Grendel LMG

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sharky47
    Unwashed
    • Nov 2017
    • 9

    My justification goes something like "I can't hear you over how awesome I look riding the lightning".......

    But that's just me.

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
      Just cuz everyone's doing it the way everyone else has always done it doesn't make it smart.
      Granted. However, I would say it's a strong indication that they at least think it is smart.

      Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
      Still want to know WHY.
      Paging LRRPF52. Please pick up the white courtesy phone, LRRPF52.

      Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
      And what's the real difference between an IAR and an AR. Heavy barrel? That's it?
      Nope, not the barrel. The 21st century "infantry automatic rifle" is pretty much the same as the 20th century "automatic rifle."
      It's nothing more than a name change, probably (IMO) to have a three-letter acronym to go along with SAW, LMG, MMG, etc.

      Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
      Somebody please justify belt-fed in a modern infantry squad in 2017. "Everybody else does it" is not a justification.
      "Well, you really need 200 rounds on-board for those scenarios when you need to do a 200-round burst." THAT'S a justification. Not a very good one, but at least it's an attempt.
      Or, "Mag changes every 30 rounds slows weapon too much and puts unit at tactical disadvantage."
      Or, "Need physically heavier weapon for less round dispersion at range."
      Somebody please think through the fundamental premise and articulate it.
      I have a better idea. Somebody build a Grendel IAR, then when Sharky gets his Grendel LMG built, everybody get together and take turns shooting Grendel LMG, IAR, and carbine at a variety of stationary and moving targets in simulated combat scenarios, so that we'll have some actual test data upon which to make an evaluation.

      Comment

      • BluntForceTrauma
        Administrator
        • Feb 2011
        • 3897

        Originally posted by stanc View Post
        simulated combat scenarios, so that we'll have some actual test data upon which to make an evaluation.
        There have been more than a few conflicts since the invention of the belt-fed machine gun, belt-fed light machine gun, automatic rifle, and assault rifles with full-auto capability upon which a reasonbly informed person can make a reasonable justification for his recommendation based on his own combat experience or that of others.

        Shouldn't be too hard unless the military establishments really have no clue? Is my question that difficult? What's the fundamental justification in today's military for a belt-fed SAW as opposed to magazine-fed?

        I get that in WWII belted LMGs were novel and even necessary in a world of bolt-action rifles. Nowadays, every carbine has a "happy switch." Still need a belted weapon to put lots of lead fast on a particular target?
        :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

        :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

        Comment

        • sharky47
          Unwashed
          • Nov 2017
          • 9

          We have plenty of postie M16 lowers here at the shop - I can make up a Grendel AR "IAR" top end and beat the shit out of it if someone wants to donate all that ammo.....

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
            There have been more than a few conflicts since the invention of the belt-fed machine gun, belt-fed light machine gun, automatic rifle, and assault rifles with full-auto capability upon which a reasonbly informed person can make a reasonable justification for his recommendation based on his own combat experience or that of others.

            Shouldn't be too hard unless the military establishments really have no clue? Is my question that difficult? What's the fundamental justification in today's military for a belt-fed SAW as opposed to magazine-fed?
            As I said, Paul is the best person to ask. The only reply I can offer is this: A belt-fed LMG provides longer engagement time before having to reload than a mag-fed IAR (100 or 200 rds versus 30 rds).

            Is it worth it? Some armies think yes, and use a belt-fed SAW, while others disagree, and use a mag-fed SAW. But, I don't know of any armies that do not use a SAW, and rely solely on assault rifles.

            Comment

            • pinzgauer
              Warrior
              • Mar 2011
              • 440

              So I got curious as to what the author's experience was in the military to draw all those conclusions.

              Answer: nada.

              Some interesting points, most seem to be pulled from the Marine justification for their automatic rifle.

              And some bogus or invalid comparisons.

              It's very clear that tactically he doesn't understand how SAWs are used doctrinely in line units. And also totally ignores sustained fire rates.

              Periodically I ask my infantry officer son about these types of things and is it really a gap they see and is it something they want? The answer I get is that the saw is not perfect but it's pretty darn good and meets their needs better than the alternatives to date. It's an important tool and is at the heart of their tactics.

              It fills the gap at the squad level as its intended between individual and crew served weapons. Well trained saw gunners can give suppressive fire 400 to 600 plus meters. It's going to be hard to do that with an automatic rifle.

              If the answer is more weight or less ammo capacity for the same weight, it's not a good trade-off.

              The author's main point seem to be suppressive fire is not worth the weight in ammo. I'm not sure most line infantry units would agree with that assessment.

              If the automatic rifles had a higher sustained fire rate that would be useful, but it comes at a heavier weight relative to M4s, and still doesn't address the ammo issue. So it doesn't really fix the problem they have, and would be a net loss if they had to give up SAWs to do so.

              There is also the "fighting the last war" aspect where there is a big emphasis on door kicking CQB which has led towards automatic rifle thinking vs SAWs. But that is not representative of the current engagements or potential engagements.

              Everything I said above also applies to the reoccurring 7.62 replacement for 556 ideas. More weight, less ammo, net reduction in Effectiveness without solving any big problems line units have, even very good ones. Special units can have different needs, and can get what they want anyway.

              Always interesting to read different viewpoints, especially if they come from a point of experience. I think that's the big gap in this one.

              Comment

              • BluntForceTrauma
                Administrator
                • Feb 2011
                • 3897

                Originally posted by pinzgauer View Post
                Well trained saw gunners can give suppressive fire 400 to 600 plus meters. It's going to be hard to do that with an automatic rifle.
                Is this because of more rounds on-board, or heavier, more stable weapon, or longer barrel, or sustained rate of fire, or what?

                Cuz the sighting system is the same. IAR barrels can be same length as SAW barrels. IARs can be made heavier or have mechanisms to reduce recoil. Am probably missing something, but only difference I see is number of rounds on board. And then we're debating speed of mag changes vs. belts, mags in common vs. specialized item that is a belt, and continuous or long bursts vs. short bursts. Cuz you can change a mag in the brief downtime after a burst.

                Not arguing against belt-feds. I think they're sexy and would love to see something like Knight's Stoner LMG in 65G. But trying to understand and be rigorously objective and intellectually honest.
                :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

                :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

                Comment

                • pinzgauer
                  Warrior
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 440

                  Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                  Is this because of more rounds on-board, or heavier, more stable weapon, or longer barrel, or sustained rate of fire, or what?

                  Cuz the sighting system is the same. IAR barrels can be same length as SAW barrels. IARs can be made heavier or have mechanisms to reduce recoil. Am probably missing something, but only difference I see is number of rounds on board. And then we're debating speed of mag changes vs. belts, mags in common vs. specialized item that is a belt, and continuous or long bursts vs. short bursts. Cuz you can change a mag in the brief downtime after a burst.
                  More stable platform, easier to use on bipod (belt's vs mag), bigger optic, etc. My son's direct and team experience is they can get hits at distance with the SAW that they could not with M4's, and would be unlikely with M27 even in single shot aimed fire.

                  It's not that an HK auto rifle could not do single shots at the same range with similar or better accuracy. It's short burst, suppressive fire. And the PL's who train and fight with them that I know do not want to lose that. It's not a good tradeoff.

                  Go do the experiment- put your AR on a bipod prone, and try running through 6 mags in rapid succession. Still 20 short of a belt, and you've had to disrupt your aim/position (think prone) multiple times.

                  Similar input on the 249... it's not as inaccurate as many say (gunner quality/setup vs platform) and when well maintained is more reliable than it's rep. But that is very unit/training/discipline dependent. And there are some raggedy-ass 249's left in inventory. But a front line unit may be dealing with much newer, latest optics, etc.

                  The article's points are largely an echo of the Marine Auto Rifle argument points. And there is strong suspicion in some ranks that the Marine Auto Rifle case was just a back door to get the HK into mainstream inventory ("Does it make sense to have both the M4 and the M27? They are so close. let's just simplify")

                  House clearing? sure M27 would be handier than a 249, but then again, it's not your main tool there anyway. Neither are what you'd want. But that is a very small part of the mission big army IN has to deal with.

                  Ammo weighs what ammo weighs. Belts or in mags. So it's really just the weapon weight difference that you are talking unless you just plan to abandon suppressive fire as a tactic.

                  Likewise, all of this assumes appropriate ROE and availability/usage of company/BN level assets (crew served and mortars, etc). Stick a squad or Platoon out on it's own without those, and the need to keep suppressive fire only increases.

                  Some here on the board have direct experience, maybe can comment. This is just what I'm hearing from someone who is currently using them in the intended role.

                  Comment

                  • BluntForceTrauma
                    Administrator
                    • Feb 2011
                    • 3897

                    So what I'm hearing is: "We need a belt-fed SAW because only it can provide sustained, short-bursts of accurate suppressive fire vs. a mag-fed auto rifle based on an assault rifle platform."

                    Which boils down to: "Multiple mag changes disrupt a gunner's concentration on targets and thus degrades his accuracy, his effectiveness."

                    I don't see platform stability, use of bipods, or better optics as prohibitive in an IAR, and thus is not really a differentiating factor.
                    :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

                    :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

                    Comment

                    • stanc
                      Banned
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 3430

                      Originally posted by pinzgauer View Post
                      The article's points are largely an echo of the Marine Auto Rifle argument points. And there is strong suspicion in some ranks that the Marine Auto Rifle case was just a back door to get the HK into mainstream inventory ("Does it make sense to have both the M4 and the M27? They are so close. let's just simplify").
                      I do wish this bit of historical revisionism could be killed off. The M27 was not adopted as a backdoor replacement for the M4.
                      It was impossible, because the M27 was adopted five years before the M4 became the primary individual weapon for infantry.
                      2004 Marine Corps Gazette article on the automatic rifle concept: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5289

                      Comment

                      • pinzgauer
                        Warrior
                        • Mar 2011
                        • 440

                        Originally posted by stanc View Post
                        I do wish this bit of historical revisionism could be killed off. The M27 was not adopted as a backdoor replacement for the M4.
                        It was impossible, because the M27 was adopted five years before the M4 became the primary individual weapon for infantry.
                        2004 Marine Corps Gazette article on the automatic rifle concept: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5289
                        Yeah, probably should have said M16/M4 platform. We'll never know...

                        Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                        So what I'm hearing is: "We need a belt-fed SAW because only it can provide sustained, short-bursts of accurate suppressive fire vs. a mag-fed auto rifle based on an assault rifle platform."

                        Which boils down to: "Multiple mag changes disrupt a gunner's concentration on targets and thus degrades his accuracy, his effectiveness."

                        I don't see platform stability, use of bipods, or better optics as prohibitive in an IAR, and thus is not really a differentiating factor.
                        Yeah, I guess. Don't think the heavier SAW could be more stable in burst fire than an IAR??? Same for bursts, let's say both are really good at 3-4 round bursts. Going to be doing mag changes every 7-10 bursts with an IAR. VS 35-70 bursts per belt? Guess it depends on mission, movement, etc. But I'm having a hard time seeing those as a wash.

                        So we are gun hobbiests. Interested in the technology, etc. Conjecture on pros and cons, because it's an interesting topic of conversation and speculation. (and it is, not trying to shut down discussion)

                        They (The guys who use the SAWs) are focused on missions, capabilities, results. Which they own and live. And based on that, when I ask, they are a bit baffled by the Marine's focus on the M27 and the anti SAW. But will admit they don't fully understand Marine method, etc. They have different platoon & company structure, etc. Maybe different tactics.

                        Some of it I do believe is Army IN doctrine, but that's hammered into them. Some of it is physical reality. If you pull a SAW from a platoon, what do you replace it with? what can it do. What's the value add, whats the drawback? How do you use it in overwatch? Movement to Contact? Defense on a reverse slope? other scenarios they have to plan and execute.

                        And based on that... the whole concept is not something that fixes any problem they have. So even though they are young pups, I have to trust the judgement of my Army IN officer son, as he's been hands on and running teams with these in a front line, respected IN ABN unit. And in Ranger school and similar prior to that. He and every peer completed Ranger School. His CO is from Ranger Regiment, as is his 1SG and past PSG. Significant deployments in his teams and leaders. They live in the world that uses these tools.

                        Again, don't mean to kill the conversation. Just that I find the credibility of the author a bit light and the general points a bit recycled.

                        Unfortunately, similar discussions about Grendel, Grendel LMG, 7.62 rifles, and similar head down the same path. I'm a Grendel fan, believe it's the best compromise AR-15/M-16 cartridge. But also recognize the logistical challenge that will make it virtually impossible for the US Army to move to it. But also see that a smaller country (Serbia?) could do so.

                        I will admit I was a bit surprised to find support for the SAW given it's somewhat checkered history, etc. But what I'm hearing is it's still a valued tool. And maybe a bit maligned.

                        My personal conjecture is we won't see much change in this space until a breakthru in caseless or similar changes the whole paradigm. Changing LMG ammo without a matching change in carbine I don't think will happen. Not enough numbers/advantages in changing the crew served MG's to something like Grendel.

                        Do I think Grendel would have been a better light cartridge when the M16 was initially being developed? Of course. But too much inertia vs any potentially gains to revisit that now for mainstream units. Special folks can use what they want anyway, so if it was a big advantage I think we'd be seeing/hearing more on it.

                        I'll say this: I'd love to have an M27. And would love to shoot one. And one in Grendel would be cool as well. :-)
                        Last edited by pinzgauer; 12-06-2017, 09:28 PM.

                        Comment

                        • pinzgauer
                          Warrior
                          • Mar 2011
                          • 440

                          Originally posted by stanc View Post
                          2004 Marine Corps Gazette article on the automatic rifle concept: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5289
                          That's an interesting read, had forgotten about that trial. Here's an interesting tidbit:
                          Recommendations for modifications were requested for each of the weapons systems. The M249 and Colt were viewed as too heavy. The HK failed to stay on target in burst fire while the Ultimax sight system did not present to the eye at all. When the shooter laid his cheek on the stock of the weapon and achieved a proper stock weld he found the sights of the weapon lay below the line of sight capability of his eye. Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249 SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for its automatic fire suppressive capability. Given the results of this assessment, accuracy alone is not a strong enough reason to replace the M249 SAW. However, most would argue that accuracy was never the problem with the M249 SAW. The problem with the M249 SAW was the lack of mobility when manned by an individual while attempting to move at the pace of a rifle team.
                          So even then, some of the points I'm hearing now were surfacing. Also, multiple comments about HK controlability/accuracy in burst fire.

                          To me the test will be if the Marines remove the SAW from use/issue/training. If they are committing hard, they have a reason.

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430


                            Comment

                            • LRRPF52
                              Super Moderator
                              • Sep 2014
                              • 8569

                              Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                              Just cuz everyone's doing it the way everyone else has always done it doesn't make it smart.

                              Still want to know WHY.

                              And what's the real difference between an IAR and an AR. Heavy barrel? That's it?

                              Somebody please justify belt-fed in a modern infantry squad in 2017. "Everybody else does it" is not a justification.

                              "Well, you really need 200 rounds on-board for those scenarios when you need to do a 200-round burst." THAT'S a justification. Not a very good one, but at least it's an attempt.

                              Or, "Mag changes every 30 rounds slows weapon too much and puts unit at tactical disadvantage."

                              Or, "Need physically heavier weapon for less round dispersion at range."

                              Somebody please think through the fundamental premise and articulate it.
                              Weapons design, types, and their effect on MTO&E
                              What this whole discussion illuminates is how technology affects organization and employment of soldiers and weapons. We have several tracks of weapons designs coming into play, including:

                              * Battle rifles capable of defeating enemy cavalry horses at distance (obsolete)
                              * SMGs
                              * Medium Machine-Guns
                              * Intermediate Cartridge, Select-Fire "Assault Rifles"
                              * Automatic Rifles
                              * Light Machineguns

                              Great War MGs, SMGs, ARs
                              If you look at the Great War era, they had better sustained fire capabilities with water-cooled Maxims and Browning M1917s, but very limited mobility with them due to the weight and bulk of the guns, tripods, and water-cooled barrels, water cans, and the Gun Team that it took to support one. These types of machine-guns were normally MTO&E'd at the Company and Battalion levels. What a medium machine-gun brings to bear is the ability to focus fire on an enemy at greater distances, transition to another target quickly once that target is reduced, and continue to reduce targets until the enemy unit or vehicle is suppressed to the point that it is totally defensive, unable to direct fires at your elements until they are on him. This is more true when fired from the tripod by a highly-trained gun team.

                              The BAR was one of the first successful Squad-Level Automatic Rifles issued, but very limited in sustained fire or maneuverability due to the 20rd magazines and heavy weight of the weapon and soldier's load. It provides supporting fire to the advance of the Rifle Squad, while adding to the defensive fires of a unit in place.

                              While machine-guns had been game-changers in the Great War, armies invested more and more in their development to make them lighter and more maneuverable.

                              With the introduction of the MG34 and later MG42, the Germans took some of the sustained fire capability of the older box-receiver machine-guns, and made a more maneuverable system relying on quick barrel changes rather than water-cooling. They still needed a large section to support each gun, with one man carrying the Lafette tripod (which folds up and includes padding on the tripod itself already), several ammo bearers, the gunner, and an NCO Gun Team Leader with optics to direct fire of the MG.



                              They also included a mechanical computer into the flex mount, so that the gunner could literally program the beaten zone for depth and windage for a desired pattern, depending on what type of fire was desired. As the gun recoils in the flex mount, it cycles the mechanical gears, which elevate and traverse within a specific pattern. He also does this from a depressed position while looking through a superb quality Hensoldt periscope, allowing him and the team to build the MG into a position where the gun has grazing fire over a covered area, without exposing the team to direct fires.

                              That system really revolutionized machine-guns that are carried by dismounts, but the Allied nations never really picked up on the tripod and T&E of the Lafette system, and used very simple tripods. If you look at the lessons-learned post-Great War, the Germans took a much different approach to machine-guns than the Allies by focusing on development of the Medium Machineguns and keeping their Mauser battle rifles, whereas the US focused on developing the rifle with the self-loading Garand, while using the same basic Browning 1919 box receiver MG and tripod and the BAR for the Automatic Rifleman.

                              After WWII, the Allies realized how effective the MG34 and MG42 were, hence the MAG58, L7, M240, and M60, owing their heritage to the MG42.

                              Doctrines, Directives, and Philosophies
                              Before WWII, Infantry had a lot of riflemen and these emerging heavier machine-guns on tripods to support them. The US, British, and Canadian forces had different doctrine for how to employ machine guns than the Germans, and the Asians armies had their important directives for machine-gun employment as well. The Anglo nations historically see machine-guns as support for the rifle platoon and company advance when attacking, while forming pivotal nodes in the defense. MGs would establish support positions to provide over-watching fire for riflemen to bound or flank towards the enemy. The Teutonic approach was to heavily focus on gun teams as more of a main effort, with riflemen supporting their advance and penetration of fixed enemy positions when on the attack, to include envelopment. The Asian approach relies more on hasty ambushes, ensnarement, and patience with use of machine-guns, allowing your opponent to work himself deep into your fields of fire, until you unleash your belt-fed weapons at the optimum time for maximum shock and devastation.

                              The lines get blurred in practical application because all roads lead to Rome, but the German concept of medium machine-gun use during the attack sticks out to me.

                              SMGs and the Stg
                              The submachine gun was introduced for trench-clearing, then evolved into a very useful and cheap weapon to equip infantry focused on the attack. The Russian PPsH-41 equipped units were probably the pinnacle of SMG use with dismounted infantry. The Germans issued their SMGs to NCOs and other soldiers for more of a close range weapon, since their primary tasks were leading and directing junior soldiers, but they also realized the firepower and maneuverability of SMGs gave them an advantage in the attack, especially in built-up areas, in addition to trenches. What if they could have a weapon that more closely fit the profile of an SMG, but had retained energy closer to a rifle, after seeing that rifles were rarely used beyond 300m anyway, now that cavalry were obsolete?

                              Weapons technology and how it evolved the Infantry
                              The introduction of the Sturmgewehr certainly revolutionized dismounted infantry warfare and small arms design, but it never changed the need for belt-fed weapons. It combined the most useful aspects of submachine guns and battle rifles, making both mostly obsolete from then forward. The select-fire, intermediate cartridge-chambered, automatic rifle would immediately become the standard for the Soviet Union after the War (Avtomat), whereas the West was handicapped by the US Army Ordnance who insisted on using basically a battle rifle cartridge reminiscent of .30-40 Krag and .30 Caliber M1, but now with a detachable magazine. The British and Belgians both had developed post-War select fire rifles with smaller cartridges that were heavy compared to the Stg44's Kurz, but still smaller and less-recoiling than the US T65 .30 cal "light rifle" cartridge. Due to US post-war dominance and redevelopment of Western Europe, the UK, Belgians, and West Germans were pulled into the US's T65, which eventually became the 7.62x51 NATO, duplicating the performance of obsolete rifles the Wermacht and Soviets had realized were obsolete by 1945. The M14, FAL, L1A1, and G3 were the result.

                              What a lot of people wanted was the sustained fire capability of belt-fed weapons down into smaller units, like the Platoon and even Squad-level. The evolution and emergence of the Infantry Squad seems to be something relatively new in warfare, as Companies were the basic unit of maneuver in 1914. After the wholesale slaughter of tens of thousands of British soldiers in The Great War, particularly the Somme, they started to reevaluate their MTO&E, which had been very centralized at higher levels, with companies executing the attack based on orders from above. There were precious few junior leaders, and many were decimated early on in their assaults on German fortified positions. They began de-centrlizing to an extent, equipping Platoons with the Bren Gun. If we look at the math of how many rounds could be expended on target by a company of riflemen reminiscent of the Somme, versus a Platoon equipped with Bren guns and Riflemen, you start to see why machine-guns naturally fueled the evolution of the Infantry Company into Separate maneuver elements of Platoons and Squads.

                              In the US Army, this was facilitated by the Garand, BAR, and M1919. In the USMC, Companies broke down into Platoons and Squads, with Squads broken down into 3 separate Fire Teams, each equipped with a BAR.



                              The Germans relied more on individual initiative, with a lot of autonomy even at the Platoon level. Platoons and squads in WWII became more of a reality because of the fast nature of maneuver and advance by attackers, combined with the ability to saturate more firepower into less men with self-loaders and machine-guns.
                              Last edited by LRRPF52; 12-07-2017, 03:59 PM.
                              NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                              CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                              6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                              www.AR15buildbox.com

                              Comment

                              • LRRPF52
                                Super Moderator
                                • Sep 2014
                                • 8569

                                So where are we at now?

                                Since WWII, the US effort to keep the battle rifle cartridge alive failed quickly with the M14, but left the poorer recovering Western European nations with 7.62 NATO self-loaders. What units found immediately was that you could not effectively fire a 7.62 NATO rifle on automatic, and within the US, British, West German, Belgian, and other NATO allies, rifle marksmanship training focused entirely on semi automatic fire with rifles. A BAR-type variant of the M14, the M14A1, would serve as the Squad Automatic Rifle by means of a muzzle brake, heavier barrel, inline stock design, and bipod.



                                In the Soviet system, they focused on semi automatic fire, as well as controlled bursts with the Avtomat, with a mix of belt-fed RPDs firing the same 7.62 Avtomat cartridge (7.62x39 M43). They would later adopt the SVD Sniper System firing the 7.62x54R (7.62 Vintovka) as an integral supporting arm of the Infantry Platoon.



                                With the early failure of the M14/M14A1/M60 single cartridge system, the US needed a stop-gap before we would introduce the SPIW in 1968, so the AR15 was allowed to fill that temporary void after the USAF insisted on standardizing it as their service rifle for SPs and Security Forces to replace the M1/M2 Carbine. The M14A1 proved to be incapable of sustained fire, and the M14 service rifles were neutered with a cap in place of the selector, since they were uncontrollable by most soldiers on automatic in the rare event that someone actually placed it on auto.

                                The AR15 was more controllable on Automatic, but training for infantry focused on use in the SEMI mode only. Operational exceptions in Vietnam included nighttime full auto H&I fire around a defensive perimeter to deter sappers from low-crawling into their defense, designated Squad Members as the Automatic Rifleman, as well as undisciplined automatic fire upon contact mostly from untrained draftees. Widespread adoption of Night Vision made the nighttime H&I fire practice unnecessary. The use of Automatic fire was trained out of the "panic-mode" reaction many soldiers used by the 1980s, and another weapon system was added to the Infantry Squad to fill the Automatic fire needs.



                                During the Vietnam era, the US Army experimented with several different book answer MTO&Es for introduction of the M60 into the Squad to fill the Automatic Rifleman role. A need for a light machine-gun was again identified, and answered with some belt-fed experimental variations of the M16 (not adopted), then with the SAW trials of the 1970s, in which one of the worst entrants won the contract, the Belgian FN Minimi-a combination of a scaled-down MAG58 feed tray mechanism and the bolt carrier group and piston of the AK housed inside a sheet steel receiver. The earlier 6mm SAW cartridge would have provided a much better LMG answer for squad support, with excellent barrier defeat and long range reach.



                                The Stoner LMG 63A Weapon System was much lighter, constant-recoil operated weapon but no longer in production.

                                As to Colt LMGs based on the M16, there were basically one type for each decade through the 1980s. The 1960s-era Colt LMG was part of the CAR-15 Family of Weapons concept, the Colt RO606. It was never adopted, whereas the Commando variant evolution of one of the CAR-15 family weapons were adopted in very large numbers as the XM177E1 and XM177E2, as well as the USAF GAU-5A/A carbines.

                                In the 1970s, Colt had a SAWS trial entrant in the XM106 BRL, which was mag-fed, while the Rodman/Ford Aerospace, FN, and HK entrants were all belt-fed. The original FN Minim M249E1 was lighter than what we ended up with, but still about as heavy as the Soviet PKM Platoon support machine-gun chambered in 7.62x54R.
                                Last edited by LRRPF52; 12-06-2017, 10:46 PM.
                                NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                                CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                                6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                                www.AR15buildbox.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X