Guns On Guns - Grenade Launcher And Shotgun Attachments On Rifles

[Maverick]

MetalStorm is quite a clever concept, but as you say, it doesn't lend itself well to differing loads.  I guess the same could be said for any box-fed grenade / shotgun attachment.  I wonder if the concept could use the variable fusing that I've heard was discussed in the OICW program?  That might make the rounds slightly more adaptive.  The F88 model is certainly less bulky than the OICW but I still think you're tacking something onto a platform and damaging that platform's basic soundness as a result.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

MetalStorm is quite a clever concept, but as you say, it doesn't lend itself well to differing loads.  I guess the same could be said for any box-fed grenade / shotgun attachment.  I wonder if the concept could use the variable fusing that I've heard was discussed in the OICW program?  That might make the rounds slightly more adaptive.  The F88 model is certainly less bulky than the OICW but I still think you're tacking something onto a platform and damaging that platform's basic soundness as a result.

Regards,

Mav

No more than an underslung GL does, Mav.


MetalStorm is as I've mentioned a solution looking for a problem.  Far from being a wunderwaffen, its a bit of a pig in a poke and what they don't mention in their literature is that when you fire a weapon at a million rounds a minute (or equivalent) you get the recoil impulse as well that goes with it.  That takes a lot of reinforcing or a recoil system to absorb it.  Their demonstration weapons all tend to cheat and use light calibres and are fixed in place or of quite low MV (there is a video of one of their grenade launchers on a robot which fires at a shipping container to demonstrate its ability.  The container is about 150 metres away.  It takes about 1.5-2 seconds for the round to hit after firing.  I'll let you work out the muzzle velocity).  Until they manage to work their way around the laws of physic it will remain an odd weapon which for some reason just never got adopted, despite all the promise (or its all a conspiracy, right?    ).

[Old Wombat]

Personally, I go with the "weapon for each role" crew.

These hybrids are all like joining a Phillips-head screwdriver to a 3/8 socket wrench & asking it to do the job of a hammer drill.




PS (Personal Shi...): I, also, prefer the front-mounted mag to the bullpup design but, then, I've only ever fired the F88 once.
                            ... & I dislike the M16/M4's cocking mechanism, I'm not too keen on full-auto in an assault rifle (bursts are OK, I guess), & I prefer a heavier bullet.

[sotoolslinger]

Personally, I go with the "weapon for each role" crew.

These hybrids are all like joining a Phillips-head screwdriver to a 3/8 socket wrench & asking it to do the job of a hammer drill.




PS (Personal Shi...): I, also, prefer the front-mounted mag to the bullpup design but, then, I've only ever fired the F88 once.
                            ... & I dislike the M16/M4's cocking mechanism, I'm not too keen on full-auto in an assault rifle (bursts are OK, I guess), & I prefer a heavier bullet.

I wish to be associated with these comments
Also my biggest problem with the AR's is the direct impingement gas system. I would much rather clean a piston system than dump all the residue from firing in my receiver with each shot.

[Taiidantomcat]

Personally, I go with the "weapon for each role" crew.

These hybrids are all like joining a Phillips-head screwdriver to a 3/8 socket wrench & asking it to do the job of a hammer drill.




PS (Personal Shi...): I, also, prefer the front-mounted mag to the bullpup design but, then, I've only ever fired the F88 once.
                            ... & I dislike the M16/M4's cocking mechanism, I'm not too keen on full-auto in an assault rifle (bursts are OK, I guess), & I prefer a heavier bullet.

I wish to be associated with these comments
Also my biggest problem with the AR's is the direct impingement gas system. I would much rather clean a piston system than dump all the residue from firing in my receiver with each shot.

That piston system is one of those "why didn't we think of this decades ago?" things. 

I personally like the M-203 Its very simple and adds firepower. It can be a little on the awkward side to carry but it is wonderfully easy and reliable, and I don't have to carry a second specific GL with me.

[rickshaw]

The multiple weapons thing is a bit akin to the idea of giving every soldier a Swiss Army Knife.  Looks great, feels interesting, some of the tools are really useful but when was the last time we had horses which needed the tool for removing stones from their hooves? 

I agree with the comments about the Llungemann/Stoner-modified direct gas impingement system.  However, it should be recognised, Stoner chose it 'cause it was lighter and the original Armalite was intended as a USAF "survival" weapon, rather than a service longarm.  Problem was, no one really thought about the consequences of continuing to use it.  The ARs which have replaced it with a gas piston have tended to be more reliable and easier to keep clean.

[Maverick]

... and can also be used as manually loaded weapons in some instances such as the SLR.  No gas piston doesn't mean the weapon isn't capable of firing.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

... and can also be used as manually loaded weapons in some instances such as the SLR.  No gas piston doesn't mean the weapon isn't capable of firing.

Regards,

Mav

That was more by accident than design, I suspect.  You can do the same with an M16, its just a lot harder and the weapon needs to be juggled a lot more.  Left handers have real difficulties with the M16, something I've noticed when teaching them and observing my brother use one (he's left eye dominant, right hand dominant so fires left-handed), as the majority of controls are right-handed.