Gents,
There has been healthy debate throughout the development of small arms in history regarding appropriate calibers and weapon designs. This is a pretty hot topic in the Grendel community since the Grendel seems to offer external trajectory ballistics that are very similar to 7.62 NATO and some of the common .308 Match loads, but out of a much smaller rifle/carbine package with significantly less recoil, and increased ammunition carrying capacity.
That naturally has led some to propose that we could replace both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO cartridges for dismounted Infantry troops.
I personally do not see a need to replace 5.56 NATO as it has so many advantages that are beneficial to riflemen in an Infantry Squad, however...
I do see a huge need to replace the entire SAW/5.56 system and the M240/7.62 NATO system, since they hold squads and platoons back from being maneuverable. With the recent developments in efficient cartridge & bullet design, I think we're ready to start pushing in the direction of a new Multi-Role Light Machinegun concept with a cartridge that is smaller and lighter than 7.62 NATO, with better ballistic potential as far as trajectory is concerned.
My reasons for not liking the SAW are many, mainly that it is way too heavy for the cartridge it fires, is unnecessarily bulky, and quite unreliable. The 5.56 NATO linked is somewhat effective at the squad level, but a slightly larger caliber would give it the power it needs.
As for the M240/MAG58 GPMG, it is way too heavy (27.6 lbs) and long, but fires live rounds reliably and accurately. Since 7.62 NATO does not give us the ballistic performance for the weight it penalizes us with, and restricts the movement of gun teams significantly, lighter and better alternatives should be looked at. For example: the 7.62x54 PKM is one of the most common GPMGs found in 3rd World countries, weighing in at about 16.5 pounds, which is even lighter than the M249 SAW, making our enemies much more maneuverable than us.
This is why I want a Multi-Role Light Machinegun, that would drastically enhance the maneuver capability of dismounted soldiers, making them almost as fast as their counterparts carrying M4's, while not sacrificing any of the current capabilities of the M240.
This approach is based on balancing the individual loads of each dismounted soldier in a Light Infantry, Mechanized, Airmobile, or Airborne unit. Understanding common employment practices of Infantry Squads and Platoons requires developers to be aware that ammunition for the SAWs and GPMGs is normally cross-loaded to the Riflemen in the Rifle Squads, so that the unit can sustain itself longer if things get nasty, or Fragmentary Orders are issued after a planned mission and continuous operations kick in. A rifleman can count on carrying a 200rd drum for the SAW or a 100rd box of linked 7.62 in his assault pack, even if the SAW gunner has 600-800 rounds on his person, and the gun teams have 800-1200 rounds for the gun.
The maneuverability penalties are painfully illustrated when a body armor-laden soldier has to shoot and move within an urban environment, as well as up in the oxygen-depraved mountains of Afghanistan. The 23lb SAW and 27.6lb M240B (without optics) are simply unacceptable in terms of weight. The Army has addressed this for Light units with the M240L, but it still only shaves off 5 pounds, making it still heavier than a PKM, and that's before you mount optics and IR pointers on it, which was standardized several years ago...so you have to have them on the gun by higher mandate.
So, although it may not be what many are initially looking for with "fixing" the 5.56 NATO/M4 carbine, I would like to throw this topic out there for development of a new Multi-Role LMG, which requires the introduction of a new military cartridge. Here are the specs I would like to see, and I guarantee that soldiers and small unit leaders would welcome:
1) System replaces M249 SAW and M240 machineguns for dismounts
2) Cartridge offers ballistic improvements over 5.56 NATO in trajectory, wind drift and penetration of mud brick, cinder block, and vehicles at 500m
3) Cartridge weighs less than 7.62 NATO, allowing at least a 20% threshold increase in ammunition carrying capacity in linked form, with an objective of 30%...without losing any elevation trajectory or penetration of equal mediums at 700m
4) Machinegun weighs less than 11 lbs empty (threshold), with 10 lbs (objective)
5) Overall length of LMG is no longer than an M16A2 (threshold), with 36" objective
6) LMG uses constant-recoil operating system
7) LMG has common mounting interface for M1913 system
8) LMG has provisions for rugged bipod, without interfering with accessories
9) LMG meets of exceeds MTBS/MTBF of the M240
10) LMG has a quick barrel-change system as fast and user-friendly as M60/M249
11) LMG has center of balance behind the pistol grip
12) LMG has ergonomic features that facilitate most users to gain or achieve a solid sight picture without excessive neck strain
These are some initial constraints to think about and get the discussion going. Realize that there are a lot of new nations who have entered NATO with old Warsaw Pact weapons, and many old NATO and SEATO countries who are re-looking at their small arms posture.
LRRPF52
There has been healthy debate throughout the development of small arms in history regarding appropriate calibers and weapon designs. This is a pretty hot topic in the Grendel community since the Grendel seems to offer external trajectory ballistics that are very similar to 7.62 NATO and some of the common .308 Match loads, but out of a much smaller rifle/carbine package with significantly less recoil, and increased ammunition carrying capacity.
That naturally has led some to propose that we could replace both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO cartridges for dismounted Infantry troops.
I personally do not see a need to replace 5.56 NATO as it has so many advantages that are beneficial to riflemen in an Infantry Squad, however...
I do see a huge need to replace the entire SAW/5.56 system and the M240/7.62 NATO system, since they hold squads and platoons back from being maneuverable. With the recent developments in efficient cartridge & bullet design, I think we're ready to start pushing in the direction of a new Multi-Role Light Machinegun concept with a cartridge that is smaller and lighter than 7.62 NATO, with better ballistic potential as far as trajectory is concerned.
My reasons for not liking the SAW are many, mainly that it is way too heavy for the cartridge it fires, is unnecessarily bulky, and quite unreliable. The 5.56 NATO linked is somewhat effective at the squad level, but a slightly larger caliber would give it the power it needs.
As for the M240/MAG58 GPMG, it is way too heavy (27.6 lbs) and long, but fires live rounds reliably and accurately. Since 7.62 NATO does not give us the ballistic performance for the weight it penalizes us with, and restricts the movement of gun teams significantly, lighter and better alternatives should be looked at. For example: the 7.62x54 PKM is one of the most common GPMGs found in 3rd World countries, weighing in at about 16.5 pounds, which is even lighter than the M249 SAW, making our enemies much more maneuverable than us.
This is why I want a Multi-Role Light Machinegun, that would drastically enhance the maneuver capability of dismounted soldiers, making them almost as fast as their counterparts carrying M4's, while not sacrificing any of the current capabilities of the M240.
This approach is based on balancing the individual loads of each dismounted soldier in a Light Infantry, Mechanized, Airmobile, or Airborne unit. Understanding common employment practices of Infantry Squads and Platoons requires developers to be aware that ammunition for the SAWs and GPMGs is normally cross-loaded to the Riflemen in the Rifle Squads, so that the unit can sustain itself longer if things get nasty, or Fragmentary Orders are issued after a planned mission and continuous operations kick in. A rifleman can count on carrying a 200rd drum for the SAW or a 100rd box of linked 7.62 in his assault pack, even if the SAW gunner has 600-800 rounds on his person, and the gun teams have 800-1200 rounds for the gun.
The maneuverability penalties are painfully illustrated when a body armor-laden soldier has to shoot and move within an urban environment, as well as up in the oxygen-depraved mountains of Afghanistan. The 23lb SAW and 27.6lb M240B (without optics) are simply unacceptable in terms of weight. The Army has addressed this for Light units with the M240L, but it still only shaves off 5 pounds, making it still heavier than a PKM, and that's before you mount optics and IR pointers on it, which was standardized several years ago...so you have to have them on the gun by higher mandate.
So, although it may not be what many are initially looking for with "fixing" the 5.56 NATO/M4 carbine, I would like to throw this topic out there for development of a new Multi-Role LMG, which requires the introduction of a new military cartridge. Here are the specs I would like to see, and I guarantee that soldiers and small unit leaders would welcome:
1) System replaces M249 SAW and M240 machineguns for dismounts
2) Cartridge offers ballistic improvements over 5.56 NATO in trajectory, wind drift and penetration of mud brick, cinder block, and vehicles at 500m
3) Cartridge weighs less than 7.62 NATO, allowing at least a 20% threshold increase in ammunition carrying capacity in linked form, with an objective of 30%...without losing any elevation trajectory or penetration of equal mediums at 700m
4) Machinegun weighs less than 11 lbs empty (threshold), with 10 lbs (objective)
5) Overall length of LMG is no longer than an M16A2 (threshold), with 36" objective
6) LMG uses constant-recoil operating system
7) LMG has common mounting interface for M1913 system
8) LMG has provisions for rugged bipod, without interfering with accessories
9) LMG meets of exceeds MTBS/MTBF of the M240
10) LMG has a quick barrel-change system as fast and user-friendly as M60/M249
11) LMG has center of balance behind the pistol grip
12) LMG has ergonomic features that facilitate most users to gain or achieve a solid sight picture without excessive neck strain
These are some initial constraints to think about and get the discussion going. Realize that there are a lot of new nations who have entered NATO with old Warsaw Pact weapons, and many old NATO and SEATO countries who are re-looking at their small arms posture.
LRRPF52
Comment