New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[JASmith]

...additional criteria that I think should be fairly widely accepted;

Light – Employed by single person (BAR, SAW, IAR)
Medium – Employed by a team (M1919, M60, M249G)
Heavy – Employed by a team, but due to system/ammo weight/bulk, normally fixed or vehicle mounted (M2, M1917, Mk19)

Many thanks!

Those are very useful definitions, and now I know where the Dillon Gatling guns fit. I have been told by Dillon that the "water stream" of red from the tracers means that sights are rarely used, but the gun is almost always a vehicle or fixed mount, Arnold S. notwithstanding.

[stanc]

The problem is you are placing some weapons in categories that are technically incorrect. Neither the M1918 BAR nor the M27 IAR are properly classified as light machine guns. And while the M1919 LMG could reasonably be thought of as the M240 of it's day, the M1919 was not then considered a MMG.

It'd be like calling the M1896 Krag carbine a rifle because it has a 22" barrel, longer than those of many modern military rifles.

To avoid such contradictions, I'd suggest leaving historical weapons with their original classifications, which were appropriate for their times. That's if there's even a need to include them in the discussion.

I'd also suggest that four categories are needed:

IAR
LMG
MMG
HMG

[Tony Williams]

I'd also suggest that four categories are needed:

IAR
LMG
MMG
HMG

Which raises the question of where the Bren gun would fit into that classification.

It was magazine-fed, and carried and used by one man, which would suggest it's an automatic rifle like the BAR.

OTOH, it had a quick-change barrel and the gunner usually had an assistant who would carry more ammo and also change the magazines more quickly than the gunner could - which suggests an LMG.

You can spend hours debating these sort of points, because there isn't one correct set of designations, and they are affected by how the weapon is used as well as by its characteristics.

[stanc]

You can spend hours debating these sort of points, because there isn't one correct set of designations, and they are affected by how the weapon is used as well as by its characteristics.

I'm not going to debate that. I'll just say that I disagree that there isn't one correct designation, or how the weapon is used affects its designation. The M249 is used in the automatic rifle role, but it's still a light machine gun, and the Army classifies it as an LMG.

There are a number magazine-fed weapons from years gone by which were classified back then as machine guns, not automatic rifles. There are belt-fed guns like the M1919 LMG, which today would more properly be considered a MMG. There is also a Japanese LMG (Type 11?) which was fed via rifle stripper clips, but that doesn't make it a rifle. Do we set about re-classifying all of those obsolete and obsolescent weapons to meet current standards? Or do we just let their historical designations stand, and place our attention on current and future weapons?

[JASmith]

Why don't we simply stay with Michael's definition :

...additional criteria that I think should be fairly widely accepted;

Light – Employed by single person (BAR, SAW, IAR)
Medium – Employed by a team (M1919, M60, M249G)
Heavy – Employed by a team, but due to system/ammo weight/bulk, normally fixed or vehicle mounted (M2, M1917, Mk19)

The only reason for not using this is if someone can dig up a current, authoritative Army Field Manual or Marine Corps equivalent that suggests a revision.

[Tony Williams]

Well, since you've ducked the question about the Bren gun (and various similar devices) what about the RPK and RPK-74 then? One-man operated, magazine-fed, fixed barrel (albeit heavier and longer than standard), bipod attached, closed bolt firing - and the Russians call it an LMG.

Or the STK Ultimax 100: magazine-fed and one-man operated, but fires from an open bolt, has a quick-change barrel and the usual magazine capacity is a healthy 100 rounds. That's more of an LMG than the RPK.

The fact is that there are various characteristics which might - or might not - distinguish the IAR from an LMG: characteristics of an LMG will include some (but not necessarily all) of:
- quick-change barrel,
- belt feed,
- open-bolt firing,
- permanently attached bipod,
- heavy barrel,
- sturdier construction than rifle to withstand constant automatic fire.

The problem is that different weapons use different combinations of those features, as illustrated by the examples I've given.

[stanc]

Why don't we simply stay with Michael's definition :

The only reason for not using this is if someone can dig up a current, authoritative Army Field Manual or Marine Corps equivalent that suggests a revision.

The main reason for not using it is that it's inaccurate. Even if older weapons (for example, the M1918 BAR) are left out, the M27 IAR is not a light machine gun.

[cory]

What the hell difference does it make whether it's classified as an LMG or MMG here on the forum??? I assure you the nomenclature makes no difference to the Grunts on the ground who are employing it on the battlefield or are on the receiving end of it's barrage. We're arguing the pronunciation of the word "THE".

The only difference that's relevant to this discussion is how it's tactically implemented and how much man power the platform requires.

I ask that we all check our egos at the door, otherwise a worthwhile discussion will continue to only go down the drain.

[stanc]

Well, since you've ducked the question about the Bren gun (and various similar devices)...

I didn't duck it. I attempted to address that by saying: "There are a number magazine-fed weapons from years gone by which were classified back then as machine guns, not automatic rifles." The WWI-era Madsen LMG is another example.

...what about the RPK and RPK-74 then? One-man operated, magazine-fed, fixed barrel (albeit heavier and longer than standard), bipod attached, closed bolt firing - and the Russians call it an LMG.

Actually, the English translation of "Ruchnoy Pulemyot" is "handheld machine gun," not "light machine gun."

I guess if you don't want to consider them automatic rifles, then we'll need to add an HHMG category to the list.

The fact is that there are various characteristics which might - or might not - distinguish the IAR from an LMG...

The problem is that different weapons use different combinations of those features, as illustrated by the examples I've given.

Nevertheless, we are still left with the irrefutable fact that the M27 IAR is -- according to the USMC -- an automatic rifle, not a machine gun.

[JASmith]

What the hell difference does it make whether it's classified as an LMG or MMG here on the forum??? I assure you the nomenclature makes no difference to the Grunts on the ground who are employing it on the battlefield or are on the receiving end of it's barrage. We're arguing the pronunciation of the word "THE".

The only difference that's relevant to this discussion is how it's tactically implemented and how much man power the platform requires.

I ask that we all check our egos at the door, otherwise a worthwhile discussion will continue to only go down the drain.

Right on the mark!

We all need to take this advice!

[Michael]

Copied From MCWP 3-15.1, 1996, Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery –

1002. Types of Machine Guns
Machine guns are classified as light, medium, or
heavy. Classifications are determined by a combination
of weapon caliber, weapon system weight,
crew size, and the primary type of intended target.

a. Light Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles. The
light machine gun (LMG) classification generally includes
.22 to .250 caliber (5.45mm to 6mm) automatic
weapons. An LMG typically weighs between
15 and 30 pounds, complete. An LMG is normally
manned by a crew of one or two individuals depending
on the accessories being used. Neither a tripod
nor a spare barrel is normally used with an LMG
when it is manned by a single individual. Bullet
weights for LMGs normally range from 45 to 72
grains. They are optimally employed against exposed
and lightly protected personnel at ranges less
than 1,000 meters. In this category, the Marine
Corps employs the squad automatic weapon, M249,
5.56mm.

b. Medium Machine Guns. This medium machine
gun (MMG) classification generally includes
.264 to .33 caliber (6.5mm to 8mm) automatic
weapons. Typical MMG weights are 25 pounds or
more when loaded with 50 rounds of ammunition.
Remaining ammunition, ground tripod, spare barrel,
and other accessories can add another 25 pounds or
more to the overall weight of MMG systems. The
MMG is generally employed by a crew of three. A
MMG generally uses bullets that weigh between 140
and 220 grains. Optimally, they are employed
against personnel and light materials ( e.g., motor
vehicles) at ranges of 1500 meters or less. In this
category, the Marine Corps employs several variants
of the 7.62mm, M240G machine gun.

c. Heavy Machine Guns. The heavy machine
gun (HMG) classification generally includes .50
caliber or larger (12.7mm to 15mm) automatic
weapons. The system weight of a heavy machine
gun is substantial. In a ready to fire configuration
using a ground tripod, an HMG without ammunition
can weigh more than 125 pounds. An HMG is normally
manned by a crew of four or more personnel
(although a crew of three may be sufficient if motor
vehicles or draft animals are employed for transportation
over distance). The common bullet weight
of an HMG is 700 grains or larger. HMGs are primarily
employed against field fortifications, vehicles,
and aircraft. They are generally effective
against these types of targets at ranges of 1,000 meters
or greater. The machine guns from this category
currently employed by the Marine Corps are the
caliber .50, Browning, M2HB, machine gun and the
40mm, MK-19 MOD 3 machine gun.

I have been told a rewrite is being done with the M27 IAR classified in category a. above. and I hope this is acceptable for all parties.

[stanc]

Copied From MCWP 3-15.1, 1996, Machine Guns and Machine Gun Gunnery Light Machine Guns/Automatic Rifles. The light machine gun (LMG) classification...

I have been told a rewrite is being done with the M27 IAR classified in category a. above. and I hope this is acceptable for all parties.

I see the Corps does distinguish between LMGs and automatic rifles, even though the two different weapon types are lumped together in the same category.

However, it's not important enough to engage in further debate about it. Please proceed.

[JASmith]

...However, it's not important enough to engage in further debate about it. Please proceed.

...and that is the difference between undocumented opinion and documented policy.

We are very pleased to have permission to proceed.

[bwaites]

Gentlemen,

I tend to leave these kinds of discussions alone, because they are more a form of conjecture, (although very well informed conjecture at times) than anything else, but please remember that respect for each other is still demanded.

Diffrences of opinion are fine, but disrepect is not.

[LRRPF52]

One of the things I've suggested in the Machine Gun department is a totally new classification of weapon, which embodies the benefits of both a LMG and MMG/GPMG, without either of their main limitations.

LMG
Pros:
* Lightweight (supposed to be, that was lost in the fiasco known as the M249)
* Low recoil
* Individually served
* Supposed to be capable of suppressive volume of fire (high mag cap or belt fed usually)

Cons:
* Limited range and terminal effectiveness, especially if small caliber/conventional projectile construction is used


Medium Machine Gun/General Purpose Machine Gun
Pros:
* Extended range and suitable terminal performance from 800-1200m on soft targets

Cons:
* Weight and weapon size limits maneuverability
* Ammunition weight and space limit carrying capacity
* Limited ammunition capacity significantly reduces unit combat endurance, tires soldiers quickly, and makes gun-mounted solutions even more difficult.
* Recoil and muzzle blast reduce hit probability, while increasing the gun position signature to the enemy

The happy medium 6.5mm takes the pros from each, while cutting out the cons. With a constant-recoil operating principle, we could have an 11lb belt-fed machine gun that is very well suited for the close range maneuver fight in the Fire Team, while being able to exceed the retained energy of both the 7.62 NATO and 7.62x54R belt-fed machine guns past 500yds, staying supersonic well into the 1100-1300m range.

What this suggests is a totally new machine gun classification, that I call the Multi-Role Light Machine Gun-a morphing of the LMG and MMG/GPMG.