Brunswick 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

Performance:

RAW Launcher attaches to the muzzle of an M-16A1 rifle utilizing existing triggering and sights.  The RAW projectile is initiated through the firing of a standard 5.56 mm ball round of ammunition.  RAW does not interfere or prevent the firing of the rifle’s standard ammunition at any time.  Raw produces a 14″ hole through 8 inches of double reinforced concrete and defeats light armor.  Since RAW travels line of sight, It can be fired from below a canopy or in sewers and storm drains.  RAW produces minimal back blast pressure and noise and can be fired from within enclosed areas.

Very interesting!

For those of you that are wondering, yes Brunswick Corporation is the same one that still exists today making Bowling, Billiards, Marine, related products.  I can’t seem to find any mention of a defense division on the company website, so I’m assuming they got out of that business.

Have any of you guys used this?

Why did it not catch on? If I had to guess I’d say it is mainly due to the bulkiness and weight of the rockets themselves.

19 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Linoge February 25, 2010 at 08:36 pm

If I had to guess I’d say it is mainly due to the bulkiness and weight of the rockets themselves.

And the fact that it bears a striking resemblance to a plunger/toilet float.

But, damn, that thing sounds like a total beast. A huge, ungainly, probably dubiously-accurate beast, but still a beast.

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 26, 2010 at 07:26 pm

LOL plunger/toilet float is right!

Reply

Fred February 25, 2010 at 11:25 pm

Probably a little bit of “what can this do that a LAW can’t?” as well.

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 26, 2010 at 07:27 pm

True, except for back blast… that looks like a huge concern with the LAW

Reply

Dave February 25, 2010 at 11:47 pm

Could you use the 5.56 ammo to pick up a spare? It’d be tough if you had a 7-10 split…

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 26, 2010 at 07:29 pm

hahah nice. Yea i bet you would have to rely on fragmentation of the pins in that case.

Reply

Julio February 26, 2010 at 12:42 am

I’d love to see a video of this in action!

There’s some more info here: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/rpg.html#brn

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 26, 2010 at 07:30 pm

Yea, surprisingly I can’t find a video on any of the major sites either.

Reply

Josh February 26, 2010 at 08:34 am

That is an ugly beast. This is out there with some information on the project:

HERE

You know, it looks like it takes the full exposed length of the M16 20-inch barrel; I wonder if part of the reason it was scrapped was that around the time they canceled the project much of the Army was already switching to the M4. Maybe it wasn’t cost effective, or even possible, to redesign it to fit a shorter barrel? Couple that with it’s awkwardness to carry or use, and the proven effectiveness of things like the AT-4 and maybe it just wasn’t worth it.

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 26, 2010 at 07:32 pm

Whoa that is a lot of good info on the project, thanks Josh.

By the looks of the timeline it sure took a long time from the intro of the program until it was scrapped. I guess that’s how big organizations work though.

Reply

dc bateman January 30, 2011 at 09:05 pm

i was in the army when they first came up with this. we laughed our asses off when we saw it, and choked when we found out brunswick made it. good thing trojan condoms didnt come up with a design, we’d been the laughing stocks of armies worldwide. though some of our current enemies would probably like to acquire the rounds for fun and games during down time. lol

Reply

Mel May 12, 2011 at 05:42 pm

It looks like you could carry 3 of these for every one LAW or AT-4 . Think of every solider having a RPG warhead fired from the end of his barrel. If they could fix the accuracy problems.

Reply

sean December 19, 2011 at 01:32 am

I’m quoting here from a book which gives a description of this item ;title of book ( Ammunition small arms, grenades and projected munitions by Ian Hogg)” The ‘Flying Claymore’ warhead carries thousands of tungsten pellets and blasts them out at high velocity in a most destructive swath; this warhead can be fired to over 2000 yards range”end quote . It seems the AP version has by far the longest range? It also says in the book here that the firing pin for the rocket motor is driven into place by some of the propellent gas from firing the rifle . Seems to me that perhaps the rifle is unnecessary ? That the long range AP version could be fitted to its own quick load launcher type deal for placement on board helicopters for example ? Giving said helicopter (with a compliment of 100 or so RAW Ap’s on board) the ability to deal with suitable targets to range of over a mile ? Additionally the overall weight of the thing would be reduced if the bracket included for rifle type launching were eliminated with respect to using them in some purpose built launcher ?

Reply

sean December 19, 2011 at 04:22 pm

I was incorrect referring to the long range fragmentation warhead as an AP . Which is a designation for armor piercing not anti personel . In any case the long range warhead modified such that the , heavy, accompanying launching bracket was eliminated from the equation could be adapted to be fired from a double launcher? Using one blank cartridge directing the gas thru two tubes to both warheads fired from a ” doorgun” configuration like on an old huey gunship ? The launcher would be capable of shifting to either port or starboard side doors quickly via a set of rails installed on the helicopter floor for that purpose . Elevation for maximum range may require that the pilot angle the starboard side slightly upwards for a starboard side shot so as not to hit the rotor blades with outgoing rounds ? A double launcher would make more sense delivering roughly 6 pounds of high explosives and that many more thousands of tungsten pellets to the target area.

Reply

sean December 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm

The old huey iroquois is still manufactured albeit under license by augusta of Italy. The launcher itself could be a relatively portable item configured to fit on a hand truck type mechanism for easy removal and servicing apart from the helicopter and or for receivership by ground troops ( helicopters compliment of warheads included) if a situation on the ground warrants it .

Reply

sean December 20, 2011 at 02:20 pm

The double or 2x launcher would also be advantageous with respect to the helicopter installation as the gunner would be able to maintain a line of sight with his target through an aiming apparatus located between and below the warheads when the helicopter had to angle up to port or starboard for a maximum range shot .

Reply

barry June 24, 2013 at 08:35 am

this thing was a futhermucker; just look at the specs for cripes sakes! line of sight–no range/elevation est/compensation to 200m! blows a big hole in heavy wall! cheap, portable, easy to shoot, maintain…imagine firing these at haj, who thinks hes’ cool shooting at Marines from typical MOUT-cover; this thing couldve kicked majorass; so WTF happened? imagine haj (russian supply as usual?) getting these in numbers, mass firing at US, Brit, etc facilities from safe distance; or, better still: mass fire at white house from rear of commercial trucks; blow the fence, then fire-for-effect; synchronize w/ other DC targets, wall street, etc, etc; HOLY frigging___! so no doubt somebody figured it out, got international agreements going behind closed doors to never use; also RAW could easily be MUCH larger, bio-agents; ‘suitcase’ nukes airburst over US targets, USS enterprise; anti helicopter (we lost 7000 in ‘nam)

Reply

Barry Smith February 24, 2016 at 02:28 am

i finally ran into former old ‘nam-era SEAL, had the rare presence of mind to ask him about the raw; said they tested it, but not very accurate; i’d guess 200m on bldgs; but the warheads are NOT HOLLOW shaped charges for anti-armor, thus a 7″? ball would have 10 times the HESH-explosive, +frag, as a law, rpg; plus line of sight trajectory; holy shoit, guys! then theres no limit to the dia of the self-propelled warhead, (10”, 15″?), e.g. from a bipod-MG; if terrs ever got these, oops, casualties, MOUT, will gonna be somekinda crazy; good thing terrs just read the koran, not cool wpns sites

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: