Platoon Weapons

[Centurion]

Centurion, it isn't that simple.

The safety on the Kalashnikov is located on the right side of the reciever. It almost has to be manipulated with the weak hand. Some people can reach it with the tip of their index finger, but in order to be able to press it down you have to bend the sheet metal tab (also called the safety) away from the reciever. Another option that some have used is a small piece of string, so when you pull your finger down from the reciever to the trigger the string will pull the safety along. I've never used that one, but it came highly reccomended by an old Marine/NYPD cop.

The HK safety is too short for most people to reach it. I have large hands, and I can't do it.

The end result is that people leave the safety off. I've met people who think they are too cool for safeties, and besides the fact that no one is, the biggest danger remains hooking the trigger on your gear, a branch, whatever. If you dig around there is a story about a kid, maybe 11, who took a face full of 00 buck because a SWAT cop snagged the trigger of his Benelli on his kit.

As for the rest of the controls, in most cases they can be dealt with.

I don't know much about fighting, but I do shoot occasionally. Also, I've carried and shot a 1911 long enough (though I now carry a Glock 19) to know that a manual safety is no impediment at all, if it can be easily manipulated. The safety on a 1911 sits directly underneath your thumb, if you use the Modern Technique.

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry, I am not familiar with either HK or kalashnikov weapons, and thought you meant the mechanism itself.

[JonathanF]

More on the Masada here, with lots of photos;

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=103209

Now being produced as the Bushmaster ACR.

[JonathanF]

An interesting and recent US doc on the original topic (albeit for LMG gunners rather than riflemen) can be found here;

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

Includes exploration of telescoped and/or caseless 5.56mm concepts.

[William F. Owen]

An interesting and recent US doc on the original topic (albeit for LMG gunners rather than riflemen) can be found here;

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

Includes exploration of telescoped and/or caseless 5.56mm concepts.

I talk to Kori Spiegel once in a while. It's impressive engineering, but I just can't see how saving weight on 5.56mm versus the cost, and lack of doctrine (why not how) gets us any further along. There are some cool spin offs from all this, but I bet we come back to all the same problems eventually - and those are mostly human, and not technical.

[SethB]

Wilf, if I recall correctly the LSAT technology is supposed to be scaleable, meaning that it could easily be produced in 7.62 or even larger bore diameters in the future.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, if I recall correctly the LSAT technology is supposed to be scaleable, meaning that it could easily be produced in 7.62 or even larger bore diameters in the future.

...and that would be one of the cool spin offs!

[gute]

Found this article at the fire arms blog about a potential new medium machine gun in .338 caliber - wow! The weight of the ammunition most likely takes away from increased lethality (?) and performance - I guess. It's cool and I want to shoot it, but I don't think I would want to hump the ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ine-gun-lwmmg/

[carl]

One of the comments mentioned using in aircraft, lighter than the .50 and more punch and range than the 7.62. How do you think it would work for that?

[Fuchs]

Found this article at the fire arms blog about a potential new medium machine gun in .338 caliber - wow! The weight of the ammunition most likely takes away from increased lethality (?) and performance - I guess. It's cool and I want to shoot it, but I don't think I would want to hump the ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ine-gun-lwmmg/

I've argued for a while that an intermediate calibre between 5.56 and 7.62 makes sense for dismounted combat while an intermediate calibre between 7.62 and 12.7 makes sense for sniping and mounted combat.

There are too many armour plates in the world that were designed to withstand 7.62, while there are almost none meant to withstand only 5.56. Plus; the ballistics and effectiveness of 5.56 is too much in doubt.


It was a mystery to me why FNH thought there was a need for an intermediate Western calibre between 12.7 and 20 mm (during the 90s). A 5.56/7.62 intermediate machine gun was such an obvious market niche that it was only a question of time till one appeared.

[gute]

Here is another possible future weapon for U.S. forces. I've been paying attention to the development of this LMG and cased ammo for several years now - wondering when the heck the Army and Marine Corps would test it out.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/0...ne-gun-052112/

Maybe the new assault rifle mentioned in the article will fire caseless or cased 6.5 or 6.8 ammo. Cased .338 ammo and a new medium machine gun more plausable. What will most likely happen is new lighter weapons and ammo, but the troops will carry more so in the end there will be no significant weight savings.

[Compost]

I've argued for a while that an intermediate calibre between 5.56 and 7.62 makes sense for dismounted combat while an intermediate calibre between 7.62 and 12.7 makes sense for sniping and mounted combat.

A bit of homework confirms that your views are widely supported by items on the web. Many commentators share the view that 5.56x45 and 7.62x51mm rounds should be succeeded by an intermediate round designed for use in assault rifles and platoon-level MGs. But their solutions for the elusive combination of range, barrier penetration, lethality and ready controllability of close-range automatic fire from a rifle wielded by the 95 percentile soldier span calibres from 6 to 7mm, projectile weights of 6 to 10grams, muzzle velocities of 750 to 925mps from a 450 to 500mm barrel, and ammunition that weighs in somewhere between 50 and 70 rounds per kilo.

But there has been more commonality of opinion about that notional second round intermediate between the 7.62x51 and the 12.7x99mm for use in company-level and vehicle MGs. Some commentators have supported the 8.59x70mm Nammo Lapua round currently used in long-range bolt-action sniper rifles: 16.2gm projectile and MV of about 900mps from a 660mm barrel. Others have supported that calibre but argued that sustained bursts of fire demand a lower MV in order to reduce the damage caused to rifling. Now General Dynamics has possibly satisfied the latter by developing an 8.59mm belt-fed MG and demonstrating its ability to satisfactorily fire bursts of another other long range marksman round the 8.59x63.5mm Norma Magnum round: 19.4gm projectile at an estimated MV of 825mps from a 660mm barrel.

But the intriguing aspect is GDs new 8.59mm LWMMG. See
http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/...eID_1811=17733

Its logical to start with the robust and reliable 7.62x51mm MAG58/M240 MG that weighs about 12kg on its bipod. That or a similar gun could have been beefed up with a modified and reinforced receiver and a heavier 8.59mm barrel and bolt group to produce an 8.59mm GPMG weighing say 14 to 16kg. According to a press release the LWMMG weighs just 11 kg. It has a low firing rate of 500 rpm but each cartridge has much more propellant than does the 7.62x51 and the barrel of the LWMMG must lack the mass needed to function as a useful heat sink for sustained fire. The alternative of carrying and frequently juggling several spare barrels is a laborious and often impractical exercise.

A near-term upgrade of the LWMMG is certain to involve a much heavier barrel. So what is/was the intended purpose of the introductory 11kg version ? Is there a need for a sniper squad to include a team with a highly portable MG to briefly support the operation of one or more sniper pairs that are typically armed with a bolt-action rifle and a self-loading rifle ? Is there a need for a sniper pair to be sometimes armed with a bolt-action rifle plus a long-range MG ? Or is GD suggesting or responding to some other role or requirement ?

[Kiwigrunt]

Here it be.

[Fuchs]

Here it be.

Is it just me or does the tripod look a bit overwhelmed?

The gun furthermore looks quite bulky to me and the lack of a flash hider is conspicuous (no production standard yet, I guess)[/I]).

[Kiwigrunt]

Is it just me or does the tripod look a bit overwhelmed?

The tripod looks like the M192. Sure looks a bit puny under that gun. The NZ army is starting to replace the 5.56 Minimi with the 7.62 Minimi, with a number of those tripods as part of the deal.

The use of sandbags is not uncommon with the L7A2 SFMG either. I suppose a light tripod with a few empty sandbags is easier to hump around than a sufficiently heavy tripod, but I imagine that if this gun is to see serious application in the sustained fire role, this tripod may leave a bit to be desired. For the poor No2 carrying it I hope I’m wrong. Compost’s remarks on the light barrel also seem warranted for the same reason.

It appears to me that they want to keep the weight and bulk of this new gun-tripod package down as much as possible to spark enough interest to gain some traction and get the ball rolling. But once forces are committed (if that will ever happen) than the weight may have to creep up if the gun is to be of much use for serious sustained fire. It looks like they are marketing it as a kind of lightweight-HMG (‘medium’ seems a bit optimistic) optimised for a light role. With the prohibitive weight of the ammo (in that role), that seems like a narrow scope of use, given the potential of this round.

The gun (or rather the calibre) certainly seems to fill a gap between 7.62 and 12.7 but I can’t see that gap being critical enough for forces to adopt this gun as a gap-filler. It would IMO only make sense to adopt is as a replacement for current GPMGs and HMGs. I don’t like their chances of pushing the well established MAG 58 and M2 out of the way. Same reasoning that applies to an intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62 not being forthcoming.

[ganulv]

The gun furthermore looks quite bulky to me

GD says it comes in at 24 pounds, so light for what they claim it delivers that I have to wonder about the issue of overheating.

[Fuchs]

It appears to me that they want to keep the weight and bulk of this new gun-tripod package down as much as possible to spark enough interest to gain some traction and get the ball rolling.

As mentioned before, I rather see the niche for such a calibre in mounted applications. If I was them I would advertise the low volume of the ammo (in comparison to 12.7mm), its ability to penetrate what typical coax machineguns cannot penetrate and the suitability for coax installation (gases leaking into the vehicle or not).

[Ken White]

I've long advocated a 6-7mm cartridge (the US Army 6mm SAW round had development potential) for man portable Platoon weapons, 10mm for a pistol or SMG and an enhanced 7-8mm cartridge for MMGs (a Co/Coy weapon IMO), some Sniper applications and vehicle weapons. A pepped up 8mm Remington Magnum (with an unbelted case), would work...

The .338 is a good cartridge but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7; it's a little too big and like FNs abortive '15.5mm' too close to the 12.7 to be a really meaningful alternative.

[ganulv]

but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

[Fuchs]

Everything beyond 400 metres is at best a 5% capability in my opinion. Unimportant and dispensable in almost all cases.

Such a heavy calibre is in my opinion a calibre for vehicles, though. Vehicles might have a rigid-enough mounting and the fire control system to make use of a machinegun well beyond its practical range in dismounted use.


The more important characteristic of such a large calibre machinegun is in my opinion the penetration capability. Almost all kinds of non-flexible armour is made to resist 7.62NATO and 7.62x54 mm rimmed (non-exotic AP cartridge versions each). See NIJ Level IV, SK IV and the disclosed protection ratings of just about every post-WW2 lightly armoured vehicle.

Tree stems, walls and sandbags are further obstacles that make a bigger calibre than 7.62 long cartridges interesting.

[Ken White]

but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

It is a selling point -- big is in the eye of the beholder. If one is operating in Afghanistan where extended ranges are the norm, then it's a big selling point. If one is in Jungle somewhere it is not even a minor selling point. For most Armies most places it probably falls in the 'nice to have' but not critical area of equipage...

Consider about 50% of land surface consists of plains, 30% desert, 20% mountains and 14% tundra (all figures rough approximations and add to more than 100% due to mixed landforms, i.e. hilly deserts) and that range has some utility. I do believe it's one of those METT-TC issues...

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

That plus it's a new type of toy.