configured for three round bursts. Most times, short bursts or even single shot were preferable to full automatic, not only from the standpoint of using up precious ammunition but it was also a self-preservation issue. Fully automatic gave your position away much quicker.

[psiberzerker]

I am curious how the M-16 was configured for three round bursts.

Progressive sear cam with 3 lands on it.  Basically a partial gear in the trigger group (Most of them are Lower Receiver trigger group modifications)

The main problem for accuracy in conventional burst fire shoulder arms is Bolt Mass Recoil.  The bullet/muzzle blast recoil can be compensated for somewhat, but then the bolt cycles, travels back, and before you're read to fire, slams forward to reload the chamber.  That gives you a fraction of a second to put it back on target, and efforts to balance this perfectly with the muzzle kick came to the conclusion that people aren't robots.  So, they compensate for recoil differently, and 1 setup (Muzzle break, countermass...) is going to be different points of impact for different shooters.

Unless you train them to handle the recoil accurately.  That proved to take longer, and cost more than teaching Trigger Discipline, when to "Rock and Roll."  For professional military trained infantry, whose roles include carrying, and shooting select fire weapons.  The natural inclination is to panic, spray and pray, but it's also to freeze up, or cower behind cover until the shooting stops. 

[watcher1]

Dang.  You Texans know your weapons. Now I know the true meaning of Don't Mess With Texas.   

[psiberzerker]

Now you know why everyone calls each other "Sir," and "Maam."  Come to Waco, but mind your manners.

Correction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utf9Wu--W8

Rheinmetall, H&K invested the most into a burst fire rifle for the military (NATO at the time) but they weren't the first.

[psiberzerker]

This just in:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSEMz3iaSxo

Not even the same concept, but a long ranged Double-tap, and apparently available in Anti-material calibers?  I can definitely see a Military application for this, in .338 Lapua Magnum (If it will reliably cycle a Belted Magnum, it will handle .338 Lapua, which is based on the .416 Rigby.  Basically the non-belted .416" magnum)  With a Bipod, polymer stock, and more Optical options.  Flash hider/muzzle Break...  

The damned thing is designed by a guy that got charged by 3 Elephants, at once, and survived.  That's the Doc Martin's Award for badassery in design.  (The original broke his foot hiking in the alps.  So he designed a boot for mountain climbing, with a broken foot.)