Submitted by Eric Daniel
Well, it looks as if the Army has again officially opened the can of worms that is the debate revolving around a replacement for the M16/M4. With this go around however, the Army says all limitations are off. They say they’re willing to consider any caliber, any operation system, and any configuration.
Given the Army’s track record with sticking with the M16/M4 through thick and thin, as well as the Army’s previous position that it would stick with the M4 until there was a “revolutionary” breakthrough in small arms technology (hand held death rays?) I’m taking this most recent statement with a salt lick, but in as much as they are soliciting ideas, I might as well offer up mine.
On its face, it would seem that there are only three real issues to consider; how big (in caliber) how many (bullets in the magazine) and how to crank it (what operating system do you go with.) Once you settle on those, putting them together is packaging. While there are any number of cartridges and operating systems that offer obvious advantages over the M16′s feeble 5.56mm bullet and wretched gas carrier key operating system, if you wanted a truly revolutionary replacement for the M4, I would put my money on the H&K G11.
For those of you not in the know (not that I am, but I remember when it was developed) the H&K G11 rifle was developed as a replacement for the 7.62mm G3 battle rifle in the 1970s. What the Germans wanted to develop was a weapon with a large ammunition capacity (50 rounds) low weight (< 10 pounds loaded) flat trajectory (no sight corrections at <300m) and a high degree of accuracy in 3-round burst mode.
To meet the burst accuracy requirement there were two ways to go, either fire projectiles simultaneously (shotgun shells or duplex rounds) or fire bullets very fast. The shotgun shell method was dropped because the bullets which would do the job not only generated too much recoil to be effective, but their size put them outside the round capacity requirement, so H&K went with the “shoot really, really fast” approach. This is where the G11 comes into its own as a revolutionary weapon.
H&K realized that the bigger the bullet, the more propellant it would require to drive it, and that propellant would be translated into not only recoil to be absorbed by the shooter but a loss of overall ammunition capacity in the magazine. One solution was to use a smaller bullet. The 4.73x33mm bullet developed for the G11 is smaller that the 5.56mm bullet currently used in the M16 but the high degree of accuracy with the G11 in burst mode makes the G11 as accurate firing 3 shots as the M16 firing one, so the combined effect on the target, with the G11, is greater.
The second issue was dealing with the recoil. As has been documented since the invention of the first shoulder-fired automatic weapons, felt recoil will bring the weapon off target, thus rendering accurate, aimed automatic fire impossible at desirable ranges. H&K’s solution was to eliminate the issue by having the weapon fire a 3-round burst so fast that the bullets were out of the barrel and going down range before the recoil reached the shooter.
Again, how H&K did this was pretty slick. To speed up the firing process H&K eliminated several steps in the firing sequence, specifically locking, unlocking, extracting and ejecting, by going with a caseless ammunition, where the propellant, rather than held in a metal casing behind the bullet, is actually molded around it. This eliminated the need for extracting and ejecting spent casings, as there were no cartridges to extract, since, when fired, the propellant body was consumed and the bullet launched out the barrel. Using a caseless cartridge also enabled H&K to not only make lighter bullets (there was no weight wasted in metal casings) but also allowed them to pack more of the bullets into a given space (since the bullets are square, there’s no wasted space in the magazine.) The net result was a cyclic ROF of 2,000 RPM in 3-round burst mode (in single shot and full auto, the ROF is only 460 RPM.) An additional benefit with going with caseless ammunition was the elimination of additional openings for contamination. Lacking an ejection port, the G11′s chamber remains relatively sterile.
To eliminate the recoil issue H&K “floated” the barrel and action on a secondary recoil mechanism. The effect here was that when the burst was fired, the body of the rifle would remain stationary against the firer’s shoulder, while the action and barrel recoiled down the secondary rail; by the time the action came completely out of battery, where the recoil would be felt by the shooter, the burst cycle would be complete (a recoil spring pushes the action back into battery for the next burst.)
The end result was a weapon that was light, with a high ammunition capacity, and which was capable of firing accurate 3-rounds bursts.
So what happened to the G11? Well, as luck would have it, as the G11 was nearing production capability, peace broke out all over the world and with all the lions-and-lambs group hugging going on, the West German government decided it had more important things to do than buy a bunch of new wunder rifles, (like look for jobs for all it’s new citizens from the East “zone”) so the program was shelved.
Well, if the Army is looking for revolutionary, I don’t think you can get any more revolutionary than this. I just don’t expect the Army to explore it.
{ 86 comments… read them below or add one }
There is one other minor issue with such wundergehweren… No denial of cover. 3 small bullets may have the same effect as 1 larger bullet on a human body, but they aren’t quite as good at blasting through intervening obstacles like walls, auto glass, and sheet metal.
@ Ernunnos:
While the G11 might have been designed for a smaller caliber, that design requirement was driven by the desire to have a larger capacity magazine. The basic design that allows for accurate 3rd burst and protects the weapon from foreign debris can be scaled to heftier bullets.
The G11 is a design that needs to be taken off the shelf, re-evaluated, and possibly re-tooled. You want something better than the M16? This is it. Lets not waste resources re-inventing the wheel.
Now find me an exploded diagram of that thing and tell me you want to clean it. To say nothing of the expense of such a complex gun.
It reminds my of my Mauser Broomhandle: looks really elegant, but inside it’s a watchmaker’s nightmare.
Lovely thing, that G-11. Fine example it is of what you get when you put a bunch of un-reigned engineers in a room and let ‘em have at it.
Of course, these same engineers won’t be the ones who have to yell, “Time-out” in a firefight, so’s they can clear a jam… a two-day project if ever there was one, as shown in the illustrations).
Cutting through some fog: some half-wit, draft-dodging, non-Veteran jackass in the Gummamint decided to replace the M-14 with the Mickey Mattel toy. What a freakin’ travesty.
Simple solution to the burning yearning of whomever to replace the M-16/M-4/whatever alias they hide under now: bring back the M-14′ guts-’n'-(modified)ammo, seat it in a carbon fiber stock (is that what it’s called? – the black, seemingly indestructible stuff on newer weapons),put on an EoTech, and change out the projectile to the .308-type made by Extreme Shock (Google ‘em: their stuff is amazing!).
I gare-on-damn-tee that even the greenest REMF would be able to obliterate hostile indigenous native personnel, 1-A, 1-each every trigger squeeze (to the extent the REMF was training-convinced that the EoTech was really just part of X-Box or Gameboy).
Ooops. Sorry. Doing the foregoing would eliminate the under-the-table ‘early retirement stashes’ for too many open-palmed bureaucrats. My bad.
Carry on. I’ll be waiting for the NSA, quietly over here in the corner.
Having had the experience, long ago, with the M16A1(!), I really feel that the direct gas impingement design was a mistake from the beginning; and all the doodads that have been added since simply make its decendants all the less “Soldier-Proof”. The Gas-piston adapttation that came out several years ago looked promising, but we still have to deal with a cartridge that is more suited to rabbit or squirrel rather than humans…you know…the ones that we shoot at in Real Wars!
7.62×51 is good, if you’re thinking of fighting WWII again, but, unless you are willing to do something radical regarding muzzle climb, that won’t do either uless the third and subsequent rounds out the muzzle are for MiG-suppression. So far, I’ve been hearing good noises about the 6.8SPC. and, for Gods sake get rid of the “3-round Burst feature” and start teaching the troops TRIGGER CONTROL!!!
one shot, one kill…long distance-the next best thing to being there.
I don’t know why they keep making weapons with three round burst. I have never been trained to use it – it is always frowned upon – and I never once fired the weapon in combat in anything other than single. I can lay more rounds down accurately in single shot and in less time than if I were going three round burst.
The only benefit to three round burst I have seen is in CQB – but that’s only if you are not trained well enough to do a good “Two the body, one to the head”.
The only time I have ever used three round burst is at the end of training to burn up Blanks.
There’s also a fourth and maybe fifth requirement to any new weapons system in addition to the three listed above.
Ease of use and easy of training.
and
Ease of maintenance and repair.
As an Infantryman, having a super high tech weapon in my hands that I am not an expert in, and can’t easily maintain is useless to me. I have done just fine with the M16 and M4. A new weapon needs to be similar. The only real complaint I have about the M16/M4 is the round used. Otherwise, I like it.
While I am a huge fan of the G11 and it’s innovative features, I’m not such a fan that I believe it’s round can defeat most known threats and body armor.
How about we either a.) look at the G11 but upscale it to like a 10mm round, which would give us the ability to make it light armor piercing, discarding sabot, whatever…
or b.) just do what the Germans did and adopt a really really fantastic battle rifle in 7.63mm, aka, the G3.
I know all you crusty old guys want a crusty old rifle like the M14 (and it’s hard to blame you), but really, let’s get a modern rifle with a round that will do some serious hurt, and go with the G3 or something like it.
Since we are getting rid of the M249 SAW, the 5.56mm round really has no place in the world anymore.
Let’s just make it a clean break and go for something that really puts the bad guys in the hurt locker.
I understood that the major problem with the G11 was one of cook-off of rounds once the barrel had attained a certain temperature.
If that problem could now be resolved then it is the caseless ammo development which could inform the design of a good infantry combat weapon.
Having been in 10th Group SF in the US Army for quite a few years, I have actually had the pleasure of putting a G-11 A2 through it’s paces during the US Army’s initial testing of the weapon. I have fired well over 5,000 rounds through one at various distances and in all types of scenarios.
In all honesty, there was not a single malfunction of the weapon whatsoever. It was literally 5,000 for 5,000, 100% operation even during it’s break-in period (first 500 rounds). We were not allowed to clean it for the entirety of the testing, however when we were completed, we were instructed on field-strip and cleaning methods and told to clean them. Initially it was very dirty, but after a few patches down the barrel it was remarkably spotless. This weapon cleaned faster than anything I have ever run a brush through and I have run a brush through thousands of different weapons. This may all sound hard to believe, but this weapon maintains an excellent condition through extreme situations.
As far as firepower goes, this thing was an absolute beast! The muzzle velocity is HUGE providing serious penetration even with a small round. We used a variety of rounds: FMJ, JHP, AP, HEI, DU, and BTM. All, of course, were caseless squares that looked almost like some kind of snack food. They are actually very easy to load into a magazine, as the magazine is designed so you can just drop them in, then release the spring for tension. Works great! At ranges of 3 to 600 meters this gun performed remarkably well. You can actually select two different full auto modes, FULL 1 (480 RPM) and FULL 2 (1,600 RPM), however I believe this was only on the A2 that we tested in the late 80s. At FULL 2 you could fire all 50 rounds into a 6 inch target at 100 yards without loosing your sight picture or changing your stance. We also did quite a few shoot and move drills and this thing makes you feel like you’re in a movie. Running and shooting with this is made so much easier. There is just the lightest recoil pulse and it is straight back; the muzzle does not jump. We did quite a few scenario tests for airplanes where we usually use one arm to aim, shoot, and one arm to climb. The weight of this weapon was perfect for such an activity. It is difficult to shoot accurately with one arm using an MP5 or MP7 submachinegun, but the G11 really makes it easy. (Nothing against the MP5 or MP7, I have used both extensively and they have a close place in my heart.)
Penetration with DU, AP, and BTM rounds was excellent. It would easily penetrate 6 to 7 inches of solid concrete. The FMJ rounds would penetrate 3 to 4 inches of solid concrete, but the second shot would always blow through the rest of the 3 to 4 inches remaining. Sending 3 shots downrange at BURST 3 (2,000 RPM) is a blast and I would challenge anyone to tell me they would hide behind a concrete barrier with the G11 pecking away at them.
Also, about the round used, the 4.73x33mm mentioned above is not what we used during testing. I could not tell you the exact caliber or dimensions, but it is bigger than a 5.56. I’d venture to say it’s as big as a 7mm Rem Mag, but perhaps my memory does not serve me correctly. Either way, the rounds we used were extremely effective and extremely accurate at close to long range.
In conclusion, this would be my choice in a battlefield weapon. It is excellent in so many different ways, and highly versatile. Provided we did not do any environment testing (sand, water, mud, oil, etc.) other than normal training provides, this thing was put through grueling paces and performed perfectly. It kept up with some of the finest operators on this planet, and exceeded our expectations for the “crazy ****in space ray” gun they put in our hands. Bottom line, the G11 A2 is a masterpiece. My only complaint is that I did not get to take one to Iraq and Afghanistan with me!
SGT_Kinsella: You are absolutely right about the 3 round burst, it is not used in training because it is usually slow enough to remove control of the weapon from the soldier for small periods of time. The few exceptions are with high-cyclic rate submachineguns that can fire 3 rounds in the time it would take an M16 to fire the first round in it’s 3 round burst. This makes for a 3 for 1 type shooting scenario which is highly affective in CQB and Medium Range. The MP5-K PDW is a perfect example. You can ‘Mozambique’ somebody in one press of the trigger, and believe me… it is highly effective. It also increases the chance of hitting vital organs when you are taking snap shots on instinct. The sooner you hit those vitals, the faster they will come down, and in my line of work, Milliseconds count against you.
I respect the opinion of each of you; but a smaller round, for the majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that will carry a battle rifle, is not the answer. Accuracy – first time hit is absolute. Tiny holes do not create permanent or temporary wound cavities that rapidly incapacitate; dead, wounded, either is acceptable as long as the enemy stops fighting. The round must be able to penetrate body armor or typical barriers that an opponent might seek for shelter, while still being able to expand in the human body. Over-penetration, while a realistic concern in urban setting, are a necessity to rapidly encourage incapacitation. While there has been a lot of great research in this area, there needs to be more. Get this right, especially if our supply system is going to have a non-universal round.
The rifle should be a flexible system that can be convertible rapidly. Requirements for crew-members, airborne and staff personnel for example are different from a standard configuration as they are from each other. Being able to change the barrel length, stock configuration, left or right hand operating and charging systems also must be addressed. Lets not rush this process or surrender to old timers or small group think. Lets get our soldiers and SGT’s involved as they are the principals in battle.
As history will show, the Army/military, have always resisted change. their arrogance is over shadowed only by their stupidity..change is made only if a desperate need is realized, instead of proactive action to have needs met before they become a crisis. This is why they teach history, so we are not doomed to repeat it. Nobody remembers. Here we go again…
IMHO, this H&K auto rifle is probably great in the lab, good on the range, and, based on its complexity, crappy in the field.
Like most H&K products, it is overly complex and real world unfriendly. Take it out in an Iraqi light sandstorm (the fine grandule type) and drop it on the ground, kick a little sand over it, then drop the mag, rack the action, clear any loose sand and dirt, and then see if can even fire.
Some years ago, an Air Force shooting team at a SOF convention took 8 SMGs, 4 Uzis and 4 H&K MP5s. They dropped the weapons on the ground, kicked sand and dirt over them, picked them up, performed the standard clearing steps, and then fired them full auto at targets. All of the Uzis fired without a hitch. All of the MP5s jammed. With their famous, precision roller bearings, H&K s are tempermental little beasties.
H&Ks work fine if you can keep them clean all of the time. H&Ks are ideal for police work and in civilized environments.
I recall inspecting the FNs, H&Ks, and M16a used by South American rebels. When looking at the H&Ks, I remember thinking “these rifles have no finish left on them down to bare metal.” I found that the rebels cleaned their H&Ks religiously because they learned that their lives depended on it. In their combat environment, their H&Ks would jam even more than the old M16s some of the rebels had.
Until H&Ks can pass real world battlefield environmental reliability tests, we should all run and not walk away from them.
I would like to say that the FN-FAL, the Galil, the AK varients, M-14… all fine, combat proven weapons. I have used all of them in various situations during combat, espionage, intelligence gathering, and otherwise. I would also like to say that I have used the SCAR system in combat and it has really gained my trust as a dependable and accurate weapon system. I would like to see it in 6.8 in addition to it’s current 5.56 and 7.62. They also have a 7.62×39 configuration that is used during covert operations for full deniability.
WOW this could be as entertaining as the Air Force and their attempts to buy a new tanker. Gone are the days when the customer buys what the customer wanted. If the jerks in the DoD procurement offices get involved, the Army will get sling shots because the Cold War is over. Why would you need anything else?
Egads! Think of it. An aftermath of battle of the future where no one leaves any empty brass behind! Just a bunch of holes everywhere, and of course, the bodies have already been removed (just like we and the VC did in Vietnam). Now that is what I call really policing-up the area after you use it.
Having used the M-16 A-2 and A-4 I have to say the weapon is a fine weapon not perfect but fine. Things I would change are as follows: 1.ambidextrous controls( selector bolt catch,mag rerlease button),2.new short stroke piston op system,3.pistolgrip,4.collapsible front sight post,5.a duracoat or similar finish either in OD,coyote tan,dark earth,or medium grey. This woul cost maybe $600 per weapon. The end result would be weapon that Marines are comfortable using,easier to keep clean and free of rust ect.More realible. And easier for the lefties to use
You are seriously considering this? The m1 garand was more kill effective and weighs as much. If you go to a smaller caliber those who use a 7.62X39 round in that ak-47 and the SKS, our troops are done for at anything more that 300m. This rifle provides nothing more than a firearm for area targets. My ruger 10-22 can do the same thing.
Remember this round, 6.5X55
Think about it, does everything well.
lets backup here. this is a wonderfully engineered weapon. but, on the battle field you need stopping power. with a small caliber bullett i dont care how many rounds you throw down range, if you can’t knock them down or penetrate their body armor, it isnt worth looking at. three small caliber rounds? why dont you just give a semi-auto .22??
larger calibers are were its at. 1 orund 1 kill. or a fifty
round magazine but you have to use 3 rnds to make the same kill. how rediculous.
why not give our troops caseless bbs’ spc or higher
maybe then when we shoot someone we don’t have to watch them continue to run and maybe bleed out ohurs later or kill a buddy before they bleed out.
this may be resistant to change and arrogant but screw you buddy if I shoot someone I don’t want to wounder if that guy i shot is going to die or get an RPG.
Replace a 5.56 with a smaller cartridge??? If a lighter gun has to fire three smaller rounds
to take down the bad guy you just wasted two rounds. Inside a building I would still take a Thompson .45. Outside the building I’ll take a 6.8 SPC. If I can’t have the Thompson I’ll still take the 6.8 over a 5.56 or smaller shell. I still think a shell that can smack a guy in the face like a lead filled baseball bat at 1o feet or 800 yards would always be my choice. I want a gun that can hit a target and take it out as fast as possible without wasting 3 rounds just to make sure he stays down. Call me old fashoned but I want the our troops to have the best… even a 1911 .45 is better than a 9mm. A 40 ain’t so bad either.
I agree with the larger caliber argument. Having a 50 round mag. is fine and yes 3 rounds flying down range and impacting the target will have the impact of a larger caliber weapon. But those small projectiles will probably not penetrate modern body armor. but even if that isn’t the case, would caseless amunition survive in wet environments?
Take a look at Knight’s armament Personal Defense Weapon. The PDW takes a 6x35mm Cartridge, or the LWRC M6 PSD from Land Warfare Resource Corporation, which takes a 6.8mm cartridge. Both can punch through most modern body armour and have the familiar feel of the M16/M4, these weapons and more can be viewed at:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/weapons/zone3/slideshow/slideshow.html
The M6 is image number 9, the Knight’s armament PDW is image number 21
Imagine a semi-auto bullpup in .308 with an under-barrel UZI in 9mm. Anything bigger than 5.56 in a gun less than 10 lbs is gunna be out of control in full-auto. Anything smaller than 5.56 is gunna have sub 300m accuracy/power. Put the two together, link em to the same trigger, and add a selector switch. Just an idea.
I understand that the brass from conventional ammo helps carry off excess heat. Since these have no brass case, I have heard there are heat problems.
You’re right, the weapon does have a heat problem, as all caseless weapons will due to the lack of cartridge ejection. The hot metal leaving the weapon is an excellent heat-transfer method.
That’s why the G-11 should only be fired in 3-round burst mode, and I believe they do not have an auto position on the selector.
FWIW, the weapon has a starring role in the sci-fi novel “Cyberchild”. It’s available on AMazon.
1 question that nobody seems to address. If the 7.62 mm or 30 caliber is such a horrific round to control or use, why is the AK-47 consistently rated as the #1 military weapon in the world? Did they change the caliber of it and I didn’t hear about it?
Actually, they did. In 1974 the AK47 was replaced by the AK74 using the new 5.45X39 cartridge. The two look alike from a distance, except the AK74 uses a different muzzle break and plastic magazines.
You guys speak a whole new language, here. I guess it is time to “stack arms” and take a break, in place. I pre-date the “mm” world, have trouble making the mental conversion between “mm” and “cal.” I suspect you have outstripped my beloved .30 cal Garand. Y’all have fun; hear?
If the army is really serious in this venture it would reexamine the 6mm SAW of 1971 produced by FA (Frankfort Arsenal)and adjust acordingly as an individual weapon. I learned about this one from a friend of mine who was the head of army R&D in the early seventies.
The new “Rifle, forward ejection, bullpup” or RFB, from Kel-Tec CNC might be a good candidate in a truly open competition. It’s designed for .308 / 7.62X51, comes in various barrel lengths from carbine to precision shooter, fluted or not, lots of accessory possibilities, etc. A spent cartridge is the only tool needed to field strip and re-assemble the RFB.
http://kitup.military.com/2008/09/the-gun-that-ne.html#comments
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1096
I think what the 7.62×39 is called a RUGER RANCH RIFLE works great in all weather mine has ben on the crusher scraper dozer tunnels in the swamps and Alaska take mine every where I also have drug my old 30 carbine around for 40 yrs she can still put three rounds down range 100 yards in a Coors can but I guess I am a through back my my oldest son has done 6 combat tours in the last 6 yrs he likes something with more punch as well butt it just our two bits
I think what the 7.62×39 is called a RUGER RANCH RIFLE works great in all weather mine has ben on the crusher scraper dozer tunnels in the swamps and Alaska take mine every where I also have drug my old 30 carbine around for 40 yrs she can still put three rounds down range 100 yards in a Coors can but I guess I am a through back my my oldest son has done 6 combat tours in the last 6 yrs he likes something with more punch as well butt it just our two bits
You really want aweapon with very little maintenance, and fool proof? Try a sling shot. But, beings wea re in the 21st century, we had better go with a modren assault rifle. I have fired both the M16A1 and M16A2. And, if you take care of your weapon, like CLEAN it, and wipe it down when out on patrol, you should have no problems. But, you get these lazy ass neewbs, and they see someone else with a shiney new toy, and they have got to have one.
But, all that aside, a real great replacement for the M16 family of weapons would be the SCAR-H. 7.62x51mm round, great knock down power at medium to short ranges(what screwed up the M16 was the asswipe who wanted that new and cheaper powder, and that 1 extra twist in the barrel)
Or, just go back to the M3 grease gun..takes a super soldier to screw that weapon up
After WW1 all armies of the world concluded .30 was too big and a new smaller cal was needed (no smaller than .256). Garand designed a 10 shot .276 10 rifle. The US army and MacArthur killed .276. The USA got the 8 shot .30 Garand.
After WW2 all armies of the world concluded .30 was too big and a smaller cal was needed. The Brits designed the EM-2 in .270 and the Belgian designed the FAL. The US army killed both and adopted the M14 (Garand with 20 round magazine).
In Vietnam the US army was forced to admit that M14 / .30 were too big and modified the M16 for general service.
Now with the GWOT the M16 / 5.56mm is too small, and everyone wants a bigger round. SF wanted .260, the US army killed it and stuck to the M16/M4.
Armies DONT LIKE CHANGE!
I was Australian Army and taught be Vietnam veterans.
ALL said the same, 7.62mm to big, 5.56mm to small, give me round in the middle.
Had the USA listened to the conclusion of every war we would have this problem.
1. .257 is what was needed. Not to big, to small, to slow, to fast, JUST RIGHT!
2. Ditch the M16/M4, and get a new rifle.
3. Ditch the M249/Mk46, and get one SAW/LMG
4. Design the rifle and SAW around the calibre,
don’t squeeze the calibre into the weapon.
5. Make future sniper and Sustained Fire (tripod) MGs .338.
(check your grammar before pressing send!)
After WW1 all armies of the world concluded .30 was too big and a new smaller cal was needed (no smaller than .256). Garand designed a 10 shot .276 10 rifle. The US army and MacArthur killed .276. The USA got the 8 shot .30 Garand.
After WW2 all armies of the world concluded .30 was too big and a smaller cal was needed. The Brits designed the EM-2 in .270 and the Belgian designed the FAL. The US army killed both and adopted the M14 (Garand with 20 round magazine).
In Vietnam the US army was forced to admit that M14 / .30 was too big and modified the M16 for general service.
Now with the GWOT the M16 / 5.56mm is too small, and everyone wants a bigger round. SF wanted .260, the US army killed it and stuck to the M16/M4.
Armies DONT LIKE CHANGE!
I was Australian Army and taught be Vietnam veterans.
ALL said the same, 7.62mm to big, 5.56mm to small, give me a round in the middle.
Had the USA listened to the conclusion of every war we wouldn’t have this problem.
1. .257 is what was needed. Not to big, to small, to slow, to fast, JUST RIGHT!
2. Ditch the M16/M4, and get a new rifle.
3. Ditch the M249/Mk46, and get one SAW/LMG
4. Design the rifle and SAW around the calibre,
don’t squeeze the calibre into the weapon.
5. Make future sniper and Sustained Fire (tripod) MGs .338.
they need to adopt the .243win the m-14 can be adapted to this high accuracy good knock down power. snipers neep to use the.264win mag high accuracy good knock down power existing system can be adapted to these rounds.give something to the military that works without endanering their lives
Basic logic suggests that if this rifle takes a 3 round burst to hit as hard as a single round from other rifles, then the 50 round magazine it boasts is really a 16.666 round magazine! So in lethality and capacity it is a step backward. Not to mention the operating system I’m sure would take considerable time to make reliable to a G.I. standard.
What is interesting is the concept of firing multiple rounds before felt recoil. It sounds like another successful espionage effort by the Russians as they developed the Nikonov AN-94 in the late ’80s which uses similar internal carrier to allow two rounds to be fired before felt recoil.
Single-shot, Case-less Ammo. .243-.257 cal. (6mm, or 6.5mm) Case-less rounds in these calibers will fit into .223cal/5.56mm space with lethality out to 500m, and “Range” to 1200 or more. Same impulse, same recoil containment. More destruction to target, especially defilade.
Just go with the AR-10 in 7.62 and be done with it. All the training and experience still applies and the cartridge is sufficiently lethal to meet any situation. That is the caliber the rifle was originally designed for. A short stroke gas piston would improve reliability and reduce maintenance. Drop full auto in favor of the three round burst. Give it a free float four rail handguard to improve accuracy and hang all the doo dads on.
Re-make the M14 in lighter materials and you get the accuracy, great one shot kill ability. Even if the other guy is wearing a vest you can slam him down and he won’t get up for a while. And you can do that from farther out than the M-16.
I used the M16 in Columbia and the Middle East. Its okay if you want to spray bullets in tight quarters but I will take the M14 and use 1 shot per target if we are trading rounds down 100 or more yards.
I like the SOCOM variant of the M-14. The 7.62 round works well and the SOCOM seems to control it. There are new recoil reducers being developed which will tame the problems. Watch what McMillan comes up with on the 50 in the next few months.
Consider the flowing: 1. Bottom line is anyone participating in this Blog is not the NORM when it comes to who is doing the shooting nowadays. Most of us that are responding to this article are “shooters.” We crave the next step in tech world, understand and own most of the battle rifles used in the last 50+ years, and welcome all comers to take up a prone position and put your caliber where the 500 meter target is. Show me your penetration capabilities and shock to a deer chest cavity at ranges out to 350 meters or varmints at 150-200 meters. Then we will listen, maybe. We grew up shooting and being taught to shoot. We had others around us who instill the weapons marksmanship fundaments in us from the time we were able to stick the .22s between our legs and pull the cocking lever back using both hands. Many a supper of squirrel stew proves my point.
2. “Times they are a changing.” Most young people have not or never have handled a weapon in their life till they attend “basic.” My D.I. and Drill Sergeant friends tell me that if you can do it with a game boy controller then this generation can do anything. Right now most shots in combat are taken at room entry distance or at 75-175 meters out in the streets/open areas. With all the optical sights, lasers, and add on items the average person does not have to learn to shoot. Just put the red dot on the target and pull. (Looks like a video game, smell like a video game…etc). I don’t want to do injustice to the brave men and women who are putting in on the line daily, but training to shoot requires someone to have been on a range and put rounds down on target. You would be surprised to know how may rounds the average service member has fired at the time they go into “The box.” Nothing ever replace training, nothing!
Now if we must make a change in midstream, why not look at something like the LWRC? Web site: http://www.lwrifles.com/ . It looks like the current M16 series reducing the marksmanship training already in place, fits the same weapons racks so we don’t have to buy new, and can be had in the 6.8 SPC. Yes , times are a changing, but is our desire for technology to once again bail us out really a good reason to jump far out there when a few step in the right direction would better keep our service member alive and well?
I’ll be over here in the same corner with DebBod when the NSA comes to get us. Remember were the shooters so tread softly. Bravo 32 Out!
I am aquainted with a physicist, who is developing a portable, (IE, handheld) railgun of a very small calibre, I am assuming, based on what he said, the size of a bb, and powered by a small backpack charger unit. Now his work is only prototypical, but based on available information, could you imagine, something capable of literally thousands of rounds a minute, with a speed in excess of any propellant based ammunition known of. I want one.
I take a look at the G11 and see possibilities. With the latest tech, the rifle could, most likely, be made a bit more compact. You’ll have to drop the 50 round magazine as it’s just too long! Magazine pouches and dump pouches would just be impossible to deal with. You may be able to get by with a 40.
7mm caseless with 3 shot burst capability. Non-removable optical sight (like the Tavor). Light weight from use of new polymers or ceramics. Easy field maintenance and the ability to clear a misfire/dud round quickly. Dependability in all weather conditions.
Gives the most important aspect of this exercise, the soldier, what they need, a larger caliber that hits hard and also gives the generals what they want, new tech.
I agree, it’s time to take another look at caseless ammo.
LOOK THE M-1 GARAND WON WW2 AND CAN STILL KILL AND TAKE OUT AND ON ALL NEW COMERS EVEN TODAY, GOING TO SMALLER CALIBER WEAPONS THAN .30 CALIBER IS PROOF POSITIVE PROOF OF THE PUSSIFICATION OF ANY MILITARY ANYWHERE PERIOD, NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY.
A rifle shooting something between 5.56 and 7.62 would be nice. Maybe 6.5 mm…
The G11 never was, and it never will be.
Caseless ammunition is just a bad idea.
I have used both, the M16A1 and A2, and I never had any problems with it, and I also had the chance to use the AUG-77. It has various barrel lengths so it can be adopted to the different kinds of operations(that’s why it is used by the Austrian Special Forces). But I definitely think that it’s time for a new and better rifle.
The Kel-Tec RFB is to difficult to clean for a normal soldier, and it has problems with the forward ejection if it’s not cleaned extremely accurate.
With the first type of ammo used in the G11 it gave heat problems after about 650 shoots, that’s right, but this problems are solved(it took them a half year). Now, even if you fire 2500 rounds, you will not have any kind of problem. Also this rifle is, if you get used to it, quite easy to clean.
In my eyes the G11 would be the best choice.
Here’s an easy, intermediate solution until we can get our Starship Troopers rifles: buy new upper receivers in 6.8, which we can probably get at a discount if we trade in the old ones. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than buying an entire new weapon, and it provides a patch for our immediate problems until the nice folks at Natick and Pickatinny can get us into the space age. Just a thought.
Since when has the Army ever in all the years of its existence been proactive when it came to weapons or ammunition for the foot soldier? Having been personally involved with the lunacy of weapons testing and the deceit involved as well as the skimming and scamming involved with US Army test labs, it amazes me that anyone ever has taken the US Army, and their professed interest in giving our fighting men and women the best equipment money can buy, seriously. It requires so much graft to get “honest” test results that it is a joke. Proof, you say? Look at every weapon or ammunition requirement requested by “the field soldier.” Then look at how many small companies have responded with improved and superior ideas only to have them declared unfit and swept under the rug with false or inaccurate test results or just the conclusions of those results. Who wanted the M16 in the first place? Who wanted to remove the M14? Who claimed the US military member was such a whimp that they could not shoot the “hard kicking” 7.62 or too weak to carry the “heavy” M14? Certainly anyone who has ACTUALLY USED and relied on the weapon or ammunition in combat has not said the performance of a superior penetrating, better built, simpler operating system is not what we want. The M4/M16 with ammo improved to match the requirements the Army claims it needs cannot exist since Picatinny or Yuma or whomever did not invent it. Outside companies protected even with patents and test results from independent labs without enough graft never will get to first base testing or proving their improvements even work, much less exist. The Navy is not much better. Crane and even Dahlgren struggle to look at new ideas even when money is provided unless they invented it. Strangely, not one of the labs even has to seek out their own money for these projects. Companies can come direct with Congressionally approved and supplied money and the labs are more than happy to take the money, but unless it is a big company that will hold the gov’t's feet to the fire legally, the results are unless one greases a few palms on Capitol Hill, that money disappears and projects are cancelled. Who gets screwed besides the inventors of those weapons or systems – the American soldier, sailor or Marine. We have a broken system and have always had it since before Washington crossed the Deleware. Just ask Browning, Spencer, Stoner, Colt, etc. What did it finally take to get these weapons or weapon systems into our arsenals? Go around the Army and put them into the private use first or take it offshore and only then MIGHT the Army consider it. Afterall, with the exception of Garand (who worked for the Army) these other individuals have given their lives to projects that weren’t good enough until the right amount of graft was provided. Our test system is broken. While crying about it will not fix it, at least it is a way to let off steam.
Well, I think that real progress is being made in the fact that the army is considering a real change.H&K makes really good weapons, I had used one before and it was better than anything around. I have not had any experence with the G11, but feel it has a lot to offer above what we have. I’m sure our troops can handle it a lot better than an .22 that jammed everytime we got into a fire fight.
I see a newer version being accepted in a good knockdown round.. Let’s keep talking and hopefully the army will listen. Think of BEAR hunting..
I have gotten really tired of reading articles written by people who must work for H&K. There are a lot of companies out there who make good weapons besides H&K. Why did SOCOM choose FN if H&K is the best? AS for as the army looking for a weapon of the future the only thing out there that fits that now is caseless ammo. The problem there is not a weapon to fire it but the ammo.
A casesless ammo rifle would be great, but its not practical for the US military for dozens of reasons. At least not yet. If the US army REALLY wants a new rifle it has to be able to use the 5.56 NATO round. Of course we don’t want to, so something that could take multiple rounds would be best. Like a Robinson XCR-L.
http://www.robarm.com/
I’ve railed against the M16 and any subsequent variants since it first came out. I always knew it was an inferior round for combat especially in the bush of Vietnam. What was MacNamara and the “whiz Kids” thinking? What the hell did Curtis LaMay know about ground pounding when he purchased these weapons after being shown them at a party thrown by Eugene Stoner for the purpose of showing off his “Matell toy”?
How about chopping some barrel off the M-14, putting on a suppressor ala the Socom 16, replacing some of the furniture with a folding poly-stock to lighten the weight and adding ten rounds to the magazine. You know what you’ve got then? A souped up, more accurate AK-47, thereby making it the best all round military rifle in the world with enough stopping power and armor piercing ability to satisfy even the most backward looking military “genius”.
How can this nation put a space station in orbit and can’t test a combat rifle? The M16 was junk.I got the first batch in Lackland AFB,Tx 1966. All the testing showed that but money talked louder. We should be using caseless ammo.Lazer sighting.Math should be taking a bigger impact than cost. The AK47 was better designed and tested;time has told that tail. I worked on the M61 gattling gun 20MM on the B52H model.The F22 Rator is still using it.The design is over 100 years old!!!
I thought we were going to fight a war with these new weapons, not go over run a hollywood set.
If you have never had to look down the barrel of a weapon it’s a good place start, rifles are meant to do two things
1. Kill (the one at the other end of the barrel)
2. Prevent killings (the one holding the rifle)
These new plastic toys will be no use in a sandy war!
When I was in the Navy. We were given the M-14s that were stolen from the Marines (when the M-16s were forced on them). They were excellent weapons & we had 1/10th the problems experienced by the more important ships (that were issued the M-16s). I left the Navy before the 1st Gulf War but I was told (over some beers) that the Re-Con Marines (who were given the task of Liberating Kuwaiti Oil Wells) borrowed M-14s (off the ships that were issued them) for the superior Fire-Power & Long-Range Accuracy).
I have a novel idea:
Let’s get a whole bunch (about 100 would be right)of current soldiers & older veterans (all of whom have been in at least 4 prolonged fire-fights as major participants). Witness verification of extreme combat action a requirement.
Then supply them with a wide range of rifles (I would consider the Ruger Mini-14 & mini-30 a “MUST BE” on the list). Then supply them with expert Gun-Smiths, Machinists, and any other Craftsperson they ask for. Then require an open review of what the panel produces at the end of the year. It sure beats the “Ignore the user/ bribe the Bigwig” system we got now.
I’d just like to know how water affects caseless ammo? Anybody out there know about that?
I do apreciate the engeneering wornder of this rifle, but there are several things that I personaly dont like. My magor beef is the same thing with the FN-P90: the dang magazine is long and skinny, so where do you put it for easy unhampering access, and so you wolnt accidentaly lean or fall on it and bend it when it’s still in your ammo pouch!? also loading a mag ontop of your rifle takes a lot more time and is akward. I just woundnt want to do that in a fire fight…
well, it’s more like there are no casses at all. it’s more like the casses are made of styrofoam or at least that’s what it looks like. the styrofoam IS ejected out the bottom when the new round enters the chaimber. What i dont understand is how the primer works. that’s the only part that would be exposed to water, so… idontknow?
How utterly sad, that a country as intelligent as the U.S. can’t make anything. We bought berets from China, oh but then we didn’t. Can’t we have the intelligence to design and manufacture a replacement for the M16? Much like the Army’s replacement helicopter program, candidates from all countries and one from the U.S.A. Our country is in a sad state of affairs. Thank You!
I have just a quick question. If the Amry is looking for a new weapon and every thing is fair game, then what happened to the old Metal Storm weapon system? Right now they have it small enough to fire a 12 gauge round, how long tell they can come up with something for 7.62×51 or 6.8?
Im currently in the US Army and carrie a M4. I like it but its not my prefer choice. As a Sniper I love the .308. it gets the job done real well. M14 is good but to big for CQB. So out of all the riffles I have tested, theirs only one I can say that I would pick up an use for all my needs from CQB to 600m Sniping. this rifle is the Masada 6.8 SPC…..
being an armorer in the US Army, i see more than my share of reasons to upgrade from the m16/m4. they aren’t very reliable, the 5.56 isn’t the best round for the job, and the life span on them in a combat environment is not what it can be in this day and age. but, it is cheap, and easy to use. and that’s what makes it so difficult to get rid of. the government, in all its wisdom, doesn’t want to spend the money to get a better weapon system. therefore, this hk g11 is definately not the answer in my opinion. the caseless ammo is expensive, not to mention the per unit price of the g11. so hoping for it to be contracted and distributed to every soldier and especially the marines, who are on an even tighter budget, is nothing but fantasy. on the grounds of reliability and simplicity, the g11 doesn’t come close to what i think is acceptable. due to the operating system, the rotating cylinder block that chambers the rounds and locks them into place wears rather quickly, since it has to due the job of locking the round with the absence of a cartridge. the life-span of the cylinder block is only about 6000 rounds. and since the molded gun powder isn’t contained, the weapon gets dirty a hell of alot faster than it would with a cartridged round, which would lead obviously to more frequent cleaning. and the weapon system is alot more complex, which means longer training, which means more money for training. so i’m not taken by this as our answer. if it was up to me, i would field a gas piston operated ar-15. also, one that fires a 6.8mm round. the gas piston system is vastly superior to the current system, and the 6.8 has the extra stopping power needed and still maintains the low recoil and high accuracy of the 5.56. but still, the problem would be cost. and until the men in washington decide to pay up, we won’t be able to find a valuable replacement for the m16.
It is interesting to see the difference between the mindset of the EAST and the WEST. For all the complicated and highly engineered systems the WEST comes up with, they will still be fighting the 60+ year old AK. Something to think about.
That being said how about using the SCAR-H? If it is anything like the FAL that would be the way to go. While I have not fired the SCAR-H, I have used the FAL extensively. Being of very small stature (5’5″, 135lbs.) the recoil is totally bearable (especially after donning on body armor). Hence, if the SCAR-H has a better recoil buffer then there should be no reason why most people in the armed forces (who are much bigger than I am) cannot handle it.
I’m in agreeance with the larger caliber theory. This weapon the G11 or whatever, looks futuristic, kind of like the pulse rifle in Aliens, but honestly, if it’s unlikely it will kill the enemy with one round, i don’t want it. Let’s do the math, 3 rounds for one person out of a 50 round magazine brings you down to 16 people you can expect to eliminated, if they’re wearing body armor,out of that one magazine. The M16, however imperfect it may be, still has the possibilty of eliminating 30 per magazine if you’re a well enough shot. You find a caseless ammunition with the velocity and and piercing ability of a 7.76, I’m all ears, otherwise, let’s stick with the M16 for now.
this rifle seems nice! lets use some 20ga weapons with slugs for knock down and some g11 for tact. this is the only gun slightly like a five7 in auto and 3. kevlar haha this chews up soldiers like a shark, a great white shark!
oh yeah meant to say, i love 20 gauge and 10 and 12 and 16! shotties are great for up close to 60 yards. 16 and 20 gauge ! slug haven with a 20 anything with a 16. has anyone used a aks74u ful custom! put a 12ga on the bottom whit a light on the side and viola! a killing machine with more accuracy than normal from the wieghted front of the gun, 5.45mmx39 is ok but somthing faster like a 204 ruger would make that setup beatiful! how about 204 ruger for small arms anyone shoot the new remington semi??? very good round for 300 yards fast.
In my varied years of service with the US navy I have used everything from the M16 A1-A2-A3 the M4/727 carbine and the M14 both standard version and the M-21 sniper system for close quarter combat give me the M4 for infantry fire fights there is nothing like the M14 7.62 battle rifle with it you have range knock down power and accuracy.
That weapon is so ugly. I like the xm8 that was suppose to replace the M16/M4.
A 13″ barreled HK53 with an integral 1913 pic rail chambered in 6.8 SPC would solve most of the “problems” with the M4. Keep the M4 clean and let soldiers use use some good bullets service-wide (not just SOCOM) and there would be no more “problems” with the M4.
I’ve used both the M24, M14 and the M16 as primary weapons. I do agree with some of the people that have commented here that, single shot accuracy is more important than rounds down range. Unless your operating an M60, providing suppressing fire. Inaccurate rounds down range are a waste of ammunition.
I’ve seen a lot of literature on this weapon with caseless ammunition and have mixed feelings about the weapon and it’s reliability. Although, I’ve never had the opportunity to handle the weapon and put it through it’s paces.
I have had concerns reguarding penetration and stopping power of the M16 for years. It has always had a problem with penetrating cover without deflecting or fragmenting on impact. As for this weapon with an even smaller caliber I think that penetration will be of even greater concern.
There was some testing done on the 5.56 rounds by a private group and htier purpose was to build a round that would penetrate not only body armor, but also lite armor. This round consisted of a 55 grain fmj with a tungsten insert. The velocity of the round was increased. The standard factory round averaging 32,000 fps at the muzzle. This round was leaving the muzzle at 37,030 fps. The rounds were able to penetrate two layers of body armor or one inche of armor plate steel at a distance of 100 yards. On non armored steel the rounds were able to penetrate one and a half inches of steel. On impact the copper jacket and lead surrounding the tungsten core went molten and tungsten core became super heated while maintaining it’s integrity and continued through the targets. Because of the increased velocity the cyclic rate was slightly higher, while still keeping the barrel pressures within the orignal design perameters.
The increased muzzle velocity of this round also had increased accuracy on targets of 100, 200 and 300 yard targets. With no more that a 5 inch group at 300 yards during single shot rapid fire.
Francois said:
“I am aquainted with a physicist, who is developing a portable, (IE, handheld) railgun of a very small calibre, I am assuming, based on what he said, the size of a bb, and powered by a small backpack charger unit. Now his work is only prototypical, but based on available information, could you imagine, something capable of literally thousands of rounds a minute, with a speed in excess of any propellant based ammunition known of. I want one.”
If he’s a physicist, he needs to go back to Newton’s first law. Tens of thousands of steel (and they have to be steel and they have to be cylindrical) BB-sized rounds (.177 / 4.5 mm, roughly 0.27 grams/BB) at a muzzle velocity exceeding 10,000 feet per second and rate of 10,000 rounds per minute would be like trying to hold a four inch firehose at max pressure and max flow by yourself. Not controllable, maybe not possible even for two people. Also, there is currently (there is a pun in there) no practical way to impart spin to the projectile, so no spin stabilization. But I’m working on that part now…
I’ve done four rail gun prototypes, all of them produced recoil exactly according to Newton’s predictions. You either go with very small cross section projectiles (sub mm / needle-sized), or you wear a three ton battery pack to achieve multi-round capability. Sorry, the technology simply isn’t there yet to beat an expanding gas propellant system for individual-served military applications. For mounted applications, we are definitely getting closer to a practical rail gun, particularly for the anti-armor role. For individual-served, go with Captain Kirk’s Phaser technology instead.
it sounds good but too good to be true, whats the cost and how reliable is it when it comes to it gettn messy
and fired continuously
“How utterly sad, that a country as intelligent as the U.S. can’t make anything.”
Yes, but our procurement wants to screw our USA manufacturers and buy our war machine from oversees. I worked on the CROWS that was in production here, troops loved it, canceled and gave it to Europe, been happening for years, saw the new 198 Howitzer lightweight go the same route in the late 80′s
Air Force refueling tanker, latest example. I don’t know why folks here aren’t getting pissed about it all.
There is one congressmen trying to fight it, seemingly on his own, Don Manzullo
Replacing the M16/M4 rifles with a smaller caliber is not a good idea. One of the problems with 5.56mm is that it does pack a big enough kenitic force when it hits and thus doesn’t have as much stopping power. 7.62mm of the ak is better in this respect although the m16 has better range and accuracy. I like the Barrett M468, it is very close to the m4 in body design and feel, but it fires the larger 6.8mm round. It has a bigger impact without sacrificing rang and accuracy. Also Knight’s Armament has developed a carbine version of the SR-25(M110) which is a newer semi-automatic sniper rifle, that fires the nato 7.62 round that would work well. Not to mention the 50caliber Beowulf has a immense stopping power but not the range.
Hey, Tom, Dunc Hunter fought it, too. Alas, to no avail.
I’ll take a Galil in 7.62 or the SAR, depending on the situation. Not many people give the Israeli’s credit for thier weapons, which are qaulity, and head and shoulders above the AK-47.
The solution to the problem is design an Israeli Galil in caliber 7MM Winchester Short Magnum. Unfortunately Uncle ShitHead does not know his own asshole from a hole in the ground.
I think that it might be wise to consider what kinds of places our troops will be fighting in before we consider what type (or types) of weapons they should be given.
If our troops expect to be in urban combat in relatively close quarters, and in a place where a longert weapon might be a slight (but possibly fatal) disadvantage then a bullpup type of weapon might be very advantageous, and we might consider gettign a licensing agreement from the Israelis for their rather new Dvore rifle.
If we expect our troops to be fighting in places where the enemy is to be found at longer ranges existing rifles such as M-1, M-14, or FN rifles might be considered.
Since we don’t know where our troops will be fightingin the future we might consider giving our military training in several rifles and issuing to them rifles which will serve them best in whatever engagements they are likely to encounter.
W.
I believe the 6.8spc round in the H7K m4 design with a gas rod is the best all around replacement for the 5.56 m16
I beleive we need to learn a lesson from our neighbors to the East……. RUSSIA! I beleive Just like the AK-47 we need a rifle with heavy duty power and simplistic design. I feel we have tried to over think our weapon systems. We need to find cheaper ways to get good results. Also we have many arms stored in our storage depots. I feel If we can qualify with a weapon …Old or new we should be permitted to use it. This can make caliber issues but if we can afford millions of precision weapons we can spend some money on a diverse ammunition load outs, For urban and rural combat not a one size fits all.
If you are a military soldier that is need of some extra assistance , then come and check out “The David H Brooks Foundation for American Wounded Soldiers”
HAHAHAHAHA… Yeah right…
You have obviously NEVER carried a rifle into harms way…
The real reason this POS was nerver adopted is because it and the OICW project was STUPID!!!
Although revolutionary for the technology of the 70s, the G11 still operates with the old philosophy that has existed since the bow and arrow, aka aim at targets, fires an object on a straight line, object hits target with enough force to incapacitate him. When the US army is talking about revolutionary, they are talking about fire and forget self correcting bullets, chip-controlled for explosion at impact or at distance from target, hit straight or at projectile through smart-scope targeting, 4th generation antiglare thermal scopes, firining of nano- UAVs, integration of targeting to helmet-mount etc etc. I’m sure these weapons are currently being developed and heard something recently of one, but itwilltake time before we see one on the Market.
Lets see, in 1896 the British were still giving Calvary lances-
And in 1871 the US was still looking at a single shot pistol-
dont hold your breath looking for change
– actually the mixed SAW idea is probably still best- Just update the concept – with modern logistics- 6 soldiers with the G11 around 6.5 mm size: And 4 with a 10mm version: Mixed firepower to cover a variety of situations