LooseRounds.com5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

 

Rifleman’s Assault Weapon (RAW)

Brunswick Corporation – Rifleman’s Assault Weapons (RAW)

Designed, fabricated and tested by Brunswick for the U.S. Army MIRADCOM to provide the non-dedicated riflemen with a lightweight, portable assault weapon system to defeat enemy positions in an urban and fortified combat environment.

Features:

  • Compatible with M-16A1 rifle
  • Diameter: 5.5 in. (140 mm)
  • Total System Weight Goal: 5.0 lbs
  • Explosive Payload: 3.0 lbs
  • Rocket propelled
  • Effective Range: 200+ meters
  • Maximum Range: 2000+ meters
  • Straight Line of Sight Trajectory
  • Terminal Velocity: 600 ft/s
  • Varied Payload: CS, HE, Flame, Smoke, Marker, Fragmentation, WP
  • Can be fired by any rifleman

The RAW’s 1-kg (HESH) warhead could penetrate 20 cm of reinforced concrete (creating a 36 cm-wide hole) and hit moving targets at a range of 300 meters. The RAW was considered to be ideal for the conditions of fighting in urban areas.

Reconsideration by the U.S. military as to what kind of close support weapon they were seeking resulted in only limited procurement of the RAW, despite the weapon performing to specification and displaying a remarkably flat trajectory to a range of 300 meters. Brunswick Corporation also developed an antitank version of the RAW. Brunswick later sold the design for the RAW to KDI Precision Products, Inc.

Performance of RAW and contemporary weapons
Effectiveness against reinforced concrete
MunitionPenetration in cmMax effective range in meters
140-mm RAW20300
40-mm Grenade~ 15400
83-mm Bunker Defeat Munition (SMAW-D)20500
Data source for weapons performance is Jane’s Infantry Weapons 1995–96, Jane’s Ammunition Handbook 1994

2 thoughts on “Rifleman’s Assault Weapon (RAW)”

  1. It was a weapon without a constituency, and if I remember right, the guy who was its “rabbi” retired earlier than he was supposed,to, and nobody else wanted to take it up, soooo… Despite its apparent utility, DOA.

    Then there was the whole “fell in between the cracks” thing–I forget who it was that wanted this thing, Infantry or Engineers, but part of the deal was whose budget it would come out of: Infantry didn’t want to pay for an Engineer mission, bunker defeat, and Engineer branch was like “Hey, this is a munition that will mostly be carried and used by Infantry–We ain’t paying for it…”.

    You would be horrified at just how many good ideas go down to defeat and never get fielded because of things like that.

    Reply
  2. I remember reading about this system in Jane’s All the Worlds Infantry Weapons when I was in the Army back in the early 90’s. I thought it would be a great system for infantry as the battle of Mogadishu had just occurred right after I arrived at my duty station upon graduating OSUT. I always wondered why it never got fielded.

    Reply

Leave a Comment