Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

In August 2010 the Individual Carbine Competition was formed to help provide Infantry with a newer, more modern weapon, and was cancelled March 19 2013, due to budget concerns, of which were about 1.8 billion dollars. [1][2] While this is silly for many reasons, the general basis will be discussed below.



On the aspect of cost

Since budget constraints, or money, seems to be the primary concern, I personally think it's an easily resolvable issue. The current U.S. firearm costs about 1500 dollars per unit, including a replacement barrel; I'm not entirely sure how many of these types of weapons have been bought by the U.S. military, but I know that only around 8 million firearms, of the type the U.S. military uses, have ever been created. Thus, the amount of firearms in the U.S. armory is probably less than this, as many other countries by the same weapon. Assuming the U.S. bought 10 million of these firearms, just for good measure, it would cost roughly 15 billion dollars, or 350 million dollars per year over the 43 years it's technically been in service (although it saw use as early as 1963).

For a rough comparison, the SR-25, a sniper rifle, roughly the same weight and size as the M16, but with a more accurate and powerful sniper round, capable of getting out to ranges of 1000 yards, compared to 600 yards, and with .5 MOA, double the accuracy of an M40 bolt action sniper rifle and 6 times the accuracy of the M16, and being semi-automatic with a 20 round magazine (compared to most 5 round manually operated sniper rifles), is generally a superior firearm in nearly every way to the M16 and in general, even modern U.S. sniper rifles. The weapon itself is of high quality, but expensive, at approximately 4000 dollars per unit. Assuming we had been using this weapon instead of the M16 for the last 43 years, at the same price, this would have been 40 billion dollars, or less than a billion dollars per year. To arm every person in the military, 3 million people, with 3.3 firearms, with the equivalent accuracy and firepower of a sniper rifle in an M16 sized package, with the versatility and rapid fire capabilities of the assault rifle, and roughly the same recoil due to the recoil buffer. To arm people, medics, general, officers, soldiers, with a personal defense weapon intended to protect them from enemy threats, usable by the entire military, would have cost less than a billion dollars per year, out of the 700 billion dollar budget.

Considering the impact the primary weapon for the military can have, especially for our deployed troops, the relative cost compared to the entire military and what it could provide for the entire military renders the aspect of cost largely irrelevant, imo. However!

Even if cost was a significant factor, in general, more durable and reliable firearms tend to last longer than less durable and reliable firearms. Logistically, most firearms are replaced when they have fired a certain amount of rounds; since most rounds are fired outside of combat, it is easy to assume that firearms are generally replaced when they wear out, which usually occurs through practice and training. Thus, the replacement of a firearm largely depends on how many rounds are fired through it, which is generally fairly consistent. The M16 is replaced about every 10,000 rounds, while it's barrel is replaced every 5,000 rounds, thus creating a 1,500 dollar package per every 10,000 rounds fired.

More reliable. and generally higher performance weapons, such as the XM8, FN SCAR, or HK416 (which performed in X way), are around 2000 dollars per rifle, but generally tend to last for 20,000 rounds, the barrels included. Thus, the weapons are more durable than the comparable M16. However, if compared in terms of cost, for every 20,000 rounds fired, two M16's would be required compared to the more reliable weapon's one; creating a situation in which the costs were similiar. However, due to the need for frequent barrel replacements, the M16's price would be 3000 dollars per two weapons, while the HK416, XM8, FN SCAR, etc. would be 2000 dollars. Thus, the weapons would, in the long run, be cheaper than the M16, and also more reliable, generally more accurate, and over-all higher performance firearms.

Thus, any issue relating to the cost of the standard U.S. firearm is largely moot. Any number of replacements would clearly be better, and even a 3000 dollar gun would not be prohibitively expensive, despite it's probably increased quality. A better firearm would not only be insignificant in terms of cost, but potentially cheaper, as well, due to it's increased durability and less of a need to be replaced.


Some potential Designs

There are a wide variety of potential designs available for the replacement of the M16. The XM8, HK416, FN SCAR, all seem like suitable candidates; something interesting would be to take these designs and make them bullpup. While the M16 has a long buffer tube in the back, thus preventing a bullpup from shortening the weapon by no more than a few inches, the piston driven systems tend to have the capacity for a folding stock, or to remove the stock all together. Thus, the weapon can be shortened by 8-10 inches without losing functional capabilities; making the design bullpup could remedy any ergonomic issues, thus allowing for a full length barrel in a carbine sized weapon. Going by the length of the FN SCAR with a folded stock alone, you could shorten the over-all length of the weapon by 10 inches by making the weapon bullpup instead, which would help out in close quarters by being relatively small and easy to fit through openings or doors.

Regardless of the case, short stroke gas pistons tend to be the ideal design. Similar in recoil to the direct impingement system, currently in use by the M16, they are significantly more reliable, and generally possess a simpler operation. Rather than gas being filtered down the gas tube, the piston rod cycles back and forward in the same space, the gas acting on the piston, and acting on the rod. The advantage of this system compared to the Direct impingement system is that while the direct impingement system empties gases directly on the receiver, which fouls and heats up the receiver, which needs a high and low pressure system, that inevitable heats up faster than an ordinary rifle, the short stroke system empties the gas near the barrel and the gas exits the weapon relatively quickly, thus eliminating potential problems with recoil, including the gas tube or receiver being clogged with materials, such as water or sand.

The best barrels