Army wants ‘hyper-burst’? Good luck with that.

izhmash_nikonov_an_94_gp_34-tm-tfb

Kit Up reports that the US Army would like hyper-burst capability (firing multiple rounds at incredibly high rate of fire) for the next generation carbine. It is not an official requirement yet for the potential M4 replacement, but could be in the future. Matt Cox reports

Small arms companies are already balking at the “hyper burst” requirement the Army wants as a feature on potential replacements for the M4 carbine. It’s not specifically identified in the draft solicitation the service released in late January, but Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons told me the Army wants a weapon with hyper burst.

Apparently, putting two bullets through the same hole could potentially penetrate some types of foreign body armor more effectively and incapacitate a foe more quickly.

Only one assault rifle, the Russian Izhmash AN-94, features hyper-burst. It can fire a two round burst at 1,800 rounds per minute. For comparison, the Mac-10 machine pistol and FN Minimi LMG both have a maximum rpm of around 1,100 rpm.

Izhmash Nikonov AN-94

The AN-94 was designed from the ground up to achieve this hyper burst capability. You cannot retrofit an existing carbine, such as the Remington ACR or FN SCAR, with a rate of fire of 600-700 rpm, to achieve the same insane cycle speed as the AN-94. The AN-94′s entire barreled action recoils freely inside its plastic shell and uses a steel cable and pulley system to operate a two-stage feeding system1 in order to cycle as fast as possible.

If Col. Tamilio wants hyper-burst, he is going to have to field a gun at least as complex (and potentially failure prone) as the AN-94.

On the other hand, this could represent a fantastic licensing opportunity for Izhmash. Maybe one day we will see Army Rangers charging into battle with Russian-designed American-made carbines. Maybe.

[ Many thanks to Lance for emailing me the link. ]


  1. Read more about the AN-94′s internals at guns.ru 


Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Viper5552

    ROFL that would be the day. American soldiers going to war with a Russian rifle as standard issue.

  • Matt Groom

    Yeah, but has it actually been used in combat? Did they shoot at the Georgians with these things? The AN-94 is a largely unproven design based on a potentially flawed concept. The ability to actually hit the enemy twice does not mean that both bullets will go through the same hole. You’d need some kind of swinging chamber to fire that quickly, which is added weight, cost, and complexity for negligible utility.

  • WoodenPlank

    The HK G11 had this kind of capability, but it used caseless ammunition. The 3-round burst fired at an equivalent of 2,000 rounds per minute, and the entire burst was a single recoil impulse on the shooter due to the cyclic rate.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

      WoodenPlank, I forgot about the HK G11. It has the advantage of much shorter ammunition (reducing the distance that the bolt has to recoil).

  • Some Guy

    You’re actually incorrect. The G11 is a weapon that, before this one, incorporated a firing system that allowed up to 2000 RPM. It was also caseless and basically integrated a scope, a weapon before it’s time (literally, as several years later which improved technology it was made to be more reliable).

    The Steyr ACR was an experimental weapon from the U.S. army to fire Flechette ammunition that could fire up to 2200 RPM. While surprisingly effective, the flechette rounds ultimately proved to unreliable, and capable of being deflected even by heavy rain and various other obstacles.

    The MG 42, used in in WWII, was a weapon that was designed to achieve high rate of fire bursts, getting up to 1500 RPM, or 2.5 times greater than the equivalent weapons with 600 RPM or less. Not as good as the 1800, but it was invented and used nearly 60 years before it, and was designed for sustained bursts, and sometimes sustained fully automatic fire at this rate, at only around 15% less the speed.

    The FX-05 Xiuhcoatl is a modern weapon that has been successfully adopted by a country as a main military weapon, Mexico to be specific, that includes as hyper burst of 2100 rpm. Supposedly it’s pretty accurate, up to a .5 MOA grouping with the burst, making it extremely accurate and far more lethal. This weapon also includes many more features, such as a poylgonal barrel and the ability in the future to possibly use much more effective rounds, such as the 6.8mm Remington.

    All in all, the FX-05 Xiuhcoatl is one of the first highly successful hyper burst weapons, along with the AN-94, that both increase the accuracy and power of assault rifles.

    While there are many more weapons I could talk about and link to you, I think that the answer is obviously clear. The “Hyper Bursts” already exist. Just look at automatic cannons with sustained fire up to 6000 RPM.

    Honestly, I don’t think that it’s that unreasonable, and to bump up the RPM from a modern rifle to something much higher probably isn’t impossible.

    An idea would be, as such in a gas operated weapon, to allow the use of the physical recoil to increase the speed of the weapon. Quite possibly, the weapon could be timed to allow the raw recoil to push back the bolt along with the gas, or the spring could be lengthened to allow the forces to “stack”, and increase the velocity. Simply, the bolt and strike head could be lighter weight, to improve the speed, and the springs could be made stronger, to increase the velocity of the firing mechanism.

    Weapons like the M249 and Thompson Sub-machine gun originally had the ability to bump up the firing rate. The M249 could go from 600 to 900 rpm, and the Thompson could go from 600 to 1000+. Of course, they were eventually set to a fixed firing rate, but they were capable of being changed. It could perhaps be noted that, most weapons can already achieve much higher RPM rates than their allowed to go, with their own delays (such as friction and roller delayed firing mechanisms in the Thompson and G3).

    The fear is that the weapon will fire too quickly and wear out the weapon or break it due to the extreme stresses. If the structural integrity is improved, or the firing rate regulated for short bursts (as in a burst?), it is potentially possible for weapons to have vastly improved firing rates as is, due to their already regulated firing rates (most M16’s for example, are bumped from 1000 RPM+ down 700, to decrease the recoil and extend the firing time with less ammunition). Mixed with increased spring power, lightened bolts, possibly shorter springs, the incorporation of physical recoil along with gas to improve the amount of power generated (like in the MG42) and a self regulating burst design system, I’d say bumping up a current weapon to 1500+ RPM shouldn’t be that hard to do at all.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

      Some, the FX uses a very similar recoiling-barreled-action and pulley system.

  • Zander

    The HK G11 also had the benefit of not having to eject spent shell casings.

  • LastResort

    The HK G11 was capable of a three shot burst at 2000 rpm in 1990, it even was supposedly tested by the Army for the ACR program. Catch: caseless.

  • http://postmodernpulps.blogspot.com Jack Badelaire

    Yeah, as soon as I read what they meant by “hyper-burst”, I thought of the G11. Hey, it made a play for our new assault rifle once. Time to dust off those blueprints and have another go at the title. I’m sure ~25 years of weapons technology advancement could improve on that design quite a bit.

  • jdun1911

    While I never held an AN-94 on my hand. Seeing that those carbines use pulleys to function leaves me questioning the durability of it.

    The main problem with going very high RPM is the magazine. Is it capable of feeding the rounds at a high rate of fire consistently? The answer is no. The last few rounds in the magazine will gives the highest chance of malfunction.

  • zincorium

    The US government purchased the rights to the G11.

    And then, they set out attempting to improve it to ridiculous levels. The LSAT program, as far as I can tell, was a resounding success. Incredible weight savings, complete reliability with polymer cased ammunition and very promising results with caseless. Last I heard, though, it’s been defunded and all of those gains basically thrown away.

    And now we’re spending millions testing polymer-receiver weapons that use 1960’s technology, and potentially billions to actually field one of them.

    There’s something seriously wrong with that.

  • Victor

    It’s also worth noting that the AN-94 is a complete disgrace when it comes to cleaning.

  • SeanN

    man, between this and the ACU debacle, we’re seeing just how far out of touch with reality army acquisitions are. who’re we fighting with body armor in the near future? hint: nobody.

  • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

    Well, you beat me to it: I immediately thought of the HK G11 2000rpm 3-round bursts. Plus caseless! But Steve pointed out to me the many stubborn problems of caseless ammo, starting with losing the insulating qualities of the brass.

    Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

  • chrispy

    I thought the whole point of switching to 5.56 was to save weight so that more ammo could be carried. If you’re going to shoot twice with every trigger pull, what’s the point? Even assuming they can even get it to work, how do two 5.56 rounds through the same hole compare to a single 7.62 NATO? They weigh about the same and take up more space.

  • William C.

    Some Guy can you confirm this information about the FX-05. I’ve heard others say it doesn’t have such a feature and the selector switch only has safe, single-shot, and full-auto modes.

  • Avery

    This is the first I’ve heard about the FX-05 having a hyper-burst function.

    As for retrofitting an existing design for hyperburst, it may be possible if you manufacture a receiver cradle similar to the Neopup. Although, maybe something like that SSAR-15 bumpfire stock, except with a disconnected fire control system and recoil mechanism in the stock.

  • Some Guy

    SeanN- You got that right.

  • http://aquietnesswithin.blogspot.com Chuang Shyue Chou

    Wasn’t the old Colt ACR a duplex round system too?

  • Tux

    I know the govt. put a lot of research dollars into the duplex rounds (2 bullets in one cartridge) during the ACR program in the 80’s. Seems like with modern powders this would be more feasible than trying to complete 2 full firing cycles so rapidly.

  • kvalseth

    No, the Wikipedia article on the FX-05 is completely fabricated as far as I can tell. It’s just a G36/AR18 clone.

  • http://world.guns.ru Max Popenker

    Some Guy, where did you get that info on FX-05? From what I know, it’s a fairy conventional gas operated weapon with stationary barrel, and does not have any unusual burst capabilities

    the so-called “HyperBurst” concept is fairy old, and traces its origins to US SALVO R&D program of 1950s and subsequent programs like SPIW, FARC etc.

    Such concepts were tried (and rejected) in USA several times before, and I doubt that AN-94 has anything to do with it

    Basically, the HyperBurst can have two-fold benefits:
    1. increased hit probability per single trigger pull (as originally planned in the SALVO concept) due to controlled dispersion of hits within the burst
    and
    2. increased lethality when all bullets in the burst hit the target

    IMHO, the #1 is better achieved by improving sights AND training and #2 is better achieved by changing the caliber to something in 6-7mm range (this will also have benefit of noticeably longer effective range)

    Just ny 2 cents

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

      Max, thanks for the info. Always great to have an expert chime in, and probably one of the few people here who have actually held the AN.

      I remember thinking that the FX-05 was a G36 clone (and hence the H&K threat of lawsuit against Mexico who are a H&K licensee). I was also very surprised to learn that the FX used the same system as the AN. I think, kvalseth pointed out, that the Wikipedia page for the FX-05 is a hoax.

      • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

        Everyone, the Wikipedia page for the FX-05 has been fixed and the incorrect information has been removed.

  • Ivan

    “putting two bullets through the same hole” is absolutely impossible on actual distances. I shot one mag with AN-94 and I don’t feel any advantages this weapon can give me. But after half hour of shooting connecting rope broke. Two guys spent 15 minutes to strip weapon because one round stuck inside, but breakage was serious. It’s tricky and low reliable weapon.
    It’s real engineering problem – make weapon with “hyper burst”. But well balanced, low recoil gun with some shooting abilities can give the same result.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

      Ivan, that is very interesting. Thanks.

  • Lance

    The FX-05 has NO hyper burst option and is a direct copy of the German G-36 which has its own issues both legal and functional issues.

    I think this is coming threw because the Army doesn’t just want another 5.56mm pea shooter like the FN or the Remington ACR both aren’t worth replacing the M-4 with it, just ask SOCOM. If any new carbine comes it has to have real functional advantages over current US and NATO rifles hence a hyper shot would be one option.

    Personally I think this is a knife into the heart of the Carbine Competition since last year most companies have made a M-4 clone or a 5.56mm carbine to do the same job as the M-4 just with more plastic furniture and a cleaner piston system. The army isn’t looking for that they want a revolutionary weapon to be there.

    Once again the improved M-4 is probably going to be the new rifle for the next few decades.

  • Lance

    Agree Jdun1911?

  • Lance

    Ohh by the way the AN-94 has over 300 parts to deal with and is prone to dirty up and malfunction if not cleaned almost every time in use. If someone wants a rilfe to be easy to clean and to function w\o cleaning for long time this isn’t the weapon you want.

  • Emperor Fabulous

    Why not make a rifle with two barrels that fires a round from each with one pull of the trigger if ‘hyper-burst’ is something they want.

    I don’t get it. The military wants to shoot three rounds of 5.56x45mm which has the same weight and recoil of one 7.62x51mm. The military would be better off trying to find a way to get 7.62x51mm performance out of a cartridge that weighed and recoiled as much as the 5.56x45mm cartridge.

    There’s no way the HK G11 will ever become a service rifle. Look at how complex that design is; there’s be no chance of getting a typical soldier to maintain it in the field.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    I agree that a 7.62mm duplex load makes more sense than hyper-burst: it avoids the complexity of the gun action (I’ve seen a G-11 stripped down and it’s got so many gears in it, it looks like a mechanical clock mechanism) and gives you the option of using a single bullet for when you want more range or hitting power.

    A US duplex 7.62mm was actually type-classified as the M198. You can see a part-sectioned example on the far right of this group: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ExpUS50s.jpg

    An extract from: Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition, by Max Popenker and myself (concerning the flechette-firing SPIW):

    “Work on the SPIW continued and resulted in 1968 in a victory of sorts; in a BRL comparison with the M14 and the M16A1 (all firing in burst fire or fully-automatic mode), the SPIW was found easiest to control and produced the highest hit probability. Interestingly, it was most closely challenged in hit probability by the M14 firing the M198 Duplex round. The M16A1 came last, with an experimental two-round burst proving superior to the fully-automatic setting.”

  • Brad

    Hyperburst? Because of better penetration of body armor by putting two bullets into one hole?

    That has to be one of the goofiest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Only under laboratory conditions of perfect control and unlimited time can firearms regularly put two bullets into the same hole. Even if hyperburst really worked as advertised, there are better and simpler means of defeating body armor.

  • http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/ Sven Ortmann

    There were on the other hand relatively lightweight machine guns with such a ROF:
    ShKas (1,800 rpm), Ultra-ShKas (3,000 rpm), MG81 (1,600rpm).

    Their mechanisms weren’t as unusual as the AN-94’s.

  • Clodboy

    Speaking of russian wonder assault rifles, I’m wondering why there has been so little interest in the West in mechanisms to provide more controllable fully automatic fire – systems like the counterweighted gas piston of the AK-107/108 or the AEK-97x series, or the “constant recoil” principle of the Ultimax, all which actually seemed to provide a tangible benefit without making the gun overly complex.

  • http:crypticsubterranean.blogspot.com Jay-Mac

    If the stated purpose of the hyper-burst feature is to defeat body armour then the Army needs to express a desire for a weapon that can defeat body armour, not just one that has a hyper-burst facility. The objective can surely be achieved without having to resort to a costly, and likely doomed, project to develop an entirely new weapons system that’s unproven on any battlefield.

    Surely a simpler approach is to deploy a new calibre or ammunition or both. Of course there are few body-armour wearing opponents for the US military today but tomorrow may be different. Basing your future needs on today’s war is always a mistake. Look at the way N. Africa has blown up. The UK’s 5 month old strategic defence review didn’t mention the region once- and our own politicians calling for intervention have been told that because of their cuts (based on that review) Britain isn’t able to get involved. So, yes, the option of defeating body armour might be desirable- but not at the expense of ease of cleaning and reliability.

    I, for one, would like to see the G11 resurrected- if Germany had been able to field before reunification it we’d be looking at an entirely different small arms world today. But at this stage to require a weapon that doesn’t exist and to ignore those that do seems imprudent at least- and given the state of the economy and the fact that the weapon design won’t be available to the public it’s going to be a costly and risky endeavour for gun manufacturers to take on. Which of them has the cash to spend on developing this when there’s no promise the feature will even be required? Chances are a cheaper, simpler, more reliable weapon will be picked over such an experimental design.

  • http://deleted gareth

    I’ve heard people researching AN-94 said that users’ verdicts regarding this gun are vastly devided. Regular soldiers don’t think much of it and despise it for its high maintenance while super elite forces praise it as to be the best gun ever made.
    I know that sounds lack of credibility, but I do think the mentality of having hyper burst is heavily leaned to the accuracy and tactical flexibility side: it is meant to “replace” semi auto, not burst mode or full auto!
    I mean single shot is still the dominant doctrine of using modern assult rifle, full auto(or burst-fire) is only meant for the emergency in close quarter combat. To Hyper-burst on the other hand, is not meant as a augmentation of the latter but former. When implemented correctly without technical restraint, Hyper-bursting is effectively shooting two(or, as practically speaking, slightly more than two)rounds with similar accuracy and felt recoil output of of firing a single round. And that makes a significant difference to just “shoot faster”.

    The practical outcome, is then that a soldiers can still carry lightweight and proved small caliber ammo(a lot of them), shoot the same way as he did, and whenever the situation calls he can put twice amount of lead downrange in every “single” shot! When u think of it this way, it is practically a on-the-fly caliber converting system. A “single” round downrange twice as heavy, that definitely catches up with full power caliber in stopping power department. Not to mention the flexibility to use it “as small caliber” again.
    When you want to shot accuratly and have maximum logistic advantages and shooting comfort, you use small caliber rifle. To shot accurately with great stopping power, you use full caliber rifle. To use the rifle as a life saving machine gun and as accurately as possible, small caliber rifle in full-auto. To have all above in a single gun, you add a Hyper-burst mode.
    Soldier’s on everday patrol might not see this as ground breaking or even necessary, but I don’t think door-kicker in Fallujah or Pilot rescuers in Somalia wounldn’t appreciate the extra punch when they face drug-poping enemies! According to books like House To House and Black Hawk Down, it is not unlikely that one single shot of 5.56 have almost no effect on a pumped insurgent. And it is mentioned that larger-caliber machine gun M240s have significant suppressing power and higher tactical value than SAW.

    As for so many ppl saying that American are not currently fighting insurgents with body armor, I agree, altho I also need to remind them their long term enermies like Russia and China. Their troops ALL wear body armors and American weapon would face even greater difficulty against them.

    The armor-piercing argument actually does look sound to me. I mean maybe it won’t actually need to literally be “two in the same hole”, but simply a extremely small impact group could work. First bullet’s impact usually cause shattering to the ceramic armor plate and it could significantly weaken the armor’s structural integrity, making armor piercing much more easier. I don’t know about steel plates, but I’m guessing similar structual weakening-piercing process could exist too.

    I think it’s not impossible that the AN-94 reflects russians figuring out that their “sissy burst fire” tactic is not effective enough and wanted to jump on the more accurate single-shot bandwagen. But they did it with a brilliant twist. The flaws of this rifle, if anything as serious as rumored, are possibly due to specific mechanical design or even quality control, but not the validity of the idea itself.
    And we can then see the new rifle requirement as the American Army picking up the signal and finally trying to be ahead of the curve again.

  • Benjamin

    I am curious… What if the first round is lodged in the body armor at the point of impact? If the weapon is meant to penetrate body armor by hitting at the same point, if the first round penetrated the armor the second round may be able to increase the lethality, but if the second round fails to penetrate, it may get stuck and form an obstruction to the second round, isn’t it?

  • http://www.milgeek.co.uk Milgeek

    I think the Russian Army experience of the AN-94 speaks for itself and should be taken into consideration by the US Army…

    Since the AN-94’s ‘official adoption’ it has NOT replaced the standard AK74 in widespread service use – in fact the AK74 has remained the official standard service assault rifle of the Russian Army.

    The explanation for this seems to be the attitude that the AN-94 is a ‘specialist’ rifle, far too complex for the normal infantryman to cope with. So far it has seen some limited use in ‘special’ units where the degree of expertise means they are better equiped to deal with the AN-94’s ‘foibles’.

    In reality the AN-94 is likely to wither and die as a uncharacteristically Russian ‘dead end’ as far as infantry weapon designs are concerned – and this very blog has already shown the AK200 which is more likely to be the successor to the AK74.

    When it comes down to it there STILL is no substitute for simplicity (unless you are playing Bad Company 2 – in which case the AN-94 rocks!) ;)

  • Jodie

    As stated above caseless is the way to go.

  • charles222

    The G-11 did eventually work; it was East German reunification that sank the program due to costs.

  • Bryan S

    How about a system that handles the recoil differently, like the Kriss weapons? I wonder about seeing them adapt that system to other calibers (supposedly developing a .40s&w)

    Vector in 5.7×28 could get real interesting.

  • Martin (M)

    You know, the M231 Firing Port Weapon has a 1200+ rof, and that’s basically just an open bolt M-16.

    Honestly, hyper-burst’s only practical application would be medium to long range shooting. For all the engineering and technology it would take to make it work, I doubt that would translate to any actual performance in the field.

  • Will

    I don’t what you guys are talking about, all the times I’ve played Battlefield Bad Company 2, my An-94 has never failed….

    But seriously, Why not teach better marksmanship and have them put two rounds quickly down range?

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/ Steve (The Firearm Blog)

      Will, LOL

  • Travis

    I think “metal storm” method of many caseless projectiles stacked in a barrel and fired in sequence electrically is the only viable method. using normal, eg 5.56 ammo, the like is a pipe dream.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE

    http://www.metalstorm.com/

    http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/SNelson/ResearchPaper_files/image002.jpg

    Perhaps the future is a hybrid system, with maybe 5 caseless projectile/powder sets in a single cased round. Those rounds are contained in a magazine, and loaded in a conventional fashion. Once loaded the 5 projectiles maybe fired singly or in Hyper-burst mode. Metal storm quotes 1,000,00 rpm in the video above. Not sure if thats possible in the field, but makes you think.

    As for the why part, I swear there is some theory about when multiple impacts happen at the same time, they are supposed to do the square damage. So 3 rounds at the same time do 9x the damage.

  • Rusty Ray

    So would it not be easier to put two bullets inside the same case? You don’t need a new fangled weapon…..

    Cheers – Rusty

  • http://www.unfuck.org endwahl

    “Hyperburst” is impractical, and will continue to be until electronically fired salvo technology (eg Metal Storm) is made more feasible for small arms.

  • Caseless

    One of the HK G11 design goals is to increase the hit ratio of burst fire at longer distances. None of the HK G11 literature I read in the 90s ever mentioned “multiple bullets thru the same hole” feature. This concept only appeared after the AN-94 was developed. It seems to me this is a marketing ploy by the AN-94 development team.

    LSAT is developing a belt fed machinegun, thus the need for (polymer) casing. G11 rifle rounds are preloaded in disposable? polymer magazines. So the caseless rounds are already protected.

  • Komrad

    I think the point of two rounds is that even if they don’t go through the same hole, the vest is still compromised in that area
    that and it may deal with ceramic plates better, from what I understand the plate shatters to absorb the impact
    then the second bullet would only have to dael with a compromised sheet of kevlar

  • Distiller

    That FX-05 is a borderline patent infringing G36/AKM hybrid.

    I guess hyper burst without mechanical complexity and extra weight is only achievable with extreme material strength and electronic precision control, as telescoped ammo firing behind the barrel, with the case taking over the function of the chamber.

    But no need for such stunts! The AR15 is a sound platform, the problems that emerged from cutting down the barrel and using the same light ammo will not be cured by fancy tricks.

    Rather take what LSAT already produced, like e.g. the CT ammo in a 6.5/7.0mm caliber and put it to work on the AR15 platform. Still a lot of potential!

  • jdun1911

    After some reading the FX-05 is not G36, ie Stoner piston variant. FX-05 is a Kalashnikov variant from what I understand.

    I don’t think the AR15 is going anywhere in the US military. There are too much third party support.

    Only three type of military small arms action that is being actively develop and improve, Stoner DI, Stoner Piston, and Kalashnikov. Stoner Piston has a long history of being rejected by the US military. Kalashnikov, what the chance of US using Soviet era technology? -100% I think. So what you got left Stoner DI otherwise known as AR15 or M16/M4.

  • zincorium

    How does the duplex round even WORK? It seems like the second bullet could either separate too early and remain inside the case, or not separate at all and cause the combined bullets to miss due to weird aerodynamics.

  • Theodoric

    I think an LSAT-derived weapon with heavy G11 influences is the way to go here.

  • Some Guy

    You guys went back and edited the FX-05 article, without definitive knowledge on it? O_o

    First of all, the weapon was found to be internally, much different than the HK G36. “While the FX-05 rifle bears more than passing similarity to the German-made HK G36 rifle, suspicions of the patent infringement from HK were turned down, as the FX-05 does not have any of the patented features of the G36, and have enough internal differences to be considered an original design, although its design is obviously heavily influenced by the German rifle. ” http://world.guns.ru/assault/mex/fx-05-xiuhcoatl-e.html

    So no, it’s not a G36 clone at all, that while similar, is basically completely different. It’s like saying that the HK416 is the M4 carbine because it looks like it, when it turns out to be way different internally. There was actually a lawsuit over that too, which is why it’s the “4-16″, rather than the “M-16″, or “M-4″. Easy to see where they got the new name from.

    Like the M4 and m16, some models are designed to fire in bursts, so a definitive answer on all weapons is unlikely to be found, seeing as how their a multiple sources which support both answers.

  • Some Guy

    Issue is that for weight to strength, a caseless 6.5mm or 6.8mm would be comparatively heavy.

    They use heavy bullets that, when coupled with a base weight of 8 grams, for the case, doesn’t really do much. The 5.56mm is 12 grams cartridge, while the 6.8mm Remington is around 16 grams per cartridge.

    In the caseless variant, the 5.56mm is 6 grams, and the 6.8mm, which uses a 7.5 gram round, and a little more powder, would be around 9.75 grams.

    Comparatively it’s around 2000 rounds for the same weight as 1000 for 5.56mm caseless rounds, where as it’s like 1230 for 6.8mm remington caseless, not that huge of an improvement for a vastly increased technological requirement.

    The 6.5mm grendel is like 8 grams per round, and uses a little more powder, so it’s about 10 grams per round, which means even less rounds per weight.

    The 7.62mm cartridge to caseless allows you to double the amount of ammunition for the same weight, and the 5.56mm cartridge to caseless is double, but the 6.8mm and 6.5mm from cartridge to caseless is a lot less of an improvement.

    My idea?

    Use a super heavy, 6.5mm Grendel with around 3000+ joules. The 6.5mm Grendel is inherently accurate and has a much higher BC, so if we use that round with more power, we’ll have a farther shooting, more powerful round that is also more accurate and has all the benefits of the 6.5mm Grendel. You could make it heavier, or simply increase the velocity, although the velocity being increased drastically would change the ballistics. Supposedly, the ballistic trajectory of the 7.62mm and 6.5mm is relatively the same, so re-training soldiers wouldn’t be that big of a hassle.

  • Lance

    The FX-05 is not being made in large number and was designed to replace G-3s in mexican Special Forces service, its a none factor here.

    The earlier posters here are right. the AN is a Spec Ops gun like the Mk-17 is for our SOCOM troops and its fine for that BUT NOT for infantry men they are both complex weapons only elit units can really master and need.

  • Nathaniel

    If y’all had done a 5 second Google search, you might have been stopped from saying dumb things like that the FX-05 is a burst firing Kalashnikov-G36 hybrid.

    Protip: It ain’t:

    http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2507/fx05g3076fl9.jpg

    http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/347/fx05g3074nc2.jpg

    That’s not a 2100 RPM trigger group and BCG, folks, it’s also not a Kalashnikov BCG, or a G36 BCG.

  • Nathaniel

    Some Guy

    To get 2,200 foot-lbs (3,000 joules), you’d have to have about a 100gr bullet at 3100fps, which is doable… With a cartridge as large and heavy as the 7.62x51mm.

    In otherwords, we’d have to be using a 6.5x47mm Lapua. 6.5x47mm Lapua can shoot a 108gr bullet at 3050fps using 40grs of powder… Using my handy dandy recoil calculator, we get a recoil energy of 13.3 ft-lbs from a 7lb carbine.

    For comparison, 7.62 NATO generates 13.5 ft-lbs from an M14… A package that has proven totally unsuitable for automatic fire.

    In short, your cartridge is too heavy, won’t be controllable in full auto, and offers virtually nothing over 7.62 NATO.

  • SeanN

    @Lance: having fired and maintained a Mk19 without being an 18-series, i can tell you that the average infantryman can/has/does maintain the Mk19. it’s got ridiculous firepower, but a high failure rate even when properly lubed; i have no feeling on the side of my left thumb because i lubed up a Mk19 in combat and got burned. it just kept on failing no matter how much time we spent cleaning every day. all weapons have their drawbacks and the Mk19’s are ammo linkages that don’t always properly eject, but none are so complicated that the average infantryman can’t maintain them. 18-series brains work just as well 11-series brains.

    @gareth: dude, if we go to war with china, we’ll have economic problems that will make us all remember this recession fondly. russia i can’t see happening, but you never know.

    the problem is that the army needs to get it’s priorities straight. if you want to defeat armor, get a better round, don’t spend even more money on buying more ammo that is already questionably effective and investing in over-complicated weapons systems. just apply some common sense and buy something that works.

  • Pedro C.P.

    I like the concept of hyper-burst, it increases the hit chances and lethality of a weapon system. Even more if “train the troops better” or “employ and effect round”. Even if you have the same rate of fire than a normal weapon the one with hyper-burst will always deliver a better burst group. It’s a idea that needs at least to be explored further.

    The problem with both the G11 and the AN-94 is that while they are incredible engineering pieces, they are far too complex to be mass-produce and require a lot of maintenance; reliability really depends on the maintenance and quality of the product. Pretty much a Rube Goldberg’s approach to a not so complex problem. In the very essence both rifles ain’t all that complex, their projects are just littered with unnecessary stuff.

    My idea would be quite like that naval gun Steve posted about not long ago, have an operational system (gas, delayed blow back, etc…) in a recoiling packet, the magazine and something like an inclined rain gutter to hold a second round right in front of the magazine and in the same level of it. Them add a device on the rear of the bolt that simply loads another round on the gutter while the bolt is going forward. The gun fires the round in the chamber, the whole system recoils to the point of the gutter loads that round, fire and recoil again. Them it loads the round of the magazine the bolt closes and the whole system goes back to the initial position loading a round in the gutter and ready to another burst.

    It’s just an idea floating in my head and I don’t even know if it will works but at least it sounds much more simple than what we saw so far.

  • subase

    If the Russians can’t make hyperburst function reliably, I don’t see how the U.S can. Better get the Germans on the case.

    I think the armor penetrating capability of the hyperburst is worth having in the next rifle. Penetrating armor for sniper and special forces will be essential in the future. It’s why we are using SBR’s now, to penetrate armor. In a few decades rifle armor will become alot more common.

    So it seems the next rifle replacement will need to be bullpup, caseless and have hyperburst functionality. People crying for a calibre change will get their wish then.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @Zincorium,

    The 7.62mm M198 Duplex round fired two bullets simultaneously, both weighing around 85 grains. The front bullet was fired at 2,750 fps, the rear bullet at 2,200 fps. The front bullet shot to point of aim, the rear bullet was designed to adopt a slightly different trajectory to increase the probability of scoring a hit.

    Of course, this was developed when rifles weren’t expected to be used over 300 metres and only snipers had telescopic sights. All of the research done at that time indicated that people were rarely hit by aimed rifle shots (those from snipers excepted) at more than 100 metres; almost all casualties were hit by accident. So the theory went that aiming didn’t matter much, but the more bullets you got downrange the more chance you had of scoring an accidental hit. Both the Duplex loadings and the small-calibre (5.56mm) rounds were prompted by this thinking.

    With a fully professional rather than conscript army carrying rifles with 4x telescopic sights and with small arms engagements at much longer ranges, we’re playing a different ball game these days.

  • http://world.guns.ru Max Popenker

    one point re. AN-94 – it is basically dead. Army does not want it at all (ant put all their bets on product-improved 100th series AK in 5.45 and 7.62) and Spetsnaz also do not want it – they either use standard AKM and AK74M or go for truly specialist weapons in 9×39, like the AS or VSS

  • DRod

    Two rounds of 5.56 in one hole at “hyper burst”. That’s going to require more ammunition. That negates the benefit of a lighter cartridge. Why not send ONE large round?! Pull those 5.56 uppers off those m4s and throw on some 6.8 or .300blk uppers. DONE.

  • Sendarius

    Ummm, guys, ever heard of Metalstorm?

    Don’t change the magazine, change the barrel(s) – multiple rounds stacked longitudinally and fired electrically.

    I believe the prototype pistol had four barrels, but any of you can google it just as well as I can.

  • snmp

    May be more 2 rounds burst like the HK MP7 for double tape in same aera

  • Major

    Metal Storm from Australia has electronic,no moving parts. multiple burst.
    Watch for a major arms mfg from us or uk to buy the company.

  • TrojanMan

    The problem with “hyper burst” cannot be solved easily. A proper solution would require specialized ammunition and a very complex weapon. I would think an external power source (other than gasses from the ammunition itself) would be required, at a minimum, in order to make it reliable.

    Rather than trying to achieve true “hyper burst,” look at what you’re trying to achieve. You’re trying to place two rounds at the same impact point, very rapidly, within a reasonable range. Say, 300m. This is much easier to do and does NOT necessarily require the weapon to fire at a high cyclic rate.

    Modern artillery fire control has long had the ability to place multiple rounds on the same target simultaneously. Varying the angle of fire and the energy of the charge, these weapons can get as many as nine projectiles in the air at the same time, to all impact within a second or two of each other. The exact same thing could be done with a rifle.

    The sights would need to be regulated to shoot slightly higher than intended. The first round would be slow. This can be done either by using a heavier weight bullet and the same energy or a mechanism on the rifle to vent gasses prematurely. A tuned compensator would push the muzzle downward as the first projectile exits. The follow-up shot would be higher velocity, again either by using a lighter projectile or by utilizing 100% of the gas charge. The idea is that the faster projectile would “catch up” with the slower one ahead of it and deliver a double strike on the target without needing the weapon to actually fire at a higher cyclic rate.

    Using a current 14″ M4 w/ 2-shot burst and 55grain (about 2850FPS out of that barrel) and 77 grain (2500FPS) ammunition, and assuming an 800RPM cyclic rate (easily achievable), plus the aforementioned tuned compensator: First round (77 grain) impacts a 300m target at t=0.423 seconds (final velocity = 1750 FPS w/ 500FPE) and the second round (55 grain) impacts the same target at t=0.380 + 60/800 = 0.455 seconds (final velocity = 1900FPS w/ 450FPE).

    To put it simply, the rounds would arrive 0.032 seconds apart, which would represent a “simulated hyper burst” of 1875 rounds/min – actually faster than the AN-94! And all you have to do in order to achieve it is design a muzzle device (easier said than done) and load staggered rounds of two different weights.

    The downside is that the weapon would only be effective within the window of the design range. Of course, the M4 isn’t very effective past 300m as it is, right? Also, resting the weapon on a solid surface would prevent or limit the compensator pushing the muzzle downward and result in the second shot going high. Since resting the forearm on a solid surface is actually a GOOD idea for marksmanship, a “suspended” forearm would need to be designed that would allow enough travel to line up the second shot. The compensator, weapon system, forearm, AND ammunition would all have to work together. But it might be possible to create a forearm and compensator combination kit (along with a 2-shot burst trigger kit) to retrofit existing M4 weapons.

    Lastly, and most importantly, any malfunction drill, single shot, or tactical reload would mess up the order of the rounds in the magazine and result in firing the higher velocity round first. The first shot would miss high and the second shot would miss low. Some type of indicator would need to be used to ensure the correct round was chambered.

    It’s not a perfect solution to the problem that nobody needed answering, but it would work.

    Feel free to credit me on any patents for the idea. (lol)

  • Some Guy

    At Nathaniel…

    The 6.5mm grendel has a better BC, that is it retains it’s energy and accuracy out to a farther range, and as well it’s more accurate, just in general. Comparatively, something like the 6mm x 47mm is vastly more accurate, in general, than the 7.62mm.

    That being said, there are extremely accurate 7.62mm rounds, sniper rounds actually, although they are relatively heavy and are about 10 times more expensive, as they are match grade rounds.

    In terms of caseless rounds, the weight of a super accurate 7.62mm round is about 11.3 grams, and with roughly 3.65 grams of powder, so if we exclude the weight of the binder (which is about .15-.3 grams), then the weight of an entire super accurate 7.62mm is around 15 grams.

    If we calculate the weight of a 100 grain (6.5 gram) 6.5mm grendel round, which would be roughly 6.5 grams, and the powder necessary to accelerate it to 945 m/s, we would need roughly 2.3 grams of powder. The weight of this round would be around 8.7 grams, probably being around 9 grams per cartridge, if it were caseless.

    My idea were be to use a 8-9 gram round accelerated to 820 m/s, however, as this would about 2600-3000 joules. BTW, the 6.5mm grendel can be fired out of an AR-15, and it generates around 2600 joules.

    Supposedly, the recoil increase of the 6.5mm is negligible, mostly due to the improved powder, which is also why it is capable of fitting into an Ar-15 platform.

    The 6.5mm grendel uses better powder, and a better designed bullet, is basically it. There is more to it than just linear progression, which is the same reason why Chinese rounds aren’t as good as American rounds.

    Basically, the point is to use a slightly more powerful 6.5mm grendel round, as .3 grams isn’t much to pay, in a caseless round, to increase the ballistics a little.

    In terms of recoil, the recoil is basically negligible.

    If the 7.62mm is impossible to use, than every single special forces unit whose ever used an M60 or and M14, and every hunter in the U.S. would be screwed. This simply isn’t the case, and improved powder is amazing.

  • Lance

    @SeanN

    I want talking about the Mk-19GL I was talking about the shor barreled 308 cal Mk-17 rifle.

    There talk at Military.com on how pesimistic gun makers on this whole competition.

    As one Military.com commenter said if SOCOM abandonded the SCAR-L there is little to move any other 5.56mm rilfe to replace M-4s. The M-4 is probably going to be standerd issue untill LSAT technolgy matures.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @ Sendarius and Major:

    Metal Storm works best with short, fat, relatively low-velocity ammunition, like the 40mm grenades and 12 gauge shotguns it is currently offering. A pistol ammo version would be OK, but a high-velocity rifle would experience all kinds of problems.

    By definition, Metal Storm has to be caseless. Furthermore, the propellant section has to be the same diameter as the projectile. So you’re going to have a very long, thin, propellant element projecting back from the bullet. This will have to be enclosed to protect it from the hot gases of the previous shot, so it will form a long, hollow “tail” to the bullet which will be make it very difficult to spin-stabilise. It will look rather like a rocket.

    Furthermore, the length of each round means that not many could be stacked in a barrel, and also means that each shot would have a very different effective barrel length, therefore a different muzzle velocity, affecting accuracy.

    Metal Storm has its uses (and I suggest more here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MetalStorm.htm ) but a high-velocity rifle is about the least suitable one there is.

  • subase

    Does anyone seriously believe this function will be used by normal infrantry? Shooting in semi is used to conserve ammunition of the individual shooter. The hit probability is increased by everyone in the group able to shoot for longer which increases the hit probability. Hyperburst functionality completely goes against this shooting philosophy.

    What has changed is the enemies special forces will meet and to smaller degree snipers. (whose distances in urban combat are rarely more than 90 yards) We got mexican cartel members running around with rifle plates already.

    For infantry hyperburst function will no doubt be disabled or removed and thus the increased maintenance costs of such a feature will be avoided.

    As long as we are using gunpowder projectile based weapons going bigger and faster eventually becomes unusable. A soldier can only carry so big a gun. Bullet technology will advance but tungsten bullets are reaching our material technology limits. Once bullets incorporating explosives are used costs and dangers skyrocket. The hyperburst functionality in this regard will be a big help and we won’t have to rely completely on bullet technology. (which would eventually require specialty firearms, which increases costs exponentially)

  • moosefromoz

    majoron is on the ball here is a link to the patent that will allow hyper burst, also called mach 5/50 effect.

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7707941.html download the pdf and look at the design of the cartridge with two , sometimes three projectiles in it, this type of round was developed by the DSTO in Oz for DARPA under the mach 5/50 program, you will notice that one of the inventors is Vinod Puri, he is the main technical man at the DSTO.

    You will also notice in the write up on this link they say this “and other advances in rifle design and be able to handle improved ammunition”

    I believe the last two words say it all, and I reckon the possible reason for the gas operated piston system is that the gas pressure can be adjusted to what type of round you are firing

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines

    I also note that they were talking about upping the caliber to 6.8mm if so? and they do use these metalstorm mach 5/50 rounds then it would be the equivalent KE to a 27mm round, if you double the velocity you basically quadruple the KE

  • Lance

    @Trojanman

    The problem is almost all 5.56mm rifle are useless beyond 3-400 yards.

    But I do agree a 2 shot burst to a new improved m-4 may be better in accuacy and in defeating body armor useing current 5.56mm ammo.

  • Rohan

    Some simple issues with salvo or high speed burst (HSB) weapons.

    1. there is a limit on the recoil that a soldier’s shoulder can absorb. Fact

    2. the only way to change this is to prolong recoil or lighten projectiles or use a muzzle break, or combination. Fact

    3. if duplex / triplex is used (eg Colt ACR with a 35 grain front and 33 grain back / 2900fps), remember that the dispersion of the first projectile is double that of a single projectile round and the back projectile double the first. (Black Rifle book1). Fact.

    4. if HSB is used (eg G-11 or AN-94) smaller lighter rounds are used. 49 grain/3000fps 4.7mm or 49-56/3000fps grain 5.45mm bullets. Fact

    5. The combined recoil of HSB is more than 7.62mm NATO round. Each burst of a G-11 produces a long (recoiling barrel) with a heavy end kick, slowly re-aiming. (Watch the G-11 video). Fact

    6. the use of flechettes (9-10 grain/4600-4900fps) in low recoil rifles has not been shown to work in accurately in rifles or have consistent lethality (ACR Steyr or ACR AAI). Plus no tracer. Fact

    7. Metal Storm can only be used in sub-sonic applications at present. The “magazine” is the barrel with projectiles. An average 5.56mm bullet is 25mm/1inch long. A 15 round ‘reload’ would be 15″ long.

    8. please remember that the 62 grain/3100fps 5.56mm projectile is struggling in lethality and the salvo or HSB weapons use lighter projectiles.

    9. please remember all salvo and HSB weapons are very complex compared to “normal” weapons, and what is the jamming and wear issues?.

    Why bother?

    I rest my case.

  • http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/ Sven Ortmann

    @Gareth:
    “Hyper-bursting is effectively shooting two(or, as practically speaking, slightly more than two)rounds with similar accuracy and felt recoil output of of firing a single round. And that makes a significant difference to just “shoot faster”.”

    Germany proved that this can be had much easier. The Wehrmacht did put two light Stg 44 bullets (7.92×33 mm) into one 7.92×57 cartridge, issued that cartridge to K 98 rifle users – and voilà! two bullets leave one barrel almost at once.
    It worked at short ranges well afaik.

  • moosefromoz

    Just to add to what I wrote yesterday, the Mach 5/50 program tested rounds up to 60mm, the minimum velocity tested was at 1600 metres per second (yes metres per second), that was the minimum velocity, I wonder what the maximum velocity was?

    I can’t see how the US would even contemplate changing their main weapon unless there was something very compelling for them to do so, something that was game changing, leap ahead , call it what you will?

    Some people who looked at the patent may think that the mach 5/50 concept is exactly the same as the Duplex round, not so, these mach 5/50 rounds are designed to have two projectiles in the barrel at the same time that have been fired, causing recompression of the gasses behind the front round which causes hypervelocity.

    With these mach 5/50 rounds, it was shown the the trajectory was flat for quite some distance, they would be less affected by wind and they reach the target much quicker which makes them ideal for moving targets, lead time would be next to nil making it easier to hit a moving target, where you aim is just about where you hit.

    These mach 5/50 rounds sren’t just designed for rifles either they were tested up to 60mm as I said but I see no reason why they could not be upscaled to 120mm for use in today’s Tanks or perhaps a smaller 30mm weapon on light armoured vehicles which would have the same KE as a conventional 120mm round anyway! it all relates to E=MC squared, double the velocity quadruple the kinetic impact!

    Here is a link to an article about Mach 5/50 testing by the DSTO in Oz,

    I am sure that the US would have already seen the demonstration of the mach 5/50 firings because they paid the DSTO to develop them and I believe this is the reason behind this hyper burst request for a weapon that can handle this new type of round

    http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/…/ADS%20VOL%2015%20NO%203.pdf

  • Nathaniel

    @SomeGuy

    2600 Joules is not 3000 Joules, and you’re wrong about the recoil issue.

    7.62 is fine from the shoulder, in slow single-fire. In automatic, it’s an entirely different story, bub.

    As for your figure of 8-9 gram at 820 m/s, that’s a fine figure. I take no issue with this; I take issue with the idea that we need a round as powerful as .303 Brit as a universal cartridge.

  • Lance

    @ossefromoz

    There are ways to get hyper burst yes, Russia got one the problem is no current US design M-4 or ACR style can DO a hyper burst thus makes the industry start from scatch to make whole new weapon designs.

    I still think we can improve the M-4 thats fine untill LSAT matures enough to be adopted.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @Rohan:

    “7. Metal Storm can only be used in sub-sonic applications at present. The “magazine” is the barrel with projectiles. An average 5.56mm bullet is 25mm/1inch long. A 15 round ‘reload’ would be 15″ long.”

    You are forgetting that the propellant needs to be stuck onto the back of the bullet, and would be at least twice as long as the bullet, so each round of ammo would actually be about 3 inches long. So a 15-round load would be 45 inches long – and of course you need to allow some empty barrel ahead of the foremost bullet – let’s say 15 inches. Total length of barrel 60 inches. The first bullet would travel down 15 inches of barrel, the next 18 inches and so on, until the final bullet has to travel down the entire barrel. So you’d get huge variations in muzzle velocity.

    @moosefromoz:

    Before you get too carried away with high velocities and muzzle energies, remember this iron law: “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Simply put, if a bullet goes forwards twice as fast and develops four times the muzzle energy, the gun recoils twice as fast and develops four times the recoil energy. To many gun amateurs this is an inconvenient rule which they prefer to forget or arm-wave away somehow, but that won’t make it go away.

  • subase

    If hyperburst becomes standard then bullet technology can take this into account.

    So bullets can be designed when fired one after the other, to ‘help’ each other in penetrating armor. A more sophisticated two stage approach rather the brute force approach.

  • http://deleted gareth

    @Sven Ortmann
    True, but I think I also mentioned the other important side of hyper-burst’s advantage, which is that you can use the gun as a small caliber again. So again, in all the focus of having hyper-burst is to increase tactical flexibility.

    You have the benefit of softer recoil, larger ammo quantity, easier control in full auto with small caliber, while with the help of hyper-burst you can sort of have the stopping power of bigger caliber. Having all three at the same time is beneficial and never been done(at least to Amerian), which is a critical difference to all conventional improvments.

  • moosefromoz

    First of all I don’t profess to know all of the physics behind the mach 5/50 technology, it is very new on the scene, but one thing I do know is that it has been tested a number of times over several years now in Oz by the DSTO,

    I have an idea that the physics behind this idea are so new that it may change some previously held perceptions about ballistics,for instance, no one in their right mind would have suggested that a weapon can have more than one projectile that has been fired in the barrel at one time if they used previously held perceptions about weapons in general, because to do so was flirting with over barrel pressure, one thing I do believe after reading about this tech is that the recoil happens after both projectiles have left the barrel, and in some cases after a third projectile has left the barrel even, and from what I have read and here I am not sure? but it seems the recoil isn’t the sum of both propellants added, it is less somehow, whether this is because the equal and opposite reaction that takes place in a normal firing of the first round is somehow disrupted by the second firing, does that second projectile take away some of the first rounds recoil, well I just don’t know but I daresay neither does anybody else here , it isn’t something that has been seen before by others except for people in DARPA or the DSTO, but certainly not by people like us.

  • Rohan

    @ Tony.

    Understand your comments.
    I believe AUG / future weapon had a trap door opening over the grenade barrel and grenades reloaded there.

    If only the rear barrel with bullets was replaced and the front “normal” rifle barrel portion was not changed, you may have a rifle, but not a practical one!

    I will correct my mistake. The “reload”, ie rear tube with rounds, would be 1″ of bullet and 2″ of propellant per round. A 15 round tube would be 45″.

    You’ll note metal storm pistols (sub-sonic) are “pepperbox” guns.

  • Rohan

    @ Tony,

    Looking at the patent number / Mach 5/50 concept given by moosefromoz, my first comment may remain partially correct (ie 15″), if the propellant is placed radially to the barrel.

    Even with some “overlap” (nose in tail) between rounds, a “reload tube” would be 1″/ round. Still too long to be practical and you’ll need a revolver system of ammo tubes. A salvo could work with smaller projectiles, but how do you defeat the 3rd law and fire a lethal projectile?

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7707941.pdf

  • Rijoenpial

    Hello guys…

    I was just checking the Metal Storm 3GL, Maul and Firestorm technology and I think hyperburst is already a reality, though with some financial and practical problems raised: one, the electronics involved having to be shielded from the elements and needing to be durable, and consequently the sheer costs of fielding such weapon in the thousands! Though, financially speaking, the costs will decrease the higher the production numbers…

    The 3-round grenade launcher, the hyperburst firing before recoil takes place seems feasible to me, given from what I could see on the Future Weapons episode and the litterature and videos regarding it…

    So, the tech is already here, so let’s improve it and make it cheaper!!

    Cheers!

  • Lance

    Metal Storm is a GL NOT a rifle so it will be far more complatcated to make a rilfe do this than a low pressure GL. It should be looked into.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    I don’t see the 3GL using hyperburst for two reasons:

    First, preventing recoil affecting the aim would only work if the barrel were designed to recoil in the mount.

    Secondly, even if this were done, the effect at the end of the burst would be that the firer would be hit by three times the recoil of a standard GL – which would probably be enough to cause a massive flinch when pulling the trigger!

  • moosefromoz

    Lance said, “Metal Storm is a GL NOT a rifle so it will be far more complatcated to make a rilfe do this than a low pressure GL. It should be looked into.”

    Not so, Metalstorm own the IP to a number of platforms , not just the 3GL, and not just 40mm either, they have patents for pistols (VLE) , Belt Fed machine gun, hand held machine pistol/gun, Close in weapons system CIWS, Area Denial stystem (land mine replacement system) anti missile defense (frillneck),MAUL, 3GL,Firestorm MPM, Redback (anti RPG) and many many more,

    Metalstorm, Airtronics (M203) and the Australian DSTO have just signed a collaboration agreement where metalstorm will provide the IP to allow the M203 to fire non lethal rounds with the ability to have selectable velocity and also selectable KE, this IP will used stacked Propellant technology, where depending on the range and or required kinetic impact for non lethal the sighting system will tell the round how many propellant loads to fire, these firings are timed to be ignited a small time apart, so as when the projectile travels along the barrel after the first propellant is fired then a second third or sometimes a fourth is sequentially fired, and because the projectile is moving along the barrel all the time during firing, the space behind the projectile increases allowing further gasses from the firing of more propellant to further increase the pressure and hence increase velocity, because these gas firings occur at different times the gasses are spread along the barrel, this allows for increases in barrel pressure throughout the barrel without an over barrel pressure occurring. this is stacked propellant technology which metalstorm own.

    Metalstorm also have another technology called stacked round technology where when the first projectile is fired and starts moving along the barrel a second projectile is fired, this increases the pressure behind the first projectile and an increase in velocity takes place on the first projectile, and when a third projectile is fired the same increase in velocity occurs in the second projectile, the third projectile become a sacrificial round and does not travel at anywhere near the velocity of the first two, and I suspect it may even negate some of the recoil from the first two firings? this is stacked round technology.

    Metalstorm first discovered this effect about what happened when they fired more than one projectile in the barrel pretty well instantaneously behind each other whilst still in the barrel, the DARPA in the US named this effect Mach 5/50 firing and metalstorm later reffered to it as Hypervelocity firing, DARPA paid the DSTO in Oz to perfect this technology, what they did was use stacked round technology in a cartridge where they had two or more projectiles in the same cartridge, these cartridges are cap fired and look for all intense purposes the same as a normal cartridge except they have tree projectiles in them and each has its own propellant load, I have pasted the patent here before, so if you look back you can see the drawings in them, this sort of cartridge is what I believe will allow a rifle to fire two projectiles though the same hole at basically the same time (mili seconds apart), the DSTO perfected this technology at the Woomera rocket range in South Australia, they have fired two projectiles at mach 5/50 on a repeatable basis up to 60mm at a MINIMUM velocity of 1600 metres (NOTE Metres) per second, if you google DSTO Mach 5/50 science you can read about it, or you can download this PDF.

    The same sort of technology as in the 60mm round shown in the DSTO firing is what I believe this Hyper Burst ability they are talking about is, only in a smaller cartridge version of it, I have noticed in one of the spiels about the new weapon they speak of , and it’s requirements, they say one of them is to be able to fire new advanced technology rounds? Hyper Burst in my opinion is MACH 5/50 tech.

    http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/…/ADS%20VOL%2015%20NO%203.pdf

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @moosefromoz: “Metalstorm also have another technology called stacked round technology where when the first projectile is fired and starts moving along the barrel a second projectile is fired, this increases the pressure behind the first projectile and an increase in velocity takes place on the first projectile, and when a third projectile is fired the same increase in velocity occurs in the second projectile, the third projectile become a sacrificial round and does not travel at anywhere near the velocity of the first two, and I suspect it may even negate some of the recoil from the first two firings?”

    No: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the projectiles go forwards with a given (cumulative, in this case) force, the gun goes backwards with equal force.

  • Lance

    Sorry there is a differnce between a GL which is a low pressure area weapon and a rifle which is small claiber high volacity and percision. BIG differnce.

    The metal sorm GL3 is NOT a hyper burst weapon anyways.

  • Rijoenpial

    Lance,

    Metal Storm’s 3GL is just one of the applications… Check out the MAUL and FIRESTORM applications…

    I think that if hyperburst is the so-called way of the future, then the Metal Storm technology is a much better, more credible way than the AN-94…

    We all know the G11 and the massive weight and bulkness it had… I think that in order to face the expected high recoil, they must create a weapon platform whose mass compensates that recoil…

    They should try first with the 5.7 cartridge, which has been designed for the purpose the Army wants hyperburst for (body armor penetration) and of course, the bigger the caliber, the heavier the weapon must be to compensate for the corresponding recoil…

    The technology is here already, so with some investment, some thinking outta the box and working with and within the physical limitations of hand-held weapons, it can be accomplished… I am sure the Army wouldn’t just throw ‘hyperburst’ out there if they didn’t think it would be possible… Metal Storm has shown the way… With investments in components miniaturisation as well as electronics (duly insulated of course) to make lighter, yet durable components, and ways to compensate recoil, like the AN-94 barrel recoil, for instance, it is perfectly doable…!

    If you had asked me at the time this Army ‘requirement’ showed up, I would have said (and in fact did say) it would be ludicrous… But having seen what Metal Storm has done, is doing and is capable of doing, it sure looks that it can be done, never minding the sheer amount of money and time required!

    Having seen and read all about Metal Storm’s technology, I am looking forward to see it in the future!

    I have to say that the hyperburst requirement seems a bit unnecessary to me, given that there are already armor piercing rounds and calibers around to meet those needs! I think at CQB, for instance, the FiveseveN and the P90 are perfectly capable of meeting those demands, not to mention their light weight…

    And as for other calibers, not forgetting the need to obey NATO ammo standards, it can also be done within the confines of present weapon technology and not having to resort to ‘experimental’ technology…

    I mean, how hard is there to make armor-piercing rounds in the 5.56, 762×39 and 7.62×51 NATO persuasion?!?!

    So, the same results could be achieved without having to resort to hyperburst technology!

    Cheers!

  • moosefromoz

    Lance I never said the 3GL was hyperburst, your first post said that metalstorm was a GL not a rifle, my point is that metalstorm have many platforms not just the Grenade Launcher.

    What I am saying is that one form of hyperburst is metalstorms mach 5/50 technology, in this case it is a cartridge with three projectiles inside and a propellant load behind each one and it is cap fired, that is it isn’t electronically fired in this case, it can be fired from a purpose built rifle.

    This hyperburst is nothing new to metalstorm technology and has been achieved in the VLE hand gun, and the 9mm Box with multiple barrels, it is shown on the metalstorm website where it it makes matchsticks out of a number of doors.

    http://www.metalstorm.com/

  • Lance

    I know you didnt say that mossefromoz

    But Most firearms dont use hyperburst and dont need it look at the AN-94 they gave the complex design up its not worth it. AND all they current designs do and will not achive Hyper burst so every company has to go back to the drawing board.

  • Rijoenpial

    I think regarding hyperburst, the fundamental question for me is how serious is the US Military about this feature being present in the new carbine…

    I mean, can they afford the time and money that will be spent on this endeavor? Do they have this kind of capital, given the economical constraints today, in the States and elsewhere?

    So, this new technology, its benefits, its pros and cons must be all weighed very carefully… As any new developments and subsequent world applications of weapon technology should…

    Cheers!

  • http://Yours Gyreneman

    As for magazine function, it can be enhanced (enough?) by invertion, like an Australian SMG magazine. Also, for the bolt to not need travel so fast, we’ve been moving more and more towards the short case / oa cartridge length on the sporting side. With no one answer, I expect THE answer will be a fair list of current technology ideas. Still, I’ve doubts on reliability and end item use life.

  • Nick

    Our Army Brass can really be stupid sometimes.

  • G3Ken

    Not to get political here, but we’re 16 trillion in debt, plus another 200 trillion in unfundde liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. Our “Empire” is done, over, kaput.

    We lost 5000+ good guys to go to Iraq & do nothing, then EVENTULLY killed OBL and we are STILL there.

    I’m not anti-military or anti-American. My Dad was a Marine, I was a Navy Corpsman for five years and my 24 year old son is now a 2nd Lt in the USMC.

    The problem is we need to face reality. Mayhem is coming home…..soon. Never mind this nonsense.