The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Compost]

Some considering has apparently been already done and has lead to the US Army’s CLAWS (Combat Lightweight Automatic Weapon System) and LDAM (Lightweight Dismounted Automatic Machinegun) project(s).
http://www.janes.com/article/.../us-...alibers‎
So it is possible that within say ten years two new conventional – brass, steel or aluminium cased - cartridges could be in widespread NATO/US use as successors for the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51.

The rationale for dumping the 5.56 can be summarised almost on a thumbnail. The 5.56 is over-powered for close-quarter use and less handy than SMGs firing pistol-power ammunition. A lightweight 5.56 projectile also looses velocity and hitting power rapidly: the energy of the heaviest 77-grain sharpshooter projectile falls by more than 10 percent within each 100m from muzzle to 600m. Effective range in a carbine or para-MG is 200-250m and in long barrel weapons 350-450m. The 5.56 is generally unsuitable for echelon deployment, suppression and harassing, and as the basis of a tracer round.

Calibre of any successor would be greater than 5.56, less than 7.62; mass of projectile greater than 5.56x45 less than 7.62x51 and of 7.62x35. When fired from an individual weapon in automatic mode such a successor round would be less controllable than 5.56 and also 7.62x35. However, automatic mode is most likely during assault, ambush and counter-ambush when rate of fire guided by adrenaline has more utility than precise accuracy.

A successor to the 5.56 round could readily exceed its hitting power, and at longer range also that of the standard 7.62x51. For example a 123 grain 6.5mm projectile started at 2,600fps has more energy beyond 600m than does NATO’s 147 grain 7.62 projectile started at 2,700fps. Assuming development of a companion LMG there would be little benefit in alternatively deploying a 7.62 MG such as the Mark 48 or M240 down to squad level. The 7.62x35 Blackout developed for hitting power out to about 400m is not a suitable round for a longer-ranged LMG, or a DM rifle.

In the same general timeframe as the 5.56 successor, the 7.62x51 round could be succeeded by another more powerful cartridge that can defeat body armour at longer range. Such a 7.62 successor might be a 7.62 magnum, 7.82 magnum or even an 8.59 cartridge with a projectile of 200-plus to about 300 grains. Much lighter and less demanding than the 700 grain 12.7x99 which also requires a HMG platform that is too bulky and heavy for ready use by footmobile infantry.

The detail on CLAWS and LDAM is brief and dates from November 2013. Have found nothing more recent. It will be interesting to see what – if anything – emerges.

[Fuchs]

Compost, the U.S.Army runs small arms development programs.
It's not in the business of actually buying any small arms developed in these programs.


This is the same as with combat and recce AFVs and helicopters. They're just not in the business of doing the step from R&D to in-service employment any more.

Forget their small arms and AFV progams. They're all PR stunts of no relevance.

[jcustis]

Gotta agree with the Fuchster.

The US will never go away from its combo of 5.56 and 7.62, besides in maybe the smallest samplings at the highest tiers.

It just comes down to a money and logistics issue. Paying for an ammo plant's retooling is not going to happen, and we are not going to shoot down stocks of 5.56/7.62 while the ammo supply points are stocked with 6.5, 6.8, or Blackout. Never in a million years.

Seeing this thread revived makes me realize Ken White had been off the board a very long time. I miss him.

[Compost]

Compost, the U.S.Army runs small arms development programs.
It's not in the business of actually buying any small arms developed in these programs.

This is the same as with combat and recce AFVs and helicopters. They're just not in the business of doing the step from R&D to in-service employment any more.

Forget their small arms and AFV progams. They're all PR stunts of no relevance.

US Army may be playing games but USAF sparked interest in 5.56x45 and M16 to succeed 7.62x33 and M1 carbine back in the 1960s. This time the USMC might force the issue or otherwise contrive introduction of successors. Also SF have a lot of pull. Others in NATO may just have to hope.

[Fuchs]

US Army may be playing games but USAF sparked interest in 5.56x45 and M16 to succeed 7.62x33 and M1 carbine back in the 1960s. This time the USMC might force the issue or otherwise contrive introduction of successors. Also SF have a lot of pull. Others in NATO may just have to hope.

The USMC ran the IAR program; it was apparently an attempt to get a reliable assault rifle under the disguise of a very light machinegun. So far they succeeded to buy at a few, but at least they now have a new type standardised and in service, so they may be able to get enough of them to replace their M16s.
But look at what they got; a thoroughly unspectacular design that was already MOTS if not COTS and merely modified somewhat with accessories. Basically the same weapon had been in service in Europe for three years previously AND the weapon is internally an early 1990's G36 with VISMOD outside.

The U.S. forces are still using the M240, an overweight 1950's design. Even the gold-plated (partially titanium) L version weighs 10.1 kg, while the Soviets/Russians have been running around with their equivalent (PKM) of 7.5 kg since 1969. Meanwhile, GI carried the 12.3 kg M240 for decades.
(The German Heer stuck with the almost entirely optics-incompatible and heavy MG3 for too long as well - it should have made use of HK21E in dismounted roles for decades). The Russians now have a 8.7 kg Pecheneg machine gun as PKM successor in service (and has so for more than a decade); it needs no spare barrels, so it's effectively even more lightweight than the PKM.

[Kiwigrunt]

It is interesting to see that HK's brand new 7.62 MG5 Universal (GPMG/MMG) weighs a whopping 11.6 kg. The LMG Infantry version (with pencil barrel and lacking a bipod) still weighs about 10.5 kg. I'm all for saving weight, but to shave a relatively measly one kg off a solid machine gun by severely compromising two of the most important aspects of a machine gun – the barrel and the support – seems ridiculous to me.

FN's 7.62 Minimi weighs about 8 kg (depending on config). The NZ army now uses that in lieu of the retired 5.56 Mimini. I had a chat to a NZ army officer recently, who is of the opinion that they should have gone back to the L7 / Mag58 at section level. He thinks the Minimi is too fragile and rattly.

The Danes are currently introducing the latest pencil barrel iteration of the M60 for use at section level.

Indeed Fuchs, if the Russian 'full weight' 7.5 kg PKM is as durable as the West's traditional GPMGs, than what are we missing?
The Pecheneg is interesting. I've not been able to find any user feedback on it. The bipod at the muzzle is said to improve accuracy. I wonder for how long, after the barrel heats up. As Fuchs alluded to, the Pecheneg LMG is actually heavier than the PKM GPMG. The weight saving and user simplification of the Pecheneg is in the lack of a spare barrel, which at section level is not a bad thing.

This conversation keeps going round and round in circles. I wonder if, rather than defining the role of the MG, it has become more about this week's accepted compromise. Durability and robustness vs. weight. We tweak the role-narrative to suit this week's compromise or fashion.

We all know what Ken would have said about all of this. I too miss him.

jcustis, at the risk of seeing the whole IAR debate regurgitated (let's not), do you have any feedback on experiences with it now that it has been used for a bit in Afghanistan? Are the marines happy with the IAR in its intended role, or do they miss the SAW? I imagine there would have been plenty of 240s around to mitigate the lack of the SAW.

[Compost]

This conversation keeps going round and round in circles. I wonder if, rather than defining the role of the MG, it has become more about this week's accepted compromise. Durability and robustness vs. weight. We tweak the role-narrative to suit this week's compromise or fashion.

For small firearms at least durability and ruggedness seem to have finally won out and are now generally regarded as more important and vital than weight. Hence the return of the gas piston supplanting direct gas in many recent variants of the M4. Also the longevity of the heavy and cumbersome MAG58/M240. The Gucci lizardskin variant might even be scrapped as it suffers from metal fatique especially when fired from a pintle instead of a softmount.

[jcustis]

For small firearms at least durability and ruggedness seem to have finally won out and are now generally regarded as more important and vital than weight. Hence the return of the gas piston supplanting direct gas in many recent variants of the M4. Also the longevity of the heavy and cumbersome MAG58/M240. The Gucci lizardskin variant might even be scrapped as it suffers from metal fatique especially when fired from a pintle instead of a softmount.

Would you use functioning interchangeably with durability? If so, I'd agree. One of the appealing characteristics of the piston is the reduction of carbon fouling finding its way into the chamber.

There are also continual improvements in bolt carrier groups, chambers, magazines, trigger packs, and even charging handles with specific geometries to reduce failure, and even improve ambidextrous usage.

There is also a lot of unicorn hunting for the perfect lubricant, and there are even some folks testing the old beliefs like running a rifle with less lube in a desert environment.

It's all about squeezing out that last fraction of performance to ensure that when you pull the trigger, it goes bang instead of click.

[jcustis]

The USMC ran the IAR program; it was apparently an attempt to get a reliable assault rifle under the disguise of a very light machinegun. So far they succeeded to buy at a few, but at least they now have a new type standardised and in service, so they may be able to get enough of them to replace their M16s.
But look at what they got; a thoroughly unspectacular design that was already MOTS if not COTS and merely modified somewhat with accessories. Basically the same weapon had been in service in Europe for three years previously AND the weapon is internally an early 1990's G36 with VISMOD outside.

That bit about the Corps going after the HK416 in an attempt to get leverage to replace M4s/M16A4s has been passed around the internet so much that people asssume it is true. We went after the HK rifle to gain a true Automatic Rifle to, and the acquisitions folks actually did a half decent job for once.

We are not trying to disguise it as a LMG. Everyone driving the employment and doctrine for the IAR is very clear what it is, and isn't. The gun rags and fanboy sites typically get the information wrong.

[jcustis]

jcustis, at the risk of seeing the whole IAR debate regurgitated (let's not), do you have any feedback on experiences with it now that it has been used for a bit in Afghanistan? Are the marines happy with the IAR in its intended role, or do they miss the SAW? I imagine there would have been plenty of 240s around to mitigate the lack of the SAW.

Damn there Kiwi, we must have sniffed out talk of the IAR at the same time.

I've heard nothing but positive reviews from all quarters, especially from the Marine Weapons Officers (aka Gunners). Each time I had the chance to play with it, I've been very impressed with its accuracy, portability, and craftsmanship. It's new and built to tight tolerances, so no rattle yet.

Considering its desired role, it is a win thus far. Those who say they "miss the heavier firepower of the SAW" really have no idea what they are talking about, in my opinion, and if they are infantrymen then they are likely bad at that job.

[gute]

Damn there Kiwi, we must have sniffed out talk of the IAR at the same time.

I've heard nothing but positive reviews from all quarters, especially from the Marine Weapons Officers (aka Gunners). Each time I had the chance to play with it, I've been very impressed with its accuracy, portability, and craftsmanship. It's new and built to tight tolerances, so no rattle yet.

Considering its desired role, it is a win thus far. Those who say they "miss the heavier firepower of the SAW" really have no idea what they are talking about, in my opinion, and if they are infantrymen then they are likely bad at that job.

I've been wondering how the Marines in the field would regard the weapon and from your quote it seems to be a success. I'm curious on how it is being used compared to the SAW.

[Granite_State]

Damn there Kiwi, we must have sniffed out talk of the IAR at the same time.

I've heard nothing but positive reviews from all quarters, especially from the Marine Weapons Officers (aka Gunners). Each time I had the chance to play with it, I've been very impressed with its accuracy, portability, and craftsmanship. It's new and built to tight tolerances, so no rattle yet.

Considering its desired role, it is a win thus far. Those who say they "miss the heavier firepower of the SAW" really have no idea what they are talking about, in my opinion, and if they are infantrymen then they are likely bad at that job.

Only thing I'd gripe about is the magazine size. Has there been any more talk of a drum or double stack sir? My company tried buying a few 60 rounders from Surefire, but ran into a money/bureaucracy issue.