User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:26:36 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M4A1(SOCOM barrel, RAS, full auto trigger, ambi safety, etc) runs around $650 or so, M27 runs closer to $2,500-$3,000 sans optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:28:28 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Glad you brought up door kicking, because it was a primary reason belt fed weapons don't belong in the squad. An open bolt weapon, belt or magazine fed, has no certainty it will fire a single round when the trigger is pulled, thus it is a liability in urban warfare that requires everyone in a rifle squad to be able to get into a stack and clear a room. So what good is a squad support weapon when it limits that person to not being able to effectively perform the duties of a squad member? Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). So I have a few specific problems here:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:36:39 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But do they both work as well as piston for full auto suppressed? There is going to be more blowback of gas into the upper receiver and BCG area, and its going to be happening more so much much hotter gas and more of it. A piston gun you're controlling the rate of fire better and only gas back into upper is blowback from can. With DI, all the normal gas from firing plus blowback, so double it. Again, I don't know more than what I've read on this, maybe this is just a simple engineering project. But my understanding was CAG specifically went with the HK416 because they were expecting to go short barreled (10.5-14.5), go full auto, and go suppressed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not fanboi of HK or piston guns, and I'm not an engineer. But I've read that when it comes to short barrel (I guess 14.5" qualifies), lots of full auto, and suppressor use, piston is the way to go. We're going to be using these carbines for rifleman and DM work, but also IAR duty, they need to be able to function well on full auto, and the times appear that all suppressor, all the time is likely on the horizon, so we better start designing our weapons to work well in full auto while suppressed. Because if we don't, we're still stuck with a weapon that either wont work well suppressed (which then means reliability issues or tactical problems from going sans suppressor), and eventually we're just going to have to fix that problem anyway. Maybe a simple adjustable gas block on a normal DI gas system is enough. I don't know enough to answer it it, but however, adjustable gas regulator is something that NEEDS to be on the next service rifle. Again, I don't know more than what I've read on this, maybe this is just a simple engineering project. But my understanding was CAG specifically went with the HK416 because they were expecting to go short barreled (10.5-14.5), go full auto, and go suppressed. The adjustable gas bock is the easy solution, in my mind, vs a piston system rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:41:08 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, they ditched it. The MG34 was not reliable in dirty or cold conditions and new methods were being developed to make production more effective for stamp machining. The high rate of fire worked well because MG42 were often shooting at things that weren't people, it being the infantry battalion's only air defense weapon, it needed a very high rate of fire to ensure hits on fast moving low flying enemy aircraft. The high rate of fire was thought to work well for bipod firing, as the weapon would get off more rounds before the shooter was beat to fuck out of position from the heavy 7.92mm recoil, they basically considered it a shotgun. That was the theory, but the reality was that the cone of fire was still an initial shot dead on and subsequent shots going higher and higher, so as a shotgun its pattern was a straight line upwards, so the likelihood of hitting a point target multiple times was not significantly increased unless the weapon was fired from a pintle mount that absorbed some recoil, off the tripod at a point target, or superbly loaded on the bipod by a very competent gunner shooting from a near perfect position. In the tripod mounted HMG role (Germans didn't have water cooled, being GPMG they used their MG34 and MG42 for that duty too by switching barrels as often as needed, with gun teams carrying 3-4 spare barrels headspaced to that one weapon) the high rate of fire was actually detrimental, as it limited the length of time the gun could be fired due to ammo concerns (it fired twice as fast as other HMGs, necessitating twice the ammo), or if fired in very short burst (1 second=ten rounds), it couldn't fire as many bursts as needed to adequately suppress an area target for extended periods. The purpose of a slow rate of fire for a MMG is largely because slow is better than fast with area fire. The greatest achievement of the high rate of fire was with reliability, the MG42 being delayed blowback operated meant that if the gun was dirty as hell, the ammo filthy, everything frost covered, its rate of fire would slow but the timing would still not get fucked up. So in perfect conditions they fired 1,200-1,500 rpm, but in cold, dirty conditions they'd fire 800-1,000 rpm, they still fired. In the same conditions, the MG34 simply would not fire. Another factor that worked well with the high rate of fire was the psychological factor that came from the sound of the gun firing, which sometimes would ground advancing infantry. Similar to the fear induced by the sound of tank engines approaching, the terror sound of incoming Nebelwerfer rockets, the MG42 did have a magnified suppressive role because of the sound of its rapid shots. Lastly, and this can't be emphasized enough, by the time the MG42 was being issued out in mass the Germans were largely relegated to defensive warfare. Any machine gun, even a Chauchet, would have been effective in those situations. Weight was often not a concern, movement of ammo was generally not a concern, they were often firing from prepared positions at enemy they could channel into kill zones with obstancles, knowing the ground in advance allowing them to target avenues of approach, etc. While the Germans had very serious problem having enough artillery and mortar rounds, and radios to guide them, they always seemed to be able to make enough small arms ammo and supply it to the front lines, so that also increased the effectiveness of their usage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:44:08 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank god HK makes a non spec magazine well. because, proprietary bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:46:36 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also have issue with considering it inherently more accurate than the basic DI gun in the first place. If you put a better barrel and bolt on a FF M16 you'd likely get better accuracy than any piston gun, and for a fraction of the price of the HK you could buy some damn fine barrels and bolts. AFAIK DI tends to be inherently more accurate than piston due to the lack of off-bore reciprocating mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:53:27 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Glad you brought up door kicking, because it was a primary reason belt fed weapons don't belong in the squad. An open bolt weapon, belt or magazine fed, has no certainty it will fire a single round when the trigger is pulled, thus it is a liability in urban warfare that requires everyone in a rifle squad to be able to get into a stack and clear a room. So what good is a squad support weapon when it limits that person to not being able to effectively perform the duties of a squad member? Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). This. All of fucking this. Bounding with the SAW is a major bitch as well, and you can only move as fast as your slowest guy can stay on line. As a SAW gunner, yes, suppression is nice, but give me an actual automatic rifle, not a belt fed death machine, too big, too bulky, too heavy, awkward shitty reloads, fucking hell at night with no lum, gerber tool malf clearing etc are all problems with the saw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:53:53 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glad you brought up door kicking, because it was a primary reason belt fed weapons don't belong in the squad. An open bolt weapon, belt or magazine fed, has no certainty it will fire a single round when the trigger is pulled, thus it is a liability in urban warfare that requires everyone in a rifle squad to be able to get into a stack and clear a room. So what good is a squad support weapon when it limits that person to not being able to effectively perform the duties of a squad member? Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). I suspect that much of what you describe contributed to the Soviet choice of ditching the RPD in favor of a beefed up AKM with the RPK. Manual of arms is all the same, everything is the same except reinforcement to the receiver, heavier/longer barrel, and bipod. I still like the RPD and many better-trained soldiers really liked it too for a Squad-level light support weapon. The USMC never wanted the SAW to begin with, always wanted some type of heavy barreled M16 for an IAR gunner even dating back to the 1970s. The Army tried putting the M60 into the Rifle Squad as a Light Support Weapon in Vietnam, even though it's a GPMG more appropriate for Platoon support, and really handicapped the maneuverability and firepower endurance of the rifle squad by doing so. The Army realized this was a failure, and while temporarily designating Automatic Riflemen with M16A1s with double basic load and clip-on sheet metal bipod, they began the SAW solicitation and trials. They were onto a good track with the 6mm SAW, but let the logistics argument kill it. Several of the initial XM SAW prototypes were chambered in 6mm SAW, which would have been an excellent Squad and even limited Platoon support capability, since it exceeded the 800m effective range goals. Once the logistics argument won out, they reverted to 5.56 and just penciled-in "out to 800m". The US Army drove weapon procurement at the time, and still is the largest center of gravity when it comes to US military small arms, so the USMC gets dragged along in the end with most of these things. Some of the designs that stick out as I look over all of this are: * The Stoner 63A System approach, which the Marines showed interest in when it was introduced. You can configure it for belt-fed, mag-fed, commando, LSW, vehicle, tripod, nothing like it really. It would have been an amazing LSW in 6mm. Can be open or closed bolt. * The Ford XM248 (open bolt, dual-piston, sprocket feed, less moving parts than any MG42 transverse feed system) * The H&K XM262 (like an HK21 but in 5.56) * FN Minimi XM249 and variants, especially the Mk.46 * The Ultimax 100 LMG (constant recoil operating system, mag/drum fed, quick barrel change) * Israeli Negev (mag or belt fed without mods, single hand quick barrel change) I still think an Arms Rooms approach for task organization for the Mission Enemy Troops, etc. is the way to go. For a USMC Rifle Squad with 13 pipe-swingers, you have a lot of flexibility with 3 Fire Teams, where you can have your Lead and Middle Fire Teams with IARs, and the Trail Team with a PIP SAW, or all 3 with IARs, 2 with SAWs and 1 with IAR if you are tasked for support element with SBF position for a raid or deliberate attack. Ranger Regiment has chosen to keep the Mk.46s and PIP SAWs in inventory last I checked, so a belt-fed in the Squad is not without merit, but they also have way more time dedicated to training than other units do, with very competent gunners in a culture where the guns have to be earned much of the time. They also have a budget that other units will never have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 2:56:36 PM EST
[#9]
Glad to see the branches capable of using the same round
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:02:16 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was under the impression that with most gas operated firearms that the piston has moved very, very little by the time the bullet exits the muzzle. Perhaps I am wrong on that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I also have issue with considering it inherently more accurate than the basic DI gun in the first place. If you put a better barrel and bolt on a FF M16 you'd likely get better accuracy than any piston gun, and for a fraction of the price of the HK you could buy some damn fine barrels and bolts. AFAIK DI tends to be inherently more accurate than piston due to the lack of off-bore reciprocating mass. More than anything they are just too pricey compared to DI and I'm not sure they do anything an adjustable gas block couldn't do for a fraction of the price. All of the accuracy advantage of the HK could be replicated cheaper in DI guns by simply using better parts, primarily the barrel and bolt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:03:40 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The training aspect of feeding, correcting malfs, and maintaining a belt-fed weapon are not to be overlooked for sure. I suspect that much of what you describe contributed to the Soviet choice of ditching the RPD in favor of a beefed up AKM with the RPK. Manual of arms is all the same, everything is the same except reinforcement to the receiver, heavier/longer barrel, and bipod. I still like the RPD and many better-trained soldiers really liked it too for a Squad-level light support weapon. The USMC never wanted the SAW to begin with, always wanted some type of heavy barreled M16 for an IAR gunner even dating back to the 1970s. The Army tried putting the M60 into the Rifle Squad as a Light Support Weapon in Vietnam, even though it's a GPMG more appropriate for Platoon support, and really handicapped the maneuverability and firepower endurance of the rifle squad by doing so. The Army realized this was a failure, and while temporarily designating Automatic Riflemen with M16A1s with double basic load and clip-on sheet metal bipod, they began the SAW solicitation and trials. They were onto a good track with the 6mm SAW, but let the logistics argument kill it. Several of the initial XM SAW prototypes were chambered in 6mm SAW, which would have been an excellent Squad and even limited Platoon support capability, since it exceeded the 800m effective range goals. Once the logistics argument won out, they reverted to 5.56 and just penciled-in "out to 800m". The US Army drove weapon procurement at the time, and still is the largest center of gravity when it comes to US military small arms, so the USMC gets dragged along in the end with most of these things. Some of the designs that stick out as I look over all of this are: * The Stoner 63A System approach, which the Marines showed interest in when it was introduced. You can configure it for belt-fed, mag-fed, commando, LSW, vehicle, tripod, nothing like it really. It would have been an amazing LSW in 6mm. Can be open or closed bolt. * The Ford XM248 (open bolt, dual-piston, sprocket feed, less moving parts than any MG42 transverse feed system) * The H&K XM262 (like an HK21 but in 5.56) * FN Minimi XM249 and variants, especially the Mk.46 * The Ultimax 100 LMG (constant recoil operating system, mag/drum fed, quick barrel change) * Israeli Negev (mag or belt fed without mods, single hand quick barrel change) I still think an Arms Rooms approach for task organization for the Mission Enemy Troops, etc. is the way to go. For a USMC Rifle Squad with 13 pipe-swingers, you have a lot of flexibility with 3 Fire Teams, where you can have your Lead and Middle Fire Teams with IARs, and the Trail Team with a PIP SAW, or all 3 with IARs, 2 with SAWs and 1 with IAR if you are tasked for support element with SBF position for a raid or deliberate attack. Ranger Regiment has chosen to keep the Mk.46s and PIP SAWs in inventory last I checked, so a belt-fed in the Squad is not without merit, but they also have way more time dedicated to training than other units do, with very competent gunners in a culture where the guns have to be earned much of the time. They also have a budget that other units will never have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). I suspect that much of what you describe contributed to the Soviet choice of ditching the RPD in favor of a beefed up AKM with the RPK. Manual of arms is all the same, everything is the same except reinforcement to the receiver, heavier/longer barrel, and bipod. I still like the RPD and many better-trained soldiers really liked it too for a Squad-level light support weapon. The USMC never wanted the SAW to begin with, always wanted some type of heavy barreled M16 for an IAR gunner even dating back to the 1970s. The Army tried putting the M60 into the Rifle Squad as a Light Support Weapon in Vietnam, even though it's a GPMG more appropriate for Platoon support, and really handicapped the maneuverability and firepower endurance of the rifle squad by doing so. The Army realized this was a failure, and while temporarily designating Automatic Riflemen with M16A1s with double basic load and clip-on sheet metal bipod, they began the SAW solicitation and trials. They were onto a good track with the 6mm SAW, but let the logistics argument kill it. Several of the initial XM SAW prototypes were chambered in 6mm SAW, which would have been an excellent Squad and even limited Platoon support capability, since it exceeded the 800m effective range goals. Once the logistics argument won out, they reverted to 5.56 and just penciled-in "out to 800m". The US Army drove weapon procurement at the time, and still is the largest center of gravity when it comes to US military small arms, so the USMC gets dragged along in the end with most of these things. Some of the designs that stick out as I look over all of this are: * The Stoner 63A System approach, which the Marines showed interest in when it was introduced. You can configure it for belt-fed, mag-fed, commando, LSW, vehicle, tripod, nothing like it really. It would have been an amazing LSW in 6mm. Can be open or closed bolt. * The Ford XM248 (open bolt, dual-piston, sprocket feed, less moving parts than any MG42 transverse feed system) * The H&K XM262 (like an HK21 but in 5.56) * FN Minimi XM249 and variants, especially the Mk.46 * The Ultimax 100 LMG (constant recoil operating system, mag/drum fed, quick barrel change) * Israeli Negev (mag or belt fed without mods, single hand quick barrel change) I still think an Arms Rooms approach for task organization for the Mission Enemy Troops, etc. is the way to go. For a USMC Rifle Squad with 13 pipe-swingers, you have a lot of flexibility with 3 Fire Teams, where you can have your Lead and Middle Fire Teams with IARs, and the Trail Team with a PIP SAW, or all 3 with IARs, 2 with SAWs and 1 with IAR if you are tasked for support element with SBF position for a raid or deliberate attack. Ranger Regiment has chosen to keep the Mk.46s and PIP SAWs in inventory last I checked, so a belt-fed in the Squad is not without merit, but they also have way more time dedicated to training than other units do, with very competent gunners in a culture where the guns have to be earned much of the time. They also have a budget that other units will never have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:04:07 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not fanboi of HK or piston guns, and I'm not an engineer. But I've read that when it comes to short barrel (I guess 14.5" qualifies), lots of full auto, and suppressor use, piston is the way to go. We're going to be using these carbines for rifleman and DM work, but also IAR duty, they need to be able to function well on full auto, and the times appear that all suppressor, all the time is likely on the horizon, so we better start designing our weapons to work well in full auto while suppressed. Because if we don't, we're still stuck with a weapon that either wont work well suppressed (which then means reliability issues or tactical problems from going sans suppressor), and eventually we're just going to have to fix that problem anyway. Maybe a simple adjustable gas block on a normal DI gas system is enough. I don't know enough to answer it it, but however, adjustable gas regulator is something that NEEDS to be on the next service rifle. They said it unlocks earlier because of the instantaneous inertia from the piston, which is why HK tries to fight this with heavier buffer and heavier spring rate, which then come back at you on the return stroke for harder cycle impulses on the critical parts. The excessive cyclic rate causes hammer slap, hence the cage for the disconnector tail on the HK416A5. They also saw on high-speed camera that there is absolutely no difference in gas ejecta from the ejection port when running suppressed between standard AR15 and external piston-operated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:04:23 PM EST
[#13]
If the M27 boots the SAW from the fire teams and squads, what other belt fed options will the platoon have? Are the M240s a platoon integrated weapon, or are they a separate MG squad? What about the Mk 48 and Mk 46?. Do we plan for final protective fires with MGs with the IAR? In for knowledge. @steinhab.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:16:11 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the M27 boots the SAW from the fire teams and squads, what other belt fed options will the platoon have? Are the M240s a platoon integrated weapon, or are they a separate MG squad? What about the Mk 48 and Mk 46?. Do we plan for final protective fires with MGs with the IAR? In for knowledge. @steinhab. In the US Army, every Rifle Platoon has a Weapons Squad with 2 M240s, which was adopted after input from Ranger Regiment and the Light Fighter concepts taught to 7th ID and other Light Infantry Units in the 1980s. I think the USMC generally task-organizes with 2 x M240 gun teams attached to each Rifle Platoon, but the gun teams are part of Weapons Platoons where they have better support for their specific training that might not exist in the Rifle Platoon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:22:24 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USMC has M240 gunners in the Weapons Platoons, unless it's changed. In the US Army, every Rifle Platoon has a Weapons Squad with 2 M240s, which was adopted after input from Ranger Regiment and the Light Fighter concepts taught to 7th ID and other Light Infantry Units in the 1980s. I think the USMC generally task-organizes with 2 x M240 gun teams attached to each Rifle Platoon, but the gun teams are part of Weapons Platoons where they have better support for their specific training that might not exist in the Rifle Platoon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:26:07 PM EST
[#16]
In a mech unit with wheeled vehicles that have turrets and MGs; how does that play into the belt fed weapons allotment for a platoon element?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:35:24 PM EST
[#17]
The SAW became an imperative based upon the lessons of Malaysia/Vietnam/Rhodesia where close contact in limited visibility demanded maximum firepower.
You find yourself outside of the desert and you are going to be missing that available firepower. Average engagement at 500M and beyond or in a building is an artifact of our current desert fetish. Considering a stripped fighting load puts you at 50 pounds dry, not sure how another 10 on the weapon is changing mobility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:41:44 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a mech unit with wheeled vehicles that have turrets and MGs; how does that play into the belt fed weapons allotment for a platoon element? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:43:07 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:44:38 PM EST
[#20]
So.... what does the Marines do with their stupid ass, Support-by-fire rifle/Carbine?
Interchangability with ammo, seems pretty important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:46:32 PM EST
[#21]
We have been fighting groups of 3-8 people popping off a few rounds from 800M for 16 years. This leads to some flawed conclusions on the nature of warfare.
You can always park a weapon you don't need on the rack and take an extra M4. you can't do that when you don't have the weapon anymore. Could have changed the FCG and used a 16A4 to get 95% of what the Teutonic wonder weapon was bringing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:47:52 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have been people saying it for years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. If the goal is to suppress or reduce the enemy and you have precision fires capability using optics with a good barrel and can fire from the closed bolt, take the shot and pop some savage's melon. If you can't see him amongst the dust and fog of the 2-way range, but are taking incoming, you can rotate to AUTO and suppress in that direction. At night, there is less need to rock n' roll when you have NODs/TWS, and IR dominance and precision fire capability in many circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:50:41 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do think the Steinhab makes a valid argument about how Squad Support weapons with modern optics and Own The Night configuration bring new capabilities to bear that turn many of the older paradigms on their heads. If the goal is to suppress or reduce the enemy and you have precision fires capability using optics with a good barrel and can fire from the closed bolt, take the shot and pop some savage's melon. If you can't see him amongst the dust and fog of the 2-way range, but are taking incoming, you can rotate to AUTO and suppress in that direction. At night, there is less need to rock n' roll when you have NODs/TWS, and IR dominance and precision fire capability in many circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:52:32 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have been fighting groups of 3-8 people popping off a few rounds from 800M for 16 years. This leads to some flawed conclusions on the nature of warfare. You can always park a weapon you don't need on the rack and take an extra M4. you can't do that when you don't have the weapon anymore. Could have changed the FCG and used a 16A4 to get 95% of what the Teutonic wonder weapon was bringing. I always get the Blackhawk Down vibes whenever people justify trying to go lighter, because "hey guys, don't worry, we won't be out long enough." Deciding That your Automatic Riflemen should Carry rifles instead of light support weapons, based on hopes and assumptions. It seems like a fucking recipe for disaster. Eventually anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:54:48 PM EST
[#25]
I like gravy on my potatoes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:55:37 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sir, is it the wrong idea to say.... "Suck it up PFC pussy. You are carrying a belt fed light MG, because shit can hit the fan at any time on patrol. And if we ain't got it, we're fucked." ?? I always get the Blackhawk Down vibes whenever people justify trying to go lighter, because "hey guys, don't worry, we won't be out long enough." Deciding That your Automatic Riflemen should Carry rifles instead of light support weapons, based on hopes and assumptions. It seems like a fucking recipe for disaster. Eventually anyway. Its a full auto M16. Neva been dun before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 3:58:39 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This really feels to me like "fighting the last war"... Yes, lots of door kicking in Iraq, but how much has their been in Afghanistan? And should be be dropping belt-fed weapons under the presumption that our next war is going to be more door kicking? What if it's not? So you think MOUT is the past? Something like 87% of the world's population now lives in urban areas, more every year, cities are enlarging to the extent that we now classify many as megacities (with 10 million inhabitants or more), and you think fighting in urban areas is relegated to fighting the last war because Iraq ended six years ago? Wow. No wonder you have no idea what I'm talking about. MOUT isn't the last war, its going to be a factor in nearly EVERY future war. We can't rely on bayonets, hand grenades, or "Level it with arty" to clear structures, we need rifleman to do it and they need a weapon they know is at least going to fire the round chambered, which an open bolt, bolt or mag fed gun can't do. Afghanistan? Seriously, one of the most backwards fucking countries in the entire planet in terms of amount of rural vs urban land, and yet we still do a fuck ton of urban combat. So I really don't think you want to use that the archetype of tactics and weapons development to state MOUT is "fighting the last war" mindset. So I have a few specific problems here: The IAR is overpriced, over marketed, and just not that good. We could put a match barrel and free float M4's for 1/3-1/4 the price of this German space magic. Oh, and we could buy it from US manufactures, which I think is good. If an M4A1 runs great full auto while suppressed, is accurate enough for DM duties too as well as automatic rifle, then let's do it (after adding an adjust gas regulator of some kind). I'm not sold on HK, I don't really give a fuck which rifle gets used as long as its accurate, reliable, full auto, runs well suppressed, free float rail, good trigger, bipod of some sort IMHO, the US is overly attached to the idea of the rifleman. We have plenty of rifles in the squad. Where are the weapons that are actually casualty producers in combat? HE, and beltfeds? They are MIA. Instead of pushing more effective systems down to the squad, we are pushing them up, out of the squad. We have a romantic idea about the rifleman that goes back to the founding of the nation, and that's driving tactics. This isn't a good answer. Bullshit. I think you're regurgitating what you've read others on arfcom have stated in the past and they're wrong because they're just repeating the same bullshit other people are repeating. No one stating that nonsense has any idea how the minds work of individuals like Gunner Wade or others promoting the push to IAR, if they think they're thinking about reinventing the M1918 BAR they're delusional. Let's forget the past for a moment, what is the infantry squad's job now? Just to deliver massed fires, bullet hose, at medium to long range? No. If you look at the mission of the infantryman a whole shit load of his job requires close combat, clearing structures, clearing bunkers, clearing trenches. It also requires overwatch on targets 500 meters away by the same unit who ten minutes later gets tasked to clear a village, jumping over courtyard walls, clearing homes, engaging assholes inside them, then moving to the roof and once again assuming a longer range overwatch role. Some of the combat is close range, some medium range, some even the longer ranges than many post WW2 said was outside the role of infantry rifleman but is now evidently back on the table. So why were automatic weapons ever even introduced into the squad in the first place? Now we're looking at the past. Because we're talking about a time when everyone was issued a five round bolt action rifles who didn't have the rate of fire or accuracy to make repeatable single shot hits (nor did the early repeating rifles) at the ranges infantry were expected to engage in realistic combat scenarios. They were shit up close (necessitating tactics relying on either attached SMGs, grenades, or bayonets). They sucked at long range. They sucked at all ranges and basically all jobs. Let's clear that up, rifles sucked in combat because rifles sucked, period. They need more volume of fire to increase the likelihood of making hits on target. A single shot, work the bolt, single shot, work the bolt, is not an optimum way to engage a target at any range, be it short to to long distances, especially in a combat setting when targets aren't remaining exposed and motionless for someone to shoot. Even a low capacity repeating rifle sucks. An automatic burst increases the likelihood of a hit, at close range that was done with SMGs, at medium to longer with MGs, often belt feds and a few magazine fed weapons that were reliable (Bren, BAR, etc). These MGs not only made hitting more probable, they also greatly increased the psychological aspect of being shot at, the suppressive factor. Enemy getting shot at with rifles knew the likelihood of getting hit was low, they didn't fear them, thus they didn't easily get suppressed by them. But getting shot at with an MG made a soldier know somebody with a weapon that could likely hit them was aiming at them, so they went to ground (or died). The development of the M14 automatic variant, the M16A1 was not optimum, technology know allowed for auto fire from a rifle but it was still not accurate enough. Belt fed open bolt MGs had the capacity to make hits, they were more reliable and more effective than an M16A1 with a 20 round magazine, thus in the early 70s when the Army was desperately trying to get M60s out of the squads (for every reason I've given), they wanted a 5.56 version, and they specified belt bed in the trials for the SAW program. That's it, that's the only reason you're obsessed with belt fed in the squad (besides the MG34/42 in WW2), for the simple reason of tradition, in your mind and many others because that's what worked in the past it evidently means its the only option for the future. But that's not the case. You've never even considered why automatic rifles didnt' work in the past, technological changes since then, and why those issues are, for the most part, no longer issues. Because technology changed. Things like aluminum mags, non-tilt followers, polymer hi-cap magazines that are reliable, extremely robust magnified optics with ballistic reticles and range finders built in. All of that completely changed what automatic rifles could do. Fact, the most devastating projectile any infantry can fire is not a bullet out of a bullet hose (which is what an LMG is), its an HE round. Right now we have a few reliable means in the MTOE, none good. The M320 isn't bad, though it can be used better and the round sucks in its current design. The AT4 is garbage for anything besides killing light armor vehicles. The Carl Gustaf is coming, that's a great start. Fact, if I now have a weapon/optic combo that in WW2 would be considered a sniper rifle, then my role as a rifleman is now increased as well. Fact, with night vision I do not need to rely on belt fed automatic to beat back close range enemy assaults during hours of limited visibility, I can engage them at 200 meters with my rifle in the green of NODs and IR lasers when I catch them sneaking around thinking they're ninjas. Fact, most of the usefulness of MGs came from a time that bullet hoses were the only reliable way to kill enemy, but technology has changed that. *Next post of yours, I bet money, you'll bring up the German army. But what you'll likely leave out why the Germans emphasized machine gun centric infantry doctrine for fire support. Because they were limited in the 20-30s by the constraints of the Versaiiles Treaty that ended WW1, that massively minimized the number of artillery and mortars they were allowed to build and possess. Contrary to popular belief, Germany was not even equipped nor ready for WWII, the General Staff warned Hitler numerous times they would not be ready till 1946. As is was Germany didn't mobilize their industry until very late '42. So even as they had more artillery and mortars than they did before they said fuck you to the Versaille Treaty, they still didn't have adequate artillery or mortars available, so existing MG centric doctrine, firmly part of their MTOE since the non-assault regiments of WW1 had been issued massive and impractical MG08-15 (mostly for fire support in the defense) continued on into WW2, then got emphasized even more because from '43 onward they were on the defensive. Here's a hint. What happened when the Germans had enough StG44 to equip entire regiments with them? They created a new MTOE that PULLED the LMGs from the squad and put them in platoon. Same Germans that loved the MG42 made this decision, so best start thinking why. If we accept the idea that we need fire support (via a gun that can put a lot of lead downrange), is the solution to this really something that's modeled off of an assault rifle? I'll buy that the M249 isn't the best deal. But this feels like "fuck it, a full auto AR with big mags is good enough".If we are serious about this, where is something like an LSAT in 6.5mm CT? That's a real advance in the capability at the squad level, giving them near M-240 capability in a package that weighs (with ammo) about what an M249 weighs. The LSAT doesn't work. Wait, when it works, it works fine. But there is an inherent design flaw that causes a stuck polymer casing stabbed through with a rod, which causes such a significant malfunction it necessitates an armorer to dissemble it to clear it. That is simply unacceptable. And besides that if we go 6.5 CT for an LMG it means we have a ammo in the squad that can only be used in an LMG and not in anything else, which significantly complicates logistics, which is the real king of battle. And 6.5 CT carbines are a fucking joke. And by fire support, you're still operating under the old fashioned conclusions that belt fed open bolt full auto is the only way to increase hits and suppress. I've read the studies from Vietnam and GWOT about fire suppression. Volume beats precision, yep. But only when comparing LMG to the old fashioned iron sighted service rifles firing semi at targets they can't see, let alone engage accurately. But do you know what rates above machine gun fire in not only kill ratios but also fear factor? High explosives (which is the emphasis our combat doctrine should focus on), but also snipers. Because nothing scares the enemy more than a single aimed shot than nearly hits them in a manner which makes them KNOW that somebody has a bead on THEM. Not a random bullet they know was fired by someone who has no real clue where they were located (which isn't really that scary), but a no shit, "Dear God, he nearly took my head off, he knows exactly where I'm located, I'm not exposing myself from this position again" situation. And that's what I can do now with an IAR. I can do nearly everything the SAW LMG could do. But with that optic I can either spot the enemy directly and shoot them, or spot their known, likely or suspected positions inside my sector of fire much more effectively than just with the naked eye. With single shot, or with magazine fed closed bolt automatic rifle fire, I can deliver accurate semi auto or full auto rifle fire at close to long ranges more effectively than someone could have done it with even an MG42 in the past, especially since I wouldn't need a gun team hauling ammo and spare barrels to support me, just me firing one round every 5-6 seconds at within 1-3 meters of all known, likely, and suspected positions in my sector, going to full auto when I need it to either increase chances of a hit (like against a moving target crossing a street), against clustered enemy in the open, or to put that little bit of extra fear factor for suppression. And in as long as it takes for the command to be given to me I can jump into a stack to clear a house, I can hose down the firing port of a bunker with full auto, I can pull FPF duty with full auto on my squad defensive position, I can clear a trench fast, I can run and jump and keep up with rifleman, and I can do this day or night. The training argument is weaksauce. It's just giving up because it's hard to do and we would rather do SHARPS training and anti-suicide training and training on how to fuck trans dudes. Or whatever. Its not weaksauce if you ever served in a machine gun team and experienced all the training that goes into memorizing the thousand and one different ways to use that machine gun (emphasis on machine, because its quite complex), how to employ it, maintain it, clear it with immediate/remedial action for a myriad of stoppages/malfunctions, etc. In an MG team there is a gun team leader just to ensure it stays running, to supervise. Or a MG squad/section leader, or some NCO. There is an AG to take over, to assist, who is just as well trained. But in a rifle squad there is nothing similar, not in an Army fire team, even the Marine team that has an Assitant AR their role is relegated to carrying spare barrel and more ammo. Rifle squads focus their training on rifle squad shit, which is more movement related (patrolling, battle/IAD drills, room clearing, etc), they don't have the time or inclination to run gun drills 24/7 like an MG team does. And those tapped for the role are more junior/clueless, usually PFC or LCpl, who are not exactly known for being the epitome of knowledgeable infantry. Anyone with a LMG SAW should all be graduates of a course that firmly makes them SME of the weapon, but since only Ranger Regiment has the time, money, and inclination to do that the rest are basically at the whim of whichever stud or fuck up is given the LMG, often chosen by one of the most cherry and ignorant people in the platoon, its platoon leader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:08:24 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sir, is it the wrong idea to say.... "Suck it up PFC pussy. You are carrying a belt fed light MG, because shit can hit the fan at any time on patrol. And if we ain't got it, we're fucked." ?? I always get the Blackhawk Down vibes whenever people justify trying to go lighter, because "hey guys, don't worry, we won't be out long enough." Deciding That your Automatic Riflemen should Carry rifles instead of light support weapons, based on hopes and assumptions. It seems like a fucking recipe for disaster. Eventually anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We have been fighting groups of 3-8 people popping off a few rounds from 800M for 16 years. This leads to some flawed conclusions on the nature of warfare. You can always park a weapon you don't need on the rack and take an extra M4. you can't do that when you don't have the weapon anymore. Could have changed the FCG and used a 16A4 to get 95% of what the Teutonic wonder weapon was bringing. I always get the Blackhawk Down vibes whenever people justify trying to go lighter, because "hey guys, don't worry, we won't be out long enough." Deciding That your Automatic Riflemen should Carry rifles instead of light support weapons, based on hopes and assumptions. It seems like a fucking recipe for disaster. Eventually anyway. Go through FM 7-8, pick whatever mission or drill the M249 can do that an IAR can't. Meanwhile, I can do the same, I'll find the mission or drills that the SAW can't perform for shit, but the IAR works well. We'll then compare it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:08:50 PM EST
[#29]
Box magazine, fixed heavy barrel rifle designed to lay down suppressive fire on the move while retaining ammo commonality with the standard individual infantry rifle
 Maybe we could call it the M2018 Bipurpose Automatic Rifle 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:16:23 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have been fighting groups of 3-8 people popping off a few rounds from 800M for 16 years. This leads to some flawed conclusions on the nature of warfare. You can always park a weapon you don't need on the rack and take an extra M4. you can't do that when you don't have the weapon anymore. Could have changed the FCG and used a 16A4 to get |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:17:07 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the M27 boots the SAW from the fire teams and squads, what other belt fed options will the platoon have? Are the M240s a platoon integrated weapon, or are they a separate MG squad? What about the Mk 48 and Mk 46?. Do we plan for final protective fires with MGs with the IAR? In for knowledge. @steinhab. FPF can still be done by M27, especially with a Magpul 60 rd mag. Besides that, final protective fires and the final protective line were created in an era when that was really the last recourse for stopping enemy assaults, especially at nights. With the deadliness of modern weapons and observation equipment as a force multiplier, while I wont saying that tying in an FPL as part of a FPF plan isn't needed, their usefulness is quite a bit different than in the 50-80s when they were needed, before every Joe got NODs and an IR laser on their service weapon. I've done force on force with NODs against units without who on the defense had their FPL set up, it didn't stop up from absolutely annihilating them. We didn't even need to assault through, just hang back a bit and engage muzzle flashes with our lasers and take them out once by one. We could see them, they couldn't see us, even if they didn't fire we'd still often spot them to engage them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:18:12 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of the engineers I've talked with about this did actual high-speed camera work on the action of HK416. They said it unlocks earlier because of the instantaneous inertia from the piston, which is why HK tries to fight this with heavier buffer and heavier spring rate, which then come back at you on the return stroke for harder cycle impulses on the critical parts. The excessive cyclic rate causes hammer slap, hence the cage for the disconnector tail on the HK416A5. They also saw on high-speed camera that there is absolutely no difference in gas ejecta from the ejection port when running suppressed between standard AR15 and external piston-operated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not fanboi of HK or piston guns, and I'm not an engineer. But I've read that when it comes to short barrel (I guess 14.5" qualifies), lots of full auto, and suppressor use, piston is the way to go. We're going to be using these carbines for rifleman and DM work, but also IAR duty, they need to be able to function well on full auto, and the times appear that all suppressor, all the time is likely on the horizon, so we better start designing our weapons to work well in full auto while suppressed. Because if we don't, we're still stuck with a weapon that either wont work well suppressed (which then means reliability issues or tactical problems from going sans suppressor), and eventually we're just going to have to fix that problem anyway. Maybe a simple adjustable gas block on a normal DI gas system is enough. I don't know enough to answer it it, but however, adjustable gas regulator is something that NEEDS to be on the next service rifle. They said it unlocks earlier because of the instantaneous inertia from the piston, which is why HK tries to fight this with heavier buffer and heavier spring rate, which then come back at you on the return stroke for harder cycle impulses on the critical parts. The excessive cyclic rate causes hammer slap, hence the cage for the disconnector tail on the HK416A5. They also saw on high-speed camera that there is absolutely no difference in gas ejecta from the ejection port when running suppressed between standard AR15 and external piston-operated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:18:18 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if I told you instead of humping a 20 lb LMG that mostly doesn't work all that well for close combat, doesn't even function reliably often at any range, instead I can give you an IAR that can do most of what makes the SAW shine at, while also able to allow you to pull DM duties, and allowing you to seamlessly play rifleman as well in close combat? And this weapon only weighs 8 lbs and everyone in the whole squad carries the same ammo and magazines for it. How is that for a sales pitch? Go through FM 7-8, pick whatever mission or drill the M249 can do that an IAR can't. Meanwhile, I can do the same, I'll find the mission or drills that the SAW can't perform for shit, but the IAR works well. We'll then compare it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:21:17 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not fanboi of HK or piston guns, and I'm not an engineer. But I've read that when it comes to short barrel (I guess 14.5" qualifies), lots of full auto, and suppressor use, piston is the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:23:39 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if I told you instead of humping a 20 lb LMG that mostly doesn't work all that well for close combat, doesn't even function reliably often at any range, instead I can give you an IAR that can do most of what makes the SAW shine at, while also able to allow you to pull DM duties, and allowing you to seamlessly play rifleman as well in close combat? And this weapon only weighs 8 lbs and everyone in the whole squad carries the same ammo and magazines for it. How is that for a sales pitch? Go through FM 7-8, pick whatever mission or drill the M249 can do that an IAR can't. Meanwhile, I can do the same, I'll find the mission or drills that the SAW can't perform for shit, but the IAR works well. We'll then compare it. But I don't discount what a cluster fuck it is to reload a belt fed. Like it takes 5 or 6 times as long to reload, versus a M4. And more parts (feed paws n shit), means more shit can break. In a gunfight you could argue you get more firepower, based on mag change vs belt fed reload??? Dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised. If I was king for a day. We'd have the IAR have a quick barrel change system. That is what was great about the Bren. Fucker was box magazine fed and had quick change barrel. Fast to reload and keep running because of extra barrel. Have IAR guy have four big pouches with D60s in there. Plus a D60 in his weapon. Rest of the ammo can go in his assault pack/ruck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:24:48 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A while back in another thread you posted a cost estimate of $1,250 or something like that for an M27. What happened with that? Let's just say I was used by someone to spread a message to sowe discord with things going on and I fell for it. Which is a shame considering who the information came from. But I was learnt something by people who I trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:26:40 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The training aspect of feeding, correcting malfs, and maintaining a belt-fed weapon are not to be overlooked for sure. I suspect that much of what you describe contributed to the Soviet choice of ditching the RPD in favor of a beefed up AKM with the RPK. Manual of arms is all the same, everything is the same except reinforcement to the receiver, heavier/longer barrel, and bipod. I still like the RPD and many better-trained soldiers really liked it too for a Squad-level light support weapon. The USMC never wanted the SAW to begin with, always wanted some type of heavy barreled M16 for an IAR gunner even dating back to the 1970s. The Army tried putting the M60 into the Rifle Squad as a Light Support Weapon in Vietnam, even though it's a GPMG more appropriate for Platoon support, and really handicapped the maneuverability and firepower endurance of the rifle squad by doing so. The Army realized this was a failure, and while temporarily designating Automatic Riflemen with M16A1s with double basic load and clip-on sheet metal bipod, they began the SAW solicitation and trials. They were onto a good track with the 6mm SAW, but let the logistics argument kill it. Several of the initial XM SAW prototypes were chambered in 6mm SAW, which would have been an excellent Squad and even limited Platoon support capability, since it exceeded the 800m effective range goals. Once the logistics argument won out, they reverted to 5.56 and just penciled-in "out to 800m". The US Army drove weapon procurement at the time, and still is the largest center of gravity when it comes to US military small arms, so the USMC gets dragged along in the end with most of these things. Some of the designs that stick out as I look over all of this are: * The Stoner 63A System approach, which the Marines showed interest in when it was introduced. You can configure it for belt-fed, mag-fed, commando, LSW, vehicle, tripod, nothing like it really. It would have been an amazing LSW in 6mm. Can be open or closed bolt. * The Ford XM248 (open bolt, dual-piston, sprocket feed, less moving parts than any MG42 transverse feed system) * The H&K XM262 (like an HK21 but in 5.56) * FN Minimi XM249 and variants, especially the Mk.46 * The Ultimax 100 LMG (constant recoil operating system, mag/drum fed, quick barrel change) * Israeli Negev (mag or belt fed without mods, single hand quick barrel change) I still think an Arms Rooms approach for task organization for the Mission Enemy Troops, etc. is the way to go. For a USMC Rifle Squad with 13 pipe-swingers, you have a lot of flexibility with 3 Fire Teams, where you can have your Lead and Middle Fire Teams with IARs, and the Trail Team with a PIP SAW, or all 3 with IARs, 2 with SAWs and 1 with IAR if you are tasked for support element with SBF position for a raid or deliberate attack. Ranger Regiment has chosen to keep the Mk.46s and PIP SAWs in inventory last I checked, so a belt-fed in the Squad is not without merit, but they also have way more time dedicated to training than other units do, with very competent gunners in a culture where the guns have to be earned much of the time. They also have a budget that other units will never have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. Times have changed. Most of what we know about machine guns stems from the traditions of when they were created in the first place. Belt fed came about because in the late 19th century and early 20th century magazines sucked. Their springs sucked, their followers cucked, their design angles sucked, their lips bent, etc. not Maxim nor anyone else were designing individual magazines that were interchangeable and reliable, especially under full auto, less alone high capacity, which meant 20 rounds back then, so they instead went a different route. By adding a well made steel springs in the top cover pawls of the feed tray, the machine gun could reliable feed itself by pulling in some sort of cloth, metal, or disintegrating belt of ammo. Can we do magazines better now? Fuck yes. Even Magpul has reliable 60 round drum mags, AKs have reliable 75 round drum mags. Open bolt is great for full auto, sucks for accuracy (mass of entire bolt moving forward under spring tension upon trigger pull has a tendency to cause movement of sight picture), and is detrimental to close combat. Open bolt came about because early machine guns were designed to be fired continuously, indefinitely, an open bolt is the only way to prevent cook offs, out of battery detonations, and other heat related malfunctions. Yes, open bolt helps but is it necessary? Experience with the M27 has proven its not needed, that IAR can fire its entire standard issue with no heat related malfunctions. The HK416 is only open bolt, going to a LWRC or Colt means closed bolt while the weapon is in semi, and open bolt on auto, thereby giving the accuracy necessary for slow fire, with the cooling factor in auto fire. Also, let's talk reloading. How long does it take to reload a 60 rd Magul drum with another? Now compare that to reloading a 200 round box or a 100 round nutsack on a M249. The latter takes 3-4x time longer. It takes longer to perform immediate action, it takes much longer before its safe to perform remedial action. Let's talk training. A LMG is a machine. It has a shit load of parts and a very complicated cycle of operations that needs to be fully understood by the gunner for them to know how to clear it when it does jam, or to understand what might be wrong with it by noticing how its acting. In the Marine Corps and Army they are issuing LMGs to low ranking dudes who are not always adequately trained to use them, and what normally happens is that by the time they become very knowledgeable they end up getting promoted and being made team leaders, who are not machine gun AGs or TLs whose job it is to stand right next to a firing LMG and supervise its use. Often a rifle team leader isn't even going to be within 10 meters of the SAW gunner in combat, they can't babysit them to deal with whatever fuck ups that can occur the same way a MG team leader can unfuck his gun teams when the gun goes down. Meanwhile, every Soldier or Marine already knows how to use an AR15 style IAR, they already are trained on it, they know how to properly strip and maintain it (hopefully), they have the pouches for it, the mags that work with it (so the Squad support weapon can be fed by EVERYONE in the unit). Now couple the fact that the IAR doesn't just do automatic rifle duties. It also does designated marksman duties. While also being able to do basic rifleman duties (door kicking, trench clearing, etc). I suspect that much of what you describe contributed to the Soviet choice of ditching the RPD in favor of a beefed up AKM with the RPK. Manual of arms is all the same, everything is the same except reinforcement to the receiver, heavier/longer barrel, and bipod. I still like the RPD and many better-trained soldiers really liked it too for a Squad-level light support weapon. The USMC never wanted the SAW to begin with, always wanted some type of heavy barreled M16 for an IAR gunner even dating back to the 1970s. The Army tried putting the M60 into the Rifle Squad as a Light Support Weapon in Vietnam, even though it's a GPMG more appropriate for Platoon support, and really handicapped the maneuverability and firepower endurance of the rifle squad by doing so. The Army realized this was a failure, and while temporarily designating Automatic Riflemen with M16A1s with double basic load and clip-on sheet metal bipod, they began the SAW solicitation and trials. They were onto a good track with the 6mm SAW, but let the logistics argument kill it. Several of the initial XM SAW prototypes were chambered in 6mm SAW, which would have been an excellent Squad and even limited Platoon support capability, since it exceeded the 800m effective range goals. Once the logistics argument won out, they reverted to 5.56 and just penciled-in "out to 800m". The US Army drove weapon procurement at the time, and still is the largest center of gravity when it comes to US military small arms, so the USMC gets dragged along in the end with most of these things. Some of the designs that stick out as I look over all of this are: * The Stoner 63A System approach, which the Marines showed interest in when it was introduced. You can configure it for belt-fed, mag-fed, commando, LSW, vehicle, tripod, nothing like it really. It would have been an amazing LSW in 6mm. Can be open or closed bolt. * The Ford XM248 (open bolt, dual-piston, sprocket feed, less moving parts than any MG42 transverse feed system) * The H&K XM262 (like an HK21 but in 5.56) * FN Minimi XM249 and variants, especially the Mk.46 * The Ultimax 100 LMG (constant recoil operating system, mag/drum fed, quick barrel change) * Israeli Negev (mag or belt fed without mods, single hand quick barrel change) I still think an Arms Rooms approach for task organization for the Mission Enemy Troops, etc. is the way to go. For a USMC Rifle Squad with 13 pipe-swingers, you have a lot of flexibility with 3 Fire Teams, where you can have your Lead and Middle Fire Teams with IARs, and the Trail Team with a PIP SAW, or all 3 with IARs, 2 with SAWs and 1 with IAR if you are tasked for support element with SBF position for a raid or deliberate attack. Ranger Regiment has chosen to keep the Mk.46s and PIP SAWs in inventory last I checked, so a belt-fed in the Squad is not without merit, but they also have way more time dedicated to training than other units do, with very competent gunners in a culture where the guns have to be earned much of the time. They also have a budget that other units will never have. With Rangers, they can make SAWs in the fireteam work because they're Rangers, they have the manpower, money, and willpower to make anything work. I'm curious as to their thoughts about the issue with 1st round shots for MOUT with the MK46, maybe they just ensure the SAW gunner is never 1 or 2 man in stack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:31:43 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From my understanding the Marine companies still have their SAWs, they're just not directly issued out. Or else some platoons have kept one squad with SAWs. Or some squads have two teams with M27 replacing the SAW but one M249 remaining. Rifle companies till have a weapons platoon that have three machine gun squads with two M240s apiece, they are assigned to whichever platoon or squad the company commander wants. FPF can still be done by M27, especially with a Magpul 60 rd mag. Besides that, final protective fires and the final protective line were created in an era when that was really the last recourse for stopping enemy assaults, especially at nights. With the deadliness of modern weapons and observation equipment as a force multiplier, while I wont saying that tying in an FPL as part of a FPF plan isn't needed, their usefulness is quite a bit different than in the 50-80s when they were needed, before every Joe got NODs and an IR laser on their service weapon. I've done force on force with NODs against units without who on the defense had their FPL set up, it didn't stop up from absolutely annihilating them. We didn't even need to assault through, just hang back a bit and engage muzzle flashes with our lasers and take them out once by one. We could see them, they couldn't see us, even if they didn't fire we'd still often spot them to engage them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:34:12 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the info. So, are we going back to a squad BAR and a platoon M1919 team as the organic maneuver fire support elements tactically? I am sure that I am typing way out of my league. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
USMC has M240 gunners in the Weapons Platoons, unless it's changed. In the US Army, every Rifle Platoon has a Weapons Squad with 2 M240s, which was adopted after input from Ranger Regiment and the Light Fighter concepts taught to 7th ID and other Light Infantry Units in the 1980s. I think the USMC generally task-organizes with 2 x M240 gun teams attached to each Rifle Platoon, but the gun teams are part of Weapons Platoons where they have better support for their specific training that might not exist in the Rifle Platoon. Going to the IAR as partly a choose that they never wanted a belt fed in the squad. And logistics, belted 5.56 is a different DODIC and for the same weight and space consumed by a single SAW gunner's loadout of M249 belted 200 round boxes, it could give the basic combat load for eight rifleman. Add in concerns regarding MOUT, issues with beaten down SAWs that needed to get replaced by something, and the issues systemic to one person in the team weighed down with 15-20 lb more equipment than the rest (SAW gunner=fire team boat anchor), and it led to exploring other options, one being going to an automatic rifle. However, and this is the cool part, they intended to simply replace the M249. What they ended up getting was simply another revolutionary infantry weapon. Because now they got a weapon that could double as a DM weapon too. Most purpose built DM rifles weren't great for close range, many had fixed stocks and long barrels and higher magnification optics. But with an M27, they could do most of what an M249 could do. And most of what a MK12 could do. And everything an M4 could do, better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:35:16 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So.... what does the Marines do with their stupid ass, Support-by-fire rifle/Carbine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:35:25 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shouldn't they have been comparing it to the Mk318 Mod 0/1? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:39:09 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:39:20 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most of what an M249 does, most of what an MK12 does, and everything an M4A1 does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:40:40 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M4A1 with a new barrel and FF rail could do the same, but better and for 1/3 the cost. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Most of what an M249 does, most of what an MK12 does, and everything an M4A1 does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:41:50 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "support" weapon fed from box mags is pants-on-head retarded to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:43:48 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M4A1 with a new barrel and FF rail could do the same, but better and for 1/3 the cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:46:31 PM EST
[#47]
What is wrong with a full auto AR with a KAC bolt and barrel , inconel gas tube, SSA-E trigger, suppressor, free float Giessele rail and mission dependent optics and magazine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:47:13 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My main gripe is it has a fixed barrel and 30 round magazine. Make guys have 60-round SureFire or Magpul D60s And I feel it becomes palatable. But I don't discount what a cluster fuck it is to reload a belt fed. Like it takes 5 or 6 times as long to reload, versus a M4. And more parts (feed paws n shit), means more shit can break. In a gunfight you could argue you get more firepower, based on mag change vs belt fed reload??? Dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised. If I was king for a day. We'd have the IAR have a quick barrel change system. That is what was great about the Bren. Fucker was box magazine fed and had quick change barrel. Fast to reload and keep running because of extra barrel. Have IAR guy have four big pouches with D60s in there. Plus a D60 in his weapon. Rest of the ammo can go in his assault pack/ruck. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if I told you instead of humping a 20 lb LMG that mostly doesn't work all that well for close combat, doesn't even function reliably often at any range, instead I can give you an IAR that can do most of what makes the SAW shine at, while also able to allow you to pull DM duties, and allowing you to seamlessly play rifleman as well in close combat? And this weapon only weighs 8 lbs and everyone in the whole squad carries the same ammo and magazines for it. How is that for a sales pitch? Go through FM 7-8, pick whatever mission or drill the M249 can do that an IAR can't. Meanwhile, I can do the same, I'll find the mission or drills that the SAW can't perform for shit, but the IAR works well. We'll then compare it. But I don't discount what a cluster fuck it is to reload a belt fed. Like it takes 5 or 6 times as long to reload, versus a M4. And more parts (feed paws n shit), means more shit can break. In a gunfight you could argue you get more firepower, based on mag change vs belt fed reload??? Dunno, but I wouldn't be surprised. If I was king for a day. We'd have the IAR have a quick barrel change system. That is what was great about the Bren. Fucker was box magazine fed and had quick change barrel. Fast to reload and keep running because of extra barrel. Have IAR guy have four big pouches with D60s in there. Plus a D60 in his weapon. Rest of the ammo can go in his assault pack/ruck. Picture this: Say there is an enemy firing at us. We've got his pos down to a 10 degree sector of fire, he's somewhere 400-600 meters away, possibly in a house shooting from an open door, around a courtyard wall possible shooting over the wall or through a loophole be bashed through it, from the military crest of a small hill, or a cluster of trees. With a M249 you're going into combat with it hopefully zero'd and set at 300 meters. If you adjust it, its on you to pick what setting, or to use hold overs with a front sight post that will cover the target up anyway). You're not going to be able to pick out any of those individual targets, the door in the house, the courtyard wall (or the loophole), the ridge, or the trees. So you're going to spray spray spray, hopefully not burning through your barrel and entire basic load, hoping you hit something. With an IAR, I pick each one of those target locations out with the ACOG, I use the reticle and my training for best SWAG on range and use the BDC reticle to get a good sight picture on a fixed aiming point, then I decide whether I need semi or auto fire, and I start shooting. With the optic I can probably pick up dust clouds to even see impacts to some extent, I don't need a spotter/AG with binos guiding me in (something a SAW gunner wont have). I'm also going to be able to better spot shit through that optic, like movement. The vast open field of view allows me to focus on the target I'm engaging while my advanced human vision allows my peripheral vision to pick up movement somewhere else. Oh look, some goatfucker is creeping out from cover beside that courtyard wall, he has an RPG and the dumb fuck doesn't know I can see him. I'm not a 100% on my zero or the position, so I flip to full auto and engage him with a three short bursts. Dumb fuck topples over, I shoot him some more, because fuck him, and then I reload and go back to servicing those other known, likely, suspected in my sector. No need for barrel change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:47:35 PM EST
[#49]
So does this means that standard M855 ammo will become both cheaper & more widely available now???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2017 4:47:39 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was apparently bad information from a rigged setup to get the number that was wanted to make a point. It was not the actual correct number, of which I was corrected on by someone else. Let's just say I was used by someone to spread a message to sowe discord with things going on and I fell for it. Which is a shame considering who the information came from. But I was learnt something by people who I trust. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A while back in another thread you posted a cost estimate of $1,250 or something like that for an M27. What happened with that? Let's just say I was used by someone to spread a message to sowe discord with things going on and I fell for it. Which is a shame considering who the information came from. But I was learnt something by people who I trust. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
