The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Kiwigrunt]

The Mk48 is/was not an act of war. As Ken points out, indications are that it simply won't cut it on extended ops.
However FN's "Minimi 7.62" is as robust as an M249, but not as robust as an M240. Point being the Minimi 7.62 was designed for dismounted operations.

I'm not sure there is actually much difference between the two Wilf. The 48 is made in the US, the standard in Belgium, both by FN. They weigh the same. The 48 has a different gasplug and (sturdier) bipod. Other than that they appear to be pretty much identical.

Your point on lighter weight guns for section/platoon level is well made I think. Keep the MAG 58 at coy.level or above, close to their SF kits with spare barrels etc. (and from there they can of course still be used in the light role when required.) For as far as weight is any indication of robustness, the 7.62 Mimini is not much lighter than the old L4 (agreed, mag fed). I don't think the L4 had any durability issues.

[Distiller]

Two questions:

#1 -- Why the IAR not in 7.62 mm? Does using 5.56 mm for the IAR not just reinstate the lost full-auto option on the M16/M4 without really adding firepower?

#2 -- 30 rounds of 5.56 mm might in some situations be a little ... tight. What's the opinion here about using an adapted Beta C-mag for the IAR? Or a belt-drum?

[Ken White]

I'm not sure there is actually much difference between the two Wilf. The 48 is made in the US, the standard in Belgium, both by FN. They weigh the same. The 48 has a different gasplug and (sturdier) bipod. Other than that they appear to be pretty much identical.

Not sure from whence that statement is derived. They are two very different weapons and concepts.

The Mk 48 weighs 18 pounds LINK, the M240 weighs 27 pounds LINK -- plus. Folks using it today tell me that those carried in theater today easily weigh over 30 pounds.

Note that FN brags about the light weight of of the Mk 48 and provides that weight -- but for the M240 series ground guns does not provide the weight LINK simply because it is the troops greatest complaint about an otherwise excellent weapon. Note also the FN is working on several mods to reduce that weight.

The Mk 48 is not robust enough to take the pounding an Infantry unit would give it; OTOH, it's okay to take out of a stock of weapons on a raid of relatively short duration and possible high intensity followed by return to an armorer to get ready for the next operation. It does not need to be excessively rugged.

For as far as weight is any indication of robustness, the 7.62 Mimini is not much lighter than the old L4 (agreed, mag fed). I don't think the L4 had any durability issues.

No, the L4 was one of the most reliable guns of its type -- and that operating system is the basis of the M240 system. The Minimi / M249 / Mk 46 / Mk 48 operating system is different, based on but not as robust as the Kalishnikov system and it is not nearly as reliable. Weight is not an indicator of robustness, the type of construction and materials used plus the operating system are.

The MAG 58 / M 240 was designed at a time when those factors were dominant and the gun used heavy, thick plates and a strong riveted construction (The L4 from even earlier was even more so -- the receiver was milled fro one block of steel). The Minimi series OTOH was designed to be cheap to produce -- that was the dominant feature, so the construction is much more flimsy all round.

[Ken White]

#1 -- Complicates ammo resupply. The Newer M4s have full auto capability, the 3 round burst feature was as predicted a failure.

Firepower is a vastly over stated and over rated issue. Volume of fire decides nothing, accuracy of fire is the determinant. Only very raw and inexperienced fighters are even remotely affected by the volume of fire. Everybody, no matter how experienced is affected by accurate fire...

#2 -- Aside from the lack of robustness in most belt fed weapons -- the PKM being one notable and great exception (If we had any sense, we'd just buy it and convert it to a good 6mm or so caliber...) the need for a whole lot of ammo is also questionable. C-Mags have reliability problems as do belt drums. This LINK would be a better idea for someone who just had to have more capacity -- particularly if the magazine were inserted in the weapon horizontally instead of from below. Or one could just build these LINK.

[SethB]

Ken, your point on on construction is well taken. A friend of mine tells me that the Mk 48 is a reliable weapon until exactly 1100 rounds are fired, at which point the gas system freezes solid and a Small Arms Repairer is required.

The PKM has had a long and successful run, and it has been designed to use both 7.62N and a 6MM caliber. Versions using rimless calibers are actually much simpler.

I'm convinced that the IAR will work, and one of the reasons I'm so sure is because the USMC is also soliciting magazines that hold more ammunition. Information is publicly available about a 55 round magazine in development.

The PKM uses a stamped action, and VLTOR here in the states is making an action that is actually stronger than the original. I'm told that the originals used to crack on occasion.

As for alternate cartridges, there are many designs extant, all of which would outperform 7.62N on soft targets and some of which would outperform it on harder targets.

KAC makes a ten pound LMG that is an improvement on the Stoner 63.

The USMC is soliciting a thermally stable machinegun barrel that will extend barrel life and obviate the requirement for a quick change barrel. There is only one company, that I know of, that has a viable product. It is an SBIR set aside, if that matters.

[Uboat509]

I always liked the M60. It sucked with blanks but I never had any significant problems with live ammo. 550 RPM is plenty as far as I am concerned.

As for the M249, when I was a SAW gunner, we called it the (expletive!) gun. The reason for that was that when you pulled the trigger it would often go ka-chunk at wich point you would shout (expletive!), perform immediate action, pull the trigger, ka-chunk (expletive!), and so on. I will never trust that gun again.

SFC W

[Ken White]

...As for the M249, when I was a SAW gunner...I will never trust that gun again.

Nearly as I can gather, you've got a lot of company on that. The only person I've ever seen really defend that weapon is Schmedlap -- and even he admits it took extra loving care. Can't always provide that...


Agree on the M 60. It was a good weapon, almost impossible to screw up and did not require an excess of maintenance. No MG does well on blanks IMO -- but then, they don't need to...

[Ken White]

The PKM has had a long and successful run, and it has been designed to use both 7.62N and a 6MM caliber. Versions using rimless calibers are actually much simpler.

LMG, the SS 77 in its new Compact format is also a winner. Also a reliable peformer now that they've lowered the cyclic rate. It's based on the old USSR SGM action -- which is the Bren / MAG 58 / BAR action turned on its side.

I'm convinced that the IAR will work, and one of the reasons I'm so sure is because the USMC is also soliciting magazines that hold more ammunition. Information is publicly available about a 55 round magazine in development.

Me too, not least because I once carried a BAR with a 20rd magazine and had no problems... ;D

As for alternate cartridges, there are many designs extant, all of which would outperform 7.62N on soft targets and some of which would outperform it on harder targets.

Progress is all fields; the 7.62 NATO is getting old.

KAC makes a ten pound LMG that is an improvement on the Stoner 63.

Yes, they do. My spies tell me it has reliability problems, though... Lightweight is good -- but it has a cost.

The USMC is soliciting a thermally stable machinegun barrel that will extend barrel life and obviate the requirement for a quick change barrel. There is only one company, that I know of, that has a viable product. It is an SBIR set aside, if that matters.

Noteworthy the new Russian is essentially a PKM with a really heavy barrel (LINK) allowing among other things movement of the bipod to the muzzle where it provides a far more stable firing platform. More accuracy is the result -- and it weighs more. Maybe they know something we don't...

[Kiwigrunt]

SethB;67682]Ken, your point on on construction is well taken. A friend of mine tells me that the Mk 48 is a reliable weapon until exactly 1100 rounds are fired, at which point the gas system freezes solid and a Small Arms Repairer is required.

That is interesting. Wonder is if that may indeed be different with the 7.62 Herstal Minimi with the 'original' adjustable gas plug.

[Kiwigrunt]

Not sure from whence that statement is derived. They are two very different weapons and concepts.

The Mk 48 weighs 18 pounds LINK, the M240 weighs 27 pounds LINK -- plus. Folks using it today tell me that those carried in theater today easily weigh over 30 pounds.

Sorry about the confusion. Wilf and I were referring to the 7.62 Minimi made by FN Herstal http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail="][/URL]as opposed to the Mk48 of the US. The M240/Mag 58 are indeed a totally different ball game.
I like your suggestion on the PKM in 6+. The Russians did indeed try something like that with the 6mm Unified Machine Gun but that seems to have gone nowhere.

Darn....can someone please teach me how to tidy those links up (a computer geek I am not).

[Ken White]

Sorry about the confusion. Wilf and I were referring to the 7.62 Minimi made by FN Herstal http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail="][/URL]as opposed to the Mk48 of the US. The M240/Mag 58 are indeed a totally different ball game.

The 7.62 Mimimi is a Mk 48 without an upper handguard and a few very minor differences as the gas cylinder plug you noted.. Your link says it weighs 8.2 kg which is roughly 18.04 pounds, same as the Mk 48 and thus at least 9 pounds less than a MAG 58 / M240 / L7. No confusion. I note that the FN link you used also does not give the weight of the MAG 58...

The Minimi in 5.56 is the M249 and the Mk 46; the 7.62 Minimi is the Mk 48. Minor differences but they are quite insignificant.

I like your suggestion on the PKM in 6+. The Russians did indeed try something like that with the 6mm Unified Machine Gun but that seems to have gone nowhere.

Big armies have too many sunk costs in equipment to change it unless there is a pressing need. Right now, there is no pressing need for them or us.

A 6mm cartridge has a lot of advantages but its still a compromise, heavier and larger than 5,56 and without the reach and power of the 7.62.

Darn....can someone please teach me how to tidy those links up (a computer geek I am not).

Intead of using the clickable link button here, I've found it easier just to type [ url= then copy and paste the link and add an end bracket ]type in 'link' or whatever name you want it to possess then close with [ /url ] with NO spaces between the brackets and the text.

Here's all that using parentheses instead of brackets:

(url=http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod %20uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail=% 22) LINK(/url)

And with brackets:
LINK

[Kiwigrunt]

Thank you for the lesson, Ken.

[Ken White]

Hope it was adequate...

[Rifleman]

Ken,

You obviously prefer a larger squad in multiple fire teams with an automatic rifle in each team. I guess we can't deny the success the USMC had with it.

Question: what about smaller squads forced to operate (whether by design or attrition) without a fire team subdivison? Do you think a belt fed MG is preferable to an AR in that case?

Examples: the German WWII gruppe that relied on one MG42 and several rifleman; the average US Army squad in Vietnam that always seemed to be understrength and thus operating roughly along the same lines, even if fire teams were official by TOE.

I've heard more than one Vietnam vet say that they remember a "squad" of six to eight men that usually operated without fire teams with one M60 (usually employed at squad level even if not officially there by TOE), one M79 and a handful of riflemen. For example, James McDonough writes in Platoon Leader that he took over a rifle platoon that consisted of three six-man "squads."

[William F. Owen]

Two questions:

#1 -- Why the IAR not in 7.62 mm? Does using 5.56 mm for the IAR not just reinstate the lost full-auto option on the M16/M4 without really adding firepower?

#2 -- 30 rounds of 5.56 mm might in some situations be a little ... tight. What's the opinion here about using an adapted Beta C-mag for the IAR? Or a belt-drum?

#1 There's some interesting numbers when you look at mag-fed 7.62mm, but I don't have my note book to hand.

#2 I have only heard bad things about the C-Mag. There is new drum feed mag out now, that apparently works well, but they are bulky and heavy.

I'm not sure there is actually much difference between the two Wilf. The 48 is made in the US, the standard in Belgium, both by FN. They weigh the same. The 48 has a different gasplug and (sturdier) bipod. Other than that they appear to be pretty much identical.

Well I've examined both, and the Mk48 is a lot more "fiddly" than the M7.62, plus there is a body of complaint about it's robustness, which some at FN acknowledge, so I think the point that is worth making, is that while we load the boys down with all the other crap the push to lighten weapons comes at a cost. They needs to be considered in it's overall context.