AAI LSAT

     Notes: The LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) is currently in the very early stages of development; projected field test are not even until 2013 at the earliest.  Currently, LMG/SAW versions and MMG versions are being developed, with only very limited working models actually existing at this time, and fewer than 1000 rounds having been fired through each of them as of yet.  The US Military is participating in the development, though there are significant questions at to how soon it will be economically feasible to field such weapons due to the radically different ammunition it is currently being tested with and projected future ammunition.  The primary goal of the program (at present) is to produce weapons which are significantly lighter than current SAWs and GPMGs.

     Most of the current development is being conducted with the LMG/SAW model.  This version has (depending what source you consult) construction of 35-60% advanced composite materials, including (possibly) an entirely polymer shell, trigger, trigger guard, ammunition belt (disintegrating) links, handguard, front sight post, sliding stock, and perhaps some other parts.  The barrel is of course steel; the barrel is fluted to save weight, yet made from steel which is both stronger and lighter than the steel used to make most small arms.  The fluting also greatly assists in heat dissipation, and the barrel is also a quick-change barrel which requires no tools (or stupid asbestos mittens) for the barrel changes.  The most common barrel length mentioned is approximately 20.5 inches, though an interchangeable barrel of approximately 22.5 inches is also mentioned in several sources.  Both are most commonly mentioned as using a compact muzzle brake (which is how I have treated it here), but the use of a standard SAW-type flash suppressor is also mentioned in some sources.  The receiver and some of the internal parts are made from lightweight titanium alloy.  The handguards have molded-in MIL-STD-1913 rails at the 3, 6, and 9 o’clock position, and the receiver behind the feed cover also has a MIL-STD-1913 rail.  At least 4 sling swivels are projected, allowing several different sling configurations and types.  Operation is described as “long-stroke, soft recoil,” further decreasing felt recoil to the shooter.

     An MMG version is also projected, using an approximately 24-inch barrel, and either 5.56mm or 7.62mm-equivalent ammunition.  (This will be explained more below.)  Common features for both the LMG/SAW and MMG include a titanium-alloy folding bipod, the ability to be mounted on both standard NATO tripods or special light tripods being developed, and of course, its special ammunition.

     The ammunition currently being tested with the prototype weapons is plastic-cased ammunition based on the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO rounds.  Furthermore, this ammunition is case-telescoped, making it much more compact as well as being significantly lighter.  Current prototypes are being tested with 100-round belts, but longer and shorter belts are projected for the future, along with soft Kevlar containers attached to the bottom of the receiver.  Future models are also projected (though they are still on the drawing board) that use belts of advanced caseless ammunition, and are even lighter than the current prototypes.  There are no current projections of when (or even if) the caseless-ammunition versions will appear, even as prototypes, but I have included them below as “what-ifs.”  (For that matter, the entire entry is a “what-if,” considering that, due to the ammunition, the US Military may never actually adopt them.)

     Twilight 2000 Notes: The AAI research program which produced these prototypes started much earlier in the Twilight 2000 timeline; however, no more than about 200 LSAT LMG/SAW versions (designated XM-324) were ever fielded, and only in the case-telescoped ammunition version.

     Merc 2000 Notes: Budgetary difficulties prevented AAI from ever taking the LSAT off the drawing boards.

ABRL XM-106

     Country of Origin: United States

     Seen In: SAW competition, mid-late 1970s.

     Notes: Though it may seem that the XM-106 had two big point in its favors – it’s genesis in the US Army’s Ballistics Research Lab, and it’s use of the M-16A1 as a base – but the XM-106 was only incrementally better than an M-16 on a scissors bipod, and only just so. Design changes included an easy-to-change but complex-to-replace heavy barrel, a bipod which attached to a boss above the center of the handguards, a foregrip just to the front of this (and somewhat difficult to use if the bipod was extended), and a fire controls which only allowed safe or automatic (with further changes bringing down the XM-106’s ROF to 750 RPM). The front sight is moved slightly closer to the muzzle, and the new barrel is 21.5 inches, tipped by an M-16A2-type flash suppressor. Firing was from an open bolt.

     Shortcomings of the XM-106 became more and more apparent as the tests went on.  At first, it was a problem with parts breakage and damage – not that the parts were any more susceptible to damage, but the XM-106 was basically hand-built at the ABRL, and many parts had to be carefully machined and/or hand-fitted when a failure of a part did occur.  The XM-106, after all, was a hand-modified M-106A1, and the XM-106 appeared to be a rush job that wasn’t ready for prime time.  The method of barrel change was borrowed from the M-60 machinegun, and had the same defect – each barrel change usually threw off the zero of the weapon.  ABRL went with a magazine feed; this was not conducive to sustained fire, and at the time, there were no reliable high-capacity magazines.  ABRL did design a special three-magazine clip that allowed three magazines to be clipped together, making reloads faster.

     The XM-106 showed all the signs of a rush job; someone at ABRL seems to have had the genesis of good ideas, but not enough time was taken to sharpen it.  On the other hand, the shortcomings list was a bit long.  Today, there are no surviving XM-106s; survivors were used for parts for other projects, and the concepts introduced on the XM-106 were largely dispensed with; however, Diemaco (formerly Colt Canada) went on to use the open-bolt firing, automatic-only lockwork, and a heavier barrel in other projects.

Boeing XM-8 SAW

     Notes: This is basically an XM-8 with a 24-inch fluted heavy barrel, a standard XM-8 optical sight tube, and a bipod.  The standard magazine for the SAW version is the 100-round C-Mag; there is no provision for belt-feeding, though it can also use the 90-round MWG (with some clumsiness).  The XM-8 SAW is not intended to replace the M-249, merely to supplement it; in addition, the SAW is intended to be used in a secondary role as a designated marksman rifle, and can use the 3.5x scope used on the DMAR.  Field trials of the XM-8 SAW are expected in late 2005, with combat trials commencing some time around 2008.  As with the XM-8 assault rifle, the XM-8 SAW was designed by Heckler & Koch, but the design was bought by Boeing in 2004.

     Twilight/Merc 2000 Notes: This automatic rifle does not exist in either timeline.

Colt CMG-2

     Notes: The testing program for what eventually became the SAW (filled by the M-249) actually began way back in 1967, when Colt began a private venture hoping to create a new weapon requirement for the US military.  (Eventually the military saw the usefulness of a small-caliber light machinegun, but it took a long, long time.)  To this end, Colt designed the CMG-1 (Colt Machinegun).  This gun turned up numerous faults during company testing and only a small amount of prototypes were built.  However, the CMG-1 was eventually developed into the CMG-2; this was a much more reliable and robust design that was tested in combat in Vietnam by US Navy SEALs in the early 1970s, where it was given the nomenclature of EX-27 Mod 0.  The SEALs and Colt began an extensive feedback program, and eventually about 25 examples were used by the SEALs (though only a couple made it to Vietnam).  The CMG-2 was well-liked by the SEALs who had a chance to use one, but the Department of Defense decided that such a weapon was not necessary, especially as the Vietnam War was winding down.  Development of the CMG-2 ended in 1982, and even the nomenclature was withdrawn from use.

     The CMG-2 is a belt-fed weapon with a quick-change barrel.  The belt was familiar to the SEALs; it is the same one used in the Stoner 63 system.  The CMG-2 can be fed from either side with only a few minutes of modifications, with case ejection being downward from the receiver.  The weapon has a forward pistol grip to help stabilize it during hip fire.  A bipod, borrowed from the M-14A1, could be attached to the CMG-2, and normally was.  The method of cocking the CMG-2 is a little unusual – there are two cocking levers, one for sear (and which also functions as a safety), and one for the operating group.  This means that the CMG-2 can be carried fully cocked, with a belt loaded into the weapon, with complete safety.  The weapon fires from an open bolt with a long recoil system, making felt recoil relatively light.  The drum for the belts was unusual; it employed a helical-feed chute which could make it awkward to carry spares, and makes the CMG-2 difficult to load in a hurry.

     In the end, stocks of the CMG-2 were relegated to museums and the weapons rooms of Crane Naval Warfare Center, and they were basically forgotten.  I think it was a weapon with a few faults, but was basically ahead of its time.

Heckler & Koch LMG-11

     Notes: This weapon was developed by Heckler and Koch as a squad automatic weapon variant of the G-11 assault rifle.  Only a few prototypes were built before development of all caseless ammunition weapons was stopped.  The weapon resembles an enlarged G-11, but the magazine is a package that is fed into the stock of the LMG-11.  The LMG-11 fires the same ammunition (4.7x33mm caseless) as the G-11 assault rifle.  The fire mechanism involves three rotating chambers to decrease the probability of cook-off during sustained automatic fire.  An interesting what-if weapon, and I can see some employees of H&K pulling out the prototypes for use against the Italian or French invasion. 

Hughes Lockless Rifle/Machinegun

     Notes: An innovative design, this automatic rifle was simply to innovative and different to be afforded the infrastructure necessary for acceptance into the Army and Marines.  Perhaps its most modern feature is its synthetic-cased telescoped ammunition – something that would not appear until 25 years later in AAI’s LSAT program.  The synthetic case was completely combustible and an extraction step in firing was unnecessary, the round requiring to be ejected only after a misfire or when clearing the weapon.  This made the Lockless Rifle/Machinegun quite resistant to dirt.  Unfortunately, though it passed initial testing and was well liked by the soldiers testing it, the Lockless Rifle/Machinegun was not accepted by the brass, and did not even receive a testing designation.

     As the name suggests, the Lockless Rifle/Machinegun could be used as a heavy rifle or as a SAW. The locking step of the ammunition was unnecessary, increasing reliability and giving resistance to fouling.  Unlike belt-fed weapons, the Lockless Rifle/Machinegun could be loaded on the move with one hand.  (A disadvantage is that the 64-round magazines were huge, despite the significantly smaller size of the SCT ammunition.)  At the heart of the block-shaped ammunition was a modified 5.56mm NATO round.  The Lockless Rifle/Machinegun used the same caliber rifle, but was hotloaded due to its heavier 68-grain bullet. The 22-inch barrel gave it greater accuracy – and a pepperpot-type muzzle brake kept recoil down.  It was not unduly heavy, however, useable either from a bipod or in an assault situation. (Another disadvantage, one that was to be rectified in the future is the program, was that a good fourteen inches of the barrel was unsupported.)  The rear sights were on a riser, and were of the adjustable ladder type.  The front sight was a post with ears.  Both were adjustable.  Advanced optics were being designed for the Lockless Rifle/Machinegun, but did not materialize due to its non-acceptance by the military.

Rodman Arsenal XM-235

     Notes: In the late 1970s, the US Army held a competition to bring a new weapon class into the Army – the Squad Automatic Weapon or SAW – in other words, a very light machinegun. The XM-235 was one of the last competitors in the competition, and came close to winning.  It was dreamed up by small arms engineers at Rodman Laboratories, then charged by the US Army with developing and maintaining the Army’s small arms and ammunition.

     Rodman developed the XM-235, but they had no facilities to produce even the small amounts needed to conduct the initial operational training – Rodman was not in any way a manufacturing facility.  So, interestingly enough, the Army chose one of the manufacturers that the XM-235 (and XM-249) had beaten – Ford Aerospace.

     Rodman designed the XM-235 from a clean slate, designed to break convention and fix the problems inherent to automatic weapons.  The found that in most automatic weapons, parts of the weapon were still in motion before any bullets left the barrel, and this threw off aim from the start.  High power meant high felt recoil.  Light machineguns had excessive barrel climb and also contributed to felt recoil.  They tended to have ROFs of 800-1200 RPM, an excessive ROF for most purposes, and also contributing to the lack of ability to aim. What Rodman did was to use long recoil operation, use a buffer system that permitted a relatively soft amount of felt recoil, almost halve the ROF (compared to the M-16), ergonomic design, the use of a compact muzzle brake, changed the way in which the gun handled the belt so that it moved smoothly instead of the “stop-and-go” motion of most belt-fed weapons, and move the belt feed as close to the center of gravity as possible, with the ammo box ending up almost directly under the receiver.  They also built maintainability into the ZM-235, with most of the gun being modular and not requiring tools for assembly or disassembly.

     What looks like an upper and lower receiver are actually sheet metal covers.  The actual receiver is a pair of long tubes (upper and lower), which essentially connect the working parts together.  You could literally run an XM-235 without the receiver covers, but it would be highly un-ergonomic and look pretty silly.  The stock, also a sheet metal assembly, was in an almost perfect straight line from the muzzle brake at the tip of the 24-inch barrel.  With all these sheet metal covers and assemblies, the XM-235 was a “semi-bullpup” weapon, with a significant amount of its action in the stock, though with the belt feed in front of the pistol grip and trigger. The upper receiver cover was peppered with small holes for ventilation.  Case ejection is above the pistol grip, though the charging handle was well forward in the upper receiver. The simple but innovative bipod was folding, light alloy, and adjustable for height and cant. The trigger guard was enlarged.

     The XM-235 has been called the “best weapon the Army ever rejected.”  But why did it get rejected when it was an outstanding weapon?  There were some minor points, like all that sheet metal getting dented during hard use.  There were points from it’s competitor, the XM-249 version of the Minimi – the Minimi was already in service in some countries and had a proven track record.  And then there was the ammunition – a version of the 5.56mm NATO design that was necked out to 6mm and with a steel core.  And in the end, this was enough.

     Rodman also designed a SAW that fires the 5.56mm NATO round, though it fires the SS-109 round that had been developed for the Minimi. This was the XM-248.

Unified Machine Gun

     Notes: This weapon was designed as an experiment at the behest of Spetsnaz and Russian Airborne Forces, who were looking for a combination of punch, light weight, and long range.  The first examples were seen in 1993, but it is still considered a developmental weapon, with ammunition even harder to find.  (Development of the UMG has been delayed primarily due to financial reasons, as have the AK-74 variants firing the same ammunition.)  There are probably no more than a dozen or so examples of this weapon currently in existence. The UMG is equipped with an integral 2.5x sight that greatly increases the effectiveness of the weapon by decreasing aiming errors.  The sight can be easily removed, and night or other optical sights of either Pact or Western origin can be mounted instead.  Backup iron sights may also be used.  The UMG can be mounted on a standard Pact Light Tripod.

     Twilight 2000 Notes: If you encounter a Russian soldier armed with this weapon, chances are that you have run into some sort of special operations unit.   

     Merc 2000 Notes: Development of this weapon was delayed indefinitely due to financial reasons.