It's 1982 and you're designing the M16A1 replacement.

>>33315869
Collapsible stock, and replace the upper with a flat top & an LMT rear. That would set the stage for future upgrades pretty handily

>>33315869
Picatinny railz on everything and call it a day.
Also copyright keymod and never let it get produced.

Basically an A1 with no forward assist, a mass issued magnified optic and a CAR15 style stock except with a built-in cheek riser.

File: here_we_go_again_officer.jpg (70KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x1280px

>>33315923
>no forward assist

>flat top receiver
>full auto instead of 3 rnd burst
>free float aluminium 18inch handguard
>low profile gas block
>keep the m16a1 od green sling.
>telescoping stock
>BAD lever

>>33315869
My design
>use new polymers from A2 and new handguards.
>keep fixed stock A1 length with new A2 buttplate to keep unit cost down compared to telescoping stock
>Rear sight is redesigned to indicate mechanical zero windage and is not intended to be adjusted except to zero it. It also will be re-calibrated for M855 or other loads the military will use using a primary combat 50/200 yard zero and a 350m zero on the long range sight. No gigantic low light aperture. Some available with tritium inserts for two dots on the side for night sights
>Front is 1/4 MOA adjustment squared front sight. Some available with tritium insert dot for night sights.
>Barrel has same A1 profile but it has 1/8 or 1/9 twist for M855 or other similar bullet weights. Cut to 18 inches.
>Full auto FCG
>Magazine well is shortened to allow for new magazine body/follower that has a constant curve to assist with feeding issues. Old magazines will sill function.
>Charging handle redesigned so that the latch will contact the body of the handle and not put as much force on the roll pin.

File: tumblr_no7kfguLLf1r9khx4o3_1280.jpg (82KB, 946x532px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 946x532px

>>33315869

>>33316065
Oh some other things I forgot.

>ferritic nitrocarburizing of the BCG and barrel
>Muzzle brake like the 2 chamber surefire one which also has a QD system for other muzzle devices/Blank adapter.

>all these faggot's ignoring the OP's rules


I would upgrade the A1 with:

18" 1:7 twist medium profile barrel
A2 birdcage
A2 handguards
collapsible polymer stock
brass deflector

16" 1/7 twist pencil barrel
Midlength Gas System
F/A selector
Colt CS stock
A2 handguards and pistol grip
A1 sights with A2 apature and windage drum.

>>33316398
>A1 sights with A2 apature and windage drum.
I don't see how that would not be the worse combination to have out of all of them in an infantry rifle.

>>33315869
It's the SR-16E3 Mod 1.

Done.

>>33315913
>>33315919
>>33316060

>The design board will not accept SBRs or picatinny railed weapons
great reading comprehension there, sport

>>33315869
Completely disregard AR platform and replace with 5.56 Kalashnikov

>>33316457
No one has time to read your autistic rambling. I only read the subject.

File: P_20170310_151024 (2).jpg (1MB, 3702x1167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3702x1167px

>>33316465
AKs are inferior tho

>>33315869
>collapsible stock stolen from the CAR
>18" lightweight profile barrel with .750" gas block tapering to .625" at the muzzle and behind the gas block
>barrel clamp style front sight located just behind the muzzle device for dat sight radius
>lightweight vented aluminum tube handguard that freefloats the barrel
>A2 style rear sight permanently attached to receiver but delete the rest of the carry handle (basically a BCM A1.5 that's permanently attached)
>top of receiver is dovetailed with Weaver-style cross lugs (proto-picatinny)
>retain the A1's auto FCG, fuck burst
So you end up with a rifle that's lighter and more compact than either the A1 or A2 that handles sustained rapid fire better than either and is more accurate than either with both optics and irons. Also it's optics compatible without a gooseneck or parts to lose.

File: 1469910927081.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>33316435
Seconded

>>33316509
woah a tripfag posted something dumb, what about that!

>>33316435
>18" long magazine
>still only holds 14 rounds
Now try again with something like a BHP.

>>33316530
OP here, I forgot about weaver rails being available in the 80s. I think your suggestion is the most interesting so far. I do not think A2 adjustable windage sights are appropriate for a service rifle. I also think that a free floated handgard is excessive in cost for a service rifle compared to cheaper plastic handguards.

Here is my gun
>>33316065
>>33316153

I think some of the biggest issues that could be fixed are magwell limitations with using constant curve geometry magazines. The AR-15 is on it's 4th USGI revision follower because the magazine well was never designed with a curved magazine in mind. Something like 80% of jams come from magazines I know a lot of it is from old magazines but if the magazine well were re-designed I think that a lot of additional reliability could be introduced.

File: 1486090739939.jpg (215KB, 1500x1142px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1500x1142px

>>33316571
>heavy
>not modular
>optic mounting system that leaves you with excessive height over bore and no cheek weld
>inherently less accurate than modern AR based designs due to piston and handguard design
>unreliable in adverse conditions
>it's made out of fucking sheet metal
>awkward ergonomics and manual of arms
>labor intensive manufacturing process means it costs more than it's competitors
>HEAVY
It may have been the bees knees in 1945 but it's fucking unacceptable for a rifle in 2017.

>>33315995

Because if a round doesnt want to chamber I should force it it so it can explode.

>>33316751
>so it can explode
that's it's intended purpose

>>33316707
I respectfully disagree, I think the A2 is quite a good sight system that's durable enough and resistant to accidental adjustment enough for a service rifle. But, if you want, change that out for the A1 sight system.

The freefloating is more to delete the handguard retention cap than for any particular benefit in accuracy, but a side benefit being it retains its zero when using the (barrel clamp) bipods of the era. Something kind of important when you're retaining the full auto FCG. And a vented aluminum 1-piece handguard could/would weigh less than a 2-piece plastic handguard with heat shields.

I personally think the magwell works just fine, the issues have been the magazines themselves. Constant-curve mags only really work with a rock-in system, which presents its own problems and increases mag bulk and weight. With a proper anti-tilt follower mag-related jams are pretty much nonexistent until the feed lips are damaged.

File: 1487130013923.png (468KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 960x540px

>>33316435
That looks fuckin radical.

>>33315869
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRzMCjMr9kc

this in an A1 with modern manufacture and tolerances, Geissele DSL coating where need be, geissele SSF, BE Mayers 249F, 1 in 8 twist barrel, A2 hand guards for supply sgt sake, A1 stock with rubber magpul SL butplate, and update furniture polymer to magpul blend.

issue with mk262, mk318, or hornady ELR ammo. Anything but m855 shit

>>33316799
no one but the Murheens and AMU care to bother teaching how to use the A2 sight adjustments.

kentucky windage and tracers with fixed sights are probably more practical in combat anyway

>>33315869
Heavier barrel under the HG with an M203 cutout.

Full Auto instead

Keep the other A2 advancements.

>>33316799
>Constant-curve mags only really work with a rock-in system
I'm pretty sure if you just kept the same magazine catch you could just shorten the magazine well to just below the catch to be at the same height as the trigger opening is you could make the magazines more curved and only have a very small portion of the magazine straight. This way the gun weighs marginally less while the follower is less prone to binding due to less geometry changes along its course. It really seems only like a net positive to me. Also I think it would prevent pmag/emag issues.

>>33316739
>heavy
AKM weighs less than the M16A1 and 2kg more when fully loaded. To compare the original AK design being too heavy is misguided as well, since the rifle was intended to be stamped from the start. It would be analogous to say that ball powder makes M16's unreliable.

>optic mounting system that leaves you with excessive height over bore and no cheek weld
Hmmmm doesn't the carry handle have this issue too? Secondly no one used optics back in the 80's and before.

>modular
>1982
The AK was actually more versatile. They could be fired from the inside ports of their IFVs/APCs.

>inherently less accurate than modern AR based designs due to piston and handguard design
We're talking about 1982 here. Over distance the AK-74 is more accurate than the M16A1 because of the BC of 7N6.

>awkward ergonomics and manual of arms
Common misconception. The AK originally had all left side fire controls like the M16. Troops actually found them to get in the way during march as well as firing while moving. It was more ergonomic to place the controls where they currently are. In fact I've seen quite a few people in the military accidentally have their rifle off safe because of left side fire controls getting caught on gear and actuating without the user's knowledge.

>>33316973
>mk262 mk318
That did not exist at the time. You're stuck with essentially M193, M855, or commercial variants available in the 80's.

>>33317098
>AKM weighs less than the M16A1 and 2kg more when fully loaded
meant to say .2kg.

>>33317098
so I have knowledge up to 2017 but have to use things available in 1980?

>>33317201
yes

File: hk33.jpg (27KB, 774x278px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 774x278px

>>33315869
An HK33

>>33317262
>costanzaface.jpeg

>>33316973
>>33317216
replace DSL with chrome, replace ssf with 2 stage full auto trigger, 249f with 4 prong flash hider with closed end, same for the rest, A2 polymer instead of magpul

issue with 80s style open tip match boat tail 69 gr fmj

>>33317201
Yes. You can design it to have 1:7/8/9 twist since you know that bullets will favor this twist for later, for instance.

>>33316739
>heavy
My AK-74 weighs less than any of my AR's
>not modular
Tons of aftermarket stocks, grips, handguards, and other options for all the rails you could ever want.
>optic mounting system that leaves you with excessive height over bore and no cheek weld
Nope, only if you're mounting some sort of western optic on a western optic mount or you go with some meme glass like an Obzor. Also the AK mounting system was quick detach and return to zero before the US DOD even put out a requirement for that.
>inherently less accurate than modern AR based designs due to piston and handguard design
Yeah because
>m-muh submoa
A 5.45 AK that's built well will be grouping 2-3 MOA while your AR will be grouping 1-2 MOA, both at 100 yards.
>unreliable in adverse conditions
"No"
>it's made out of fucking sheet metal
Low quality
>awkward ergonomics and manual of arms
My first semi-auto rifle was an AK and I didn't get an AR until I was 20 and from my perspective the AR is more awkward.
>labor intensive manufacturing process means it costs more than it's competitors
Completely wrong
>HEAVY
lolno

>>33316739
>>inherently less accurate than modern AR based designs due to piston and handguard design
Not a problem considering military runs shit ammo like M855 with lol 5.5 MOA accuracy acceptance standard. Any difference would be completely trumped by shit military ammo.

>>33317098
I'm not sure you can take the magwell down that far without issues, but yeah you can definitely shorten it a bit without causing problems. Perhaps just slant it forward more to allow the curve to start further up the mag body a bit.

And the Sierra Matchking bullets have been around since the 60's pretty much unchanged, there's absolutely nothing keeping someone from developing the mk262 or something resembling it (since its main benefit is being a stick powder that's temp insensitive instead of something like H335 that hates hot weather) in 1982.

>>33317370
This.

>>33315869
>collapsible CAR-15 style stock on buffer tube
>replace rear sight aperture and front sight post with folding sights and FAL style carry handle
>dovetail rails for mounting optics

>>33317398
>And the Sierra Matchking bullets have been around since the 60's
Ah cool. I didn't know that Sierra and the like were making nice bullets for this caliber that far back. I thought .223 was developed for the military and did not have much commercial interest or availability at the time until late 80's early 90's.

>>33317098
>AKM weighs less than M16A1
By a quarter of a pound. Meanwhile it weighs more loaded and has a shorter barrel.

If you want a fair comparison, compare it to the CAR. Where it weighs over a pound more unloaded and close to 2.5lbs more loaded.

>The AK was actually more versatile. They could be fired from the inside ports of their IFVs/APCs.
But never was, because nobody ever actually rode inside them because they didn't fit. And they were deathtraps.

>BC having fuck-all to do with accuracy
Hit probability maybe due to the lower wind drift at extreme distances (500m+), but when you factor in the extremely crude iron sights of an AK74m compared to an M16A1 and the significantly higher muzzle velocity of the M16A1 the M16 was far more likely to place rounds in the torso inside 400m.

Also the BC difference between 7n6's bullet and M193's bullet is very very negligible (G7 BC of 0.168 for 7n6 vs. 0.120 for M193 vs. 0.151 for M855). Comparing a .224" bullet with a G7 BC of .120 going 3250ish FPS MV to a .220" bullet with a G7 BC of .168 going 2900ish FPS MV and the M193 is hitting 8" higher at 400m.

>>33316457
>Implying flat top receivers alwayd == Pictanny raild
Who said some of the anons was using a picatinny rails when dovetail mounts and weaver rails are a thing
>inb4 not accepting those
The design board said nothing about those nor did they say they're rejecting it. Also:
>18" Handguard
>Collapsible Stock
>implying that means it's an SBR
Protip: An 18" handguard is still in the full lengthed rifle use, and collapsible stocks still doesn't change the fact that a 20" rifle is still a rifle. You must be a special kind of retard, aren't you?

>>33317450
That's pretty much completely backwards. .223rem had been around a while before the adoption of 5.56 NATO, and there have been other even older American .22 calibers (.220 Swift, .222rem, .222rem mag, .22 Hornet, etc) and foreign calibers (.221 Fireball, .220 Russian) famous for their accuracy that were used in things like benchrest competition as well as hunting and plinking.
>yfw the .222 Remington existed for 13 years prior to 5.56 NATO.

>>33317484
In soviet trials AK-74 demonstrated significantly better hit probability than M16A2. Due to less recoil and actually useful automatic fire. Burst fire from M16A2 had no advantages over semi-auto unlike in the case of AK-74.

5.56 was developed around ideas of salvo concept but Americans stopped half way and this is soviets who finished this job done.

>>33317532
Oh, also, the prototypes of both the .223 (an unnamed stretched .222rem) and 5.56 NATO (.224 Springfield, a named stretched .222rem) were developed using a variety of Sierra bullets, including the then-new 52gr SMK-FB, both flatbased and boattail Gameking softpoints, and the FMJBT Gameking that would become m193.
>yes, the M193's bullet was originally a hunting bullet
>yes, its propensity to fragment at high velocity and tumble at moderate velocity were 100% intended and well documented prior to the service rifle existing

>>33317569
It demonstrated better hit probability exclusively under automatic fire. In semi-auto the M16 shat all over it despite being 17 years older.

Yes, the burst FCG of the A2 is a handicap. Blame the Marines for that.

>>33317569
>Soviet rifle beats American rifle in Soviet trials designed to demonstrate the primacy of Soviet equipment
gee imagine that.

>>33315869
>keep the full length barrel, but offer a carbine that is pretty much an M4a1
>keep the A1 style forward assist for better use of it while keeping the shooters hand on the grip
>have a more effective heat sink on the sides of the barrel and the gas tube, removing the need for the handgaurd to be vented at the bottom
>use a Galil style folding stock, increasing overall durability but still with the storage compartment in the top tube
>have a C-7 style rail system on the gas block for a bipod, a secure point for a grenade launcher, and other accessories to keep the rifle current as time goes on
>have a dovetail along the top of the receiver for optics, but to have the best hold for a carrying handle, this would be attached with a screw, accessible through the hole in the carry handle for raised optics mounting
>try to minimise the profile of the rifle so that the carrying handle can be as low as possible, and still be full-sized for practical use
>introduce a grip safety so that the choice to keep the carry handle is justified and so that it is redundant and safe to use

I know it becomes some autistic thinking towards the end, but these are still practical changes. On the really autistic side, have the soldier's e-tool shovel head have an adapter to fit into the buttstock storage compartment so the rifle can be a shovel; but I say that jokingly

>>33317591
Hint: AK-74 short burst hit probability is higher than M-16A2 single shot.

>>33315869
Make it an M16A3 or full-auto A4, chambered in 5.45, with a short stroke piston.

>>33317622
>M16
>folding stock
wat

File: 1485920227205.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x206px

>>33317653

>>33317484
>By a quarter of a pound. Meanwhile it weighs more loaded and has a shorter barrel.
It weighs 7 ounces more and much of that is due to caliber and a sturdier magazine. The AK-74 (the actual service rifle of the USSR in 1982) weighs the same as the M16A1.

>If you want a fair comparison, compare it to the CAR.
It is a fair comparison. The CAR or any facsimile would never be adopted by line units for decades. The commanders wanted their troops to have rifles, not carbines.

>But never was, because nobody ever actually rode inside them because they didn't fit.
Patently false. Go look up any soviet/warsaw training exercise like zapad 81 and get back to me about how they don't ride inside. I've also been inside BMP-1/2's and fit inside perfectly fine.

>And they were deathtraps.
They protected from small arms fire, not ATGMs. I suppose the M113 would be safer :^)
Anyways

>>33317484
>>33317591
>>33317608
>when you factor in the extremely crude iron sights of an AK74m compared to an M16A1 and the significantly higher muzzle velocity of the M16A1 the M16 was far more likely to place rounds in the torso inside 400m.
The AK-74 has a longer effective range than the M16A1 using M193. This was a huge motivation for the Marines to use a different round and extend the effective range.

Also, see
>>33317652
and the rest of project SALVO about single aimed fire versus firing more rounds.

>>33317652
Oh wow if you fire 5-7 shots you're more likely to hit something than someone firing 1 shot!

AMAZING!

>>33315869

>put a rear notch in the carry hande and a smaller front sight post on top of the gas block but under the other front sight post so you're more accurate at closer range
>put a heavy bull barrel on it and better compensator

>>33315869
>14.5" CHF chrome lined midweight profile (Government weight distributed in non moronic fashion)
>A2 flash hider
>Flat top receiver
>13" FF handguard with MLok at 3,6,9 positions, continuous picatinny rail on top
>Adjustable gas block for Gemtech Halo or Griffin Armament M4SD/ KAC NT4
>Safe/Semi/Auto
>Unity Tactical fusion hubs with PEQ and M600 Vampire and TAPS switch gear
>Single stage trigger 5.5lb no takeup
>KAC300m rear

Optics choices
TA31
Cuckpoint CompM4s
Kahles 1-8x on HBAR (~31oz) 14.5 length

77gr OTM defacto ammunition

Vltor A5 and LMT SOPMOD

>>33317670
So why is it in literally every photo of Russians in combat they're riding around on top of their BMP's, BTR's, and BRDM's?
>Chechnya
>Afghanistan
>Georgia
>both trips to Syria

File: imi372223u867.jpg (43KB, 900x686px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 900x686px

>>33317659
Yeah, Galil style. Keeps it as a long rifle, but practical for carry. Top tube still serves to hold a cleaning kit or rolled up porn mag

>>33317707
anon...

>>33317675
>Oh wow if you fire 5-7 shots you're more likely to hit something than someone firing 1 shot!
Not if you fire AKM or M16 (in single burst).

File: 1350887046069.gif (1023KB, 449x208px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 449x208px

>>33317665

File: 1426648240081.jpg (129KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x525px

>>33317696
>asymmetrical warfare tactics will be the same as conventional war tactics.

Why is it that in Vietnam all the US troops rode on top of their vehicles as well? Seriously go look up any Soviet/Warsaw pact training video. It's the same thing across all of their nations and they all had their infantry inside vehicles for conventional combined arms warfare. Stop derailing the thread with things you do not know about.

>>33317675
You know they switched to 5.56 so soldiers could shoot more rounds more quickly, right?

>>33317691
kys

An M2 mounted on a red RadioFlyer wagon

>>33317696
supplemental infantry armor for the vehicle

>>33317707
Do you not know how an M16 works?

File: 1469928310600.png (801KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 960x720px

>>33317732
>>33317903
Holy shit, that was a massive lapse in judgement.

>I am disappointed in myself

>>33315869
>Model 656 type upper with SIG 510 based rear sight
>medium to med. heavy contour barrel
>redesigned gas block with flippable front sight and gas regulator
>A2 style stock that can collapse 2 in. into itself
>ambidex mag release, bolt release, and fire selector
>4 position selector with re-settable burst fire

Everything else all A2.

>>33316739
>unacceptable for a rifle in 2017
This thread is not about 2017 tho, its about da 80s

>>33316751
You're a meme spewing idiot.

>You are also aware of all firearms advances to 2017.
>The design board will not accept SBRs or picatinny railed weapons as the military is not yet ready for either of these implementations yet
Then why the fuck did you even bother with that first bit? You made what could have been an interesting thread and memed it up with this clairvoyance retardation and then you throw in arbitrary limitations so that angle can't even be fun. What was so hard about making a thread asking people to design the M16A1's replacement with early 1980s knowledge and tech? Kill yourself and never make a thread again.

>>33321466
Because every fucking response would be: "just replace it with an M4 lol"

>>33321481
Funny, because the M4 wasn't introduced until the 1990s.

>>33315869
>1913 = picatinny
kys retard

>>33315869
fuck the rules, force army to adopt glorious mosin

>>33321466
> What was so hard about making a thread asking people to design the M16A1's replacement with early 1980s knowledge and tech?
Because OP doesn't know dick about historical developments of the AR15.

tl;dr G36, plus metal reinforced top rail, folding irons, all-encompassing (grip and covers) polymer unified receiver/frame, and a minimal trigger module similar to the SCAR's that removes partly through the magazine well. Folding stock, 18 inch barrel standard.

>>33316468
clearly you fucking didn't

File: FN-FAL_Calibre_7.62.jpg (14KB, 510x144px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 510x144px

>>33315869
recreate the FAL

File: 1489084916876.jpg (46KB, 448x486px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 448x486px

>>33322742
In what caliber?

>>33323356
6.5 Grendel

File: DSC3281-2.jpg (163KB, 922x479px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 922x479px

FG-42 in 5.56. A SAW and rifle in one.

>>33315869
I replace it with a AR18 that I've jacked the price up on by 10x.

This instantly makes the Pentagon cum and we never have to go through revision after fucking revision of a flawed gas system ever again.

>>33325053
>revision after fucking revision of a flawed gas system ever again.
That's funny considering not once has it been revised.

>>33317707
Well.. You can have a functional gun or a porno mag but you cant have both..

>>33323356
.50 bmg depleted uranium dragons breath slug buckshot

File: MD series.jpg (99KB, 686x888px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 686x888px

>>33322742
This, we'll make a higher quality MD3 before the fucking hues can think about it.

>>33321619
>the military would have adopted an SBR for USGI circa 1982
Never would have happened. The military wanted a rifle. The CAR-15 already existed. If they wanted an SBR the CAR-15 would have been adopted.

>>33316751

The purpose of the forward assist isn't resolving failures to feed that occur with normal operation of the charging handle. It's was added so that soldiers could intentionally slow walk the charging handle and still get it in battery.

US military doctrine has always taught troops to keep their rifle cleared until it's absolutely necessary to chamber a round. However, the design of the AR platform requires the charging handle be released at full extension to generate the force required to complete the charging cycle. This happens to be a very loud process, especially when an entire platoon does it at once. When the element of surprise is as important as it was in Vietnam, the resulting clatter of M-16s being charged is a big problem.

How do you fix that problem? With a forward assist! Now soldiers can quietly walk the charging handle down as the buffer spring is strong enough to strip a round and then they can push the BCG into full lockup with their thumb on the assist. Now they are ready to kill Charlie without giving away their position.