Here is a concept i came up with earlier today, A “Minigun” upper reciever that can be attached to any existing AR15/M16 lower recievers. I thought it would be ideal for heavy firefight situations or just a fun range weapon for those who want the feel of somthing more exotic. As real gatling guns will never be man-portable, This concept can as its rate of fire will not be so high but may acelerate the longer it is fired. The “M16 Minigun” may operate on a form of delayed blowback combined with a “Webley-Fosbery” grooved drum underneath the bolt to rotate the barrels. It may be fed from a magazine/drum and chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.
Although it looks, It is not or no way a gatling gun but a machine gun that changes its barrels for each shot reducing overheating/erosion.
Here a guy comes up with a design and asks your opinion and you guys act like a couple junior high dorks. Sure it’s not your typical M4 with rails, and lights, and all that other stuff on it but it is only a concept.
How about some positive input?
Cutaway, I personally think it’s too large. If you removed a couple barrels and made the diameter smaller then I think you may be headed in the right direction.
im sorry it just needs a tripod or a mount to the top of the truck! ive been spending to much money on hookers and blow maybe i need to move to steroids to pack one of these bad boys
As sgtmajor said, the reply was a little tongue-in-cheek humor. As I saw this exact same post presented on other forums and the responses in those sites are even more degrading, I would say that M4C is the kinder community.
Now in all seriousness, as someone that has plenty of time and experience with infantry type weapons, I don’t see how this weapon can be practical or something I would desire to carry in combat.
As appealing as a high rate of fire machinegun would be, with a small and easily maneuvered frame, I do not believe that it would be best to attempt to mount it on the M-16/AR-15 lower receiver. Do I really need to go into ALL the reasons why I think that it would be a bad idea?
Anyhow, thank you MarshallDodge for being the voice of reason and straightening out us “junior high dorks”.
Going to 3 (short) barrels instead of 6 would save weight and shrink the form factor. I’m not sure that 5.56 rounds have enough omph to operate the action and spin that much rotational mass? Feeding also looks like a problem. I see what looks like a linked round coming in from the top somehow, but it’s magazine or drum fed from the bottom?
It’s a far-fetched longshot, but let’s be honest: if you could build a semi-auto legal weapon with multiple rotating barrels that worked…you’d sell more than you could make. It’s a wet dream for too many guys out there.
Nobody said you were a jhd, I just said that you were acting like one.
Cutaway, after thinking about this some more. I am an electrical geek so don’t count on me for much in the mechanical design but maybe you could do something in carbon fiber with stainless barrel liners? The weight savings would be huge but heat may be an issue.
The original poster is well known for his fetish for high cyclic rate, multibarreled rifles.
FWIW: Back in the 1950s, Springfield Armory’s David C. Fletcher designed a three barrel .222 Remington rifle for Project SALVO. It didn’t progress further than a test fixture and a mockup. However, a couple of patents were issued.
As for ridiculously high cyclic rates in a single barrel weapon, there were the Dual Cycle Rifle projects of the 1970s. Both the Army and GE had concept designs and filed patents. They were looking at three round bursts at something like 4,500-4,900 rpm.
I keep meaning to track down a copy of an article about the DCR from an old US Army R&D magazine. The only other place where I’ve seen it mentioned in print are the 1976 and 1977 editions of “Jane’s Infantry Weapons.”
JK