top-quark - firearms thoughts

Thoughts on Firearms Technology (up!)

Toward the Future - Electronic Weaponry

Every aspect of modern warfare is rapidly being integrated with electronics, but firearms are severely lagging behind. What's needed now is lower-level electronic functionality on conventional arms. Eventually, a higher degree of sophistication is desirable, but the climate right now of technophobic neo-luddism really hinders any huge advancement.

My interim idea is one of simple one-way communication from the firearm to the user. It's too early for real interactivity.

Idea 1) Something like a combat-hardy data bus is the first step to making the electronic firearm a reality. It'd be good for integrating in technologies like laser ranging, ammunition counters; even powering rail devices like lasers and lights, without making the gun front-heavy, as batteries do now. Perhaps the standard Picatinny rail specification could be amended/modified to permit data transmission across what are presently purely structural rails. My idea is to mill in channels in the base of the rail, then with electrically-insulative epoxy, glue in data channels in the base. Single line serial, but none of the rail-mounted devices today are that complex or bandwidth-heavy. You wouldn't really lose structure, and you'd have a relatively electrically-safe option. It's hard to connect the two accidentally.

(modified from Picatinny rail specifications at biggerhammer)

Idea 2) I'm looking at trying to design and implement a "smart" magazine system to detect the number of loaded rounds, then be able to display that information on a weapon sight. I have some ideas; two conductor strips embedded in the magazine well of a rifle would be basic and robust enough to convey the necessary data. Contacts in the magazine would connect the rifle contacts to internal circuitry in the magazinge. Something like a linear potentionmeter might work for the round-counting mechanism, but the strain of the magazine spring under load might also be usable. Whether the subtlety of that approach is practical remains to be seen.

Idea 3) I'd like to be able to tie in a laser ranging system to automatically adjust the reticle for bullet drop. We already have laser rangers in roughly the same form factor as the AN/PAQ-4 rail mounted designators. It wouldn't be so hard to adapt them for rail use.

Idea 4) In the future, helmet-mounted heads-up displays (HUDs) will lie at the base of a common "augmented-reality" battle management system carried by every soldier in the field. As a proof-of-concept, I'd like to mount a small video camera to the rail of a rifle, then feed the video signal to a cheap HUD. Miniature cameras like those sold by supercircuits are easily rail mountable, and have modest power requirements. The wearable computing crowd already hacks DVD viewing glasses for "augmented reality". None of this costs or weighs as much as the government contractor "solutions".

Though this is already part of the "land warrior" program, I think right now that people are trying to push immature cutting-edge technology onto today's battlefields. That approach is intrinsically expensive, complicated, and unrealistic. A more practical approach is to use and modify off-the-shelf technologies to fit specialized military needs. The technology is already here; contractors need to stop dilly-dallying around with the half-workable new stuff, and put out proven, workable solutions.

Idea 5) Integration: A Heads-Up Display Concept

What does my interim solution look like? A screen or sight with (idea 4) elevation-correctable reticle (idea 3, via idea 1) in the middle, remaining ammunition counter on left (idea 2 via 1), and a range display on right (3 via 1). Simple? Yes. Achievable on a wide scale? Yes, unlike some concepts floating around today.

Idea 6) Far future ideas? How about placing a gyroscope in the handguard, tied into your HUD and laser ranger, controlling piezo barrel direction adjusters? Compensate for vibration, poor aim, trajectory, temperature, humidity; a hundred thousand variables. All automatically. The perfectly steady rifle.

Present Problems - OICW and XM8 Non-Answers (long/technical)

I hate hype, since it's detrimental to true technological advancement. In software, we have the term "vaporware"; it succinctly also describes the nature of the entire OICW/XM29 program and the XM8 it spawned. Lots of promises, with no usable results.

I. OICW/XM29
At the core of the XM29 program was a funny way of measuring lethality. Military analysts like their statistics, and a nice way of quantitatively defining the effectiveness of a weapons system is with a particular metric: (incapacitative) hits/round. Just using straight bullets is a bit of a drag, since you can miss. You can get shotguns, but those have crappy range. "Oh, I know!", an astute engineer shouts. "Grenades have area effects, right? Make every shot a mini grenade!" Nice, but grenades are heavy and bulky. You can't carry very many; much less make a usable magazine of them. So then, since you can't carry much, make the launcher a close secondary function to the rifle. Then, to support the grenade launcher, with its rainbow trajectory, put in a bunch of advanced optics, computing, and rangefinding gear. Then battle-harden it all. If you think about it in more basic terms, it's insane and overambitious from the get-go. If the rifle is supposed to be at the core of functionality, why is the bulk of the system, in mass, technology, and control, emphasizes grenades? It's crazy-talk.

What they *should* have done was virtual studies about the usage patterns of firearm/grenade launcher use. Giggle as much as you want; I'm talking about using video games. I'm not saying they should base all their engineering on the result of video games, but if they'd taken the time to put actual soldiers in simulations, I think they'd have figured out the futility of the idea. Video game simulations are extremely valid data collectors for general human-side modeling.

Someone's going to laugh, but take the game Soldier of Fortune II. They actually have their own idea of the OICW in game, but that's OK. What you establish there is that the grenade aspect is really quite rarely used. The majority of the time, blast effects prevent use indoors. In outdoor situations, you're typically using the rifle aspect for aimed fire against an enemy. One of the most touted advantages of the OICW grenade launcher is the ability to hit enemies behind obstacles, because of the delayed fuse. What the game demonstrates, though, is that you need an unbelievably transparent interface for the soldier to have any desire to use it. Lasing distances and adjusting offsets/delays is a LOT of thinking to be doing in a fight. So, what happens is that the grenade launcher aspect is relegated to long-range explosive fire with trajectory correction for standoff resolution.

In other words, you could have done the same with an M203 and leaf sight. Cheaper, with better blast, too.

But the XM29 is dead, so let's let bygones be bygones, right?

No.

II. XM8
One of the byproducts of the XM29 program was the integration of a slightly modified H&K G36 as the "kinetic energy" rifle portion. Maybe out of some sort of delayed sense of frugality, someone decided to scoop up the "kinetic" portion of the XM29 to make a full rifle.

The XM8 is an expensive fix to a non-problem. It's apparent platform is one of being newer, and thus intrinsically better. It's not more lethal, more light, more modular, more accurate, or more reliable. That last point is actually somewhat contentious, but I'll make my case for the irrelevance of the point shortly.

-Lethality: People complain now about the M4 carbines in service; that they're not very lethal. They have a point; the 14.5" barrels aren't long enough to produce enough long-range velocity to fragment the 5.56mm bullets in flesh. In Ammo Oracle, we find that for standard M855 ammunition, the bullet will fragment at a maximum distance of 50m for a 14.5" barrel, and 150m for a 20" barrel. Quite the difference, huh? Now let's look at the XM8. The XM8 carbine is typically cited as being the likely replacement for the M16; it's listed as having a 12.5" barrel. People complain about the 14.5" barrel's performance today; what the hell are they expecting when they lop off two inches? The XM8 in its present planning is less lethal, for shorter distances, than the M16 rifle or even the maligned M4 carbine.

-Lighter: People say that because of the XM8's plastic-fantastic construction, it's going to be lighter. No, plastic is just cheaper to manufacture. As it turns out, the current XM8 carbine is presently at 7.5 pounds, unloaded. The M16 is heavier than the XM8, but the XM8 has ballistic and envelope performance on the order of the M4 carbine, so that's a fairer metric. Know how much an issue M4 weighs? 7.5 pounds, with a 30 round magazine. A 30 rounder weighs about a pound, so that's 6.5 pounds. Granted, the XM8 has optics in its stock configuration, but what does an ACOG, CCO, or EOTech weigh? Less than a pound, at any rate. The XM8 is heavier than, or the same weight as, an M4 carbine, with less lethality.

-Modularity: HK just loves the word "modularity". You can repair, attach accessories, change barrel lengths in field; even caliber! Geegolly. That's awesome. Guess what? The M16 family already does all of that. Repairs are easy; most issues can be resolved with a pinpunch set; bigger issues can just swap upper/lower assemblies. Accessory attachment? The M16 and M4 both have Picatinny rail attachments; easy as clamping down. How about barrel swaps? Well, it's true that the XM8 can have its barrel changed out in the field with simple tools. But.. The AR15/M16 family has two distinct subsystems; the upper receiver and the lower receiver. You can already swap out uppers for shorter ones, longer ones, even ones in different calibers! Does anyone do it? Nope. What makes people think soldiers are going to get out a wrench and change calibers when they can already just pop two pins by hand and be done with it? The XM8 is not more modular in any way that will be used.

-Accuracy: From the groups I've seen, the XM8 is on par with the M16. 2-3 MOA typical. To their credit, HK hasn't made any outrageous accuracy claims. Their PDF file proudly displays 2" at 100 meters. Not that it really matters; anything under 4 MOA or so is "minute of dead" accuracy in combat. XM8 isn't more accurate.

-Reliability. The contentious factor. The XM8 has a gas piston like the AK, as opposed to the direct-gas system of the M16. Does it aid reliability? By numbers, yes. You can fire 15,000 rounds without cleaning, they say. Who in their right mind fires 15,000 rounds without cleaning? "Every night" is a pretty common cleaning regimen. But, people do complain about dust performance. I don't personally feel it's an issue, but let's indulge. Suppose the gas pistons are superior! Day of days, what horror! The M16's gas system has failed. OK, let's all replace with XM8s, right? Haha, not so fast, slick. The M16's modularity comes back to bite HK squarely in the ass. There are a bunch of piston uppers for M16/M4s. Heck, even HK makes one; their HK M416. That'd be splurging with an entirely new upper; they make retrofits for civvie AR15s today. Can HK make an XM8 cheaper than a piston retrofit kit? No. But that's indulging. The overwhelming majority of soldiers in sandy places still don't have major function issues with their M16/M4 rifles, and never will. The XM8's gas piston system is only arguably more reliable than the M16's direct-gas system, and even if it were definitively demonstrated, cheaper alternatives exist to retrofit the M16, saving expensive retraining costs.

The XM8 is expensive, and an inferior system to the M16, by any standard.

So, it's pretty apparent I don't like the XM8. Well, we can't just let billions go back to taxpayers!! How else should we spend the cash?

A better avenue to use the money on would be electronic optics. Failed Congressional funding in FY2004 for the XM8 project was supposed to amount to TWENTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($26,000,000, for my non-Nigerian readers). Drop in the bucket, compared to what they want for the XM8 program overall. That could buy a damn lot of crack, but besides that, it could buy 64,000 top-of-the-line EOTech 552s at full retail price. No gee-whiz rifle can improve your lethality as much as an electronic optic can.