06-30-2011, 03:06 AM
I've emailed back and forth with him. He has converted that MG42/3 to 7x46, and is using non-disintegrating metallic links from the RPD I think. He has a good sense about managing the pressures at lower levels to keep longevity for the firearms and component parts. The 7x46 has less over-bore, so it is lower-pressure, with less recoil.
He also has an assault rifle design roughly worked-out with some 3D drawings.
We both agree that there should be a test and evaluation board of engineers with combat arms backgrounds, who will actually have to deploy to hostile-fire zones with any new designs before giving a stamp of approval, rather than the retired Colonels and Generals who have to train their gag-reflex not to function when they push whatever company's horrible products as a lobbyist or contractor to grease the Pentagon system. It's pretty much SOP in that demonic town of D.C.
I saw a lot of it first-hand when I was stationed there, especially at AUSA and other conventions. A guy with a huge salary that was an O-6 or above retires after 25 years on active duty, jumps right into work for one of the numerous defense contractors, drinks the company cool-aid after seeing his salary, and pushes whatever system they are selling like it's good as gold.
A few years later, when I was in LRS, we had these defense contractor types come issue us some silly field heater pack gizmos, and they mentioned that they had been involved with the LBV design. I proceeded to let them know what a piece of crap it was with the maybe 300 denier fabric it was made of, the tiny mag pouches that could only hold a candy bar or pens after being soaked and dried, and some other issues with it. One SGM (Ret) who was part of this committee tried to tell me how those inboard pouches were set-up for lying in the prone, and that they didn't need to be capable of holding two mags. I had already cut them off of mine and sewn on some 1000 denier Cordura Woodland Camo GP pouches that could hold plenty of mags, SAW ammo, 203 rounds, NOD's, etc. regardless of what duty position or weapon system I needed to fill.
Anyway, an active prototype and field test engineer team would really make a lot more sense. Have students in Ranger School and the Q-Course evaluate products after that for durability, and then make necessary improvements. The PEO system is pretty weak, if you ask me. I looked at their site recently, and they couldn't even get the nomenclatures correct on their own systems, which were in the hands of Military District of Washington soldiers in pristine kit. The new systems seem to be bulkier and heavier than what they're replacing, especially the grenade launcher that is supposed to bump the 203 out of the system. Major fails...
LRRPF52
He also has an assault rifle design roughly worked-out with some 3D drawings.
We both agree that there should be a test and evaluation board of engineers with combat arms backgrounds, who will actually have to deploy to hostile-fire zones with any new designs before giving a stamp of approval, rather than the retired Colonels and Generals who have to train their gag-reflex not to function when they push whatever company's horrible products as a lobbyist or contractor to grease the Pentagon system. It's pretty much SOP in that demonic town of D.C.
I saw a lot of it first-hand when I was stationed there, especially at AUSA and other conventions. A guy with a huge salary that was an O-6 or above retires after 25 years on active duty, jumps right into work for one of the numerous defense contractors, drinks the company cool-aid after seeing his salary, and pushes whatever system they are selling like it's good as gold.
A few years later, when I was in LRS, we had these defense contractor types come issue us some silly field heater pack gizmos, and they mentioned that they had been involved with the LBV design. I proceeded to let them know what a piece of crap it was with the maybe 300 denier fabric it was made of, the tiny mag pouches that could only hold a candy bar or pens after being soaked and dried, and some other issues with it. One SGM (Ret) who was part of this committee tried to tell me how those inboard pouches were set-up for lying in the prone, and that they didn't need to be capable of holding two mags. I had already cut them off of mine and sewn on some 1000 denier Cordura Woodland Camo GP pouches that could hold plenty of mags, SAW ammo, 203 rounds, NOD's, etc. regardless of what duty position or weapon system I needed to fill.
Anyway, an active prototype and field test engineer team would really make a lot more sense. Have students in Ranger School and the Q-Course evaluate products after that for durability, and then make necessary improvements. The PEO system is pretty weak, if you ask me. I looked at their site recently, and they couldn't even get the nomenclatures correct on their own systems, which were in the hands of Military District of Washington soldiers in pristine kit. The new systems seem to be bulkier and heavier than what they're replacing, especially the grenade launcher that is supposed to bump the 203 out of the system. Major fails...
LRRPF52