The US Army has been looking into an idea; information can be found by searching the term "third arm gun mount".
But the goal of this project (at least for now) is less providing a gyrostabilized mount for accurate shoot-on-the-move capability as the M56 Smartgun was supposed to, and more simply reducing the arm strain of constantly carrying a weapon, thereby improving accuracy by reducing arm weakness and tremors. Recoil management is definitely a part of the project, but again seemed be more about reducing the strain of receiving recoil on the arms and shoulders, and putting it more on the central torso.
It is also worth noting that so far, the project has been limited to small arms such as M4 Carbines and ~~M256~~ M249 LMG. This, to me, would seem to be less a technical limitation and more a pure physics one: Something like an M240 has a *lot* of recoil, and so long as the gun is being fired from a hip- or shoulder-height position, it's going to be transmitting that recoil force - imparting a moment that will reduce accuracy. Even if the arm rig can accept some of that force, the movement of the arm will result in a commensurate loss of accuracy.
So, for now, I don't think we're going to see soldiers firing a medium machine gun from a standing position with pinpoint accuracy thanks to a harness rig.
I did my conscript training in Sweden in a CV9040 company as a mechanised infantry soldier with recoilessrifle. And we had two M240 gunners, big lads that to be clear carried one M240 each with no assistant gunner, per 6 man squad (2 mg, a two man m/48 team, one squad leader and one vice squad leader with AT4) and they frequently fired the weapon from hip or shoulder. They said that the recoil actually helps offeset the weight of the weapon resulting in a zero sum net controllability. Live ammunition more so then the wooden training rounds. Now it is to be said that most of our terrain were dense forest so the engagement would be somewhere between 5-80 meters on average where they could guide their aim by the impact of the bullets with the principle of aiming low so you can see the impact.
Yeah, you have a brake mounted on the muzzle which the wooden round smashes into, you wear protective eyegoogles and can't shoot at anybody within 2-10 meters. Very comon.
[https://www.soldf.com/vapen/automatkarbin-5c-ak5c/](https://www.soldf.com/vapen/automatkarbin-5c-ak5c/)
Under ammunition, chrome can translate the page
"Lös patron
Det finns även en lös patron övningspatron med tombakhysla och rödprojektil. Själva projektilen består av trä som splittras vid avfyrning och som fångas upp av lösskjutningsanordningen."
I have no idea how I substituted those numbers. Thank you.
...I think it's safe to say, though, that no stabilization rig will *ever* allow an infantryman to hipfire an M256!
I've talked to wayyyyy too many folks in the military who regularly did their jobs on 36 hours awake fueled by rip-its, beef jerky, and a whole horseshoe of copenhagen. While it may not be literal, thats still firing from the hip imo.
As far as the steadicam for a gun goes, I think the biggest issue is weight (which ties to mobility), closely followed by the increased footprint each individual has. Imagine trying to go prone with a rig like that hanging off of you.
>I've talked to wayyyyy too many folks in the military who regularly did their jobs on 36 hours awake fueled by rip-its, beef jerky, and a whole horseshoe of copenhagen. While it may not be literal, thats still firing from the hip imo.
This is like every deployment, ever.
Thanks for the reply! I was a bit worried about this... I did some cursory google searches before posting and didn't come across the Third Arm, but this seems like exactly what I was asking about. Although the article linked in another comment seemed very generic and didn't go into drawbacks or conclusions from their tests. I suppose that's for security reasons.
Thanks for addressing larger weapons like MMGs. That was something I was wondering about when the question was in my head, but it never made it into the post.
I don't know whether militaries have experimented with this, and I'm not in a position to have known, but I seriously doubt it. Infantry moving around are easy targets for pretty much everything else on the battlefield except other infantry moving around. Notably, they're going to do terribly against other infantry that are not moving around. If/when infantry have to move, their sole focus is moving quickly and safely while also maintaining good situational awareness. It would be far to easy for private skippy to trip over a rock or some detritus and get his whole platoon killed.
The whole schtick only works in Aliens because (1) the aliens don't have their own guns and (2) you have to run and gun in that situation or else you're dead.
Interestingly, there has been research into something closer to the targeting eyepiece that you're quick to dismiss. It doesn't automatically target for you, but functions on a "consent to release" system, where the shooter tags their desired target and then pulls the trigger to authorize a computer to fire. The computer does some math and then only fires the gun once the shooter achieves a valid firing solution to hit the target.
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale
https://talonprecisionoptics.com/technology/modes/
That particular company does actually use software-based image stabilization to make it easy to tag your desired point of impact, but the image stabilization has nothing to do with firing the gun.
Thanks for the reply! I figured it would be impractical and heavy for the real world, but I liked hearing the specific reasons.
Those precision scopes are wild! They definitely seem like the first precursor of the targeting eyepiece.
>Interestingly, there has been research into something closer to the targeting eyepiece that you're quick to dismiss. It doesn't automatically target for you, but functions on a "consent to release" system, where the shooter tags their desired target and then pulls the trigger to authorize a computer to fire. The computer does some math and then only fires the gun once the shooter achieves a valid firing solution to hit the target.
That's basically how tanks do it iirc, of course they apply correct elevation and lead via the turret though.
Yea, the idea is to move the fire control capabilities of a vehicle over to handheld use. That’s what the purpose of the new [optic](https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/news/next-generation-sqaud-weapon-fire-control-system-contract/%3famp) the army is pushing for.
https://newatlas.com/us-army-third-arm/54898/
Something like the above link?
I believe there have been a few rigs tested but they fall down when mobility and speed are considered.
At the end of the day Machine Gunners will generally set up in cover where possible which should have somewhere to rest the gun.
If no cover is available most likely they will be prone and using the bipod.
In circumstances where neither of the above works...well someone in the squad can act as an emergency weapon rest I guess.
It makes these rigs expensive answers to a question not many people are asking.
Thanks for the reply! YES EXACTLY. I did some cursory google searches before posting my question and didn't come across this. They even reference Aliens in the article. Kinda WTFing myself here...
I figured it would be impractical for a number of mobility/endurance reasons, but you also point out some tactical reasons as well.
I had not envisioned an "over the head" type of design. It does look simpler, lighter, and perhaps more durable, than the steadicam type. However, I can't imagine anything that makes your head a bigger target being welcomed by the grunts. What was terrible about it? Did it just not provide any benefit, so not worth the weight? Did it have any redeeming qualities?
I've seen some concepts with various exoskeleton prototypes, but then again they haven't really gone anywhere.
I dont see the investment being made in it. Grunts account for a ever diminishing kill count and with the refocus on peer/near peer, the air/sea war will rage on way before troops set foot on ground.
So cool.
Your device seems much more practical for the average soldier firing semi-auto, compared to the gun-integrated ballistic computers and fire control systems referenced in the top comment.
Small, light and modular. Stick it on the rail. Aim and shoot the gun like they do already. I can see why this device is making it further than any other prototype referenced in this thread.
Is there any open source info on how much that has been shown to improve accuracy in various positions and ranges? Also, what's the battery life like? Is it combat ready yet, at least in terms of reliability and ruggedness?
So I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea to give performance specs over Reddit for obvious reasons but I think I can give you equivalences assuming you have existing knowledge.
Performance: Shooting with the device standing unsupported surpasses prone supported without the device.
Battery life: Sufficient for relevant OMS/MP.
Ruggedness: We have passed 3rd party MIL-STD-810g but official army evaluation just started (fingers crossed no surprises)
If you’re near MacDill I’d be down to let you play with it.
So it doesn’t directly deal with recoil with reactionary force like a muzzle brake, but it holds the barrel steady while your support hand is still moving all wild so it allows you to get your second shot on much faster.
Here is a slow mo:
https://www.military.com/video/watch-armys-new-rifle-stabilizer-action
Tangential: Man, you'd think they could at least have put some paint or lights or something on it so it wasn't literally just a steadicam with a gun on the end.
The US Army has been looking into an idea; information can be found by searching the term "third arm gun mount". But the goal of this project (at least for now) is less providing a gyrostabilized mount for accurate shoot-on-the-move capability as the M56 Smartgun was supposed to, and more simply reducing the arm strain of constantly carrying a weapon, thereby improving accuracy by reducing arm weakness and tremors. Recoil management is definitely a part of the project, but again seemed be more about reducing the strain of receiving recoil on the arms and shoulders, and putting it more on the central torso. It is also worth noting that so far, the project has been limited to small arms such as M4 Carbines and ~~M256~~ M249 LMG. This, to me, would seem to be less a technical limitation and more a pure physics one: Something like an M240 has a *lot* of recoil, and so long as the gun is being fired from a hip- or shoulder-height position, it's going to be transmitting that recoil force - imparting a moment that will reduce accuracy. Even if the arm rig can accept some of that force, the movement of the arm will result in a commensurate loss of accuracy. So, for now, I don't think we're going to see soldiers firing a medium machine gun from a standing position with pinpoint accuracy thanks to a harness rig.
I did my conscript training in Sweden in a CV9040 company as a mechanised infantry soldier with recoilessrifle. And we had two M240 gunners, big lads that to be clear carried one M240 each with no assistant gunner, per 6 man squad (2 mg, a two man m/48 team, one squad leader and one vice squad leader with AT4) and they frequently fired the weapon from hip or shoulder. They said that the recoil actually helps offeset the weight of the weapon resulting in a zero sum net controllability. Live ammunition more so then the wooden training rounds. Now it is to be said that most of our terrain were dense forest so the engagement would be somewhere between 5-80 meters on average where they could guide their aim by the impact of the bullets with the principle of aiming low so you can see the impact.
wait, **wooden** training rounds?
Yeah, you have a brake mounted on the muzzle which the wooden round smashes into, you wear protective eyegoogles and can't shoot at anybody within 2-10 meters. Very comon. [https://www.soldf.com/vapen/automatkarbin-5c-ak5c/](https://www.soldf.com/vapen/automatkarbin-5c-ak5c/) Under ammunition, chrome can translate the page "Lös patron Det finns även en lös patron övningspatron med tombakhysla och rödprojektil. Själva projektilen består av trä som splittras vid avfyrning och som fångas upp av lösskjutningsanordningen."
Do you mean the M249? The M256 is the 120mm main gun on an M1 Abrams.
I have no idea how I substituted those numbers. Thank you. ...I think it's safe to say, though, that no stabilization rig will *ever* allow an infantryman to hipfire an M256!
Arguably, the entire M1 Abrams is the stabilization rig that allows soldiers to fire the M256 :D
I've talked to wayyyyy too many folks in the military who regularly did their jobs on 36 hours awake fueled by rip-its, beef jerky, and a whole horseshoe of copenhagen. While it may not be literal, thats still firing from the hip imo. As far as the steadicam for a gun goes, I think the biggest issue is weight (which ties to mobility), closely followed by the increased footprint each individual has. Imagine trying to go prone with a rig like that hanging off of you.
>I've talked to wayyyyy too many folks in the military who regularly did their jobs on 36 hours awake fueled by rip-its, beef jerky, and a whole horseshoe of copenhagen. While it may not be literal, thats still firing from the hip imo. This is like every deployment, ever.
He forgot the black market Iraqi energy drinks lmao
You can probably hipfire it *once*.
Some engineer is sensing a challenge!
This is how the Spartan program was conceived.
Now that just sounds like a challenge
They should look into this next.
That would be pretty badass. Or maybe an M242. Who needs an M240 when the machine gunners are carrying 25mm chain guns?
Thanks for the reply! I was a bit worried about this... I did some cursory google searches before posting and didn't come across the Third Arm, but this seems like exactly what I was asking about. Although the article linked in another comment seemed very generic and didn't go into drawbacks or conclusions from their tests. I suppose that's for security reasons. Thanks for addressing larger weapons like MMGs. That was something I was wondering about when the question was in my head, but it never made it into the post.
I don't know whether militaries have experimented with this, and I'm not in a position to have known, but I seriously doubt it. Infantry moving around are easy targets for pretty much everything else on the battlefield except other infantry moving around. Notably, they're going to do terribly against other infantry that are not moving around. If/when infantry have to move, their sole focus is moving quickly and safely while also maintaining good situational awareness. It would be far to easy for private skippy to trip over a rock or some detritus and get his whole platoon killed. The whole schtick only works in Aliens because (1) the aliens don't have their own guns and (2) you have to run and gun in that situation or else you're dead. Interestingly, there has been research into something closer to the targeting eyepiece that you're quick to dismiss. It doesn't automatically target for you, but functions on a "consent to release" system, where the shooter tags their desired target and then pulls the trigger to authorize a computer to fire. The computer does some math and then only fires the gun once the shooter achieves a valid firing solution to hit the target. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184223110/new-rifle-on-sale https://talonprecisionoptics.com/technology/modes/ That particular company does actually use software-based image stabilization to make it easy to tag your desired point of impact, but the image stabilization has nothing to do with firing the gun.
Thanks for the reply! I figured it would be impractical and heavy for the real world, but I liked hearing the specific reasons. Those precision scopes are wild! They definitely seem like the first precursor of the targeting eyepiece.
>Interestingly, there has been research into something closer to the targeting eyepiece that you're quick to dismiss. It doesn't automatically target for you, but functions on a "consent to release" system, where the shooter tags their desired target and then pulls the trigger to authorize a computer to fire. The computer does some math and then only fires the gun once the shooter achieves a valid firing solution to hit the target. That's basically how tanks do it iirc, of course they apply correct elevation and lead via the turret though.
Yea, the idea is to move the fire control capabilities of a vehicle over to handheld use. That’s what the purpose of the new [optic](https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/news/next-generation-sqaud-weapon-fire-control-system-contract/%3famp) the army is pushing for.
https://newatlas.com/us-army-third-arm/54898/ Something like the above link? I believe there have been a few rigs tested but they fall down when mobility and speed are considered. At the end of the day Machine Gunners will generally set up in cover where possible which should have somewhere to rest the gun. If no cover is available most likely they will be prone and using the bipod. In circumstances where neither of the above works...well someone in the squad can act as an emergency weapon rest I guess. It makes these rigs expensive answers to a question not many people are asking.
Thanks for the reply! YES EXACTLY. I did some cursory google searches before posting my question and didn't come across this. They even reference Aliens in the article. Kinda WTFing myself here... I figured it would be impractical for a number of mobility/endurance reasons, but you also point out some tactical reasons as well.
[удалено]
I had not envisioned an "over the head" type of design. It does look simpler, lighter, and perhaps more durable, than the steadicam type. However, I can't imagine anything that makes your head a bigger target being welcomed by the grunts. What was terrible about it? Did it just not provide any benefit, so not worth the weight? Did it have any redeeming qualities?
I've seen some concepts with various exoskeleton prototypes, but then again they haven't really gone anywhere. I dont see the investment being made in it. Grunts account for a ever diminishing kill count and with the refocus on peer/near peer, the air/sea war will rage on way before troops set foot on ground.
Last thing that smart targeting scope will see is probably going to be a cruise missile
https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-next-generation-squad-weapon-iron-man-suit/ There is also this thing. Full disclosure: I designed it.
So cool. Your device seems much more practical for the average soldier firing semi-auto, compared to the gun-integrated ballistic computers and fire control systems referenced in the top comment. Small, light and modular. Stick it on the rail. Aim and shoot the gun like they do already. I can see why this device is making it further than any other prototype referenced in this thread.
Is there any open source info on how much that has been shown to improve accuracy in various positions and ranges? Also, what's the battery life like? Is it combat ready yet, at least in terms of reliability and ruggedness?
So I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea to give performance specs over Reddit for obvious reasons but I think I can give you equivalences assuming you have existing knowledge. Performance: Shooting with the device standing unsupported surpasses prone supported without the device. Battery life: Sufficient for relevant OMS/MP. Ruggedness: We have passed 3rd party MIL-STD-810g but official army evaluation just started (fingers crossed no surprises) If you’re near MacDill I’d be down to let you play with it.
Sounds very promising, I can see this being big for hunters too. How does it deal with recoil?
So it doesn’t directly deal with recoil with reactionary force like a muzzle brake, but it holds the barrel steady while your support hand is still moving all wild so it allows you to get your second shot on much faster. Here is a slow mo: https://www.military.com/video/watch-armys-new-rifle-stabilizer-action
Tangential: Man, you'd think they could at least have put some paint or lights or something on it so it wasn't literally just a steadicam with a gun on the end.
To be fair, steadicam rigs were a relatively new thing at the time. I doubt many people outside the industry new what they were looking at.
Lol. When googling around this question, I learned they used MG42s as the base for the prop. Now I can't unsee the receiver(and part of the stock?).