Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - KAC LMG (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:03:41 PM EDT
This was posted in a GD topic here. Here's the Knight's Armament page: www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html Anyone have anymore information on this? Looks fairly cool to me. |
|
Old news....This is the Stoner 86, the last MG Eugene Stoner designed. It was submitted to the DoD during the extended-SAW trials most notably along with the submission from Ford Aerospace and Rodman Labs. According to C.Reed Knight, Stoner used all of the best features of the Stoner 63 in his new model 86. As far as 5.56 SAW's go, its among the best... The model submitted to the DoD was 4lbs lighter than the M249 and had a simpler and more reliable belt actuator. IIRC, it was twice as powerful as the M249's despite having fewer parts. The Stoner 86 also has a much thinner and more ergonomic profile. Its magazine feed also containes fewer parts and actually works. Unlike the M249, the Stoner 86 uses a long-stroke action. This makes for less wear and tear and makes the weapon more controllable. The Stoner 86 is also sans an adjustible gas regulator. After the 63's rejection, Stoner was cognisant to not include anything that could possibly add complexity to the weapon. If you design the weapon with enough varaibles/tolerances, you would never need an adjustible gas rejulator anyway. The weapon straddles the line between a SAW and a Stoner 63 type "system". When it was first submitted, it was reliably tested with several different barrel lengths. It took FN some time to perfect the Para model, and they still have some work to do IMO. For all of its merit, the Stoner 63 was excessively complicated. Even special forces troops struggled to keep it running at times. Even after a development process, it would have been a very complicated weapon. There is such a thing as "too modular". Not every PFC needs the ability to convert his weapon to Bren configuration when he feels like it. While not a total system, the Stoner 86 can be magazine fed and accept several different barrel lengths. With a short barrel and magazine, you would have some semblance of a CQB carbine, albiet a heavy/complicated one. Comparing the Stoner 86 to the 63, the 86 comes out ahead. Its much more reliable due to lessons learned and the simplification of several systems. Compared to the M249 and Mk46, the Stoner 86 again comes out on top. The Stoner 86 is everything the Mk46 Mod 0 wishes it could be. Its as much as 5+ pounds lighter and it uses a much more reliable/durable operating system. As Sullivan/Ultimax and Stoner have proven, long-stroke operation is superior for a 5.56 SAW. I have some pretty interesting literature on this gun and if you feel like the above didn't answer your specific questions, I can try and look up the answers. As some of you may recall, there was a huge clammering after Operation Desert Storm to replace the SAW. Now, the SAW has faired as poorly. Not just in US service, but in UK service as well. Soldier confidence and reliaiblity is very poor. The USMC has already started using independent aqusition funds/means to explore a new SAW and the UK has started re-fielding L86 LSW's. The development that has gone into the Mk46/Mk48, the USMC's testing of the Ultimax and HK G43 and now the Stoner 86 resurfacing after 15+ years is proof a new SAW trial is about to begin. I have always felt the SAW question is best answered by a dedicated automatic rifle in addition to a belt-fed SAW type weapon. The Stoner 86 is a very comfortable "in between" IMO. |
Magazine fed SAW = fail. |
While the 249 might choke on mags, the Ultimax, actually, runs well and has proved to be very reliable. |
This is a rumor I carried a SAW for 3 years, and yes you can't feed mags full of blanks but with live ammo the mags feed great and are reliablbe. Blanks choke but the rifle is not designed to fire blanks. The problem is so many soldiers have only fired blamks out of the mags since there is always live belted ammo but never enough belted balmk ammo. So most have never fired live rounds out of a MAG in a SAW. |
|
Guys I'm not talking about the M249 not running out of mags. I know it chokes on blanks and works better (but not perfect) with live rounds. I was a SAW gunner in the Marines for two years. What I'm saying is that the idea of a magazine fed squad automatic weapon (like the Ultimax) is just dumb. |
No, it was several years too late for those tests. The KAC revamped version did reportedly participate in the trials which led to the adoption of the FN Mk 46 Mod 0. If you look closely at some of the early photos of the KAC version, the receiver displayed still had the original Ares Inc. markings. |
Hmmm? The Philippine Marines that I have talked to wished they had a magazine fed MG when they go to Mindanao so that they dont have to baby the belts from mud,dirt,humanblood etc. for the gun to work properly 
|
Read the manual on the M-249 it states that the use of mags is for emergencies after belt ammo has been exhausted I think it is a good idea to be able to use M-16 mags in the SAWs, it is better than an M-9. As far as stupid mag fed squad support weapons, the 1918 BAR, the Fg-42, the RPK 47, RPK 74, and the Bren gun all would stand to disagree and those designs have alot of proven reliability and combat use behind them. |
|
It's "just dumb"? Any reason for this comment or are you just doing a "NO I HATE BROCCOLI!"? There is nothing dumb about it. You can carry a few 100 round drum magazines just as easy as you can carry a few boxes of linked 5.56. Only difference is when you shoot up all the linked ammo with a SAW you're fucked. It's a more reliable system in the Ultimax. |
Yes, but if you drop that 100 round plastic drum mag and break any part of it your f**ked, with a belt you generally dont' lose your feed system or the ability to fire all 100 rounds from a small drop- links are pretty durable, and 100 round nutsacks are pretty hard to break too! 
|
|
Dropping your magazine and having it break is no more of a serious concern with a machinegun as it is with a rifle. You'd have to really chunk a mag like that against a brick wall with considerable force to do anything that would effect function. And also, if you drop your linked ammo in the sand or dirt you may not have to worry about you linked ammo "breaking", but if you are trying to put sandy ammo that you dropped on the ground in a SAW, even after shaking it off, you are wasting your time. SAWs are picky little fuckers and they always have been. The MK46s we were issued later were marginally better, but still nothing that would make me feel confident in it. Drum magazines for MGs = more reliable feeding, keeps ammo and the actioncleaner, faster to load mags with a LULA than to link ammo, and if you run out of ammo in the mags you just load more. |
The BAR was WWI technology. It was obsolete before WWII ever began and it's simply amazing that we continued to use it for so long. Yes, the BAR has a proven combat record. So does its contemporary, the M1903. The FG-42 is not a SAW, and was never intended to be one. It was designed as a general issue rifle for paratroopers because of German experiences with paratroopers losing their crew served weapons on combat drops and being stuck with SMGs. It was not a success. It was too expensive, and the early model suffered from high parts breakage and was completely uncontrollable in full auto. The later version was better but it's a stretch to call any weapon with a total production of less than 7,000 as a "success". The RPK and RPK-74 are just big AKs. They fail on the basis of not having quick change barrels, for starters. The RPK-74 fails further for being issued with a 40 round magazine. The Bren gun is by far the best gun you listed, but its time has come and gone too, and it's been replaced with, wait for it, a belt fed 5.56mm SAW. |
I have a hard time taking any of your comments seriously after reading this. Are you saying it's faster to load drum magazines than link ammo by hand?  While this is obviously true, it's also stupid as no one EVER links ammo by hand.Drum magazines are bulky. Think about a 600rd combat load...6 drum mags. Compare that to 3 plastic SAW drums or 6 nutsacks (and nutsacks are tiny). Then think about retention. Are you going to expect gunners to retain their, presumably expensive, empty drums? Plastic M249 drums can be discarded at will. "if you run out of ammo in the mags you just load more" Where? On the battlefield? Bust out your LULA and a bando of 5.56 on strippers? Yeah that's real convienent and effective. Belted ammo requires no preparation whatsoever. If you run out, get some more, slap it on the feed tray, and go. |
My point is if you deplete your supplies of linked ammunition in the field there is no more unless you're linking it by hand. I've put live rounds through SAWs with STANAG mags and they STILL jam. Would I expect gunners to retain their drums? Of fucking course. You expect soldiers to retain anything they are issued but if they don't who cares? We waste money on far more idiotic shit than magazines for our machinegunners overseas. Sure, it may take a couple seconds to stuff it in a pouch or a ruck, but it takes more than a couple seconds to get a fresh belt loaded into a SAW. You expect soldiers to retain their STANAG mags but if they lose them they aren't going to get an article 15 for losing a sensitive item or anything. They are several situations where I can see someone loading up 100 round drums for an MG. A lull in a firefight, after an engagement before proceeding to a new objective, being stranded in the middle of downtown Mogadishu with no support and no linked ammo. It seems to me you're just making things that aren't issues at all into just that. "DRUM MAGAZINES!? PREPOSTEROUS! HOW WILL WE CARRY THEM!?" In a fucking pouch. "IT TAKES FOREVER TO RELOAD THEM!" It takes forever to link SAW ammo by hand if you don't have a nice can of ammo ready to go, if the soldier even knows how. You're dead wrong when you say belt ammo requires no preparation, it requires preparation, it's just done at the factory. And when all that ammo that was linked at the factory is gone that's it unless you want to "POPS" your way through 30 round STANAG magazines during a firefight. |
|
I think that there are a couple schools of thought on the LMG. The first one is that an LMG should be belt fed. While this is nice for a sustained base of fire, it isn't always what the fight calls for. Sure, you get 100-200 rounds at a time, but those belts ar heavy and the weapon is heavier. Then there is the problem of first round ignition. It takes forever to change the belt on an LMG and this is exasperated on a two-way range. It is a two-handed operation and, at the least, requires the operator to take a knee to accomplish the task. When he or she is trying to do this quickly in the middle of a drama, the chances of not getting a first round iginition is increased because of mis-loading the belt. This is where a magazine-fed LMG shines. You can still get plenty of sustained fire from a magazine-fed, open-bolt LMG - even with 30rd mags. A good example of this is the LWRCI Infantry Automatic Rifle. The IAR is a closed bolt semi-auto/ open blot full auto rifle that gives the gunner the ability to place accurate fire on a target in semi-auto from a closed bolt, or suppressive fire on an area from an open-bolt. It uses standard M-16 mags. |
|
The basic problem I see with the concept of drum magazines is that they tend to be heavy and bulky. More weight for the same quantity of ammunition equals fail. As for the Stoner 63, I've had the priviledge of speaking to one of the handful of Marines who carried and used one in Vietnam, and he had only the best of things to say about the rifle. Evidence seems to suggest that it's a true shame the Marine Corps never adopted it on a larger scale, or even allowed for widespread testing. |
|
For a SAW/LMG, belt fed as the only way to go. There has yet to be a suitible 5.56 drum than can compare to belts in terms of relaibilty/durability. Around 2005, the DoD experimented with using Beta C mags in both M16's and M249's to simplify re-supply, especially in Afghanistan. While an excellent idea, it failed for a few reasons. The Beta Cmag isn't suitible for combat use. In addition to being less than reliable its also expensive and fragile. Releasing a Cmag from your M4 upon the rocks of Trashcanistan isn't going to end well. They also require some degree of technical knowledge to use effectively. I was at Denny's/GTS when a customer was looking at a Cmag and removed the "faux bullet" follower. Oops. Lubrication is also an issue...In any event, it takes more specialized knowledge to use a Cmag than a USGI 30. Carrying the magazines was also an issue. They are heavy and don't fit into stanard pouches. Are you supposed to have like 6 Cmag pouches hanging off your vest? I dunno...Pictures I saw showed soldiers carrying them in a "box",with 4 Cmags stored inside. Very similar to the WW2 German "drum" carriers, except they held 4 and were some type of polymer. Not only were the magazines a no-go, the M249 doesn't work well*at all* with magazines. The operating system is too violent, the bolt movenment too intense to function reliabily with magazines. It was designed to pull heavy belts, not feed from magazines. I am glad that one user had good luck feeding his M249 from magazines. You are the exception, hardly the rule...I have seen M249's feed from STANAG magazines, but they had hopped up springs and followers. Even then, they didn't work great. Feeing an M249 SAW from USGI 30's or Cmags is a no-go. There is no advantage in using a drum over a belt... However, I believe there is a need for an automatic rifle similar in application to the BAR, RPK or Bren. The British seem to agree, as they have been dusting off thier L86 LSW's to supplement and replace thier Minimi's for a variety of roles. Most uniquely, as a DMR/spotters weapon. The L85/L86 are incredibly accurate, especially the LSW. It can be used effectively as both a SAW and DMR. A nice feature if a band of insurgents run through your area of responsibility. I think the US could benefit from a light automatic rifle. LWRC makes a very interesting specimen. It uses an op-rod*duh* and can fire in both closed and open bolt. It could be used as both a rifle and a light support weapon. This weapon could be used with some type of drum, for which a development cycle would need to be had. When I saw "light automatic rifle", I am thinking of something like the LMT monolithic rail upper. I picture an 18 inch HBAR with an improved quick-change barrel capability and some type of op-rod or gas piston operation. DI isn't suitible for this application... Give it a bi-pod,effective FH/comp/suppressor, adjustible stock and ACOG and you are in business. Depending on how it was configured, you could have someting in the 10-12 lb range or less. I think we need both a new SAW, such as the HK G43, KAC LMG or Ultimax. This also needs to be supplemented with an automatic rifle varient or our service rifle. Other nations have been doing this for years. AUG, G36, L85 and more LSW variants exist and supplement LMG's. Its not one of the other, its gotta be both. |
+1 |
The LWRC is not a solution. It is just another attempt to turn an AR-15 into a LMG which will fail. |
|
The AR15 fails at being a SAW no more than the M249 does. Every time I say something about how the M249 sucks there is always some joker who comes out saying "I carried one for X amount of years in the Air Force and it was great!" or some shit but truth is that it fails as a reliable and durable weapons system and no amount of cake eating debutants trying to convince me otherwise will ever succeed or be able to fully conceal the fact. Anyway, give me a 240B (I'd rather carry an extra 20lbs) or give me this. http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=853 http://www.defensereview.com/stories/ultimax/U100%20DefReview%20mpg.avi |
The AR15 is not a SAW. It is a rifle. It is not designed to handle sustained automatic fire. The parts are not heavy duty enough. |
|
Ultimax or Steyr HBAR for the WIN. The ultimax is so smooth and low in perceived recoil because it uses a long travel recoil design. The bolt is allowed to run completely out of movement without hitting anything before returning to battery, smoothing out the impulses. The AR uses a similar idea but not quite as evolved. |
|
Yes, an AR15 LMG will ultimatly fail. Its been tried by Colt, J.A. Ceiner, Ares and others. The LMG is where they go wrong...The AR15 will never be an LMG. However, with the proper modifications to the gas system and such it could be a servicable "light automatic rifle". If LSW versions of the G36, AUG and L86 can be used successfully in combat so can an appropriate American design. Clearly, these guns can't hold a candle to a SAW, however thats not an appropriate use of them. The indications for a light automatic rifle are different than those for a SAW/LMG. An 18 inch purpose built HK416 upper, with a simplified LMT style quick change barrel system, hydraulic buffer and other features would make an excellent SAW supplement. Not alternative, but supplement. As the English have proven with thier innovative use of the L86 LSW as of late, there is a definate requirement for such a weapon. An AR15 will never be an LMG, however an appropriate design could be a light automatic rifle. |
Why? Not being a smartass but what facts do you have to support this? Genuinely wanting to understand here. |
The AUG is not used by the US. It is more complicated than an AR15 and it is a bullpup which has issues by itself. It offers nothing over a Colt 750 series support weapon. |
So what if we don't use it. We don't use most of the weapons mentioned in this thread. The AUG is NOT more complicated.  In fact, it retardedly simple. Being a bullpup makes it easier to stow and allows a 24" barrel that makes M-249 ballistics from it's joke of a barrel length utterly laughable. Southpaws shoot "righty" weapons all the time. With training they will get used to it or they can swap the bolt to a left.On top of that, it can even be used in a limited DMR role in S/A. AUG as a LSW is full of win. |
|
One negative that I see with the magazine fed Automatic Rifle is that the amount of ammunition a Soldier/Marine could carry would be substantially less. It is quite possible right now for a SAW gunner to carry ~700rds by himself, while individual fireteam members might carry spare drums to supplement this. That is a decent amount of ammo to put down range while your buddies are moving. I just don't see an effective amount of suppressive fire being laid down by a current box-fed LMG. This is not to say that they do not have a role in replacing some of the SAWs or assisting the SAW-gunners in their role. |
For some guns I would agree, the Ultimax or AUG though both have more unique drums or mags available than most and you could carry alot of them or use mags from those around you. I use the 42rd mags in my Steyrs all the time. Love them. Perfect size IMO. |
|
I agree the Ultimax (does the Ultimax feed from a mag also?) and AUG are probably the best magazine fed alternatives out there, but how many magazines can you effectively carry? I'm guessing not much more than 10 42rders (maybe carry more in some type of satchel). As for the Ultimax's drums, they don't look disposable, which I think is a must. I've never handled an Ultimax or its drum, so I don't have an idea of the size. But if they store as well or better than a SAW, that's pretty sweet. |
An AUG has 3 to 6 more parts in it depending on how you count them over an AR-15. You cannot shoot an AUG left handed on the fly. The brass will eject into your face. |
That hardly means it's complicated. I bet you counted individual TG parts, I count the AUG hammer pack as one part.... With an AUG, if you have hammer or "trigger" problems you swap out the whole pack for another in approx 10 seconds. DONE. Barrel 5 seconds. DONE. B/C group 10-15 seconds DONE.
No you can't but unless they are shooting around a left handed barricade the person can just shoot right handed. Even with a barricade, there are "work arounds" that can be improvised. |
I'm counting the moving parts assembly. An AR-15 does not have a bolt shroud, a firing pin spring, gas rods, valves, etc. The AUG actively cams its bolt while the AR15 uses a passive cam system. People say an AR15 is complicated, yet every other assault rifle has more moving parts in it than an AR15. The trigger pack is not one part in an AUG. The AUG is not a bad weapon but it is not better than an AR15. |
I agree, the AR is not complicated, neither is the AUG. I count the hammer pack as one part because it is installed or replaced as an assembly. Have a problem, replace the pack and fix the other at your leisure. Personally, I believe the AUG to, at the very least, be the AR/M series equal. If I was to grab a 223/5.56 rifle to defend myself, it would be one of those 2, bar none, over anything else. |
Here is a stack of 42rd AUG mags next to an AR mag...   An AUG gunner could easily carry 750 rds in purpose made pouches. Picks of one of my AUG babies...      |
|
The problem comes down to doctrine really. American's have been wedded to a belt fed SAW for a generation. Before that, not so much. Pro's to a belt fed SAW: sustained fire for defense Con's to a belt fed SAW: generally heavy open bolt means they are (by doctrine/ROE) not the first to in to clear rooms to heavy to keep up with riflemen/grenadiers in the assault can't use the rest of the squad's ammo (for all practical purposes using a belt means it is a different ammo type than mags - might as well go to a specific SAW caliber optimized for the role) Pro's to a mag fed SAW: light enough to keep up with riflemen/grenadiers commonality of ammo/feed system possible to double as a DMR (open bolt auto, closed bolt semi) Con's to a mag fed SAW: lower sustained fire in defense (mag fed) - this can be solved by developing larger mags (see Ultimax et al) lower's a individual fireteams firepower I'm of the position that Belt Fed saws are generally not a good idea. If you are toting a belt feed, it might as well be a full size 762 weapon. There is nothing preventing a mag fed open bolt auto closed bolt semi with or without a QC barrel from being an effective SAW. Given than 90% of the time most US infantry operate in larger elements with MG's or operate out of vehicles with MG's, the lack of defensive firepower is not that great of a loss. And consider the belt fed saw is firing the same round as your M16/M4, it doesn't even impart greater ballistics like a M240 would. As far as a lack of fire team firepower, if you are sending a single fireteam on a mission, you are not getting much down anyway beltfed SAW or not. Considering the urban nature of current and most likely furture combat, being handy inside a building should be noted. Hell I think all standard issue rifles should have the open bolt auto/closed bolt semi option. With commercial systems like the LMT MRP and the MGI Hydra, it should be possible to design a quick change barrel system that is sufficiently light to be comparible to a standard issue weapon. 4 such rifles in a team; and in an age where everyone has a automatic/burst weapon, the "automatic riflemen" position and the dedicated weapon he uses just seems so old fashioned. Give half the men a carbine with a grenade launcher and the other half a rifle and maybe a spare barrel and a few large capacity mags for defense. All should be trained to use automatic assault rifle fire effectively when the situation dictates - TL should be directing where/when it is used. Want more firepower? Attach a MG team to the squad, or form a dedicated third fire team built around a M240. Another aspect that should not be overlooked is the "grass is greener" syndrome. There is always the preception to overlook the advantages of your own weapon's systems and only see the disadvantages. In turn you also only see the advantages of what-you-dont-have systems and never the disadvantages. Witness the British turn to the M249 away from their mag fed LSW (in fairness they went with the para SAW and the LSW wasn't really great fro quick change mags or using any kind of drum system). Edit: My ideal infantry standard issue weapon would be a AR layout open bolt auto, closed bolt semi with a AUG style QC barrel system and 40-100 round drum/large mags for automatic fire (only carry a few, the rest 30 rounders). Those mags could be C-mag style, ultimax style, quad stack or something - as long as it is compact for the rounds it carries and is reliable. 4 rifles, 6 barrels and 2 grenade launchers issued per fire team. Totally with in todays technology. |
|
One big reason against a belt-fed 7.62 SAW, which you omitted, is ammo weight. For a given mass, you get significantly more belts of 5.56mm than 7.62mm. If a SAW is a "volume fire" weapon, more ammo is always better. As for the AUG, the one big problem I see is that 10% of the populace is left-handed. Converting the weapon to lefty doesn't address potential battlefield issues of using a pick-up weapon in a bad situation. A lefty simply cannot use a "righty" AUG. For example, a few men get pinned down, one lefty one righty. The righty gets wounded and taken out of the fight and the lefty's rifle jams. Those men are screwed if armed with AUG's. With M16's, the lefty grabs his buddy's rifle and keeps up the fight. |
True putting a MG in place of a SAW will incurr weight penalties, but it isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting formalizing the often task organized attachment of a MG team to the existing squad. Better put (for US Army) go to three teams per squad, the one of which is a fire support team based around a MG team. 1 MG and three to help lug ammo. An alternative could be 2 SAW's instead of the MG in this fire support team. The remaining teams would be all riflemen/grenadiers used for assault/CQB. I'm just not convinced a properly designed standard issue rifle with large capacity magazines and a QC barrel can't sustain the same level of real world firepower as a SAW. When was the last time a belt fed SAW fired one 200 round continuous burst? They are almost always used in burst fire, and for the odd long string 30, 40 or 50 rounds in a magazine is sufficient to cover this need. And it isn't like the AR platform doesn't have one of the quickest mag release/changing systems out there. You get the same level of firepower for almost all missions and the system is lighter, and potentially every riflemen can deliver SAW level suppressive firepower when the situation calls for it. |
We are arguing concept here are we not? The fact is a mag fed SAW is a proven combat weapon, I carrie an M-249 for 2 years in the 82nd and it is a great weapon, however it is still only marginally superior to the RPKs we faced in Iraq when they are fitted with 75 rnd drums. The quick change barrel is an advantage but I rarely saaw them used in training and never in combat. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - KAC LMG (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor