COMBAT-ASSAULT RIFLE

How would you change tactics to counter an enemy that outfits every soldier with the firepower of an MG42 in a weapon the size and cost of an M4?                     

Think it is impossible?  Think again!  

 

UPDATE (April 2024):  By way of continuous refinement we are pleased to announce further simplification of the design leading to a reduction in unit cost below that of the M4 platform (10-15%) that approaches the cost of an AK-47/74.  

 

The Future is NOW!

NOTE:  FOR GOVERNMENTS AND AUTHORIZED ARMORERS ONLY

The importance of a properly designed and functioning fully-automatic battle rifle cannot be over-stated, especially in this day and age.  Many will say that there exists an abundance of these weapons on the market, however, upon closer inspection we quickly come to the realization that it is one thing to fire at a high cyclic rate but another thing to do so accurately.  The main task of any military weapon is to exert dominance over the enemy in theatre, the more overwhelming the better.  In the case of the modern rifleman, the weapon he shoulders needs to be a force-multiplier whose amplification allows him to control any and all situations.  This factor enables operators to take full advantage of the element of surprise during strike missions as well as providing overwhelming suppressive fire during defensive operations.  The optimum weapon capable of such a task comes to instill in said operator a degree of confidence that is indispensable in combat where hope can run thin.

 

UPDATE (May 2025):

SMALL ARMS DESIGN EVOLUTION & SYNTHESIS

When looking back over the last 40-50 years of small arms development, specifically for shoulder-fired service rifles, we see that designers have had to contend with relatively low standards.  Specifically, the establishment of easily achievable design criteria that today are no longer valid.  This is the primary reason for the lack of novel solutions for service rifle mechanism design.  Investigating the circumstances of this trajectory inevitably leads us to the development of the AR15/M16 platform.  The adoption of a new caliber (5.56×45 NATO) marked a historic change in US military doctrine that had always relied on .30 caliber service rifles.  The difference in internal, external and terminal ballistic performance of the new round was drastic.  Nevertheless, for the dense jungles of Vietnam the ballistic performance of the new round proved sufficient taking into consideration the short distances most engagements were fought in.  This apparent success was further compounded by the lack of modern body armor of the Vietcong guerillas.  Indeed, a .22 caliber round was sufficient for that particular battle space. 

The outward success of this new chambering caught the attention of the Soviet contingent.  So much so that they decided to introduce their own version for their proven AK-47 platform.  Shortly after this decision the AK-74 was born introducing the 5.45×39 chambering that is still in service to this day with the Russian Federation, among many other militaries around the world.  The Soviet military used this new round in the close confines of the rugged mountains of Afghanistan where the local militias, like the Vietcong, lacked modern body armor protection.  Here again we see a .22 caliber round sufficing. 

Subsequent conflicts during the following decades began to expose the ballistic limitations of these new calibers by way of more open terrain, as seen in conflicts strewn throughout the Middle East, along with more technologically outfitted foes employing modern body armor.  Given these new constraints the .22 caliber´s effective range was observed to be painfully insufficient with soldiers not even attempting to engage enemies that were beyond 500 meters.  At such ranges even rounds that did find their target often did nothing more than make .22 caliber holes in foes that maintained sufficient strength to continue fighting.  Slowly but surely it became clear that if near-peer adversaries were to be engaged in future conflicts ballistic performance needed to improve significantly in terms of both effective range and armor penetration.  That future is now.  Those who heed the call to improve the performance of their small arms will see a sizeable return on their efforts both in the battlefield and in the halls of power. 

As previously mentioned, the establishment of easily achievable design criteria brought about by the adoption of .22 caliber ammunition has severely stunted design evolution for military service rifles.  The mechanism by which this development has been stifled is linked to the design constraints such loadings impose on the primary system constraint, the rifleman.  The rifleman amounts to a shooting platform that must acquire, aim and shoot at targets multiple times until threats are eliminated.  This is, more often than not, an iterative process that imposes reaction forces upon the rifleman in the form of recoil that increase both mental and physical fatigue that degrade the ability to acquire, aim and shoot with each passing iteration.  Indeed, the successful design of a weapon system has a profound effect on the efficiency and achievement of operational goals.  

Taking into consideration the physical constraints imposed upon by the average infantryman we see that the adoption of a .22 caliber round by various militaries has enabled the adoption of simplistic rifle mechanisms by way of the low recoil these loads produce.  Such recoil falls within the limit of what an infantryman can handle during repeated exposure.  When we consider new design criteria for ballistic performance we come to expect effective ranges up to at least 500 meters where armor penetration must be achieved.  When we consider this new design criterion we arrive at various conclusions.  First, .22 caliber loads will not provide the required terminal performance out to 500-600 meters.  Second, the required performance is now beyond what the average infantryman can withstand repeatedly without having both physical and mental fatigue take a deleterious toll on combat effectiveness.  Simply put, yesterday´s weapon systems are wholly inadequate for today´s conflicts.  Lazy attempts to introduce heavier cartridges utilizing legacy rifle designs not intended for said loads constitute grave shortcomings that will guarantee defeat in the modern battle space.  

Necessity is the mother of invention and now, more than ever, an evolution in the design of service rifles is required.  Here we need to explore the relationships that link system constraints (infantryman, recoil) to mechanism design solutions (lock-up, gas system) so as to ensure compliance of the relevant criteria.  This relationship is hardly, if ever, discussed within the industry and presents the critical path to success during the design process.  Specifically, the hierarchy in mechanism design that proceeds in lock step with increased ballistic performance which naturally increases felt recoil.  As an example from the world of pistols, you can use a simple blowback, fixed-barrel design up to about 380 ACP where recoil is still relatively manageable for most shooters.  Going beyond this load with such platforms, as in the case of the Astra 400 pistols chambered in 9mm Largo, means accepting heavier weight, stiffer recoil springs and high recoil forces complicating target re-acquisition after every shot.  As such, for performance requirements above 380 ACP it is advisable to change the mechanism to include locked breeches with short recoil actions that soak up, so to speak, that initial recoil impulse allowing for quicker and more precise follow-up shots. 

The same phenomena occur with shoulder fired, service rifles.  Using .22 caliber cartridges allows for the use of delayed blowback designs as seen in the H&K33 with acceptable recoil signatures using the 5.56×45 NATO round while the same mechanism using 7.62x51mm NATO rounds, as seen in the G3 rifles, make follow-up shots and automatic fire much more difficult for the average sized infantryman.  The employment of gas systems for self-loading capability inherently helps to mitigate some recoil but the systems seen to date are woefully inadequate at ensuring quick follow-up shots and/or sufficient control during full automatic fire when anything more than .22 caliber ammunition is employed.  An example of this can be seen in the AR10 platform rifles whose mechanism design is simply not acceptable for full power cartridges.   

The industry finds itself at an impasse understanding that higher ballistic performance is required yet legacy rifle mechanisms fall short of acceptable ranges of performance.  An excellent example is the recent trials using a 6.8X51mm round in the US military´s Next Generation Squad Weapon Program.  This new round falls in between traditional .22 and .30 caliber ammunition yet is still off the mark due to its ballistic performance being closer to a full power cartridge, like the 7.62X51mm round, than an intermediate cartridge.  This limitation is exacerbated by the rifle platform it is used in being based on .22 caliber ammunition.  In essence, it is rehashing the already unacceptable AR10 platform.  The inability to introduce new rifle mechanism platforms that bridge the gap between required ballistic performance while being acceptable to the average infantryman presents a serious obstacle to a successful modern rifle platform. 

In conclusion, projectile and weapon must be designed in unison taking a holistic approach to arrive at the best possible solution for the modern war-fighter. The field can and will be improved with innovative solutions giving operators the advantage necessary to dominate the battlefield. This paradigm shift in lethality amounts to a new generation of shoulder-fired weapons, an era that has already begun.  

 

OPTIMUM MODERN RIFLE CARTRIDGE

In deriving at the optimum rifle cartridge for the modern battlefield we come to loadings that, paradoxically, do not exist in the wide scope of offerings in civilian applications.  Specifically, bullet diameters should be in the 6.0mm range while never exceeding 6.25mm.  The ideal bullet diameter would be a 6.0mm as sufficient velocity can be generated in relatively short barrels while still maintain sufficient space for hardened penetrators in their core.  A bullet weight of 90-95 grains leaving a 20¨ barrel at 2,900 feet/sec would provide the required terminal ballistic performance at 500-600 meters.  Such a load would produce approximately 8 ft-lbs of recoil energy that with a properly designed rifle mechanism to mitigate recoil can be reduced to 5 ft-lbs of recoil, bringing the felt recoil down to the same manageable level as current 5.56×45 loads.  In the interest of maintaining one round for both rifleman and light machine guns this ideal 6mm round would see velocities of over 3,100 feet/sec from the longer barrels of squad automatic weapons.  If more down-range performance is required from light machine guns you can always have an alternate loading in 6.0mm using 105-110 grain bullets at close to 3,000 feet/sec.

While loads exist in civilian guise with favorable ballistic performance they are found in cases too large for the svelte dimensions required for service rifles as most have base diameters of 12.0mm or more.  In an effort to keep locking mechanism weight and bulk down it is best to keep base diameters to no higher than 11.0mm, with a 10.5mm maximum preferred.  Overall cartridge length should be no more than 2.5¨ for the sake of minimizing bolt travel distances and hence upper receiver dimensions.  The closest we get to such cartridge is the new 6mm MAX round from BC Precision Ballistics in the United States.  Regrettably the use of the standard 5.56×45 case limits the powder volume ultimately seeing velocities just shy of the required performance for 90-95 grain bullet weights.

The only other cartridge that comes remotely close to an optimized load is that fielded by the People´s Liberation Army of China.  Specifically, their 5.8x42mm using a 6.0mm bullet up to 77 grains in weight contained in a 42mm case providing an overall cartridge length of 2.3¨.  In conjunction with a base diameter of 10.4mm yields a case capacity of 32.6 grains of H₂O, enough to provide up to 46,000 psi chamber pressure.  This yields velocities of approximately 2,850 feet/sec out of a standard 18¨ barrel used by infantryman and up to 3,100 feet/sec out of the 22¨ barrels found in their light machine guns.  While this provides improved performance as compared to 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm contenders it still falls short of the 90-95 grain bullet weights preferred for adequate terminal ballistics.

Time will tell whether a military will field an improved cartridge as outlined herein.  Those that do will have a rifle platform that will last decades while still providing room for future evolution should conditions demand it.  Such a load coupled with the novel service rifle mechanism offered by Rafael Lastra Engineering would prove to be unmatched in the battle field. 

 

 

CARTRIDGE CASE TO LOCK DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

 

 

Another seldom discussed issue relating to service rifle design are the considerations concerning the cartridge case, chamber and bolt/lock design of the weapon requisite for successful performance with varying materials and/or quality of ammunition.  Specifically, the dimensional changes undergone to the case itself after firing.  Once fired, the case is ´fire-formed´ into the actual shape of the chamber and bolt abutment to then relax, so to speak, within it´s elastic regime.  The extent of these changes have a profound effect on mechanism performance and reliability.  Requisite to successful operation demands that the cartridge be supported on all critical surfaces such that both elastic and plastic strain allow for permanent deformation within limits of the chamber and bolt so as to allow for proper unlocking and extraction.

In the case of the chamber, the primary goal is to support the case radially as gas pressure expands outward through the case walls ultimately bearing on the chamber surface directly.  The high pressure required of modern service rifle ammunition imposes high loads on the chamber walls that necessitate sufficient strength to withstand the strain but, more importantly, provide adequate stiffness to ensure the strain observed does not supersede the permanent deformation of the case walls themselves.  If only strength is considered it is easy to employ a chamber wall thickness that will handle the load while straining itself beyond the limit of permanent deformation of the case once pressure decays and both materials are relaxed.  In this scenario the chamber will settle back to its original dimension while the new dimension of the permanently deformed case will fall beyond the chambers constraints.  The result would be the chamber walls interfering with the fired case, ultimately locking the case within the chamber making successful extraction an impossibility.  The successful chamber design would have sufficient thickness to ensure once the fired case recovers within its elastic range it´s new dimension provides the clearance needed for easy extraction.  Meeting this criterion is relatively simple as sufficient chamber thickness is easily achieved with properly heat-treated steels ensuring a high elastic regime with minimal strain.

The axial support of the case is another issue altogether that requires careful design of both the bolt mechanism and its subsequent breech.  Here again, as in the case of the chamber, the lockup of bolt and breech must be of sufficiently high stiffness to ensure interference in the axial direction does not hinder bolt unlocking.  This would be the result of overly high opening forces imposed by the residual friction the case head would place on the bolt face.  It is at this point that the existing cartridge case materials must be taken into account to determine the worst-case scenario and design accordingly.  There are two primary case materials, specifically, traditional brass and low-carbon steel.  Some militaries are attempting to field cases made of composite materials of plastic/steel, however, they are not proven as of yet and will not likely see use in the modern battlefield anytime soon.  This will not hinder design efforts as the design criteria required for plastic ammunition is similar to that of steel cased ammunition.  In particular, steel cased ammunition offers a lower coefficient of friction between the case material and the chamber walls as compared to traditional brass.  Brass ammunition will tend to tightly grip the case so as to reduce the axial thrust loads on the bolt/breech.  Steel, on the other hand, will require the bolt/breech to take up a higher load as the case will move rearward against the bolt face, hence exposing the locking surfaces closer to 100% of the chamber pressure.  Both brass and steel cased ammunition will see a subsequent reduction in deformation after firing as the material springs back within its elastic regime.  Any residual force between the case head and bolt face will be largely due to the stiffness of the bolt/breech arrangement.  As such, this is a critical design requirement for any new lockup mechanism like that proposed herein. 

Coming under the scrutiny of Rafael Lastra Engineering the critical design variables to consider are the requisite clearance of the lock-up surfaces for both acceptable contamination tolerance and variations in headspace dimensions.  There will always be slight differences in case dimensions and the worst-case scenario of low yield strength (i.e. low elastic regime) brass and steel cased ammunition will need to be considered.  Using this worst-case scenario standard lock-up clearances are sufficient for reliability so long as the locking mechanism (bolt & breech) offer sufficient rigidity ensuring strain under load does not provoke interference between the case head and bolt face.  Interference that would render the weapon useless.  In essence, we run into the same issue as in the radial loads of the chamber wall except now in the axial direction.  The lockup mechanism of the novel weapon system conceived by Rafael Lastra Engineering accomplishes this by ensuring a minimum lockup stiffness equivalent to 0.025mm (0.001¨) per 100,000 psi  chamber pressure (proof loads) at the requisite strain rates.  This is achieved by the fact that both the bolt and locking lugs are employed in compression, as such, higher working hardness of up to 52HRC steel can be employed ensuring minimal deflection under load.  The reaction forces are taken by the breech itself encompassing a barrel extension that, while in tension, can easily be kept to minimum dimensions by way of the short load path taken as the locking surfaces are no more than 22mm (7/8¨) away from the bolt face.  Allowing for such a stout breech means stiffening up the only member in tension does not add much weight to the overall weapon.  

The last, yet important, function of the locking/unlocking function is that of allowing for acceleration and deceleration of the cartridge case both in and out of the chamber.  This ´camming´ function is critical so as not to slam the case too hard into the chamber which would increase case-head to bolt-face clearance as well as to cam out the case during the unlocking phase prior to hard acceleration out of the chamber during extraction.  This function is achieved by the locking geometry ensuring unwanted jerks of the case head are avoided.  This function coupled with the dual extractor design of the bolt ensures reliable and fast extraction without requiring chamber fluting.  

In short, rest assured no stone has been left un-turned in the pursuit of excellence in weapon design, a hallmark of Rafael Lastra Engineering that ensures a trouble-free commissioning phase.

 

LASTRA COMPENSATOR (COUNTER-BALANCE SYSTEM)

A review of the various methods available to compensate for the recoil forces of a fully-automatic battle rifle have yielded four (4) viable designs.  The design for the final version has been selected with mechanical efficiency and cost in mind, as it could not be any other way.   This final version utilizes an in-line compensator mechanism (22mm tube) over the bore axis which performs two distinct functions.  Upon firing, the compensator charges a spring loaded, mechanical RC circuit where upon reaching the end of stroke releases a short stroke piston to both unlock and provide rearward propulsion for the bolt to then immediately reset itself at precisely the same instant the bolt bounces off the buffer assembly.  In essence, it is a gas-powered, mechanical sequence circuit.  The first phase cancels out the recoil from the round as it travels down the barrel while the second phase cancels out the shock induced by the sudden deceleration into the buffer.  All of this takes place in one, fluid motion at the lightning speeds required.  Specifically, the first sequence requires 4.0-4.5ms (worst-case/suppressor criteria)   after primer ignition ensuring residual barrel pressure is at a safe level before proceeding to unlocking of the bolt and rearward propulsion of the same.  Both phases are easily tuneable for varying applications.  

This design also provides the ideal solution to completely negate barrel rise as the compensators impulse is ideally positioned over the barrel axis ensuring the remaining recoil impulse is lower on the shoulder.  Not to be under-estimated, the compensator itself provides a purchase and bearing for the front sight hence alleviating the barrel from all responsabilities other than firing.  This significantly reduces the ´stringing´ of shots as the barrels temperature rises and slightly distorts by way of having the front post mounted on a much more rigid structure.  The front post provides a loop for the barrel to run free-floated in with a 0.5mm gap around it´s entire circumference offering protection from inadvertent strikes, increasing damage tolerance.  The front post also provides a stable platform for the handguard as well as bayonets and grenade launchers to be mounted without putting any load on the barrel itself. 

 

 

 

Below we see more mature versions of the trigger mechanism and manual of arms for a version of the rifle,  specifically, a select-fire trigger group for a striker fired rifle, showing the progression during the design optimization phase.   

 

 

INTEGRATED TAKE-DOWN PIN & STRIKER DISCONNECT

Striker fired service rifles have been avoided thus far as they present certain complications.  This is a shame as there are also very interesting advantages to such battery types.  One of the main complications is the opening of the rifle for service and maintenance practices as the striker is on the upper while the main sear is on the lower.  As such, a loaded gun will discharge if the gun take-down pins are removed allowing the opening of the rifle.  While this may seem like a serious impediment to striker fired designs it is, in reality, a very small hurdle to overcome by employing a smattering of mechanical logic.  One such example solution is found below where we see that the take-down pin is used as both a locking or cross pin as well as disengagement of the striker.  Specifically, the gun is only allowed to be opened after the striker has been physically taken off the sear by a few millimeters.  Functionally, the logical flow of the mechanism follows a sequential route meaning main cross-pin separation can only happen after the striker is off the sear ensuring a disengagement of battery.  The opening sequence begins by first pushing in the cross pin lever to allow the primary locking pin off it´s mating surface.  Only then will the lever be allowed to rotate 90^o CCW thereby allowing the spring to push the primary locking pin into the opening track allowing a separation of the upper and lower receivers.  In sketch C-C we see the means by which a secondary locking pin ensures the lever is not allowed to be rotated with the action open.  Only when it makes contact with a corresponding pin on the lower of the action is this pin disabled allowing the lever to be pushed in, which locks both upper and lower together, before being allowed to rotate the primary locking pin back onto it´s seat.  This last action releases the striker to then be brought into contact with the main sear.  This simple scheme takes operator error in the field out of the equation.

 

 

 

RECOIL SPRING FATIGUE CONSTRAINTS

Of all the critical components on a firearm none are more highly stressed than the springs, with special consideration to the recoil springs.  By their very function, recoil springs are employed with drastic demands for high deflections and strain rates, all the while being required to maintain a minimum of load loss for proper operation.  So critical are these variables that recoil springs can, in essence, be considered to operate within a low-cycle regime albeit not fatigue or fracture related.  As such, great care must be taken in the selection of proper springs so as to maximize the service life of the firearm.  The same stringent criteria must be employed with all of the springs on the firearm.  So much so that a designer must, in essence, design the gun around the springs and not the other way around.  Not doing so will result in platforms that are a veritable nuisance in the field as constant change-outs of key components will be required to avoid costly stoppages.  Such designs can only be characterized as failures. 

While the bolt and breech of the rifle herein have been specifically designed to operate at very high speeds without ´beating themselves to death´, not to mention the battering of cartridges into the chamber by ´bleeding off´ bolt speed prior to lock-up, nevertheless the recoil springs will impose their constraints on change-out intervals.  To ensure the best of all worlds the use of braided, multi-wire springs composed of high grade spring material (Chrome Silicon – SAE 9254 or Chrome Vanadium SAE 6150) should be used.  Either of these spring steel grades provide high strain-rate and shock resistance while maintaining acceptable levels of load loss.  While non-braided spring wire can be used braided wire offers the added benefit of passive damping which will aid in stability on such a dynamic bolt/carrier group. 

Recoil springs still operate within a low-cycle regime and limitations are inevitable.  As such, we can find the minimum change-out intervals required, based on the cyclic firing rate below for reference.  

        CYCLIC RATE  –  RECOIL SPRING LIFE

   Up to 1,300 rpm – 6,000 round change-out

 1,350-1,500 rpm  – 2,000 round change-out  

 NOTE:  For cyclic rates above 1,300 rpm the use of two springs are required to reduce load on each while rates up to 1,300 rpm can employ one recoil spring successfully.

 

 

GAS PROPULSION & DECOMPRESSION

Initial ideas evolve into functional sketches (above) to continue their progression to more general machined layouts (below) before coming up with detailed final drawings.  

 

DUAL EXTRACTION & AMBIDEXTEROUS EJECTION

The extraction phase of the firing cycle requires the same meticulous attention to detail garnered on the rest of the phases.  When considering reliable extraction for service rifles designed specifically to be capable of high cyclic fire that criteria is scrutinized further still.  Below we can see one of the finalist designs for dual extraction as required on the novel rifle outlined herein. 

Delving into the details we see that dual extraction is required due to the high bolt acceleration required out of battery.  As the breech mechanism is of the ¨locked¨ variety and not a delayed-blowback action no chamber fluting is required for successful extraction meaning the extractor loads will be high.  Using two extractors reduces the loads to acceptable levels on both the extractors themselves as well as the case rim, avoiding damage to either.  This configuration also provides precise case positioning as the bolt moves out of the breech area ensuring no unwanted contact takes place before ejection.  In the sketch below we can see that the plunger-type ejector (30) is held in the loaded position during extraction by the second extractor (20a).  As the bolt moves rearward the cam surface (50) contacts it´s trigger cam at the appropriate position releasing the ejector plunger (30) initiating ejection.  Both extractors are spring loaded by one, large diameter spring (90) spanning the entire width of the bolt.  This spring is located over the center-line of the bolt axis allowing for the largest spring possible ensuring fatigue resistance.  The position of this spring conditions the location of the cams on the extractors to be on the same plane so as not to torque said extractors and introduce damaging bending loads.

Another important consideration is that of ambidexterity as would be required for bull-pup configurations.  Using dual extractors makes for simple adoption of bull-pup schemes as the extractors are already in place.  The only feature required is the inclusion of a drilling for each ejector (70).  An important feature of the configuration depicted in the sketch is the use of a single pin (60) that acts as both an extractor pivot pin and an ejector hard stop.  Switching ejection can be done in 2-3 minutes by drifting pin (60) out to release the ejector (30) and spring (40) and switching it to the opposite side.  As both extractors are provisioned with cam surfaces to initiate ejection nothing more has to be converted on the bolt itself.  The only other modification is the switching of the port cover, which consequently is where the ejector release cam surface is located.  Many attempts to provide ´on-the-fly´ switchable ejection schemes are available but they are simply not worth the additional cost and complexity required for mass produced, military weapons.  Being able to switch ejection in 2-3 minutes is more than satisfactory.  To handle an impromptu gunfight left-handed shooters must simply learn to shoot with relative proficiency from the right side.  Here we must remember that the search for ´perfect´ solutions is usually fraught with unacceptable compromises that are simply not operational when considering effective battle weapons. 

 

OPERATIONAL DETERMINISM

Determinism is a trait that can be defined as a system or framework whereby nothing is left to chance.  It is a skill that cannot be simply bestowed upon anyone, it can only be forged through experience, competence and fortitude.  This confers in the possessor the ability to rule out any and all stochastic phenomena ushering in complete process control. It is a protocol ensuring we drive out any and all assumptions. Determinism in engineering dictates that viable solutions are within our grasp, that we can understand the cause and effect relationship between our plans and their outcomes. In short, it is a ´crystal ball´, one that allows us to see into the future. Determinism is power.

Cultivating this skill is the result of a concerted effort through years of exposure to the most demanding projects. Such environments push our mental capabilities to new heights until we come to see the underlying structure governing a given system, regardless of discipline. The result is mastery of a given field. There has always been a tendency for engineers to specialize in specific fields, a principal that makes perfect sense, on paper. In reality, all engineering disciplines are intertwined with electrical systems sharing much in common with fluid-power systems, for instance. Nature does not separate disciplines as man does, as such, it behooves the designer to have expert knowledge of as many fields as possible. Only then will true innovation surface. There are many firearm designers that have spent the majority of their careers within the industry. A practice that is more limiting than enlightening as established solutions become orthodoxy, inevitably limiting one’s horizon. This is especially true when novel solutions are required as ´industry standards´ become a gilded cage, of sorts. When looking for game-changing solutions, one must look beyond the current state-of-the-art and that requires the most prized attribute of all, courage. The Russians say that there will be ¨no champagne without risk¨. They understand that the future belongs to the bold.

Understanding this principal, Rafael Lastra Engineering has worked tirelessly to accumulate the skill sets over the last 30 years required to take on any and all projects within the realm of mechanical engineering. The finest engineers in any discipline are those that commission systems in the field. It is here, ´in the trenches´, where one is forced to deal with the harsh reality of the physical world as it does not cut anyone a break. Engineering is not a faith-based discipline. The natural world has it´s laws and they will not be ´bent´ for anyone, it will either perform as designed or it will not. The engineer spent the first 20 years of his career designing, selling and commissioning over 150 bespoke, turn-key solutions in all industrial fields and technologies. All under strict capital and performance constraints. Such requirements hone one’s mind to the sharpest state possible conferring in a designer the necessary tools to embark on the most ambitious of projects. Experience that endows the designer with the ability, the stark realism, to know what is ´operational´ and what is not.  It is here that Rafael Lastra Engineering stands above the crowd. Expertise in mechanism design, metallurgy, fluid power, control systems, project management, etc. enable us to offer this system for timely deployment and not the usual ´saga´ associated with new assault rifle designs. As mentioned elsewhere, with dedicated machining time a working prototype can be ready in just a few months’ time from inception of the project, the final iteration being ready just a few months after that. Operational Determinism is what makes such performance possible, paradigm-shifting performance.

 

MESSAGE  FROM  RAFAEL LASTRA

 

¨Consider this, the gas system is viable as is the extraction system and fire-control group not to mention all other manual-of-arms related schemes.  The only sub-system left is a bolt/breech design capable of high cyclic rates employing stable motion profiles.  It would culminate in the final evolution of known cartridge firing, gas operated weapons.  If you believe such a breech design is not possible you simply have not been paying attention.¨     

– Rafael Lastra

 

The Future is NOW!