JPeelen said:

The criticism usually imply that we would still have the same design as in 1992. If the G11 had been adopted in 1992, the current rifle would be very different from it, like a Mauser 98 is from a Mauser-Norris of 1869.

Both the 1869 Mauser-Norris and the 1898 Mauser are manually-operated, bolt-actions.  The only fundamental difference between them is that the former is a single-shot rifle, whereas the latter is a 5-shot repeater.

I see no reason to think that the current version of the G11 would be any more different from the 1992 version, than the latest version of the M4 carbine is from the M4 of 1992.

JPeelen said:

Regarding Afghanistan, it is a good thing we did not have the 4.9 mm cartridge of the G11. It was optimized for engagements within at most 300/400 m as was expected from cold war German Panzergrenadier tactics. Long range individual rifle engagements were not the plan in 1992. That is the ballistic consideration. On the other hand, when the rules of engagement make sure you can never win (mortar ROE for example), the rifle is of little consequence.

What mortar ROE "make sure you can never win"?

I used the Mauser-Norris versus Mauser 98 as an example of a large number of changes that go into any design over years of accumulating experience in making and using it. The G11 being a totally new, more complex design would in my view have undergone rather significant changes. As a matter of fact, I am convinced we would now have a 2nd or even 3rd generation caseless rifle if the G11 had been issued 30 years ago.   

It is of course possible that the G11 would have been no success at all. But we will never know, because we never really tried hard, in my opinion. 

Isn't your example overlooking that the M4 of 1992 is rather quite different from Eugene Stoner's AR-15 of the 1960s?  No design changes leading up to the M4 of 1992?

The mortar ROE, if you read what I wrote, was an example(!) for Afghanistan ROE generally. I mentioned mortars, because I know from a mortar platoon leader how he was forced by ROE to idly look on in an incident, about which I will not go into detail.       

JPeelen said:

I used the Mauser-Norris versus Mauser 98 as an example of a large number of changes that go into any design over years of accumulating experience in making and using it. The G11 being a totally new, more complex design would in my view have undergone rather significant changes. As a matter of fact, I am convinced we would now have a 2nd or even 3rd generation caseless rifle if the G11 had been issued 30 years ago.

I think that's unlikely, because it's inconsistent with history.  As an example, the MG42 was adopted 80 years ago, and -- except for a caliber change to conform to NATO standards -- was essentially unchanged during eight decades of service.

Armies typically are conservative.  I doubt that there would have been a second, let alone a third, generation caseless rifle in 30 years.  Far more likely, IMO, is that the G11 -- assuming it worked acceptably -- would have received upgraded optics mounted on Picatinny rail, and other minor changes similar to how the G36, M4, and other small arms were modified over the years.

JPeelen said:

It is of course possible that the G11 would have been no success at all.

Of course.  The G11 might have quickly proven unsatisfactory and been replaced by the G36.

JPeelen said:

Isn't your example overlooking that the M4 of 1992 is rather quite different from Eugene Stoner's AR-15 of the 1960s?  No design changes leading up to the M4 of 1992?

I'm not seeing how the M4 carbine of 1992 (or 2022) is "quite different" from the original AR-15.

Today's M4 is a lightweight, select-fire rifle that fires 5.56x45 ammo fed from a 30-rd magazine.

The original AR-15 is a lightweight, select-fire rifle that fires 5.56x45 ammo fed from a 25-rd mag.

The M4 has a telescoping stock and other refinements, but it's still basically the same as the AR-15.

JPeelen said:

The mortar ROE, if you read what I wrote, was an example(!) for Afghanistan ROE generally. I mentioned mortars, because I know from a mortar platoon leader how he was forced by ROE to idly look on in an incident, about which I will not go into detail.

I'm not asking you to divulge confidential information about any specific incident.  I'm only asking what mortar ROE you were referring to?

LMT has come out with a rifle in 6.8 TV. Somewhat significant as LMT is decent player in the international DMR market, so we could potentially see this rifle fielded should 6.8TV become adopted.

https://soldiersystems.net/2022/01/20/shot-show-22-lmt-mars-h-in-6-8tvcm/

Nah it really didn't, even if the bc was notionally higher the 5.56 rounds we use now are definitely much more capable at long range.

There are socom guys reporting that they have no problem scoring good lethal hits with m855a1 from a mk18 to well beyond 600 meters.

You're not going to cheat physics that much no matter how hard you push a very light very small bullet which is what g11 had.

Could g11 have had higher bc than m193? Sure, but m193 is pretty singularly unimpressive and was pretty much designed to be a 300 meter cartridge.

Does that mean g11 had higher bc than modern 5.56?

Lol NO

Except we do actually know because the LSAT program very explicitly picked up where g11 left off... And failed miserably.

The case less failed so bad they outright stopped testing caseless at all way earlier in the program than it was initially planned to.

Given the time Delta between the two programs, and the massive technological progress in that time, it's pretty safe to say that had g11 been adopted it would have died in disgrace (likely after a disastrous German Afghanistan rotation) with no caseless replacement in sight.

Looks like a very long (22-24") barrel?

roguetechie said:

Does that mean g11 had higher bc than modern 5.56?

The C7 of the M855A1 is not really impressive, only 0.149.

Still better than M193 or Mk318, but that's not saying a lot...

JPeelen said:

Three decades later, technology may offer other ways to try something new. But I stay with my opinion that at the time it was the right thing to at least try something really new to solve the hit probability problem in the expected cold war infantry scenario

I laud them for trying something new.

I personally think they should have tried something else new rather then the jump from G3 to G11. Especially for the envisioned 'fighting in a MOPP suit in a contaminated wasteland against hordes of advancing Commies' where life expectancy was supposed to be hours-days. 

Simply going from FAL to AUG proved a solid boost in firepower and hit probability for the Austrians, and was ready by 1977.

Creating a 'micro-42' scaled down MG42 in 5.56 (or 4.6x36) could have been another option for mowing down hordes of Reds.

Or rather than hyper burst, pursing controllable FA fire ala Ultimax, where controllability was achieved by eliminating bolt impact. 

There were a number of more likely to succeed design paths they could have pursued rather than the G11. 

stancrist said:

Looks like a very long (22-24") barrel

Yes I'm not sure what to make of that.

-The barrel length was simply a holdover from civilian 6.5C rifles

-The barrel length was chosen at random for the show

-The 6.8TV needs a long barrel

-The 6.8TV performs even more aweseome out of a long barrel

-Theres a contract for this specific configuration

?