# Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2007)

The USMC is looking to replace/supplement their M249 (C-9 in our terms) LMG with an "Infantry Automatic Rifle". This would be a fully automatic support weapon which is magazine as opposed to belt fed. While something like this was actually offered to the CF when we went over to the C-7 family (and was adopted by the Dutch), more modern versions are now on offer which include such features as firing from the closed bolt in repetition mode, but firing from the open bolt on automatic fire. Since the examples I have seen resemble heavy barreled C-7's, the changeover would be rather simple in terms of training and logistics.

I wonder if the trade off is worth loosing the considerable firepower of the M 249/C-9 firing from a 200 round belt, given the IAR concept fires from a 30 round magazine or the various sorts of 100 round snail drum and "C-Mag" high capacity magazines?

One example is the LWRC Gas Piston Infantry Automatic Rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-VX4M_jgSk&feature=related


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Nov 2007)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The USMC is looking to replace/supplement their M249 (C-9 in our terms) LMG with an "Infantry Automatic Rifle". This would be a fully automatic support weapon which is magazine as opposed to belt fed. While something like this was actually offered to the CF when we went over to the C-7 family (and was adopted by the Dutch), more modern versions are now on offer which include such features as firing from the closed bolt in repetition mode, but firing from the open bolt on automatic fire. Since the examples I have seen resemble heavy barreled C-7's, the changeover would be rather simple in terms of training and logistics.
> 
> I wonder if the trade off is worth loosing the considerable firepower of the M 249/C-9 firing from a 200 round belt, given the IAR concept fires from a 30 round magazine or the various sorts of 100 round snail drum and "C-Mag" high capacity magazines?
> 
> One example is the LWRC Gas Piston Infantry Automatic Rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-VX4M_jgSk&feature=related


Did you just watch Future Weapons?


----------



## MG34 (28 Nov 2007)

The USMC is not going to a mag fed LAR, but are satying with a belt fed weapon with no provision for mag loading, the Ultimax LMG is the top contender so far. WRT the piston designs they do not offer a great enough improvement over the existing design to warrant a swtch,they are interesting  but not revolutionary.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Nov 2007)

More can be found here;

http://www.lwrifles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175

Future weapons episode;

http://www.lwrifles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=527

I waw it and was great!!

A Big Dileas To the big guy wearing the farmer pants 

dileas

tess


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The USMC is not going to a mag fed LAR, but are satying with a belt fed weapon with no provision for mag loading, the Ultimax LMG is the top contender so far. WRT the piston designs they do not offer a great enough improvement over the existing design to warrant a swtch,they are interesting  but not revolutionary.



Glad for that, I had visions of a BAR or C2 lite being sold as the new Uber squad weapon.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2007)

Various descriptions of the IAR program are floating around, in fact I believe there was a thread on one of these boards discussing an earlier program or experiment where the Marines moved the M249's out of the squads to make them more manouevreble and concentrate the support weapons in their own squad. Another related thread was about a very lightweight belt fed LMG which resembled a C7 with a heavily modified upper receiver (can't remember the name).

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2006/PDF/Chapter%203/Part%202/C&P2006Chap3Part2GroundCombatElementPg153-154InfantryAutoma.pdf



> DESCRIPTION
> The Infantry Automatic Rifle program seeks to replace the current M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in all infantry battalions.
> The IAR will be a non-developmental, 5.56 automatic rifle that is lighter, more durable, and more reliable than the SAW.


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another related thread was about a very lightweight belt fed LMG which resembled a C7 with a heavily modified upper receiver (can't remember the name).


Ares Shrike?

http://www.aresdefense.com/index.html







Also, you mentioned a mag fed LMG in the C7 family that was adopted by the Dutch.
Colt Canada LSW?

http://www.coltcanada.com/lsw-page.htm


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

I am a FIRM beleiver the IAR concept is flawed to the core.

 The Mk46 give a lightweight assault LMG -- dont like the M249/C9/Minimi - get the 46 - just dont expect it to put out the fire that the 249 does for a long time (very thing LW barrel) Why on God's green earth do you want to give a MAG fed weapon with a HEAVY barrel out to people? Frick you think we learned from the C2 setup its a BAD idea -- and the Brits learned with the LSW that a bipod and heavier barrel does not make a support weapon, and they just added the Minimi...

 Of course this the USMC who refused to adopt a carbine since the Camp Perry bound rifle team folk loved the A2 (TOO LONG) stock and the A2 sight.  (I had a long talk with a USMC LtCol about this issue -- he was pulling out his hair) 

Strike -- does not run well

Beta Corp C-Mag -- DO NOT USE THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (AND YOUR AND YOUR TEAMS WELL BEING) -- they SUCK ASS -- even the new ones -- get them dirty and they jam.  



As for the Hk416's - nice guns - I dont think I'd want them issued to the Army - as they'd clean the frick out of it and ruin the tolerances on the rail and pistol -- If I did issue it - you'd need to start punching out officers and NCO's that allready have troops ruining the muzzle crown by scraping it (worse I had one Weapons Tech SGT tell me it was the peel washer  :  - Darwin was rolling in his grave that day) - as they'd probably have troops steel wool friction fit areas of the rail or piston...
  I had a young self important Capt ask me why the "silver ring" was dirty on my rifle once   :  - I said "excuse me sir I dont recall a silver ring" -- he went on to steal more oxygen - and I said - Oh you mean the muzzle crown sir - the most important area on the barrel to ensure the bullet leaves the barrel in a stable trajectory  ;D - he STFU and left.. (I heard he was a BGen now  )


Back to the Hk/Piston debate vice direct gas impingment.

Larry Vickers (ex Delta MSG - helped design the S&B Short Dot and Hk 416 and 417) siad recently at a class I took 
Get a piston if any one of the following is true:
1) You shoot a lot of full auto
2) You shoot barrels shorter that 14.5"
3) You shoot a lot suppressed
4) You shoot a variety of bullet weights 

 The regular army fail that test.
Units that shoot a few thousand rounds a week (each member not the unit for some who missed that..) will do better with one too - as the bolt life will be longer.  However those units also typically answer yes to #2 and #3 on the above...

I've carried a C7/C8/M4 series gun in 7 different countries - and have NEVER ONCE felt undergunned due to the design.
 I think Hk has made an excellent mousetrap and I will be very interested to see the results of the next SARP testing.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> As for the Hk416's - nice guns - I dont think I'd want them issued to the Army - as they'd clean the frick out of it and ruin the tolerances on the rail and pistol -- If I did issue it - you'd need to start punching out officers and NCO's that allready have troops ruining the muzzle crown by scraping it (worse I had one Weapons Tech SGT tell me it was the peel washer  :  - Darwin was rolling in his grave that day) - as they'd probably have troops steel wool friction fit areas of the rail or piston...
> I had a young self important Capt ask me why the "silver ring" was dirty on my rifle once   :  - I said "excuse me sir I dont recall a silver ring" -- he went on to steal more oxygen - and I said - Oh you mean the muzzle crown sir - the most important area on the barrel to ensure the bullet leaves the barrel in a stable trajectory  ;D - he STFU and left.. (I heard he was a BGen now  )


I know this subject has been hashed over several times here, but...

Even as a recruit, I could see the faults of scraping the "silver ring".  I tried to avoid contributing to this arcane practice several times during training and was promptly shown several methods (cleaning rod rotated in a stirring motion to scrape the crown, and another similar approach using the tip of one jaw of the Gerber pliers  ) and shuddered as it was quite obvious the crude improvised tools and approach were doing more then just scraping carbon.  And this was not an uncommon occurrence.  Weapons were never accepted at the vault it the "ring" wasn't 'silver".

It was only late in training that we were told to stop running our weapons 'dry' in the hot, dusty conditons.  I remember being jacked up for having a rifle oozing CLP, yet I never had a stoppage.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I am a FIRM beleiver the IAR concept is flawed to the core.



Out of interest, which part of the concept is flawed? The desire for a much lighter/smaller support weapon at the Squad level or execution of the various designs proposed to fill that role? 

I fully agree that a magazine fed HB version of an existing weapon is not a serious contender today (even if it is as good as the classic BAR). Lightweight LMG's are possible (i.e. the Ultimax 100), something along those lines would seem to fulfill the IAR requirment as stated.
















  
[/quote]


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

In addition to the Ultimax KAC has a nice new toy -- the Stoner LMG  - belt fed goodness with a weight reduction.
The biggest issue of the IAR - is the fact that they admit it CANNOT replace the M249's -- thus its another tool in the toolbox.  Part of the argument is the M249 gunner is too heavy/bulky to be doing entries as part of a stack in CQB - yet you dont solve this by the IAR...  The IAR does not need a QD barrel - as its a auto rifle...  so you have losr its ability to provide suppressive fire (highly overated these days with our given enemies anyway -- but an issue none the less) 

 Doctrine, the Mission (and necessity) is supposed to drive kit - I do see a need to replace the M249's (and C9's) as most are beat to ratshit -- however the answer to that is a VLMG (Very Light Machinegun) trial.  Not hammering a square into a round hole.

  Next we will be seeing conventional units asking for the Mk48 so they can have a lighter (and cooler) GPMG - missing the fact the Mk48 is a 7.62mm assault MG - not a GP or Medium MG - and it cannot put out the weight of fire that the MAG-58/M240 series/C6 does.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I do see a need to replace the M249's (and C9's) as most are beat to ratshit -- however the answer to that is a VLMG (Very Light Machinegun) trial.  Not hammering a square into a round hole.


Can newly manufactured M249/C9's not replace the old ones?  In good repair I always thought it was a decent LMG, no?

How have the A2s held up?


----------



## CBshadow (3 Apr 2008)

So I was watching future weapons on discovery the other day and saw a few new weapons that intrigued me so I thought I'd post
LWRC IAR (Infantry automatic rifle)
few neat features 
operates closed bolt semi auto or open bolt auto
virtually no excess heat even on bolt of gun after firing
mag fed rather than belt
easiar to operate in close quarters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LWRC_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

a few others are

Knights armament M110 (sniper rifle)
semi auto
suppressor 
thermo optical sight attachment
rapid reload

http://www.knightarmco.com/sr_m_110_suppressor.html

RBS 70 mk 2 missle system
Saab Bofor dynamics
portable/lightweight
longer range higher altitude missiles
one way based laser tracking

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Capabilities/weapon_systems.htm


These are all sweet in my eyes at least (think canada will ever purchase any of these?....one can only hope)


----------



## McG (3 Apr 2008)

CBshadow said:
			
		

> So I was watching future weapons on discovery the other day and saw a few new weapons that intrigued me so I thought I'd post
> LWRC IAR (Infantry automatic rifle)
> few neat features
> operates closed bolt semi auto or open bolt auto
> ...


It is not that much of a new idea.  The Brits call it a light support weapon (LSW) and thiers is based on the SA80.  Colt Canada offers a C7 derived LSW.


----------



## CBshadow (3 Apr 2008)

cool are there any c7's currently in use in canada?

the m110 is an amazing piece of machinery 5 targets 800m away 5 seconds to hit them all thats some serious speed when you need to snipe.

Is there any sniper rifle you know of that can do that made by any other weapons manufacturer? They were saying that the u.s. military was going to impliment the M110 by 2009.


----------



## NomadWarriorSoul (3 Apr 2008)

CBshadow said:
			
		

> cool are there any c7's currently in use in canada?
> 
> the m110 is an amazing piece of machinery 5 targets 800m away 5 seconds to hit them all thats some serious speed when you need to snipe.
> 
> Is there any sniper rifle you know of that can do that made by any other weapons manufacturer? They were saying that the u.s. military was going to impliment the M110 by 2009.



Umm, yes, there are a few C7s in use here.

Might I suggest the Search Function...?

Little confused as one of the posted stickied topics is a discussion about C7s in this subforum.  ???


----------



## CBshadow (3 Apr 2008)

sorry dude dial up living out in the boons makes me not look through everything ill check it out next time on the c7's  I hate muskoka (haha no really)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Apr 2008)

The C7 is the standard rifle of the CF, the C7 LSW is not in use.

As for sniper rifles, the Timberwolf was selected a to become the standard sniper rifle and the McMillan TAC50 is still in use? Why replace two good systems such as these?



> sorry dude dial up living out in the boons makes me not look through everything ill check it out next time on the c7's  I hate muskoka (haha no really)



understandable but even it takes longer for you to search, I guarantee it will save you a lot of potential problems for those of us that have answered the same question over and over again.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Fusaki (3 Apr 2008)

> It is not that much of a new idea.  The Brits call it a light support weapon (LSW) and thiers is based on the SA80.  Colt Canada offers a C7 derived LSW.



Note quite the same thing though. The LWRC IAR has the option to fire from a closed bolt on semi to deliver better first round accuracy, and then switch to an open bolt system when on automatic to help cooling.  I'm no expert, but I don't think the C7 LSW or the L86 LSW have these functions.  As well, LWRC differs from most AR-15 style rifles in that it uses a gas piston. The C7 LSW has a "High Rate Direct Gas System".


----------



## McG (3 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Note quite the same thing though.


You are correct.  At the concept level though, an LSW is an LSW.


----------



## KevinB (8 Apr 2008)

IAR is actually a very interesting concept -- however I'm disappointed they dropped the quick change barrel.

The M110 Sniper rifle is a 7.62x51mm NATO semi auto rifle -- less a contender to the C-14 TWolf or McMillan Tac50, but a suplement - and much more suited for some operations.


----------



## DirtyDog (9 Apr 2008)

I wish they would pull Future Weapons off the air.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2008)

Well, you have to consider who the audience is.  What is common dog for most of us here is usually new and cutting edge for the uninformed...


----------



## Mark M (18 Aug 2008)

I was just wondering if this would be a good DMR for our snipers.  The reason that I say this is because it has a heavy barrel so the added weight would dampen the muzzle jump and keeps the barrel cooler.  It also is open bolt for full automatic fire.  I would say that this is a good idea because if the snipers found themselves in a situation where they needed full automatic fire (besides the C9 gunner with them or if they didn't have a C9 gunner), they can have it (to a "better than nothing" degree I know) and there would be less cool down time for the breach and chamber so the powder would burn better and the shot would be more accurate each time.

I am asking the snipers (Former and current) out there if the LWRC IAR would be a good candidate in place of the C7CT or the AR-10T.


----------



## KevinB (19 Aug 2008)

Hk21  

I would never sacrifice a belt fed for a box mag gun.

 I would also go Hk417 for a DM gun, I dont see a need for an open bolt mag fed gun...


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

The Ultimate Battle Rifle
 September 24, 2008 Tactical Life|by Cameron Hopkins 
Article Link

Belgium may be best known for fine shotguns, rich chocolate and tasty waffles, but for you and me, this quaint little country is the home of the world's finest major-caliber battle rifle, the FN-FAL. Renowned throughout the world for its rugged reliability, the FAL was manufactured in 10 countries in its heyday and issued to over 70 armies, not to mention various irregulars and mercenaries. 

In fact it was the FAL's calling card as the weapon of mercs that gained it the most notoriety.

Col. "Mad" Mike Hoare, an Irish-born World War II veteran who immigrated to South Africa and went on to become one of the Dark Continent's most celebrated mercenaries, unwittingly did more to promote the legend of the FAL as the merc's gun-of-choice when he led a daring hostage rescue mission into the Belgian Congo in 1964 and freed a group of Americans and Belgians. In the days following the raid, Mad Mike's men held off the rebels long enough to evacuate over 1,800 European and American civilians.

If the FAL, the "Fusil Automatique Legere," was not famous before, it would be now. 

The FAL is a .308 Win. (7.62 x 51mm) gas-operated, short-stroke piston system available in semiautomatic and automatic versions. The FAL's standard payload is a 20-round detachable box magazine; 30-round magazines were also made for a squad automatic version of the FAL, but they're not desirable due to their length and "spring issues" with the elongated box.

The FAL came in four major versions. The best known by far was the FAL 50.00 standard model. It came with a 24-inch barrel. The next most popular was the Paratrooper version, the FAL 50.63, the same basic weapon except with a folding stock and a shortened 18-inch barrel. A standard 24-inch barrel with the Para's folding stock was called the FAL 50.64. The rarest version of all was the FAL 50.41, a heavy-barreled model with a built-in bipod designed as a squad machinegun, sort of like the BAR.
More on link


----------



## joonrooj (29 Sep 2008)

In regards to the a replacement for a C9/M249 what are your opinions on the MG36?
From what I've seen (admittedly very little) it seems like an amazing weapons system, and other than not being made by Colt or Diemaco and us probably having to switch to the "G" series of weapons (G36A2, G36C, etc) what, if any, would be the downfall of this weapons system?


----------



## MG34 (30 Sep 2008)

There is no relation between an IAR/ LAR and an LMG. Neither are interchangable as they do different jobs. AS for the LWRC IAR there is nothing revolutionary in taking a twenty year old  fire control mechanisim (first made by Ceiner in 1983 or thereabouts) and sticking it into an HK416 knock off with quality control issues.


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2008)

IMHO a better IAR could be the Hk23 or Hk21 (if you want 7.62).  Proven system - closed bolt accuracy - and different feed options.

 An LMG needs to be belt fed - full stop - the IAR does not address this - and in such you lose volume of fire, that is a necessary capability in the LMG platfrom.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Oct 2008)

HK 21 in action. Looks pretty handy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFIHBAJf2NY&feature=related


----------



## MG34 (1 Oct 2008)

Mark M said:
			
		

> I was just wondering if this would be a good DMR for our snipers.  The reason that I say this is because it has a heavy barrel so the added weight would dampen the muzzle jump and keeps the barrel cooler.  It also is open bolt for full automatic fire.  I would say that this is a good idea because if the snipers found themselves in a situation where they needed full automatic fire (besides the C9 gunner with them or if they didn't have a C9 gunner), they can have it (to a "better than nothing" degree I know) and there would be less cool down time for the breach and chamber so the powder would burn better and the shot would be more accurate each time.
> 
> I am asking the snipers (Former and current) out there if the LWRC IAR would be a good candidate in place of the C7CT or the AR-10T.



No, our snipers are not in the Designated marksman business, the C7CTs have been handed down to the Rifle Coys, the AR10s are spotter rifles that provide the same capibilities as the C3/C3A1 did out to 600m. No matter how you slice it the IAR is still a 5.56mm platform and entirely not suitable for sniper operations.


----------



## ceejay77 (19 May 2009)

The dutch C7 concept is ideal it still gives a good volume of fire but a lot easier to handle than a heavy belt feed ammo tray the drum magazine gives a better balance to the weapon I would still like to see a move from 5.56 to a 6.5 round been tried out by the American Armaments company


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 May 2009)

ceejay77 said:
			
		

> The dutch C7 concept is ideal it still gives a good volume of fire but a lot easier to handle than a heavy belt feed ammo tray the drum magazine gives a better balance to the weapon I would still like to see a move from 5.56 to a 6.5 round been tried out by the American Armaments company



Your suggestion of changing to 6.5 was addressed here by some of our small arms SMEs.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28664/post-838499.html#msg838499

Perhaps you would like to provide more substantiation than a "weapons development show" you watched that was probably pitched to supporting the 6.5 and putting down any other calibres in use.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2009)

Metalstorm seems to have refined their weapons system to the point it is now a viable accessory for a standard rifle. The light weight and high firepower makes it something to think about:





> *Metal Storm Reports 3GL, MAUL Testing Milestones*
> 
> Metal Storm completed an endurance firing test launching 200 of its 40mm STORM40 ammunitions using its 3GL grenade launcher. Following the successful test, the company expects to begin production of the 3GL in 2010. The company has also completed design verification testing for its newly launched GLH1851 Multi-shot Accessory Underbarrel Launcher (MAUL).
> 
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Jul 2009)

I read more into the IAR project for the USMC a couple of points
1. Interesting to note the US army will not give up the SAW. The IAr is a USMC project
2. this whole thing was conceived prior to 9/11 when the american missions were more NATO SFOR type stuff
3. After 9/11, with more intense combat, I beleive the USMC troops on the ground have a different opinion about losing SAW to get an "Over weight rifle that fires on automatic
4. Notice the brits had the same idea but the in the end they still picked up the LMG anyways. I beleive they use both the LSW and the LMG within a section.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2009)

Current thinking seems to be moving away from the idea of "rifles" altogether, and placing more emphasis on grenade launchers.

MILCOR type revolvers, "Metalstorm" launchers and specialized weapons like the XM-25 and the airburst module on the OCIW are all examples of this sort of thinking. To my mind, there is nothing wrong with this except for the limited number of rounds these weapons can hold, even an XM-25 holds six X 25mm rounds.

The "way to go" would seem to be smaller explosive projectiles for a man portable weapon that is light enough to hump all day yet controllable by the user when firing. 12 gage shotgun grenade shells have been designed and demonstrated that provide a reasonable "minimum" amount of firepower, and there are plenty of shotgun concepts out there that allow the shooter to carry 10 rounds in a box mag or 20 rounds in a drum mag, so putting a large amount of firepower on target isn't impossible. (The downside there is these shells generally have a range of @ 200m).

I suspect there will have to be another generation of development before grenade launchers become light, robust and effective enough to become the primary weapons for Infantry section support, and rifle development seems to have plateaued, so the obvious question is really "where do we go from here? Do we even need to replace our current family of small arms?


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Aug 2009)

<--- inserting personal opinion here


The increase in capability of the various "new" weapons systems (ie XM-8, SCAR-L, etc) are only an INCREMENTAL increase in capability.   

I don't know off the top of my head, but let us suppose that they provide a 50% greater effectiveness.

(AHA, from globalsecurity.org:  

The XM8 will provide lethality performance comparable to the currently fielded M4 carbine rifle, while weighing 20 percent less than the M4 because of advanced technologies developed for the XM29 program. The prototype weighs 6.4 pounds, with an objective weight of 5.7 pounds. PEO claims it takes one third the time to train a Soldier on the XM8 than the current weapon system.    )

Note, it's comparable lethality, with easier training and lighter weight....hrm.

What is the cost involved in replacing the entire small arms inventory of a nation such as the US?  Is that cost worth only an incremental increase in capability?

A generational increase in capability (IE no longer a "PK", just a "K") with a decrease in weapon system weight and increase in reliability would be worth that cost.

I don't think we'll see that increase in capability without significant changes to what "small arms" consist of.

The G11 was a generational increase in capability, but too costly, and from looking at the action (I saw one in germany in a museum in Munster) you'd need to be a watch-maker to be able to service them!  As well, at the time of it's proposed introduction, the Germany's were merging....hello....economic unrest.  Sound familiar?

Then there's the other side of the coin....where you have to look at who actually does most of the killing in a war?  Is it the riflemen?  Or is it the support weapons?  The riflemen usually pin the enemy, the support weapons finish them.  

But, that could just be my mistaken interpretation of things.

Either way, I don't see any sort of national re-armament or small arms replacement project happening until we're in more of an economic up-swing.  And investing heavily in a small arms project is not going to significantly help our economic position....how many people work at Colt Canada? 

NS


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2009)

USMC has had major issues with the M-32 Revolving GL - dud rate is over 50% at SOI West
  The revolving cyclinders with short 9" barrel are not getting the Grenade up to the speed necessary for the fuze to arm.  My opinion was they should add a delrin sleeve to the cylinder to better seal -over course with that closer tolerance to seal - comes greater problems with jamming the mechanism.

My personal opinion is that you cannot carry enough 40mm LV on a person to make that type of GL a feasible system to non vehicle borne troops, and if you have a vehicle the 40mm HV can be mounted.

 I think the M320 (HK) and M203 systems are about where we are at outside SMU use, until a grenade can be increased in Lethality and miniturized -- tech just ain't there yet folks.


The IAR concept is valid - but the Hk21E is the design of my choice - not a 5.56mm as you get a DM gun and a 7.62 LMG in one - its not peerfect but I dont see the other systems as a great choice.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2009)

"Miniturized" grenades are around, the Russians us a 30mm grenade for the AGS-17 and AGS-30; the AGS-30 is only slightly heavier than a GPMG. The Chinese use a 35mm grenade for their QLZ-87B/QLB-06 which are also similar in size/weight to a GPMG. And the US is developing 25 and 20mm rounds for future applications, and micro grenades the size of 12 gauge shotgun shells exist as well.

The 40mm grenade is a good weapon, but I would say technology has already created viable alternatives.


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2009)

I'd say that 40 is actually a piece of shit in the current configuration.

 25m (Low velocity) and others are worthless unless you get a CoM hit.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jul 2010)

Bump.

Further to the XM-29 OICW discussion:

I came across this reference to the DaeWoo K-11.  Apparently it has been  taken into service  with the South Korean army at the rate of 2 per section of 10 - 12 men.

It is a shoulder fired, bull pup, bolt action, 20mm grenade launcher with a 500 m range and EO sights, fed by five round box magazines, with an underslung M-4.  It has one common pistol grip with a selector on it and it apparently also still has room for a baynet.   ;D

It also only weighs 6.1 kg with optics and batteries but unloaded.

PS GAP:  thanks for reminding me about Strategy Page.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jul 2010)

Did I read some place correctly that the USMC was swapping out their M249s for H&K 417s?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2010)

The M-27 IAR seems to have been a political trick to get rid of USMC M-4's and replace them with a "new and improved" weapon. The M-27 seems to be nothing more than an HK-416 tarted up with a heavy barrel and new furniture (if you can call 4X full length Picatinny rails furniture), and except for the short stroke piston, isn't much different from the C-7 "support" version Dimaco sold to the Dutch Marines. I don't believe it even comes with a bipod.

As a support weapon, I would rather have the C-9 with belt feed and a quick change barrel; if weight was really the issue, the Ares Shrike, Ultimax 100 or other super lightweight LMG would seem to be a better fit for the role.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Oct 2010)

<-- Just an idea, please forgive in advance if this has been covered.

Instead of adopting a high tech airbursting projectile system similar to the XM-25, where you have a programmable grenade that gets fusing information from the laser rangefinder / fire control computer built into the weapon and / or sighting system, would it make more sense to take a lower-tech approach? 

What I have in mind is a hand-fused air-bursting pre-fragmented 40mm LV grenade. 

What I'm thinking of is taking some proven, existing technology (like a mechanical fuse) and match it to the 40mm grenade in service. I picture something akin to the HE 441D round from the Carl Gustaf (http://products.saabgroup.com/pdbwebnew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=7989). I'm speaking from ignorance, so i'm not sure if a 40mm LV round like this already exists. I think there are electronically programmable types in development or active service designed for AGLs, but not a hand-fused airburst 40mm round. (if someone with more knowledge could shed some light, i'd be grateful)

With some extra training, I think in theory you'd get more or less the same capability as the XM-25 in a more cost-effective manner - instead of buying expensive new platforms, sights, trainers, _batteries_; you could just buy new rounds and add to existing training using existing GLs.


Some self-analysis: 

a)  I realise that 40mm LV and the 25mm AB round from the XM-25 are not quite the same thing. Projectile payload are obviously different in addition to trajectory, velocity etc. 

b)  Also I imagine there's a certain element of guesswork involved, since the hypothetical M203 gunner would have to estimate the range and dial the correct setting on the round. Since 203 gunners have to estimate the range anyway, i don't see that as a hurdle. 

c)  Since this round is fused by hand, and not by a FC computer, this may slow the firing rate down a bit. I don't imagine this would compete with the rate of fire a dedicated, semi-auto GL, since the -203 is single shot anyway, but it should be stated nonetheless. 


I'm just bouncing this idea around. If such a round exists already, then I've been beaten to the punch  ;D


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2010)

Instead of trying to shoehorn something into the M203 which is a bit of a legacy system at this time.

If you want a GL find a recoil reducing standalone system that allow the use of 40MM HV (from the Mk19 and HkGMG) and get a firecontrol system for it - then with new ammo you have a system that can engage from 25m-2500m in a man portable system.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2010)

You may be thinking of a support weapon along the lines discussed here.

The laws of physics make it difficult to make a lightweight automatic weapon firing large calibre rounds (although the Russians have had some success with the AGS-17 and AGS-30, and the Chinese have a 35mm weapon as well; these weapons are similar in size and weight to a GPMG).


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2010)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> <-- Just an idea, please forgive in advance if this has been covered.
> 
> Instead of adopting a high tech airbursting projectile system similar to the XM-25, where you have a programmable grenade that gets fusing information from the laser rangefinder / fire control computer built into the weapon and / or sighting system, would it make more sense to take a lower-tech approach?
> 
> What I have in mind is a hand-fused air-bursting pre-fragmented 40mm LV grenade.



I'd prefer a 60mm MOR one tactical bound behind. One weapon can't do everything that the infantry section needs, and that's where the teamwork comes in e.g., 60mm/M203/M67s flush 'em out and the C6/7/9s chop 'em up.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd prefer a 60mm MOR one tactical bound behind. One weapon can't do everything that the infantry section needs, and that's where the teamwork comes in e.g., 60mm/M203/M67s flush 'em out and the C6/7/9s chop 'em up.


 :nod:
I knew I liked you


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Oct 2010)

Bah, this is all nonsense. I am putting into be the SWFLB Project OIC. The SWFLB is all we need for future conflicts. The SWFLB is Sharks With Freakin Laser Beams.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Bah, this is all nonsense. I am putting into be the SWFLB Project OIC. The SWFLB is all we need for future conflicts. The SWFLB is Sharks With Freakin Laser Beams.


I agree!! Laser Beams attached to Frikking Sharks!


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2010)

Nominating ArmyRick for position of Chief Laser Attacher .... or any other position suitable for Frikking Sharks.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2010)

You think people would have learned form the other threads: _one_ system isn't sufficient!

Mutant sea bass platoons *MUST* be colocated with the SWFLB dets to deal with close in targets that make it past the lasers.


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Oct 2010)

I wasn't trying to advocate that my hypothetical 40mm round would replace anything - I suggested it more as an additional tool in the infanteer's toolbox. I think it might have a niche to fill, but then again it's easy to speculate. Obviously the cost per round would be higher due to added complexity, but that seems to be the direction we're headed with the AGL project.. 

I'm not an expert so i'll avoid getting into the discussion between keeping the 60mm or embracing the CASW  ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Oct 2010)

Look at the direction the conversation went. Are you sure you want to keep discussing 40mm and 60mm seriously here?


----------



## LordOsborne (15 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Look at the direction the conversation went. Are you sure you want to keep discussing 40mm and 60mm seriously here?



I suppose not, unless i found a way to mount it ONTO the laser beam sharks... :blotto:


----------



## Dissident (9 Apr 2011)

Bump.

I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.

And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Apr 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Bump.
> 
> I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.
> 
> And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.



The best replacement for the C9 in the section is the C6, IMHO.... bring up the Bully and let's steamroll these clowns!


----------



## RCR Grunt (10 Apr 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The best replacement for the C9 in the section is the C6, IMHO.... bring up the Bully and let's steamroll these clowns!



Perhaps a Mk. 48 with a different barrel?  The Mk 46 and 48 were mentioned earlier in the thread as "assault MG's."  As I understand it, the Mk 48 is set up for a changeable barrel, but it's more in the way of a disposable barrel instead of the quick change barrel setup on the C9.  That isn't something desirable for a regular unit or one that could find themselves in prolonged and sustained combat.  Could FN set it up with a heavier set of barrels for issue to standard infantry units?



			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> Bump.
> 
> I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.
> 
> And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.



I googled that thing and it looks pretty bad-ass... but it's kind of short, isn't it?  Would accuracy at range be an issue?


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> ....I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype....


_ahem_.....Kev?

op:


(I know when to defer to 'people what knows what they's talkin' about...."     )


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2011)

I am content to wait for the LSAT program to come to fruition.

C9 equivalent LMG's about 40% lighter than the current weapon, "rifles" with 60 round magazines and we can suppose GPMG and HMG type weapons will also benefit from this technology.

There are some threads about this floating around, but I can't seem to find them right now.

Read this: http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf


----------



## KevinB (10 Apr 2011)

As some may have guessed Dissident dropped in to see KAC this week.
Dude I can't beleive you dont beleive my sales pitch 

  LSAT is based on the Stoner LMG framework -- the biggest crime I beleive is that the US Army refuses to go futher than briefings on LSAT and CTA.


----------



## Dissident (10 Apr 2011)

Kevin, I trust what you say more than what Moses brought down on stone tablets. 

I was trying to avoid paraphrasing you because I drank from the fire hose Saturday and did not want to misquote you. 

Sure you are probably a bit biased, but what you told me convinced me that the Stoner LMG should be the replacement in the medium term for the C9 and I don't even think you were really trying to convince me.


----------



## KevinB (11 Apr 2011)

KAC LMG is basically a 10lb controllable SAW, Dissident saw the weight difference between the Mk46 in my office and that (about 6lbs)
   Given the Mk46 bbl is 1lbs lighter than the LMG...

Reasons for the controllability is the LMG works on run out, no carrier impact on the weapon, so in addition to decreased recoil forces the weapon lifespan is proglonged exponentially.


  With CTA ammo systems we are at a chicken and the egg.  I am obviously a firm beleiver, however the Army needs to bite, or its all for naught.

Currently the Army is M855A1 focuses and there really is a limit into what improvements can be done in a conventional brass cased weapon system.  


Most SAW/LMG's in NATO inventories are reaching the end of their lifespan, so a decision needs to be made fast as to whether we will step beyond for the next LMG and Carbine, or continue with brass cased ammuntion systems.


IF we are constrained by the 5.56mm round, then to me the Stoner LMG is a no brainer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2011)

I was fondling a plastic/brass hybrid 5.56 case last week. Apparently the plastic case is injection molded with the bullet. then the powder is added and the brass portion (approx 7mm long) and the base with primer snaps onto the plastic end. this ensures that the case expands and seals the chamber long enough for regular weapons to function and gives something for the extractor to grab. My friend and I wondered if the polymer was able to withstand sitting in a hot chamber? Another issue would be quality control of ammo. 
There is a weight saving, against an all brass case, but not sure if it could not be achieved as easily with other metals as well.


----------



## KevinB (12 Apr 2011)

The hybrid Poly/Brass casings have issues in they deform at a much greater rate than brass casings, the reason why CTA ammuntion is made in the shape that it is, is to increase the strenght and the reliability in feeding and extracting.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2011)

CTA sounds almost like a replay of the EM-2. The Brits analysed data from WWII, decided that current cartridges didn't quite come up to snuff and designed a .280 "ideal" cartridge and the EM-2 weapons system to go with it.

The EM-2 was a 50's era weapon with similar functionality to the Styer AUG; with different barrels it was a PDW, assault rifle and support weapon. It was actually taken into service and limited issue, but NATO politics intruded and the US position of using full sized Winchester 308/7.62X51 cartridges wan the day. Needless to say, the EM-2 could not be rechambered to take the much more powerful round and the weapon and concept died.

Even if one nation tried to adopt the CTA as their service standard, without a buy in by the United States the system would either die or be orphaned in the home nation. Think of the HK G-11 and its caseless 4.5mm rounds. Even a nation as large and wealthy as Germany could not go it alone (especially with other demands on the treasury).

Sad, really


----------



## Illegio (13 Apr 2011)

Well, the CTA concept is out there - the Brits are in the midst of upgrading their Warrior IFVs with a 40mm CTA cannon, among other things. Perhaps the recalcitrance of the industry to adopt a new standard can be attacked from more than one angle. If LSAT demonstrates its efficacy at the small-arms level, and the CT 40 cannon is similarly proven to be a robust medium-caliber weapon, there may be more incentive to invest in a "proven" technology.


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Apr 2011)

Are you sure the Brits are continuing with their Warrior upgrade program? In the last year they have had alot of drastic defence cuts being made as part of their strategic defence review and I wouldn't be surprised if the warrior 40mm CTA upgrade was ditched.


----------



## Illegio (13 Apr 2011)

The contract for the upgrade has already been awarded, though. Nothing in the searches I've done indicates that the contract has been cancelled, and I suspect that it would cost more to cancel it than it would to see things through to the end.


----------



## McG (13 Apr 2011)

Illegio said:
			
		

> The contract for the upgrade has already been awarded, though. Nothing in the searches I've done indicates that the contract has been cancelled, and I suspect that it would cost more to cancel it than it would to see things through to the end.


The French were working on the same 40 mm CTA weapon with the Brits.  Do you know if they are still in?  If both those nations buy-in, then it would be a viable option for LAV upgrade or CCV.


----------



## KevinB (13 Apr 2011)

Its not so much as an Industy buy in to CTA, as several firms have been working on it.

The biggest issue at this point is US Army resistance in some camps.  On the Ammunition side and some limited sides of the Small Arms Branch is has traction, however in the larger Echelons of the Small Arms Branch and the Pentagon, it seems to be ignored.

 I know one company in partnership with AAI has offered to fund a CTA Family of weapons for development and testing,  but until anyone is willing to give it a serious look it will be relegated to small briefing footnotes.

Simply from a logistical footprint outlook it makes a great deal of sense, as well as soldier load issues.


 I've drunk the CTA cool-aid however, so I'm not the most unbiased individual.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2011)

If you can believe Wikipedia on dates (and they are usually pretty credible on that kind of stuff IMO) then:

Fulminates 1800
Fulminating Powder 1807 (by a short sighted, duck hunting Scots Presbyterian minister)
Percussion Caps 1814-1822
First use of percussion caps to replace flints on Brown Bess 1842 

20 to 40 years for the Bureaucrats to catch up with the Technology.

I hope you have a big jug of Koolaid Kevin.  You might get thirsty waiting.  

*On the other hand the concept has been around a while already.


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2011)

My guess is the next round of NATO weapons will still be conventional case ammuntion.


----------



## dinicthus (7 May 2011)

I agree. Two primary benefits I see with brass cases:

They are a "solid coolant" that keeps powder combustion heat from directly contacting the chamber.

They are tough in all aspects: high-temperature resistant, physical-abuse-resistant, very-low-temperature tolerant (unlike many thermoplastics, which can become quite brittle).

And, well, proven.

But, new plastics are being invented. The resin that some carbon fibre parts are molded with can withstand 2000 degrees F, IIRC.


----------



## KevinB (8 May 2011)

Polymer mix casings can be quite effective - and the push thru CTA flipper chamber keeps the chamber cooler than conventional designs.

The question is NATO open to new technologies.  Several entities are pushing for a larger than 5.56mm round, however the weight associated with larger rounds keep them from being a true replacement option.


----------



## Greenman (10 May 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> If I did issue it - you'd need to start punching out officers and NCO's that allready have troops ruining the muzzle crown by scraping it (worse I had one Weapons Tech SGT tell me it was the peel washer  :



You strike a couple nerves with this comment. I have preached for 22 years that we over clean weapons. It drives me nuts. Also, as a Weapons Tech I am curious what Sgt in my trade can't tell the difference between the muzzle crown and the washers. Send me a PM, I would appreciate it.


----------



## dinicthus (11 May 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Polymer mix casings can be quite effective - and the push thru CTA flipper chamber keeps the chamber cooler than conventional designs.
> 
> The question is NATO open to new technologies.  Several entities are pushing for a larger than 5.56mm round, however the weight associated with larger rounds keep them from being a true replacement option.



Especially in the case of the squad automatic weapon, wouldn't more rounds of ammo being able to be carried be far more important than the "extra stopping power" or extra penetration or effective range of 7.62, or 6.8, or whatever? I figured volume of fire was the main selling point of the SAW, not being able to place rounds further downrange.

Anyone experience a disappointing lack of performance from the 5.56mm rounds in a squad weapon that can add some input here?


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2011)

A sort of update on the LSAT, including some info on the "carbine", which uses a totally different action than the MG. The projected in service date is interesting....

http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/lsat-e.html



> The LSAT Lightweight Small Arms Technology program was initiated by US Army early in 2000s, as an attempt to significantly reduce combat load of the infantrymen, especially those carrying the Squad Automatic Weapons / light machine guns, such as M249 SAW. In around 2004 the ATK corporation was selected as a prime contractor to develop appropriate small arms system, which would necessarily include new, lighter ammunition and a gun (guns) to fire it. Initial intent was to develop a caseless ammunition (which provides maximum savings in the weight and size), with a fall-back option for polymer cased ammunition with telescoped design (in this design bullet is fully 'buried' inside the powder charge withing the simple cylindrical case). By the 2010, ATK sucessfully developed both caseless (CL) and  and cased telescoped (CT) ammo, and several prototype weapons to fire it. The CT ammunition and guns currently are most developed, and show average 41% weight and 13% volume reduction when compared to the standard 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. The caseless ammo shows somewhat better numbers, but it is also more expensive and, as of now, remains on earlier stages of development. Current plans are to deliver 8 LSAT machine guns and 100 000 rounds of CT ammunition to US Army by May 2011, for initial assessment. Additionally, ATK recently displayed the LSAT carbine, which fires same CT ammo from 4-row detachable box magazine, holding 42 rounds. The carbine is still in early development stage. According to the ATK presentations at NDIA 2010 symposium, the manufacturer is ready to scale the LSAT system up for more potent and promising calibers in 6.5 - 6.8mm range, but not until specifically asked to do so by the US Army. *Current (mid-2010) documents suggest that it is possible to see first units equipped with LSAT small arms system by 2016*.
> 
> The ammunition for LSAT weapons is made in the form of simple cylinder. Caseless (CL) ammunition is made from formed propellant, with bullet located inside and primer glued to the rear. Case telescoped (CT) ammunition uses cylindrical cases, made from plastic. Ammunition weights now 8.3gram (CT) and 6.3gram (CL) compared with 12.2 gram for 5.56mm M855.Plastic machine gun links weigh 0.5gram instead of 2.0 gram for steel. This results in combat load of 600 linked rounds weighting 9.4 kg with standard M855 ammo, and just 5.8 kg with CT and 4.6 kg with CL ammo. Ballistics of both CL and CT ammunition is similar to the 5.56mm M855, and similar bullets are used.
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2011)

Nice to see a bayonet lug on there. Common sense lives!


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2012)

A report on the M-25. As a squad/section level grenade launcher it is certainly a light support weapon. The interesting point in the rticle is the rangefinding/fuse setting technology is getting migrated to larger 40m grenades as well:

http://www.economist.com/node/21542716?frsc=dg|a



> *Magic bullets*
> Smart ammunition is about to make things a lot more dangerous for guerrillas fighting regular troops
> Jan 14th 2012 | from the print edition
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2012)

.338 MMG @ 24 lbs



> General Dynamics Unveils New Medium-Caliber Machine Gun at Joint Armaments Conference In Seattle
> 
> (Source: General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products; issued May 15, 2012)
> 
> ...



What happens if you marry this up with a 400 round back pack and supply 4 of them to the Company Commander as a support element?


----------



## Dkeh (17 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What happens if you marry this up with a 400 round back pack and supply 4 of them to the Company Commander as a support element?



We would pay a billion dollars a year in ammo costs for that beast!

---------------------------------------------------- Unrelated to above post----------------------------------------------------------

From my minuscule Infantry Corporals brain, the things I care about are:

-Reliability is number one. If the thing jams every time I pull the trigger, I don't care if it fires heat seaking rocket powered lightsabers with chainsaws for fins. If it doesn't fire when I pull the trigger, I'm not interested. 

-Ease of stoppage clearance- If it takes me 3 full seconds to fix a minor stoppage, not interested. If it jams , so be it, but I damn well want to be able to clear it, Ricky tick.

-NO SMALL PARTS- By this, I mean no small parts I can loose while preforming basic maintenance, in the dark, in the rain, in the middle of the forest. If my weapon breaks because I lost a small pin, or because a little spring broke, I'm not going to be a happy person. 

-Firepower > Weight ratio- Will I carry a C6? Yes, because for the weight, I am packing a huge punch, and, when put in the SF role, I can dish out some serious punishment. That makes humping the ammo worth it. Do I want to carry around a 7.62 rifle, with a heavy barrel, extended magazine, laser sights, optics, etc? Fuck no. It is not my job to be mobile fire support- that's what the 6's and 9's are for. Give me a basic rifle, with light ammo (which, by extension, means I can carry a lot of it), with the OPTION of a C79 Elcan OR a flip-up battle sight, and I am happy. I can do my job, which is to protect the killing machines (the 6's and 9's).

-Machine guns are a must- How fast can a C9 pour 200 rounds down range? A hell of a lot faster than I can dump a 30 round mag, change, empty a second, change, and repeat until 200 rounds have been expended. Can I change the barrels on my IAR when it overheats from said firing, and is so hot the barrel is actually translucent? No. Instead, I am left holding a boiling hot piece of metal, which is EXTREMELY effective as a weapon...as long as I am within 1 meter of the advancing enemy hordes. Sounds fun. "C" mags jam like a bastard, and make clearing a stoppage a pain in the ass. A well trained soldier on a belt fed machine gun can clear a stoppage in just over two seconds (not to mention that you can daisy chain belts of ammo together). Oh, and lets not forget the advantage of being able to set the '6 or '9 on Adverse, or "Rock and Roll" mode. I kind of like that feature when I am setting up an ambush, laying down FPF (final protective fire), or after suffering a gas related stoppage. 

Grenade Launchers are an entirely different topic, and I can rant for hours about things. I wont get into it. 

What I DO see the need for is a DM (designated marksman) (I am not 100% sure if we are currently using a DM or not, forgive me if we are) sporting a rifle with a big scope, chambered for the same caliber that the C6 uses (for ease of ammo acquisition, or scrounging). 1 DM per section gives a large tactical advantage to a section commander,  platoon commander, company commander, etc. Priority target- that machine gun that's pinning us down. Option 1- EVERYONE FIRE EVERYTHING, KILL THAT GUY! Option 2- Bloggins, grab your DMR, kill that guy on the .50, watch and shoot anyone who tries to get it back up and rocking. 

Just my  :2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> We would pay a billion dollars a year in ammo costs for that beast!
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------- Unrelated to above post----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



That's why I believe that the only thing that is better than one C6 per section is one C6 per fire team  :nod:


----------



## Dkeh (17 May 2012)

Hey, one of the requirements for the Infantry is fitness. If you can't run with a GPMG, then you should reconsider trades. I am all for a section made up of C6 pigs


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> Hey, one of the requirements for the Infantry is fitness. If you can't run with a GPMG, then you should reconsider trades. I am all for a section made up of C6 pigs



There's whole regiment out there that agrees with you, as exemplified by this guy:

http://paracharity.org/marathon-men-in-new-york/


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> We would pay a billion dollars a year in ammo costs for that beast!
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------- Unrelated to above post----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



Well!  That was succinctly put.  

Cheers.


----------



## BernDawg (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> Hey, one of the requirements for the Infantry is fitness. If you can't run with a GPMG, then you should reconsider trades. I am all for a section made up of C6 pigs



 :warstory: One of the reasons that 2x10's were carried out with Pl support weapons..  :warstory:


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> Hey, one of the requirements for the Infantry is fitness. If you can't run with a GPMG, then you should reconsider trades. I am all for a section made up of C6 pigs



Go for it. 

While fitness in the Infantry is a requirement, that level of fitness cannot be achieved by a sizeable portion of the Infantry.

When you come back with a suggestion that makes sense,  and get off your high horse, then talk to us.

Besides, the C6 is a crse served weapon, right?


----------



## Dkeh (18 May 2012)

I don't consider myself more fit than anyone, in fact I am significantly LESS fit than a large portion of anyone in my platoon. 

However, I can still run across a field with the C6. Walking while carrying it should not be a problem for a single Infantry soldier, and the only time running is required is during Section/Platoon/Company attacks. The distance covered is minor, and on the consolidation, you have a chance to rest. 

The "section of C6's" was a joke, and I see now how it can be taken out of context. 

But honestly, I do feel that an Infantry soldier should be fit enough to run (not sprint, but move with haste) across broken ground, with a C6 for a short while. All things considered, everyone is carrying extra (The signaler is carrying the 522, albeit on his back, the 'carlo team is carrying a ton of weight, a C9 gunner is carrying his own gun, and ammo for god knows what else) and everyone is expected to run. 

I did not mean to come off as preachy, and I should have definitely elaborated on my opinion.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> I don't consider myself more fit than anyone, in fact I am significantly LESS fit than a large portion of anyone in my platoon.
> 
> However, I can still run across a field with the C6. Walking while carrying it should not be a problem for a single Infantry soldier, and the only time running is required is during Section/Platoon/Company attacks. The distance covered is minor, and on the consolidation, you have a chance to rest.
> 
> ...



Now that you have explained yourself, I am in agreement. Moving with haste is different than running or sprinting. Agreed. Besides, the C6 Crew has the best go. It may have to carry a bit more weight, however it doesn't have to perform fire and movement for the most part.

My two favorite weapons - C6 in the SF role and  the M2 .50 cal HMG. Reach out and touch someone....


----------



## Dkeh (18 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It may have to carry a bit more weight, however it doesn't have to perform fire and movement for the most part.



Well, that depends on how much your section commander hates you  ;D

The only time I have ever even touched an M2 was in the SAT rooms (I didn't know they had M2's in the SAT's?!), and I can honestly say, I am glad I don't have to carry that thing!


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> Well, that depends on how much your section commander hates you  ;D
> 
> The only time I have ever even touched an M2 was in the SAT rooms (I didn't know they had M2's in the SAT's?!), and I can honestly say, I am glad I don't have to carry that thing!



I take issue with the Sect Comd comment - the C6 is a Pl Sp Weapon, not a section weapon. 

The M2 has a three man crew and you only really want to manpack it for short distances. 

128 pounds - or 58 kg, before ammo. I want my Dodge Ram to transport that weapon.....


----------



## dangerboy (18 May 2012)

The mighty weapons det toboggan can transport the .50 cal also, as I have bad memories of doing "Weapons Det, that ridge line".  The weapon was not the bad item, it was the ammo that made the toboggan heavy.


----------



## Dkeh (18 May 2012)

3 man crew? 

1 for the gun, 1 for the Barrel + ammo, and 1 for the tripod + ammo? Is that right?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2012)

Dkeh PM Inbound WRT .50



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> The mighty weapons det toboggan can transport the .50 cal also, as I have bad memories of doing "Weapons Det, that ridge line".  The weapon was not the bad item, it was the ammo that made the toboggan heavy.



How true. 100 rounds of 4 B1T is not what you call light.


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2012)

I’m a bit surprised the proposal didn’t mate a medium calibre round to the LSAT project.

For those of you who don’t know, LSAT uses telescoped ammunition to make the round shorter and lighter, which leads to a lighter, simpler action and so on. 5.56mm LSAT LMG’s have been fielded as prototypes and performed well. A 5.56 rifle has also been produced, to test the concept with linkless feed. The weapons and ammunition are quite light compared to C-7’s and C-9’s. (The danger is some bright person will decide if you have saved weight with the weapon and ammunition, you can now carry something else. When I was a private I carried 100lbs of heavy stuff. Now I carry 100lbs of really light stuff…)

There is no particular reason for LSAT to use 5.56 besides convenience and having a known baseline to start from, I could easily see 6.5mm LSAT weapons as the standard, providing hard hitting firepower to perhaps 1000m, and larger calibre weapons using the principle to fill the role of the GPMG and HMG (a similar project using telescoped ammunition is in progress in Europe for automatic cannons, so if you like your mayhem in 40mm…)

There is an LSAT thread in Army.ca somewhere, or you can read about it here


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 May 2012)

If anyone is interested, here is the factsheet for General Dynamics' LWMMG (with pictures). 

 Lightweight Medium Machine Gun


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 May 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested, here is the factsheet for General Dynamics' LWMMG (with pictures).
> 
> Lightweight Medium Machine Gun



Ummm.. unless I'm mistaken it's the same weight as the C6: 24 lbs. Right?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 May 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Ummm.. unless I'm mistaken it's the same weight as the C6: 24 lbs. Right?



And based on higher .338 consumption rates I believe it would be safe to expect the $/round rate to decrease.  That would make sniping cheaper.....


----------



## KevinB (19 May 2012)

.338 Norma Mag not Lapua Mag.

Different Round.

Frankly while the round (either of those .338's) are good capabilities - outside of a vehicle mounted system - is a non started due to ammo weight.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And based on higher .338 consumption rates I believe it would be safe to expect the $/round rate to decrease.  That would make sniping cheaper.....



So let's stick with the C6 then... or even better, the M240L

"M240L 
Weight reduced short-barreled M240L, the newest variant in service.The M240L (or M240B Weight Reduction Program, formerly the M240E6), reduces the weight of the existing M240B by 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg).[7] To achieve 18% weight savings the M240L incorporates titanium construction and alternative manufacturing methods for fabricating major components. The resulting improvements will reduce the soldier’s combat load while allowing easier handling and movement of the weapon. The M240L may replace the M240B in U.S. Army service.[6] It is expected to be type classified in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun


----------



## Redeye (19 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> .338 Norma Mag not Lapua Mag.
> 
> Different Round.
> 
> Frankly while the round (either of those .338's) are good capabilities - outside of a vehicle mounted system - is a non started due to ammo weight.



And presumably, the ammo won't be match grade!


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> .338 Norma Mag not Lapua Mag.
> 
> Different Round.
> 
> Frankly while the round (either of those .338's) are good capabilities - outside of a vehicle mounted system - is a non started due to ammo weight.



Thanks again Kevin.  

One more time you square me away.

Cheers.


----------



## R031button (20 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And based on higher .338 consumption rates I believe it would be safe to expect the $/round rate to decrease.  That would make sniping cheaper.....



No it wouldn't, DMs and Snipers don't just use de linked ammunition, to be effective they use match grade ammunition and that "rate of consumption" wouldn't really be affected.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 May 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> No it wouldn't, DMs and Snipers don't just use de linked ammunition, to be effective they use match grade ammunition and that "rate of consumption" wouldn't really be affected.



Thanks.  Between you and Kevin, consider me sorted.


----------



## KevinB (20 May 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> No it wouldn't, DMs and Snipers don't just use de linked ammunition, to be effective they use match grade ammunition and that "rate of consumption" wouldn't really be affected.



Want to bet?

Unfortunately way to often US Army and USMC snipers need to use delinked M80 ball, and believe me can go thru ammo pretty quick in some environments.

240L for me is a non starter -- its got a Titanium receiver, besides the galling issues Ti has, the majority of the worlds Ti is in Russia or China, neither a country I trust further than I can throw.


----------



## R031button (21 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Want to bet?
> 
> Unfortunately way to often US Army and USMC snipers need to use delinked M80 ball, and believe me can go thru ammo pretty quick in some environments.
> 
> 240L for me is a non starter -- its got a Titanium receiver, besides the galling issues Ti has, the majority of the worlds Ti is in Russia or China, neither a country I trust further than I can throw.



I'm just basing that off of my platoon's DM being issued match grade 7.62 for his AR 10. I assumed that was the norm, if it's not, well I stand corrected.


----------



## KevinB (21 May 2012)

He was lucky -- of course its like when the C7CT was issued, and we got a directive not to shoot C77 thru them (and then a directive not to use the US Mk262 77gr OTM ammo as it was not acquired properly  :facepalm.  Nothing 'wrong' with shooting ball out of a precision weapon, just not ideal from an accuracy standpoint (and in the case of the steel jackets rounds, not the best for barrel life)

Likley in a heavy TiC he would have had to steal C21 ball from a C6 gunner (or from a LAV)


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> I'm just basing that off of my platoon's DM being issued match grade 7.62 for his AR 10. I assumed that was the norm, if it's not, well I stand corrected.



Your DM was issued an AR 10? Reallly? They're, like, 50 years old aren't they? (or almost as old as me  ;D). 

I had no idea we had those on issue...


----------



## R031button (21 May 2012)

Armalite still makes AR 10's, and they were procured as an IOR for Afghanistan.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 May 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> Armalite still makes AR 10's, and they were procured as an IOR for Afghanistan.



Fantastic. Want... one... please  :nod:


----------



## KevinB (22 May 2012)

The Armalite of today (and the AR-10) are not the ones of yesterday.

Armalite was sold off from Fairchild and went defunct -- Col (ret.) Mark Westrom of Eagle Arms bought the rights to the name.  The gun is a whole lot different -- it uses modified M-14 mags, as opposed to the original mags (that we use on the SR-25 series - possibly cause we had a slew of the original AR-10 mags  )


----------



## IRepoCans (22 May 2012)

On the topic of match grade 7.62 you for precision work you would actually be better off shooting .260 Remington, it has out performed 7.62 on various occasions and since it uses a .308 casing doesn't need much changing of the weapon's internals, only problem is that 7.62 is a hell of a lot better for GPMG duty, especially from a FN Mag series system.

Now I'm just going to run into a lead lined bunker fearing I might start a nuclear debate...


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The Armalite of today (and the AR-10) are not the ones of yesterday.
> 
> Armalite was sold off from Fairchild and went defunct -- Col (ret.) Mark Westrom of Eagle Arms bought the rights to the name.  The gun is a whole lot different -- it uses modified M-14 mags, as opposed to the original mags (that we use on the SR-25 series - possibly cause we had a slew of the original AR-10 mags  )



Very nice.

Are these weapons on general issue, or just to 'sandbox bound' battalions?


----------



## BernDawg (22 May 2012)

IRepoCans said:
			
		

> On the topic of match grade 7.62 you for precision work you would actually be better off shooting .260 Remington, it has out performed 7.62 on various occasions and since it uses a .308 casing doesn't need much changing of the weapon's internals, only problem is that 7.62 is a hell of a lot better for GPMG duty, especially from a FN Mag series system.
> 
> Now I'm just going to run into a lead lined bunker fearing I might start a nuclear debate...


 :worms: We could debate the benefits of different cals all day however the DM would be a waste of rations when he ran out of rounds then wouldn't he....


----------



## IRepoCans (22 May 2012)

The thing with .260 since its relatively the same size as a 7.62 round the only thing you are changing is the barrel, which means when you run out swap the barrel and go nutz.

Edit: Now I'm not saying multiple cals is a good thing, just pointing out for precision work there are better alternatives to 7.62, a question though anyone ever try that Mk.262?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2012)

IRepoCans said:
			
		

> The thing with .260 since its relatively the same size as a 7.62 round the only thing you are changing is the barrel, which means when you run out swap the barrel and go nutz.
> 
> Edit: Now I'm not saying multiple cals is a good thing, just pointing out for precision work there are better alternatives to 7.62, a question though anyone ever try that Mk.262?



Logistics. You forgot logistics.

In an Infantry Platoon there are several types of ammo:

Rifles, C9 LMGs, C6 GPMG, 84 mm AT ammo, grenades, 40 mm grenades etc etc. Plus, maintenance costs and training soldiers and weapons techs.

Its not simple to add another weapon.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (22 May 2012)

IRepoCans said:
			
		

> The thing with .260 since its relatively the same size as a 7.62 round the only thing you are changing is the barrel, which means when you run out swap the barrel and go nutz.
> 
> Edit: Now I'm not saying multiple cals is a good thing, just pointing out for precision work there are better alternatives to 7.62, a question though anyone ever try that Mk.262?



So carry an extra barrel and then find time to zero your weapon after you have changed it.  Then you get to carry a barrel around that you can't use.

Best is the enemy of good enough.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2012)

All the above would seem to give more support to investigating entirely new calibres and systems. We want to have relatively light weapons yet have lethal effects over a broad range band, AND not have to carry too many different calibres or weapons types. Wishing for six impossible things before breakfast seems easy by comparison.

As a thought experiment, using some "catalog shopping" I'd issue the following:

6.5mm LSAT for individual and section level weapons (rifle and LMG). This should provide a lethal punch past 500m and probably out to 1000m in a fairly lightweight package.
40mm grenades mated to the M-25 fuse and fire control system for long range suppression. An improved grenade with a flatter trajectory would be nice as well, especially if the range can be tweaked to 500m. (If the 35mm grenade is controllable from a M-203 type weapon [see below], then go for that)
Vastly improved SRAAW(L) for armour protection and bunker busting. The 84mm AT-4 gives the soldier a Karl Gustave like punch in a single shot weapon.

7-8mm LSAT GPMG analogue for platoon support.
35mm lightweight automatic grenade launcher (see QLZ-87 automatic grenade launcher) for area suppression.
Javelin or Gill/Spike as the platoon level MRAAW
Improved 60mm mortar

This implies a platoon built around a much larger weapons section. As in most situations, some of the platoon support weapons may be gathered together for Company tasks, or left in the CQ if not needed for a particular mission. Ammunition supply will be the critical factor in dismounted operations, unless we start mating this with other ideas like robotic load carriers, ultra light vehicles (ATV's, etc.) or really different platoon and company organizations.

Mounted platoon fire support should be from large calibre automatic cannon on the vehicles; I would be looking at 40mm to deal with the largest possible target array. A coaxial GPMG is a must, and if the platoon MRAAW can be mounted on the turret (especially if the weapon is "Fire and Forget"), that would give the vehicle commander the option to "shoot from the hip" if confronted with an armoured target the 40mm cannot handle.

Some of this thinking is driven by the potential of platoons to be operating in widely dispersed formations well away from Company level support, so there is a need to be able to deal with a broad array of target types on your own.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2012)

I'm still convinced by the research I've seen that the LMG is nothing but noise and comfort - it's an LMG employed as an automatic rifle.  The Marines seem big on the automatic rifle - there are some good reads from the Second World War on the typical sounds of an engagement.  Rifle fire (both Mauser and Enfield) until the spandau starts zipping.  Then wait for a bit, and Allied arty and mortars tend to finish it up.  Lesson - have a good machine gun but better mortars.... :facepalm:  

I'd rather see sections built around a GPMG and some sort of grenade launcher.  Crew served goodness and HE are what truely suppresses and wins engagements.  Have less guys in a section carrying linked 5.56mm and more 40mm grenades and 7.62 link.  As for a personal weapon, they don't appear to be very useful in an engagement - they basically need to protect the GPMG and the Grenade launcher.  The C8A2 is a suitable piece of kit - I wouldn't mind something even smaller (while still preserving the dignity of the Rifleman) that didn't puke all over itself everytime you pulled the trigger, but beggers can't be choosers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm still convinced by the research I've seen that the LMG is nothing but noise and comfort - it's an LMG employed as an automatic rifle.  The Marines seem big on the automatic rifle - there are some good reads from the Second World War on the typical sounds of an engagement.  Rifle fire (both Mauser and Enfield) until the spandau starts zipping.  Then wait for a bit, and Allied arty and mortars tend to finish it up.  Lesson - have a good machine gun but better mortars.... :facepalm:
> 
> I'd rather see sections built around a GPMG and some sort of grenade launcher.  Crew served goodness and HE are what truely suppresses and wins engagements.  Have less guys in a section carrying linked 5.56mm and more 40mm grenades and 7.62 link.  As for a personal weapon, they don't appear to be very useful in an engagement - they basically need to protect the GPMG and the Grenade launcher.  The C8A2 is a suitable piece of kit - I wouldn't mind something even smaller (while still preserving the dignity of the Rifleman) that didn't puke all over itself everytime you pulled the trigger, but beggers can't be choosers.



Goodness me... the next thing you'll be advocating for is a larger section and a 60mm mortar integral to the platoon!


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 May 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Goodness me... the next thing you'll be advocating for is a larger section and a 60mm mortar integral to the platoon!


 And why not the U.S. Marine 13 man rifle squad has lot to recommend it and not just the fire power those three men provide. They also provide you with something I suspect a lot of us are loath to even discuss the ability to sustain casualties and continue to function as a combat capable unit. :2c:


----------



## Journeyman (23 May 2012)

Next the heretics will be recommending we'll be fielding rifle sections based upon what a vehicle may, or may not, hold.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2012)

7, 8, 9, 10 or 13 - I've seen the debate rage here and other places over what size a section should be.  I think I've said it here, but the number is pretty much a bean-counting device, and operations confirmed this to me when I sent out sections with every number between 5 and 15 to accomplish a task.

It's the tactics that count, and I feel at this point that a section built around a GPMG and a GL is a solid point to start for doctrine.  What the other 5 to 11 guys are doing is up to the section commander.

There is something to be said for the big squads of the Marines to absorb casualties.  That being said, it's hard to move that many guys tactically unless you are doing it in a big amphibious vehicle.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2012)

> There is something to be said for the big squads of the Marines to absorb casualties.  That being said, it's hard to move that many guys tactically unless you are doing it in a big amphibious vehicle.



sniff....sniff.....sounds just like  old home week.....my battalion was an amtrac battalion, sigh...... ;D


----------



## Dkeh (23 May 2012)

Consider me ignorant, but what is the issue with a DM firing 7.62mm x 51mm? 

They can be issued match grade ammo if required, or can use delinked C6 ammo in a pinch.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm still convinced by the research I've seen that the LMG is nothing but noise and comfort - it's an LMG employed as an automatic rifle.  The Marines seem big on the automatic rifle - there are some good reads from the Second World War on the typical sounds of an engagement.  Rifle fire (both Mauser and Enfield) until the spandau starts zipping.  Then wait for a bit, and Allied arty and mortars tend to finish it up.  Lesson - have a good machine gun but better mortars.... :facepalm:
> 
> I'd rather see sections built around a GPMG and some sort of grenade launcher.  Crew served goodness and HE are what truely suppresses and wins engagements.  Have less guys in a section carrying linked 5.56mm and more 40mm grenades and 7.62 link.  As for a personal weapon, they don't appear to be very useful in an engagement - they basically need to protect the GPMG and the Grenade launcher.  The C8A2 is a suitable piece of kit - I wouldn't mind something even smaller (while still preserving the dignity of the Rifleman) that didn't puke all over itself everytime you pulled the trigger, but beggers can't be choosers.



This sounds a bit like pre 1980 sections, with the 2I/C in charge of the C-2 "det"; we could have the 2 C-9 gunners ditch the C-9's in favour of a GPMG or a Chinese 35mm grenade launcher (which is about the size and weight of a C6). Of course an even lighter GPMG would be better, and being me I would be all for a lightweight SF kit as well  (If we consider the standard for a platoon weapons det to have 2 X GPMG then this would bring a platoon to 5 X support weapons when everyone is on the ground). Section riflemen would have the 6.5mm LSAT rifle and reworked M-203 style grenade launchers (35mm grenades compatable with the AGL if practical, reworked grenades for a 500m range and flatter trajectory and M-25 type fuse and targetting system would be ideal).

Going one step further, place one GPMG in each section and have two lightweight grenade launchers with the support section to get the most bang for the buck (not giving up the MRAAW or 60mm by any means either); a GPMG can go into action very fast while the extra firepower of an AGL is best used with some more deliberation when setting up and under control of the PL 2I/C or Weapons det commander.

Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.


----------



## Dkeh (23 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.



I can see the logistical issue of procuring new weapons systems, however if the caliber was the same at the GPMG, the rounds are already in the system, and easily procured. 

In my mind, I don't see the DM as a specialty trade or asset (like a pioneer), rather, just a regular rifleman (who would normally be carrying just a C7) who scored well on their PWT, carrying a rifle with a larger punch. If, for example, they were using a C7-CT (which I admittedly do not know much about) there would be minimal additional training required to get everyone up to speed on the weapon system. Should the DM go down, the section/platoon commander can have another section member take up the DMR with minimal effort. I guess (in my opinion) the ideal DMR would function similarly enough to the C7 that the average soldier who does not need to fully strip the weapon down to its base components could operate it with minimal additional training, and would be chambered for the 7.62 x 51, to give it more of a punch at greater ranges / armored targets. Am I way out in left field here?

I fully agree with you, about additional support weapons being a great idea. An AGL or an extra GPMG would really add some punch to a section. To make up for the additional required ammo for the extra '6, have the DMR carry it ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2012)

So tell me again.

What is wrong with the 7.62/.308/30-06/.303/7.92 generation of ammunition as a General Purpose round?  It has range.  It has stopping power.  It is workable for the close quarters battle when you want to punch through wood huts, North American Gyproc/OSB, and cinder blocks.  And it is portable by the PBI in useful quantities.

There is a place for smaller calibres / lighter weight rounds but what would be so wrong about just taking one step to the rear and issuing C6s and AR10s at the section level with Platoon Level C6s being equipped with SF kits?

For weapons  and vehicle crews there is always the FN P-90 PDW in 5.7mm.


----------



## KevinB (23 May 2012)

7mm CTA IW 16.5" bbl 
7mm CTA LMG 16.5" bbl and 20" barrel 
(800m capability, 1200m harassing/grazing fire capability)

6mm CTA PDW/Commander/Crew Weapon 8-10" bbl 
(300m capbilty to outfight AK armed opponents)

8mm CTA MMG (around capabilities of .338LM)
(1600-2200m capability) 

40mm CTA Medium Range MultiBarrel Dismount GL




Just saying  :bowing:




.260 is a nice flat paper range round -- it lacks currently useful rounds for Mil applications.  Its never going to replace 7.62x51 for Mil usage.

7x46mm UIAC is probably the best bet in a section/squad round for performance - ironically similar to the early Uk round for the EM-2

However if you go to a new cartridge - why would you not go CTA in a new style weapon?

as for the 5.7 FN gun -- honestly would you go to war with .22Mag ?  Its a pistol caliber gun -- if you want a long gun, pick a real long gun round -- dont half ass a compromise with a pistol crossover.
  I've seen real and related serious FTS from P90 lack of terminal performance.

   Jacksonville County Sherrif's Office withdrew it from SWAT usage after multiple failures, the USSS withdrew it. etc etc etc.
There is a memo out about the best way to ensure mission failure is to issue that weapon/ammo

I'm not writing that as a competitor - that was my attitude for years prior on the Hk Mp-7 and the FN P90 that the NATO idea of pistol and PDW ammo compatibility was STUPID - either you end up with a pistol that is heavy and uncontrollable due to to big a round, or you get the .17HMR/.22MAG type guns - and thats just as dumb.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2012)

But the P90 worked so cool on Stargate !! ;D

OK, fair enough. It is a light round and the gun has rotate the ammunition through two axes to chamber a round.  What else could go wrong?

Having said that - is there another weapon out there that has short range stopping power, a large capacity magazine and doesn't have a lot of pointy corners that get in the way of the poor blighter carrying it while performing their primary function of delivering goodies in support of the infantry?


----------



## Haligonian (23 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This sounds a bit like pre 1980 sections, with the 2I/C in charge of the C-2 "det"; we could have the 2 C-9 gunners ditch the C-9's in favour of a GPMG or a Chinese 35mm grenade launcher (which is about the size and weight of a C6). Of course an even lighter GPMG would be better, and being me I would be all for a lightweight SF kit as well  (If we consider the standard for a platoon weapons det to have 2 X GPMG then this would bring a platoon to 5 X support weapons when everyone is on the ground). Section riflemen would have the 6.5mm LSAT rifle and reworked M-203 style grenade launchers (35mm grenades compatable with the AGL if practical, reworked grenades for a 500m range and flatter trajectory and M-25 type fuse and targetting system would be ideal).
> 
> Going one step further, place one GPMG in each section and have two lightweight grenade launchers with the support section to get the most bang for the buck (not giving up the MRAAW or 60mm by any means either); a GPMG can go into action very fast while the extra firepower of an AGL is best used with some more deliberation when setting up and under control of the PL 2I/C or Weapons det commander.
> 
> Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.



I'd put the M32 in the sects.  That would allow for some serious HE to go down range very quickly if necessary.  It also employs a nature of ammunition we already possess.  Although I am curious about the XM 25, however, I would wait until it is a proven commodity.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2012)

Putting the XM-25 fuse and rangefinder together with a larger calibre grenade (35-40mm) seems to have the best of both worlds; the 25mm may be suitable but isn't really proven yet, while you know someone will not like having the much bigger round going off overhead. (If the 25mm is to have a real role, I would actually suggest a belt or drum fed support weapon version; if one round isn't able to do the job a five round burst will certainly do). 

Really, the PDW was developed back in the 1980's (evolving from much earlier work); a bullpup weapon in regular calibre keeps the same barrel and ammunition in a much shorter package. The EM-2 was the first practical weapon developed to use this idea, and the Steyr AUG was the first in service bullpup weapon adopted. In fact, the AUG had lots of innovative touches that make it perfect for service support pers who are not highly trained, including an ultra simple reticle (any target inside the circle from 0-300m will get hit), simple selector (safe and fire) and only goes to auto when the trigger is "snatched", which takes advantage of the startle reflex. Squeezing the trigger as taught provides single shots. 

While this is a bit sideways from the main topic, bullpup or other compact weapons designs will also have an advantage for the regular soldiers, especially when working out of vehicles and helicopters, moving in complex terrain or in urban settings. Just ensure the barrel is long enough to provide acceptable terminal ballistics (especially since we now want our weapons to hit targets beyond 300m).


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just ensure the barrel is long enough to provide acceptable terminal ballistics (especially since we now want our weapons to hit targets beyond 300m).



Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?


----------



## OldSolduer (23 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?



I agree. Machine guns and indirect fire do the killing, not the individual rifleman, unless he/she is a special ops type that needs a better weapon


----------



## Kirkhill (24 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree. Machine guns and indirect fire do the killing, not the individual rifleman, unless he/she is a special ops type that needs a better weapon



So with what do you arm the guy that stands up and walks over to the enemy position to count the dead and take the names and addresses of the survivors?  

Perhaps a pointy stick?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2012)

IMHO, those who want to load the individual infatryman down with yet more 'combat bling', like a fancy schmancy OICWs etc, are giving up on the concept of the all arms battle. Based on my unscientific and fully biased observation, this tends to happen in armies that have been fighting COIN type conflicts, where there is more onus placed on the infantry to 'do it all'.

It would be nice to see a return to a more team based approach to fighting the ground battle that leaves the infantryman with as little extra gear/weapons as possible, including (sharp intake of breath) body armour.

Kind of like this guy:


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2012)

Remember these guys?







They caused us all sorts of grief from about 7 June 1944 onward for a spell.

Anyway, yes, as I often recall from my formative years as I was first joining the military, it's about a team approach.


----------



## KevinB (24 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?



Sharp stick it is...


Bullpups are ergonomic nightmares -- they seems like a good idea until issued...

 *Uk Mod says the SA80 replacement WILL NOT BE A BULLPUP.



Frankly engagments will small arms and the hit probability is a training issue.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So with what do you arm the guy that stands up and walks over to the enemy position to count the dead and take the names and addresses of the survivors?
> 
> Perhaps a pointy stick?



Well that might work, but a good all purpose rifle would do the trick. NOT one decoarated with the latest kit - which adds to the load and the maintenance bill.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Frankly engagments will small arms and the hit probability is a training issue.




Partially true as well, PLUS Dr Grossman found out that some indidvidual soldiers will aim off during engagements.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2012)

The biggest problem with markmanship of troops is the automatic firing capacity. 

If you have to pull the trigger each time, you take a sight picture. Not so with the automatic feature. We used the M14 in the initial part of my tours....auto was avoided as you couldn't stay on target after about 2-3 rounds. 

With the introduction of the M16, this was no longer a large issue, but that didn't mean the troops were taking sight pictures, just blazing away.


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Sharp stick it is...
> 
> 
> Bullpups are ergonomic nightmares -- they seems like a good idea until issued...
> ...



I've already stated above that the C8A2 is fine.  The ballistics out to 300m are what a rifleman needs - I was arguing against looking for a rifle with real performance beyond 300 meters for the rifleman.



> Frankly engagments will small arms and the hit probability is a training issue.



That is generally the argument, but from my understanding, it is not completely true.  Operational research suggests that, regardless of training, moving from a static range to a field firing environment where a soldier shoots, moves and communicates reduces the reduces the soldiers ability to hit a target by a factor of ten.  Having an enemy fire back reduces by another factor of ten, while being engaged by an enemy MG mean another factor of ten.

This suggests that all the training in the world doesn't really doesn't really help a soldier hit stuff due to the physiological and psychological factors involved in 'shoot, move and communicate'.  It also suggests why crew served weapons are so important - it's their ability to create suppression and the psychological factors involved in defeat (the bad guy is generally beaten before you have to kill him) and the fact that crews don't generally have to run around the battlefield and get engaged - they use their standoff range to avoid this degrading factors.

The so what?  We probably don't need a rifle with performance past 300 meters.  We probably don't need training to focus on trying to hit s**t while on the move across a 300 meter field that is probably being swept by machine gun fire.  We probably need something that is light, and we need to train soldiers not to piss away 7 mags (210 rounds) in a firefight to hit nothing, so that they can carry more mortar bombs, 40mm grenades or 7.62 belts.  The infantry needs a rifle that:

1.  From 0-25m can be used to clear trenches, buildings and other positions that an enemy would hide in; and

2.  From 25-300m, something that can be used from a static position to protect crew-served weapons from advancing enemy.


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Partially true as well, PLUS Dr Grossman found out that some indidvidual soldiers will aim off during engagements.



I wouldn't bother with Dr Grossman - while there is some value in his first book, his theories are generally out there and have been run through in various articles and journals.

One aspect he does speak to, and that LCol Ian Hope also mentioned in an article, is that of the 'fighters'.  Generally, in a section of 8-10 men, 1-2 will actually do all the fighting while the rest will kind of hang around and pitch in once in a while with a half-hearted attempt.  1-2 won't do anything at all.  It's those 1-2 fighters in a section that really keep the fight going.  Here is the article where Hope mentions his observations of 'natural fighters'.  I've also attached a word doc of a report by Lionel Wigram, who studied battalions in Sicily and noticed the same thing with what he termed 'gutful men'.


----------



## KevinB (24 May 2012)

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this.

I agree in most non SOF units that Ian Hope (while I hate his guts) is correct in this comment -- however its been documented that realistic training (and repetitive realistic training) can increase both hit probability - and the actual fighting ability of individuals (and thus units).

 There is a reason a lot of SOF elements are giving 7.62mm options to their shooters -- and why scopes like the Leupold 1.1-8x where developed -- and guys are killing tons of bad guys at long ranges - without machine guns etc.

 This gets even more important when you spread out dismounted entities - they need to ability (and the confidence to employ the weapon at those ranges) to outmatch their enemies.

The British, Germans and Canadians (mostly SOF) are looking for a new Individual round - not quite 7.62mm NATO, but more than 5.56mm - so their troops can reach out further.

I can shoot 300m with a C8CQB and a CCO (11.5" barrel) 

The problem is marksmanship in the CF, US Army etc is downright disgusting.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2012)

> The problem is marksmanship in the CF, US Army etc is downright disgusting.



I agree wholeheartedly....

we had to range qualify every year, irrespective of your MOS. You must shoot 190 out of possible 250  to qualify at ranges of 100 yd, 300 yd, and 500 yd. Even in Viet Nam we had to qualify....which was ironic having just come in off a 3 week operation...


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm going to respectfully disagree with this.
> 
> I agree in most non SOF units that Ian Hope (while I hate his guts) is correct in this comment -- however its been documented that realistic training (and repetitive realistic training) can increase both hit probability - and the actual fighting ability of individuals (and thus units).
> 
> ...



If war is the auditor of nations, the Boer War was the auditor of marksmanship... poor mostly in the case of the victors:

THE civilian rifle club movement in England grew out of the disasters of the first months of the Anglo-Boer War late in 1899. The British Army suffered a series of reverses at the hands of outnumbered civilians unlike anything the nation had witnessed in the prior years. One of the shocking revelations of the war was the poor standard of marksmanship in the army compared to that of the Boers. The Boers grew up hunting and riding; each burgher provided his own horse and rifle when he joined his commando. These expert game shots, partial to the bolt-action Mauser repeater, took a heavy toll on British troops often ordered to advance in long lines as if fighting lightly armed tribesmen.

http://nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2001/champions-of-civilian-marksmanship.aspx?s=


----------



## Old Sweat (24 May 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If war is the auditor of nations, the Boer War was the auditor of marksmanship... poor mostly in the case of the victors:
> 
> THE civilian rifle club movement in England grew out of the disasters of the first months of the Anglo-Boer War late in 1899. The British Army suffered a series of reverses at the hands of outnumbered civilians unlike anything the nation had witnessed in the prior years. One of the shocking revelations of the war was the poor standard of marksmanship in the army compared to that of the Boers. The Boers grew up hunting and riding; each burgher provided his own horse and rifle when he joined his commando. These expert game shots, partial to the bolt-action Mauser repeater, took a heavy toll on British troops often ordered to advance in long lines as if fighting lightly armed tribesmen.
> 
> http://nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2001/champions-of-civilian-marksmanship.aspx?s=



Without quibbling too much, that was true of rural burghers, but not so much for the some of the less affluent urban males. Agreed that it didn't help that the British army seemed to want to play Figure 11 Targets. I also believe that the governments of the two Boer republics supplied rifles - usually Mauser 98s but Portuguese Guedes and other types were issued. Later in the war when ammunition supply became critical, many Boers used captured Lee-Metfords and Lee-Enfields.

As for the number of real warriors per section, I recall reading something by either Horrocks, Montgomery or Slim to the effect that many Brit generals disliked "special units" because they attracted the warriors as volunteers.


----------



## KevinB (24 May 2012)

The USMC is probably the ONLY entity that still does medium range individual rifle qualification.
  They stacked up insurgents in Anbar province at range - to the degree of the number of headshots, they got accused of doing executions.

However most Armies on do 300m quals.

So if you do the Infanteer math -- they are probably only going to hit 30m targets.  If folks still shot out to 600m (like we did with the iron sighted FN C1A1) - they'd at least hit to 60m  

Keep in mind the R22eR CSM who shot a serb in FYR at 870ish meter with his C7A1  - took a few round but he did it.

Also there have been numerous kills at range by personnel armed with 7.62mm and 5.56mm precision systems in a DM role - all under fire.


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2012)

I'm not talking SOF.  I'm talking Infantry.

SOF has self-selection/unit selection processes that generally ensure it gets all "natural fighters".  SOF has specific missions, specific kit and specific TTPs.

I'm talking about bog standard infantry in an engagement.  I'd be interested in seeing the documented studies showing that realistic and repetive training can increase both hit and probability because the OR I have seen points to the opposite.  All I have seen to date is that realistic targetry and stress training helps increase the rate of firers, but nothing speaks to this fire as being particularly effective.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in seeing the documented studies showing that realistic and repetive training can increase both hit and probability because the OR I have seen points to the opposite.



I have no such studies, but the conclusion from the premise that realistic and repetive training decreases probability of hit implies that the less training you have, the greater chance of scoring hits.

(If that's what you meant).

Having said all this, I do believe it's intuitive that realistic training is a necessity.  I'm not saying that being able to drop a Fig 11 at 300 m on a sunny day in Wainwright means that you will drop an enemy soldier at 300m on a rainy day in (insert name of shitty country here).  But I do know that, all things being equal, if you have two soldiers at similar ranges in similar conditions firing at similar ranges in combat, the one with the realistic training will have a greater chance of scoring a hit.

Having said all of that, however, I do acknowledge that it is the support weapons that are the battle-winners.  It was stated earlier the model of the ~1982 rifle section of ten soldiers: LAR group with the 2IC, Rifle Group with the Section Commander, giving the section 2 x FN C2, 2 x SMG C1 and 6 x FN C1.  In 2012, the rifle section still numbers 10.  Could it go to a model of LMG group with 2IC and Rifle Group with the Section Commander?  Of course it could, and it would require no shift in doctrine to do so.  It's up to the commanders on the ground.  Hell, if they want to go to three groups, they can do it.  The only limit is imagination.


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2012)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here.

The reason for DM's. pushing GPMG's to section level and developing exotic weaponry like the M-25 is because the enemy has developed TTPs to engage outside of the range band of the individual rifleman, and *we* need a way for everyone to rapidly respond to engagements opened outside of the 300m range band. I am thinking from the thrust of most of these arguments that the old "most engagements happen at under 300m" conventional wisdom is being eclipsed, and a new generation of general issue service weapons capable of providing fire beyond the 300m mark are what is being advocated for (hence my support of a weapon using 6.5mm LSAT type rounds).

Hitting and killing an enemy fighter/soldier/insurgent at 500m+ with a well aimed rifle shot isn't outside the bounds of possibility (assuming the round still has enough energy to deliver a lethal blow), but I am realistic enough to say that having a round snap past your ear at any range will certainly throw you off, and if our riflemen can do that, it gives the crew served weapons time to set up and come into action. Obviously, excellent training and a decent set of optics are also a must have, and if we were to combine a more rigerous training standard with a better sight than the C-79, and issue "hot" ammunition with more muzzle energy, then we have a 75-80% solution.


----------



## McG (24 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That is generally the argument, but from my understanding, it is not completely true.  Operational research suggests that, regardless of training, moving from a static range to a field firing environment where a soldier shoots, moves and communicates reduces the reduces the soldiers ability to hit a target by a factor of ten.  Having an enemy fire back reduces by another factor of ten, while being engaged by an enemy MG mean another factor of ten.


If we trained our soldiers to engage enemy at greater ranges, does the resulting stand-off protection (ie. now shooting from beyond enemy fire) result in a gain by a factor of 10?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here.
> 
> The reason for DM's. pushing GPMG's to section level and developing exotic weaponry like the M-25 is because the enemy has developed TTPs to engage outside of the range band of the individual rifleman, and *we* need a way for everyone to rapidly respond to engagements opened outside of the 300m range band. I am thinking from the thrust of most of these arguments that the old "most engagements happen at under 300m" conventional wisdom is being eclipsed, and a new generation of general issue service weapons capable of providing fire beyond the 300m mark are what is being advocated for (hence my support of a weapon using 6.5mm LSAT type rounds).
> 
> Hitting and killing an enemy fighter/soldier/insurgent at 500m+ with a well aimed rifle shot isn't outside the bounds of possibility (assuming the round still has enough energy to deliver a lethal blow), but I am realistic enough to say that having a round snap past your ear at any range will certainly throw you off, and if our riflemen can do that, it gives the crew served weapons time to set up and come into action. Obviously, excellent training and a decent set of optics are also a must have, and if we were to combine a more rigerous training standard with a better sight than the C-79, and issue "hot" ammunition with more muzzle energy, then we have a 75-80% solution.



Isn't the range thing really a function of environment?  In Vietnam cover and concealment allowed approaches to knife fighting distances.  Gagetown brings you up to pistol shot.  In downtown Toronto I think you would be hard pressed to find 100 m lines of sight.  On the wide-open prairies, the arctic, South Africa's veldt and in Afghanistan's open country - well on a clear day and a high ledge out here in Alberta I can easily observe out to 30 km - just need good optics and a very big rifle - one of Old Sweat's would do.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here.
> 
> The reason for DM's. pushing GPMG's to section level and developing exotic weaponry like the M-25 is because the enemy has developed TTPs to engage outside of the range band of the individual rifleman, and *we* need a way for everyone to rapidly respond to engagements opened outside of the 300m range band. I am thinking from the thrust of most of these arguments that the old "most engagements happen at under 300m" conventional wisdom is being eclipsed, and a new generation of general issue service weapons capable of providing fire beyond the 300m mark are what is being advocated for (hence my support of a weapon using 6.5mm LSAT type rounds).
> 
> Hitting and killing an enemy fighter/soldier/insurgent at 500m+ with a well aimed rifle shot isn't outside the bounds of possibility (assuming the round still has enough energy to deliver a lethal blow), but I am realistic enough to say that having a round snap past your ear at any range will certainly throw you off, and if our riflemen can do that, it gives the crew served weapons time to set up and come into action. Obviously, excellent training and a decent set of optics are also a must have, and if we were to combine a more rigerous training standard with a better sight than the C-79, and issue "hot" ammunition with more muzzle energy, then we have a 75-80% solution.



Anything outside of the effective range of my section/platoon direct fire weapons is going to get the attention of my 60mm MORs (oops, don't have them anymore) or my MFC with my dedicated section of 81mm mortars (oops, can't guarantee that anymore) or the arty (not at priority call, sorry).


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (If that's what you meant).



No, its not.  What is said is that training cannot necessarily overcome the battlefield effects that substantially reduce the effectiveness of small arms.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, its not.  What is said is that *training cannot necessarily overcome the battlefield effects that substantially reduce the effectiveness of small arms*.



By "effectiveness", I take it you mean accuracy (eg: hitting that which you intend to hit).  In any event, my conclusion from this is is that training is not necessary because it "cannot necessarily overcome the battlefield effects that substantially reduce the effectiveness (accuracy) of small arms."  

So, then, why train at all if it cannot overcome these effects?

(This is why I raise the BS flag on that conclusion)

EDIT:  Do they mean "the current training" or "any" training?


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Isn't the range thing really a function of environment?  In Vietnam cover and concealment allowed approaches to knife fighting distances.  Gagetown brings you up to pistol shot.  In downtown Toronto I think you would be hard pressed to find 100 m lines of sight.  On the wide-open prairies, the arctic, South Africa's veldt and in Afghanistan's open country - well on a clear day and a high ledge out here in Alberta I can easily observe out to 30 km - just need good optics and a very big rifle - one of Old Sweat's would do.



While range is indeed a function of the environment; operational research from WWII is where the "300m range band" argument comes from. You will note this is also where the intermediate cartridge first made its appearance in the StG 44 assault rifle, which was designed with these considerations in mind.

This conventional wisdom has held firm in wars ranging from the Arab-Israeli wars to the Falkland Islands and innumerable wars in between, which have been fought in everything from open desert to tight urban environments, and with every weapon from the latest issue to home made zip guns.

Once again, I might be misreading the arguments here but the 300m range band has been breached so most squad/section weapons are rendered ineffective. A secondary argument of greater penetration vs barricades, walls and body armour is also raised as a reason to go for a more powerful weapon/round. Highly trained riflemen can put 5.56mm rounds on target at impressive ranges, but the weapon and round are optimized for the 300m fight, and not to penetrate barriers.


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> By "effectiveness", I take it you mean accuracy (eg: hitting that which you intend to hit).  In any event, my conclusion from this is is that training is not necessary because it "cannot necessarily overcome the battlefield effects that substantially reduce the effectiveness (accuracy) of small arms."
> 
> So, then, why train at all if it cannot overcome these effects?
> 
> (This is why I raise the BS flag on that conclusion)



Effectiveness is, in my opinion, the ability to suppress or kill the enemy, and we need to train because their are still important things to train for to achieve this effect.  Having riflemen pinging off a head in a trench from 300m is not one of those (although we should still teach the basics of marksmanship).  The right training is on section/platoon manoeuvre - moving the team to gain a position of advantage against the enemy.  Gaining a position of advantage does not mean riflemen running around and banging off rounds at trenches, it means using the terrain to get the crew-served weapons in a position to suppress.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2012)

I'm not going to jump in with both feet, but we shot C7, iron sight (before Elcan), at 500 mtr on a regular basis, with consistent effect. It's not rocket science, just basic musketry skills.

Get back to basics and forget the technology.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Get back to basics and forget the technology.



I am with you on this one. BUT....and there always is a BUT.....time and range space, and ammo all being constraints.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Get back to basics and forget the technology.



Indeed. If we focused more on the basic skill sets we would wring much more performance from the equipment we do have. As noted, time/space and resources do limit what we can do. On the plus side, if the soldier is well grounded in the basics, then upgrading kit becomed far more effective (since the soldier can get much closer to the maximum performance available from the weapon. A poor shot given a 6.5mm LSAT isn't going to transform into a good shot because of the new weapon...)


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Effectiveness is, in my opinion, the ability to suppress or kill the enemy, and we need to train because their are still important things to train for to achieve this effect.  Having riflemen pinging off a head in a trench from 300m is not one of those (although we should still teach the basics of marksmanship).  The right training is on section/platoon manoeuvre - moving the team to gain a position of advantage against the enemy.  Gaining a position of advantage does not mean riflemen running around and banging off rounds at trenches, it means using the terrain to get the crew-served weapons in a position to suppress.



IF they have them

Look at a dismounted section.   Heck look at a dismounted Platoon.

No precision fire capability currently.
 1-2 C-6's 
 No 60mm Mortar currently from my understanding.
 84mm CarlG

 Iron sights - well they are fine in good conditions if you and the target are not moving.
   PID - magnified optics really help
   Lower Light/Weather effects - and a illuminated aiming marker really helps.

NATO for the most part will not go back to 7.62mm (but some Armies are going back to 7.62mm LMG's at the section/squad level).

 The further your riflemen can sucessfully engage - the longer you can contiune to hide your support weapons (who are pretty attractive targets after all).


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IF they have them
> 
> Look at a dismounted section.   Heck look at a dismounted Platoon.
> 
> ...



Without an integral 60mm MOR, we are basically screwed in the dismounted role IMHO at Coy level and below, regardless of all the fancy direct fire stuff you can field.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2012)

Well I'm not sure that the 60mm could not be replaced by another system in the sections.

Something like the Milkor 6 barrel Grenade Launcher or the RVN era China Lake launcher, but using a medium velocity system. 
  KAC build a High Vel LW system that was man fireable for a program several years back - however its scarier than freefalling in pitch black with no altimeter or AAD...

However until the good idea fairy comes around sprinkling R&D pixie dust - the only system to offer that is the 60mm.

I do like direct precision fire - as I've seen and employed it to great effect (even though Infanteer feels its useless  )  

Quite frankly I've seen the 60mm round land near (inside 5m) someone in Iraq and the guy walked away with nary a scratch (there was a tape and BigRed if he's still around here can verify). So I dont think its the end all be all -- frankly I dont think anything short of a nuclear strike is a guarantee -- 
  I'm also less than jazzed about automatic weapons that many, as folks way to often go cyclic beyond their ability to get effective results - and while they are nice and noisy and give everyone a warm fuzzy that lead is going 'that a way'.  Perhaps because the majority of my time in Iraq and Afghan was small team work - that did not have the option of using a hammer, I feel that many folks who where not so constrained dont understand how effective it can be.
  Secondly I think the Canadian Forces recent love affair with firepower is going the wrong way, at least in the manner that they are viewing the section/squad organic capabilities.

I think IF the CF had been in a much more urban environment with ROE limited employment of CAS and other supporting fires, that the Lessons Learned would be polar opposites to the lessons folks have gained.

Despite all the efforts of the US Army and USMC to bring firepower to bear in Anbar province during the initial Sunni revolt, the majority of the effective work was done by small SOF elements and Marine Reconnaisance delivery close range (and mid range) small arms fires.

Dont get me wrong - I'll JDAM a house in a heartbeat if it guarantees no one needs to risk themselves to kill the occupants - but I also understand that the hammer only works on nails, and hammering a screw when it called for a screwdrive is counterproductive and usually ruins the screw and the material you where trying to screw.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2012)

Once again the issue seems to be how do we get that sort of fire on target. I could point to weird devices like the ARPAD-600 which was man portable and could fire a HV grenade over 500m to take out machine guns, "technicals" and was even suggested as an answer to low flying helicopters (would probably scare the crap out of the pilot anyway). Precision fire, good terminal effects but low ROF and would probably be limited to one/section. You still have the critical moments where you are trying to suppress the enemy while you are moving your (insert weapon or weapons system here) into position, pick up the target and begin to engage.

Now I think we can agree there is NO single weapons system that will do the job, so I will vote for improved marksmanship training (both on Known Distance ranges and in Field Firing ranges), backed up with a more generous helping of long range/hard hitting weapons right down to the section level. A C-6/section to replace the two C-9 gunners seems to be a logical and fairly simple fix, since we already train troops on it and it is in the system.

To compliment this, I think we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which must be compact and man portable.


----------



## R031button (4 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which * must be compact and man portable.*



Indeed, I look at the C 16 and all I can think of is "where are we going to put this in the HQ lav?"


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> Indeed, I look at the C 16 and all I can think of is "where are we going to put this in the HQ lav?"



Drag it thru the streets.


Seriously I'd mount it on the vehicle.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jun 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I do like direct precision fire - as I've seen and employed it to great effect (even though Infanteer feels its useless  )



Hey, I never said I had anything against precision fires, just depending on the context.  A sniper or marksman?  Yep.  A rifle section taking effective enemy fire.  Probably not.  I can't find it, but I had a pretty bada** picture of my DM and C6 team on a high feature covering my lead section heading through a grapefield.

As for all your other points, agree.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2012)

> Quote from: Thucydides on Yesterday at 16:56:35
> 
> 
> > we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which must be compact and man portable.
> ...


This is actually edging into another argument altogether, that being the composition of the unit. A larger weapons det might imply the infantry sections get smaller (assuming the number of PY's isn't incresed to reflect the expanded weapons det, or a need to keep the number of vehicles per platoon fixed at four). the Company organization might/should have to change to reflect the changes at section and platoon level, and Battalions would be rejigged as well. There are lots of threads on that topic, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## R031button (5 Jun 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Drag it thru the streets.
> 
> 
> Seriously I'd mount it on the vehicle.



I tend to agree, given that we have all these LAV RWS kicking around, maybe it's not a bad idea to issue that to the platoon HQ element, with the C16 mounted to the RWS, with enough space on the inside to accommodate the associated EIS. Then again you're loosing a 25mm cannon to gain what advantage really?

I agree with Thucydides, the army seems to have bought this with no real though to how it will interface with the organization of Companies and Platoons. Between the C6 team , weapons det commander, Platoon Commander, and Signaler,  you have two seats in the LAV, the C 16 has a crew of three from what has been passed down, where do they sit ? Where do they come from? And if they do cram in there where does their shit go?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2012)

I must be really behind in my reading, it looks like Koreans have gotten the jump on everyone by deploying the K-11 rifle/grenade launcher combination. This weapon looks and operates a lot like the OIWS was supposed to in the United States, but unlike the cancelled OIWS, it is actually in service.

The South Koreans seem to have become quite adept at high tech weaponry. I have read and posted about their new tank, their new IFV (which is mostly made out of composite materials and much lighter than the M-2) and followed their progress on cruise and ballistic missile technology (which has reached a point where hyper accurate cruise missiles could reach targets in China and Japan. the Koreans are also developing a blue water navy which can deploy these weapons farther afield).


----------



## KevinB (12 Nov 2012)

No just they have no realized what a complete disaster the system is.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (12 Nov 2012)

Here could be a interesting solution to the problem of a 'universal' round to do one job. Why not just issue two rifles that complete different jobs at the squad level. I would recommend something like maybe for sections having 2-3 C1's (or some other gun that shoots 7.62 Nato) as a longer range/ deal with cover weapon and the rest having the current C7's and C9's. This way you could maximize for different terrain and conditions on the battlefield. I understand logisitically and from a training perspective it would add a lot of work, time and money to even make this possible, but it could be something to look at.


----------



## Dissident (12 Nov 2012)

Some reading for EL17: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2012)

Interesting read. The section on optics alone is well worth the time to download and peruse this document.

WRT more effective ammunition, if we are going to go to a new round/calibre we might as well go the whole 9 yards and look at entirely new weapons concepts like LSAT so we get a weapon that is lightweight and powerful. Concepts like LSAT can also reduce or eliminate various failure modes (although we have to ensure they don't have new and entirely different failure modes that soldiers are unable to rectify in the field). I only name LSAT as it is a developed concept that seems almost production ready, both for rifles and LMG/GPMG calibres. Any other contenders?

Of course one could also argue for devices that fire explosive rounds like the 12 gauge "Frag-12" or the XM-25 as a replacement or supplement to traditional rifles and support weapons; getting showered by a hail of explosive rounds would probably be deadly and demoralizing enough to stop all but the most determined soldiers from continuing their mission. The key here would be to create a system that is man portable, effective at long range (500m+) and robust and affordable enough to be issued in large numbers. Range is an issue with the Frag-12 and affordability an issue with the XM-25.


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2012)

As a GUN manufacturer - I strong recommend optics and training.

The US Army recently pushed 385 Mk6 1-6x Leupold scopes to a Brigade prior to deployment as a test of the common squad optic.


LSAT to me is viable is we look to an intermediate 7mm round.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Nov 2012)

I attended a brief a couple of weeks ago, subject matter was UNCLASS, but Kevin, you'd be happy.

There's R&D people drinking from the CT Kool-aid, working towards, for the first time since the Ross Rifle, a Made in Canada service rifle.  

I like the sounds of most of what they're working towards, but some of the concepts were, well...a long-ways off to say the least.

For those who like a history lesson, apparently, the EM-2 is worth learning from as well.

NS


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> There's R&D people drinking from the CT Kool-aid …


We may be programming the up an coming decision makers toward this.  I understand there is an Army Journal article on CT ammo that has been required reading on the last couple LFTSP & ATWO serials.


----------



## KevinB (15 Nov 2012)

Regarding CTA (Case Telescope Ammo), the biggest point to know is the largest NATO armies (or at least the most active) are also looking longingly at this.


----------



## Illegio (15 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting read. The section on optics alone is well worth the time to download and peruse this document.
> 
> WRT more effective ammunition, if we are going to go to a new round/calibre we might as well go the whole 9 yards and look at entirely new weapons concepts like LSAT so we get a weapon that is lightweight and powerful. Concepts like LSAT can also reduce or eliminate various failure modes (although we have to ensure they don't have new and entirely different failure modes that soldiers are unable to rectify in the field). I only name LSAT as it is a developed concept that seems almost production ready, both for rifles and LMG/GPMG calibres. Any other contenders?
> 
> Of course one could also argue for devices that fire explosive rounds like the 12 gauge "Frag-12" or the XM-25 as a replacement or supplement to traditional rifles and support weapons; getting showered by a hail of explosive rounds would probably be deadly and demoralizing enough to stop all but the most determined soldiers from continuing their mission. The key here would be to create a system that is man portable, effective at long range (500m+) and robust and affordable enough to be issued in large numbers. Range is an issue with the Frag-12 and affordability an issue with the XM-25.



While Canada was not a signatory to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, I expect that Frag-12 ammo still runs counter to the spirit of the Law of Armed Conflict. Even the .50 Raufoss created quite a stir, despite the fact that it was unlikely to explode within anyone unless they were wearing plates or somesuch. I doubt the Canadian government will be willing to entertain a political hot potato like that.

I expect Kevin can speak more to this than I can, but I am curious about the performance (and legality) of the 62gr. Mk 318 Mod 0 SOST and the 77gr. Mk 262 Mod 0/1 ammo... They would seem, on the face of it, to be the ideal interim solution until the next big "leap" in small arms arrives. All the colloquial information I've heard about the Mk. 262 in particular makes it sound like it's the cat's ass, although it is supposed to be quite hard on the rifles as it is quite a "hot" round.


----------



## FJAG (16 Nov 2012)

Illegio said:
			
		

> While Canada was not a signatory to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, I expect that Frag-12 ammo still runs counter to the spirit of the Law of Armed Conflict. Even the .50 Raufoss created quite a stir, despite the fact that it was unlikely to explode within anyone unless they were wearing plates or somesuch. I doubt the Canadian government will be willing to entertain a political hot potato like that.


Canada was not a signatory of this treaty but the UK signed on 11 Dec 1868 and the treaty is considered in effect in Canada as of that date. The treaty bans, in the case of war amongst the contracting parties, the use of "projectiles of a weight below 400 grams, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflamable substances."

I have no idea as to whether or not the rounds being discussed in this thread fall within or outside this restriction, but Canada vets all ammunition used by its troops as well as the ammunition's method of use. Accordingly any ammunition issued to Canadian Forces members by the chain of command can be assumed to meet the LOAC if unaltered by users and used in the authorized manner.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2012)

Mk211 Raufoss does have a payload -- It is generally an anti-material round.

 Mk262 Mod1 (77gr) was ruled legal for unrestricted issue, using the same logic as the other Sierra MatchKing BTHP bullets, in that the Hollow Point was part of the manufacturing process for Match Grade accuracy and not designed to expand or defore easily in tissue.  At one point this ammunition was used by the CF.  Mk262 is not a 'Hot" round per say, its a NATO pressure loading - its nothing like M855A1 ammo in terms of pressure...

 The SOST ammunition natures in 5.56mm and 7.62mm where also ruled Legal for unrestricted usage - In addition to SOCOM, the USMC has also fielded the SOST ammunition.


----------



## Illegio (16 Nov 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Canada was not a signatory of this treaty but the UK signed on 11 Dec 1868 and the treaty is considered in effect in Canada as of that date. The treaty bans, in the case of war amongst the contracting parties, the use of "projectiles of a weight below 400 grams, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflamable substances."
> 
> I have no idea as to whether or not the rounds being discussed in this thread fall within or outside this restriction, but Canada vets all ammunition used by its troops as well as the ammunition's method of use. Accordingly any ammunition issued to Canadian Forces members by the chain of command can be assumed to meet the LOAC if unaltered by users and used in the authorized manner.
> 
> Cheers



Hi, 

My point was directed more towards the Frag-12 line of ammo, which is a fin-stabilized explosive round designed to be fired from any run-of-the-mill 12-gauge shotgun. We don't use it, as far as I know, and I don't see us using it because of the St. Petersburg Declaration.

As far as the Mk. 262 and the Mk. 318 go, my concern was more with the 318. They are both "open-tip match" rounds, but the 318 demonstrates some rather unique terminal ballistics.


----------



## FJAG (16 Nov 2012)

Illegio said:
			
		

> My point was directed more towards the Frag-12 line of ammo, which is a fin-stabilized explosive round designed to be fired from any run-of-the-mill 12-gauge shotgun. We don't use it, as far as I know, and I don't see us using it because of the St. Petersburg Declaration.


Understood. 

I think you are reading the Declaration a bit too narrowly. The following is a quote from the International Red Cross's summary of the rules of international humanitarian law re exploding bullets:

"Practice since the adoption of the St. Petersburg Declaration has modified this prohibition, as exploding anti-aircraft bullets were introduced in the First World War.[5]  Furthermore, lighter grenades and exploding anti-materiel bullets have been introduced since. These developments have occurred without any objection. The military manuals or statements of several States consider only the anti-personnel use of such projectiles to be prohibited or only if they are designed to explode upon impact with the human body.[6]  Some military manuals and legislation, nevertheless, continue to refer back to the wording of the prohibition contained in the St. Petersburg Declaration, even though practice has since modified this prohibition."

You should recall that the theory of the St Petersburg Declaration is against the useage of an anti-personnel rifle round that was designed to explode on impact with a person. 

We, and many other parties, use several explosive rounds that fall under 400 grams (for example the 20mm comes in around 100 grams but is used on aircraft as an anti-materiel round. Similarly, the 25 mm HEI-T comes in around 185 grams and the 40 mm HE grenade weighs approximately 230 grams) A 12 gauge shotgun generally is around 18.3 to maybe 20 mm and therefore the FRAG-12 undoubtedly comes in around 100 grams or less (I tried everywhere to find the specification weight without success) These projectiles are primarily area anti-materiel weapons or designed to burst on impact with buildings or bunkers or vehicles and cause casualties by flying fragments. Undoubtedly if a single person is hit directly by one of these rounds the effect on him would be catastrophic but the design of the round is not for that purpose. 

I note that there are three types of rounds: the door buster HE variety and the AP round are both written up as anti-materiel usage and as long as they are used in that way would not be illegal. The anti-personnel version gives me more pause because it appears to distribute small ball bearings and in one write-up speaks of its effectiveness in firing into a car where it bursts inside. The original St Petersburg Dec was to ban a round that was fired at an individual and then would explode on contact causing extreme damage. The FRAG-12 Anti-pers as written seems to be a small area explosive weapon BUT I would have some concerns. In order to do the proper analysis one would have to study its method of operation and its effects. I would think that the test at the end of the day would be that if it is generally designed for and used to create multiple casualties or single casualties by indirect fragments it would be legal but if its primary usage is to hit one individual and cause unnecessary horrific damage to that one individual it would be illegal.

 :cheers:


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2012)

Illegio said:
			
		

> As far as the Mk. 262 and the Mk. 318 go, my concern was more with the 318. They are both "open-tip match" rounds, but the 318 demonstrates some rather unique terminal ballistics.



Mk318 and Mk319 SOST were adopted for "Barrier Blind" ammo - in the way that intervening media was not going to unduly affect the flight of the bullet into the intended target.

 From my understanding talking to Col (ret.) Hayes Parks was that the intent of the ammo for barrier blind purposes was the important aspect to approval of the adoption.  Secondly the other aspect was that the Hague Convention never considered high velocity bullets that yaw and fragment due to impact velocities.  But the HC was the reason for the fact JHP pistol ammo is not legal for unrestricted land warfare usage, but is legal for anti-terrorist or CT missions.


----------



## Illegio (16 Nov 2012)

Hmm... My understanding of the Mk. 318 SOST is that it fragments regardless of whether it yaws violently or not. My understanding of the Mk. 262 is that it just fragments more easily because it is a longer round with a thinner jacket. 

I hope nobody takes this as undue criticism, and I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it seems like the legality of all this different ammunition boils down to how it is "intended" to be used, on paper anyway. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, well, I wonder where this particular road leads.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2012)

Flip answer is it leads to dead or incapacitated targets.

From the end user perspective (i.e. me wearing my section commander hat), I require ammunition that will perform reliably both inside the weapon (without causing fouling or failures) and on impact with the target. If that turns out to be a "hot" FMJ round fired from a conventional rifle, some exotic CTA round or an explosive round (or a spear, for that matter), it is interesting from a technical perspective but the primary interest will be in instructing my troops on the proper care, charging of magazines, loading the weapon and firing the rounds quickly and accurately.

As an aside, a 400 gram projectile is about half the weight of a modern day fragmentation grenade, so translated into modern materials and fired from a modern weapon, something that met the letter of the law would be a massively effective anti personnel weapon, and probably have considerable effect against vehicles and structure as well.


----------



## KevinB (17 Nov 2012)

I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...


----------



## Dissident (17 Nov 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...



Or flame throwers, or claymores, or phosphorous grenades, or thermobaric rounds, or...


----------



## Ostrozac (18 Nov 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure if the original signatories to the Hague Convention etc had thought we would have firebombed Dresden they would have written it into the equation too...





			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> Or flame throwers, or claymores, or phosphorous grenades, or thermobaric rounds, or...



Fantastic points, gentlemen. The observation that our laws of armed conflict are based around the gentlemanly customs and wound ballistics science of the late 19th century is certainly a valid point. The bulk of what we know as international law tends to evolve with science and progress -- except the law of war, which as written seems locked into an ideal from the turn of the 20th century -- an ideal that probably was never achieved even at that time (ref: Breaker Morant). That we are even debating the morality of JHP pistol rounds or Mk262 rifle rounds in the age of man-portable thermobaric warheads makes little sense, when you look at the problem objectively. Shouldn't we be updating this stuff every couple of decades, like the law of the sea? Then we could all get along with the business of killing each other in a moral, but technologically up-to-date fashion.


----------



## FJAG (18 Nov 2012)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Fantastic points, gentlemen. The observation that our laws of armed conflict are based around the gentlemanly customs and wound ballistics science of the late 19th century is certainly a valid point. The bulk of what we know as international law tends to evolve with science and progress -- except the law of war, which as written seems locked into an ideal from the turn of the 20th century -- an ideal that probably was never achieved even at that time (ref: Breaker Morant). That we are even debating the morality of JHP pistol rounds or Mk262 rifle rounds in the age of man-portable thermobaric warheads makes little sense, when you look at the problem objectively. Shouldn't we be updating this stuff every couple of decades, like the law of the sea? Then we could all get along with the business of killing each other in a moral, but technologically up-to-date fashion.



Actually we do regularly work on this. Two of the most recent examples are the anti-personnel mine one and the one re cluster munitions. Both of these are a problem not for the damage they do to soldiers but the damage that is done to the civilian population. Mines are rarely cleared and like in Cambodia kill thousands of innocent people. Cluster munitions have a high failure rate and are frequently picked up as curiosities by young children.

The problem with these things is that you need general buy-in by a large number of countries and the negotiations can take years trying to work out an acceptable draft treaty. When countries were negotiating the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Convention starting in the late 60s, delegations didn't rent hotel rooms, they bought apartments and houses. The first Protocol didn't get passed until 1977. 

The second problem is that there are often countries that will not ratify the treaties. As an example the US has so far refused to ratify Protocols I and II, the anti-pers mines convention and the cluster munitions convention. This makes for interesting legal issues on coalition operations where Brits, Germans, the French, Canadians etc have to work with the US and share facilities and artillery and air support.

For a practical example, although not ammunition related, consider the Geneva Convention requirements on the humane treatment of prisoners and not handing them over to countries that will abuse them. The issue of our transfer of Taliban to the US and Afghanistan has been a major public affairs issue for Canada for almost six years now.

One last point. The LOAC goes back well before the 18th century. There are references in the Bible for conduct in war. The Greeks and Romans also developed elements. Much of the Knight's code of chivalry from the middle ages also contributed.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2012)

Well at least we don't make mines that resemble childrens toys...


----------



## Illegio (20 Nov 2012)

Technically, neither the BLU-43 nor the PFM-1 were designed to be attractive to children. Their shape is dictated by aerodynamics more than anything - not as though the Commies put Hello Kitty stickers on them.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2013)

Picked up on this while looking for some other stuff:

Via The Firearms Blog



> New Zealand Switches from 5.56mm to 7.62mm FN Herstal Minimi Light Machine Gun
> 
> 
> New Zealand Defence Force is switching from the 5.56mm FN Minimi to the 7.62mm FN Minimi as their standard Light Support Weapon (LSW).
> ...









Meanwhile the USMC is issuing this:













> The next evolution in firepower has arrived.
> 
> For 27 years the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon has served as the Corps automatic rifle standard. In December 2010 initial fielding of the M249 SAW’s replacement, the Heckler and Koch M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, was fielded and is now set for implementation throughout the Corps.
> 
> ...



Any thoughts on this from the cognoscenti?


----------



## GnyHwy (17 Feb 2013)

If we did, but I don't think we will get a 7.62, it would probably be the top one from Colt.  There is an argument for the section marksmen task though.

For the C7 upgrade, our best odds of getting something new would be the C7A3, pictured on bottom.

http://www.coltcanada.com/products.htm


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Feb 2013)

My thoughts on the IAR is that it is a replacement for a well functioning weapon that provides effective *suppressive fire*. By saying they need to carry less rounds as it is more accurate is pointless. They have forgotten the point of a machine gun is sustained suppressive fire not accurate fire, that is what a rifle is for. Essentially they will have two guns that provide the same roles, there M16/AR15 and this IAR which is more or less a full auto M16/AR15. I feel they are losing a important capability for there sections and this may cost people there lives in the future. 
Just my  :2c:


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2013)

Wrong.  Suppressive fire needs to be accurate fire to be effective.  Other than that, and it is just noise.

Go look up Jim Storr's articles on suppression in the RUSI Defence Journal.  There is objective data that shows your statement to be inaccurate.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Feb 2013)

But is the FN Minimi accurate enough for the job? Its combat proven and is in use by a good number of nations in the world. The IAR maybe more accurate but is it now starting to push into the rifles role.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2013)

The FN Minimi, if you search for Storr's articles, are the worst at providing real suppressive fire.  I believe this is because it is a machine gun employed as an automatic rifle.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2013)

Those fancy tiny rifles with bi-pods are OK. But I'd still rather have a couple of these big bullies in my section instead, especially if I had some open ground to cross:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah1r7TkjEtI

 :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Feb 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The FN Minimi, if you search for Storr's articles, are the worst at providing real suppressive fire.  I believe this is because it is a machine gun employed as an automatic belt-fed rifle.


To add to the above, the shortening of the C9 barrel only reduced its effective range and reduced accuracy as well.  Also, the magazine feed (really, who has ever used that?) only means that the C9 cannot be used in the SF kit as an _emergency_ replacement for the C6 when it's down.
And to clarify on the whole "accuracy" thing mentioned by someone else, the role of a machine gun is typically "area neutralizing fire".  Yes, it's not pin-point accuracy, but it does need to hit the area you intend to hit.  There needs to be some dispersion, but it's not such that you need even more fire to get the intended effects.
In all my years in the infantry, I have rarely seen machine guns employed properly.  That in spite of our very good doctrine on how to employ them.


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2013)

More and more nations (Denmark, Germany) are going to a 7.62mm SAW/LMG

The mag feed on the M249/Minimi,C9 is a waste.  Probably only use of the Mk46 was getting rid of that aspect.


The unfortunate thing about the IAR/M249 argument was that for the most part the USMC guns where clapped out , so someone broke ass gun is obviously not going to be as impressive as someone else's new gun.

  That said, the USMC is retaining M249's, its not a 1:1 replacement of the SAW.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> More and more nations (Denmark, Germany) are going to a 7.62mm SAW/LMG



Good show on the Bren!

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/brengun.htm

Farley Mowat, a platoon commander in the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, wrote about the first time he used a Bren Gun in action in Sicily in his book And No Birds Sang. His company had been ordered to withdraw: 

Alex (the company commander) left us Nine Platoon's three Brens to free their crews from the weight so they could help with the wounded. Six light machine guns gave me a lot of fire power...or would have done except that we only had one or two magazines remaining for each gun. 

Wriggling forward to the edge of the knoll, I passed the word to shoot at anything that moved - but to make every bullet count. Behind me I could hear stones rattling as Eight and Nine platoons broke cover and began their rush up the steep slopes. Instantly the metallic hail from an MG-42 swept over our heads in vicious pursuit of our retreating comrades. 

I had my binoculars to my eyes at that moment and by the sheerest fluke glimpsed a flicker of flame and a filmy wisp of smoke coming from a pile of brush on the far side of the road. Mitchuk was lying next to me behind his section's Bren, and I grabbed his arm and tried to make his see what I had seen but he could not locate the target. After a moment he rolled over and pushed the butt of the gun toward me. 

"You take 'em, Junior!" he said...and grinned. 

The feel of the Bren filled me with the same high excitement that had been mine when, as a boy during October days in Saskatchewan, I had raised my shotgun from the concealment of a bulrush blind and steadied it on an incoming flight of greenhead mallards. 

There was a steady throbbing against my shoulder as the Bren hammered out a burst. A stitching of dust spurts appeared in front of the patch of brush and walked on into it. I fired burst after burst until the gun went silent with a heavy clunk as the bolt drove home on an empty chamber. Quickly Mitchuk slapped off the empty magazine and rammed a fresh one into place. 

"Give 'em another!" he yelled exultantly. "You're onto the fuckers good!" 

Maybe I was. It is at least indisputable that after I had emptied the second magazine there was no further firing nor any sign of life from the brush pile. On the other hand, I never actually saw a human target, so I cannot be haunted by the memory of men lying dead or dying behind their gun. And for that I am grateful.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2013)

Perhaps the Czech's were on to something with the top feed mag?

Lower profile for the gunner?  Ease of swapping out mags without losing the sight picture? Works well for both a gun with just the gunner or with a gunner and a loader?  With enough mags and a loader maintains sustained fire comparable to a belt fed GPMG with a loader?   Hot swap barrel?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Czech's were on to something with the top feed mag?
> 
> Lower profile for the gunner?  Ease of swapping out mags without losing the sight picture? Works well for both a gun with just the gunner or with a gunner and a loader?  With enough mags and a loader maintains sustained fire comparable to a belt fed GPMG with a loader?   Hot swap barrel?



Gravity fed mag.... this helps reduce stoppages


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2013)

and block optics....


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2013)

I believe the Bren's sights were offset.

On the other hand why not cant the mag 15 to 45 degrees to the left (or right for lefties) off of TDC (Top Dead Centre).  You could still fit a rail across the top of the receiver. No?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2013)

Other Bren kit:

100 Rd Drum







Bren SF






Bren Anti-Aircraft






Note loader and total of 12x 30 rd mags for 360.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Feb 2013)

The Bren's sights were mounted to the left of the weapon. Even though I am left-handed, I enjoyed firing it and classifying as a first class shot in recruit training. (It went out of service in my regular regiment a few months later.) For all its good points, I am not sure we made best use of it as the main source of firepower in a rifle section. In the Second World War it could not match the MG 42 in volume of fire, and our doctrine adopted from the Brits seemed to be based on economizing on ammunition and not on winning the fire fight.

Sorry for the intrusion by a non-expert.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ......
> Sorry for the intrusion by a non-expert.



 ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Feb 2013)

We used the Bren L4 version (converted to 7.62mm) in Norway and Northern Ireland. 

It was rugged, always worked when you pulled the trigger, and had a wonderful effect when used with AP rounds. The big downside was the age of the weapons, which had been in service since the 1940s and remodelled several times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2_Ve0ksT_I


----------



## KevinB (19 Feb 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I believe the Bren's sights were offset.
> 
> On the other hand why not cant the mag 15 to 45 degrees to the left (or right for lefties) off of TDC (Top Dead Centre).  You could still fit a rail across the top of the receiver. No?



You could - but the high profile of the mag causes issues at times.  

Beltfed guns are always going to trump mag fed guns for volumes of fire, and the easy of carrying extra ammo.
  
 The IAR to me was more of a way the USMC could sneek a carbine into their system, rather than a SAW replacement program.
I believe that the SAW does fill a role, and a role that the IAR does not (suppression).

I also believe that the IAR was a result of myopic viewing of a current combat environment without looking at the totality of requirements.


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Feb 2013)

Hmmm....Brens and Tripods....

This one lives on the wall in my office now.  The tripod takes up a bit too much space.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2013)

The laws of physics are always enforced, so I have questions about how a Minimi sized weapon firing a GPMG round deals with recoil? As Infanteer points out, you need to deliver rounds on the target to suppress the target; a wildly jouncing GPMG lite seems to be the wrong way to go.

Do these weapons have some sort of cyclic rate limiter to fire at a much slower RPM rate?

WRT magazine fed support weapons, I have had experience with the FN-C2, and some passing experience with more modern weapons like the SA-80 LSW (just awful) and the Steyr AUG turned into an LSW with the heavy barrel and bipod (interesting, but since it has a 30 round magazine  the gunner has a pretty busy time. Since the Austrian soldiers were experienced with bullpup weapons, watching magazine changes was a bit weird but did not seem to take longer than conventional magazine changes).


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Mar 2013)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Hmmm....Brens and Tripods....
> 
> This one lives on the wall in my office now.  The tripod takes up a bit too much space.



OK, you win (as usual)


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The laws of physics are always enforced, so I have questions about how a Minimi sized weapon firing a GPMG round deals with recoil? As Infanteer points out, you need to deliver rounds on the target to suppress the target; a wildly jouncing GPMG lite seems to be the wrong way to go.



Muzzle Brakes and Suppressors do a lot to dampen recoil, as well as shock absorbing mounts.



> Do these weapons have some sort of cyclic rate limiter to fire at a much slower RPM rate?


No - the Mk48 dances all over -- it is an assault machine gun, not a GPMG.



> WRT magazine fed support weapons, I have had experience with the FN-C2, and some passing experience with more modern weapons like the SA-80 LSW (just awful) and the Steyr AUG turned into an LSW with the heavy barrel and bipod (interesting, but since it has a 30 round magazine  the gunner has a pretty busy time. Since the Austrian soldiers were experienced with bullpup weapons, watching magazine changes was a bit weird but did not seem to take longer than conventional magazine changes).



The UK got the Minimi due to the lack of use of their LSW - it is still retained, but does not seem to be used as a Automatic Rifle that much, more of a longer barrel SA80 with bipod, and their 7.62mm DMR is making them, like the Aussies rethink the bullpup (as well as their SOF running more and more of their small arms instruction that focuses on weak side shooting as well, making the bullpup a no go).

I still believe that an LSAT type weapon in a heavier cartridge that has 1200m performance is the way to go on a squad weapon.
 7mm CTA with slightly more ballistic performance than the 7x46 Murray.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2013)

Looks like the SAS are 'manning up' to 7.62mm for everyone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294631/SAS-use-bigger-bullets-kill-enemy-outright-claiming-shoot-wound-policy-lives-risk.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Bring back the rifle group/gun group!


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2013)

Many SOF units have an arms room concept that allows the shooters to have a few different weapons for different applications.

SAS already have a 7.62mm option in their closest.

The biggest issue the SAS face is their issued 5.56mm bullet is not optimal for the C8CQB and C8SFW weapons.


This is an older comparison - but the UK green bullet often acts like a M995 AP round when hitting tissue











Their issue 155gr FMJ 7.62mm ball round is similar in effect to the US M80 ball.


What they need to do is move to a bullet that produces terminal effects.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Mar 2013)

Yowza, look at the wound profiles for those WWII era rounds.  I see why 1250-1400 RPM of the M98 Mauser rounds was such a problem....


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2013)

Look at the distance though -- very long neck before yaw, and no frag.  It may pass straight thru a chest and only leave a 8mm hole.

Temporary cavity only really causes issues in non elastic tissue (mainly the lungs and spleen).

If you look at the 5.56mm wound profiles from M855 - compared to M80 ball, what would you rather shoot at opponents?

C77 ball seems to have a M855 LN profiel or slightly reduced - from the gel shots I have seen, the jacket seems a little thicker than USGI M855


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2013)

The answer is still "it depends" because there are so many other factors that affect the performance of the round. If you want something that is 100% capable of having devastating terminal effects regardless of the situation of the target (wearing/not wearing armour and plates, under cover/not under cover, strong and muscular/skinny and weak, target at 10m away/target at 2700m away) then your best bet is probably a .50 HMG round. Even then, you will have much more difficulty ensuring you _hit_ the target due to the bulk and unwieldiness of the weapon and training the soldier to use it properly.

For the most part I would agree that something along the lines of a 6.5 to 7mm LSAT round would be the best compromise between terminal ballistics, size and weight, having a practical and controllable weapon and being able to reach out and effectively touch someone out to @ 1000m. A machine gun chambered in the same round would be a pretty devastating support weapon down to the squad/section level, as well as being a fairly effective vehicle mounted weapon as well (co axial MG, loaders/crew commander's turret mounted weapon and RWS all come to mind), especially if paired up with a grenade launcher that has similar size/weight and range performance. The Chinese have a 35mm grenade launcher that is comparable to a C-6 GPMG in size and weight, and the new Russian 30mm grenade launchers can be picked up and carried (with their tripods) by a single man, showing that it is possible.

While LSAT type weapons don't have the same issues with spent casings like conventional rifles, I still think the idea of a compact weapon with the same ballistic performance as a full sized weapon makes a lot of sense. Even if the first generations of bullpup weapons cannot be fired from the "off side" (or at least not without changing the extractor and ejector port), more modern weapons like the FN 2000 can using an ejector tube that allows casings to drop out of the front of the weapon. This isn't even a new concern, I recall reading that during the development phase of the EM-2, some consideration was given to a "sliding breechblock" mechanism similar to that of an artillery piece, that would allow the casing to be ejected in a vertical direction over the shooter's shoulder. While more a case of the British obsession with baroque engineering, it shows there are many ways to skin that particular cat. If we have to assume that the LSAT  or something similar is another generation away, then a forward ejecting bullpup weapon would be worth looking at (and chambering it for a 6.5 or 6.8mm round would probably serve to cover the vast majority of wants and needs for shooters everywhere).


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The answer is still "it depends" because there are so many other factors that affect the performance of the round. If you want something that is 100% capable of having devastating terminal effects regardless of the situation of the target (wearing/not wearing armour and plates, under cover/not under cover, strong and muscular/skinny and weak, target at 10m away/target at 2700m away) then your best bet is probably a .50 HMG round. Even then, you will have much more difficulty ensuring you _hit_ the target due to the bulk and unwieldiness of the weapon and training the soldier to use it properly.



We once did a pen demo firing through a couple of pieces of plywood, or 'light cover' at 300m. This proved to me that 7.62 still rules.

But this is just a tangent, Can we resume discussion about why we should all have a Bren Gun now? ;D


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2013)

Yes 7.62mm has more penetration - in certain media...
  As well M80 style ball is a rather old design, not optimized for terminal affect or penetration.

However 7.62mm ammo is heavy.  Even LW 7.62mm Carbines still laden the shooter with the ammo weight.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2013)

Re reading an old piece about the MG-42 the other day, and it occured to me that it is almost the ideal support weapon as is. It is light and handy enough to be used by a single soldier, can be carried and fired in the assault using the bipod, can rapidly convert to a support weapon by placing it on a tripod, and the WWII era tripod is amazingly versatile and allows for high angle fire and limited AA usage.

The only downside is the high cyclic rate, and the weight of the ammunition (the G-3 was simply an MG-42 chambered for NATO 7.62mm ammunition). Perhaps a bit of re engineering to bring the cyclic rate down to @ 600 rpm and using modern lightweight materials wherever possible to shave off even more weight would make this the basic automatic weapon (issued 1 per section and an additional 2 per platoon with SF kits). The rifle sections would provide cover while the weapon is on the move and also manpack the extra linked ammunition for the gun teams, and have the additional task of providing high trajectory fire with the M-203 grenade launchers (dropping rounds on those annoying people who insist on hiding behind cover).

This is almost a reversion to the WWI era platoon (built around a rifle grenade launcher team, a "bombing team" and a Lewis gun team, with the riflemen providing cover on the move and acting as ammo bearers).


----------



## AmmoTech90 (3 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Re reading an old piece about the MG-42 the other day, and it occured to me that it is almost the ideal support weapon as is. It is light and handy enough to be used by a single soldier, can be carried and fired in the assault using the bipod, can rapidly convert to a support weapon by placing it on a tripod, and the WWII era tripod is amazingly versatile and allows for high angle fire and limited AA usage.
> 
> The only downside is the high cyclic rate, and the weight of the ammunition (the G-3 was simply an MG-42 chambered for NATO 7.62mm ammunition). Perhaps a bit of re engineering to bring the cyclic rate down to @ 600 rpm and using modern lightweight materials wherever possible to shave off even more weight would make this the basic automatic weapon (issued 1 per section and an additional 2 per platoon with SF kits). The rifle sections would provide cover while the weapon is on the move and also manpack the extra linked ammunition for the gun teams, and have the additional task of providing high trajectory fire with the M-203 grenade launchers (dropping rounds on those annoying people who insist on hiding behind cover).
> 
> This is almost a reversion to the WWI era platoon (built around a rifle grenade launcher team, a "bombing team" and a Lewis gun team, with the riflemen providing cover on the move and acting as ammo bearers).



From how you describe it how is it different from a C6 once you lower the cyclic rate?  Similar weights, bipod or tripod mounted allowing for indirect fire?  Why change weapons when all you need is a new tripod?


----------



## Inquisitor (4 Sep 2013)

I was told that the basic action of the MG-42 was so good it served  that it is still used in the actions of the C6 and C9 and others well. Makes sense since we licensed the FN design. 

I was also under the impression that the cyclic rate on the MG-42 was user selectable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2013)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> From how you describe it how is it different from a C6 once you lower the cyclic rate?  Similar weights, bipod or tripod mounted allowing for indirect fire?  Why change weapons when all you need is a new tripod?



This M240 variant is a nice modification of the ol' C6 which, of course, is based on the MG42:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2013)

The huge difference between the MG 42 and the C-6 is the mechanism. The C-6 (and C-9) use gas action, where the expanding gasses from the propellant are tapped and push a piston back to cycle the action. 

The MG-42 uses a delayed recoil action, when the recoil of the weapon is captured and used to cycle the action. This makes the MG 42 somewhat lighter and simpler than the C-6.

The MG-42's belt feed mechanism was copied for the C-6, using a two stage system rather than a one stage system (anyone who remembers the Browning C-5 GPMG will remember this), allowing for smoother feed of the belt.

The ergonomics of the MG-42 are also somewhat better than the C-6, making it more suitable for use in the advance and the assault, where the ability to lay down fire is critical. Using a rate limiter to bring the cyclic rate to 600 RPM isn't a "must have", but simply a reflection of the fact that troops are not pack mules, and the 1,200 to 1500 RPM rate of the MG-42 will burn through a lot of ammunition very fast. There are advantages to a high cyclic rate, and this should be taken into consideration; do the plusses of a high cyclic rate outweigh the minus of high amunition consumption?


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2013)

I think some here are/where confusing the MG-3/MG-42 with the MAG-58.

The Germans are replacing the MG-3's now with the Hk121 (cannot recall German MG designation at this time, MG-5?)
 Ironically this and the 5.56mm MG-4 look like the Minimi with a few changes...

A GPMG generally is heavier than one wants in an Assault Machine Gun/ LSW/IAR -- but in the same token few of the AMG/LSW/IAR's can delivery the sustained fire capability.

Law of diminishing returns...

However the 7.62mm CTA LSAT LMG should be interesting...

A heatsink barrel could be used for SF roles - and the light barrel for walk abouts.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (4 Sep 2013)

If what your looking for is a MG 42 with a reduced fire rate look at the M53 Yugoslavian copy. It shoots 850-1040 rds/min. Probably wouldn't be too hard to convert to 7.62 Nato.


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2013)

MG-3 already does that...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Sep 2013)

Has so much change in the Machinegun field that there is much choice? Seems to be more a case of matching existing designs to your users, with some odd tweaks here and there. I suppose this means actually knowing what your users need and clearly defining that....

If you don't intend to change calibres for the next 20 years, buy a whack of the smalls arms you want/need, hire some Russians to teach you about proper long term weapon storage and just pack the excess away. Wear one batch out, send them back for rebuild/disposal, yank the next batch out, repeat as required. Small Arms are cheap in comparison to other military equipment and age well in proper storage.


----------



## KevinB (5 Sep 2013)

Roles and Requirements change with the mission.

Walking/Climbing at 10k ASL is much nicer with a 10lbs MG than a 25lbs one.

But the same double edge sword bites you when you try to stop the Red Chinese waves with a gun not designed to run continuous bursts.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2013)

I think machine gun design, much like rifle design, has reached an apex of development. Sure, we can tweak designs (like the FN-2000, with it's forward facing ejector tube and modular design), but inside the action isn't remarkably different from a WWII era German StG-44. Likewise, all modern machineguns can trace their ancestry to WWII era designs and principles.

Like Kevin, I would think something new in ammunition like the LSAT cased or caseless rounds would bring about some real changes, and new materials like ceramic/metal composites that can handle prolonged heat without losing strength or toughness will bring about a real revolution in firearms. A secondary path might be the coupling of miniature explosive rounds with advanced sights (AA-12 shotgun firing FRAG-12 rounds, the XM-25 and aborted 25mm XM-307 are examples of this type of weapon).

Given the current financial crunch and the general lack of urgency about this (the G-11 caseless rifle was a product of the 1980's, and the LSAT program has been moving slowly through much of the last decade, and even miniature grenade launchers haven't really been pushed all that hard), we are talking about the weapons another generation of soldiers might use.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Oct 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Roles and Requirements change with the mission.
> 
> Walking/Climbing at 10k ASL is much nicer with a 10lbs MG than a 25lbs one.
> 
> But the same double edge sword bites you when you try to stop the Red Chinese waves with a gun not designed to run continuous bursts.



And, as always, fitness is the deciding factor. As described by Rommel in 'Infantry Attacks':

The capture of Mount Matajur occurred fifty-two hours after the start of the offensive … My mountain troopers were in the thick of battle almost uninterruptedly during these hours … Here, carrying heavy machine guns on their shoulders–they surmounted elevation differences of eight thousand feet uphill and three thousand downhill, and traversed a distance of twelve [straight line] miles through hostile mountain
formations.


----------



## KevinB (11 Oct 2013)

Okay but Rommel's forces did not wear a shit ton of armor, carry NOD's etc.
   

In the same way we align our forces for certain environments, the weapons themselves can be designed for niche roles.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2014)

Gossip picked up on a blogspot....




> The L129A1 (7.62mm AR-10?) Sharpshooter rifle is being taken into the core budget, but the latest report suggests that the weapon is still searching its actual place in the Army of the future. The Small Arms School Corps, tasked with developing the training and methods for best employment of the weaponry of the Army, say that, despite the welcome the rifle received by the troops on the ground, the L129A1 isn't showing the dramatic performace improvements it was supposed to deliver.
> Its effectiveness out to 800 meters, the distance for which its 7.62x51 mm calibre was believed to be indispensable, is being questioned. The rifle is reportedly not showing particular improvements over the L86A2 Light Support Weapon, the long-barreled brother of the L85A2 assault rifle.
> The L86A2 during recent firing trials ended up being the best performing weapon out to 500 meters, and more than held the comparison with the L129A1 out to 800.
> 
> ...











> From top to bottom, the L86A2 in its traditional configuration with SUSAT sight; the modified L86A2 with new forestock, bipod and muzzle (possibly even the barrel has been changed?) and ACOG 6x sight; and finally, the L129A1 with ACOG 6x.



And this titbit - Suppressors for all.



> battlefield noise; new laser targeting and mortar fire control computer and an experiment is ongoing to verify the tactical merit of having suppressors available for the whole range of weapons employed by the infantry, including the GPMG. A whole platoon equipped with the suppressors will test them during a two-weeks firing programme planned for Novembe


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2015)

New from DRDC for you guys - 

Available in both 5.56 CT / 12 Ga and 5.56 CT / 40mm








> More firepower, improved accuracy and smart integrated accessories that connect to command and control networks are the headline features of the new integrated assault rifle concept that Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Colt Canada have developed for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
> 
> The prototype, in development since 2009 through the Soldier Integrated Precision Effects Systems (SIPES) project, includes a firing mechanism to shoot lightweight cased telescoped ammunition, a secondary effects module for increased firepower and a NATO standard power and data rail to integrate accessories like electro-optical sights and position sensors.
> 
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/160943/canada-develops-new-integrated-assault-rifle-concept.html

And speaking of 12 ga rounds:  Whatever happened to the Frag-12?






Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory Frag-12 Fact Sheet 2005

It was apparently offered in HE, HE-AP (armour piercing) and HE-FA (anti-personnel)


----------



## KerryBlue (11 Feb 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> New from DRDC for you guys -
> 
> Available in both 5.56 CT / 12 Ga and 5.56 CT / 40mm



Reminds me of this.. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag


----------



## Eland2 (11 Feb 2015)

Interesting design. Although the article says that steps have been taken to use composites and other advanced materials to reduce weight, the prototype still looks like it's heavy and bulky. Could you imagine having to parade with one of these things? How would you shoulder arms, or do the present arms manoeuvre? It doesn't look like it would lend itself very well to SMG C1 or even C8-style drills.

I know, I know, these are minor quibbles as the weapon has yet to be fielded.   Oh, one other thing. How would you fire this thing comfortably from the prone position without a bipod?

The cheekpiece that sits on top of the buttstock and just behind the grenade launcher/shotgun barrel is kinda funky too. Unless the weapon has some sort of recoil management system, I can imagine firing the shotgun portion could result in a pretty brutal kick to the shooter's cheek. The design of the rifle suggests that the mechanical underpinnings look like they could be quite complex, and the 5.56 ammunition it uses looks like it would have a long way to travel before it reaches the chamber.

Concerns aside, it's good to see that we are finally developing a weapon system of truly indigenous design instead of just importing another country's design and making our own additions/improvements to it. Here's hoping we don't see a repeat of the Ross Rifle fiasco.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Feb 2015)

From the timeline i've read about the SARP program and such they want this thing or what ever it evolves into ready for fielding by the end of the decade. Remember this is a prototype so lets wait and see what it turns into


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Gossip picked up on a blogspot....



Shall be known as "Operation Silk Purse from Sow's Ear"  :nod:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Feb 2015)

KerryBlue said:
			
		

> Reminds me of this..
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag



I suppose it is a generational thing, but it reminds me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPhZsauluXM


----------



## KerryBlue (11 Feb 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I suppose it is a generational thing, but it reminds me of this.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPhZsauluXM



Where can I get one of those... toys were so much cooler in the 60's  :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2015)

We could spend a decade, millions of dollars and create three new headquarters while trying to field this, or simply go shopping for a weapons system that is _already_ adopted and provides all these functionalities (using current 5.56 X 45 ammunition):

S&T Daewoo K-11


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Feb 2015)

Yes but it doesn't have that Over-slung 40mm launcher  >


----------



## dangerboy (11 Feb 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Interesting design. Although the article says that steps have been taken to use composites and other advanced materials to reduce weight, the prototype still looks like it's heavy and bulky. Could you imagine having to parade with one of these things? How would you shoulder arms, or do the present arms manoeuvre? It doesn't look like it would lend itself very well to SMG C1 or even C8-style drills.



I would like to think that when it comes to designing and selecting weapons that how you would do ceremonial drill is not a factor that they would consider.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2015)

They're in for a surprise when they try to sight that bad boy in at 100 meters.

Of course the dummy designing that makes more in a year than I probably do in 10.


----------



## LightFighter (11 Feb 2015)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I would like to think that when it comes to designing and selecting weapons that how you would do ceremonial drill is not a factor that they would consider.



It seems the ability to do rifle drill was a factor in the past.



> Due to both budgetary concerns _and the desire of the Infantry Corps RSM to have a weapon suitable for rifle drill_ (not SMG drill) the 20" barrel was retained - despite the desire and recommendations of the soliders that had been deployed to Kosovo to adopt a flat-top version of the C8 for Infantry usage.



https://www.army.ca/wiki/index.php/C7A2


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2015)

As a reminder of what it takes to be successful in the assault against a peer/near peer enemy....

This is a picture of 5 soldiers from an 8 man section of 3 PARA on the ranges in Belize, Baldy Beacon ranges, in 1983 immediately following the Falklands War.

Lessons Learned from that conflict are in evidence: 2 x GPMGs per section. As I recall, 1000 rounds per gun was the standard load. (BTW, this is not my photo, but we implemented the same SOPs in 1 PARA.)

That's a total of about 50lbs of GPMGs plus 120lbs of ammo per section, plus personal weapons, LAAWs, grenades etc, so high standards of battle fitness are clearly a concurrent battle winner.

It's too bad we seem to be regressing to accepting a smaller calibre light support weapon at the section level just because it's lighter.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Feb 2015)

the good thing is the new ammo type is much lighter in weight, testing the states has done suggests a soldier could carry 3x the ammo for the current weight.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2015)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> It seems the ability to do rifle drill was a factor in the past.
> 
> https://www.army.ca/wiki/index.php/C7A2



Glad the priorities are in the right place.....

However if you are going to do things properly you should just sling the latest weapons and issue Lathis  ..... 4 foot of bamboo with a brass tip

http://www.vajramutthi.org/en/articles/lathi/







Or if you prefer a more doctrinally sound weapon the ancestor of the bayonet was the pike and the ancestor of the pike was the quarter-staff - a six foot length of best ash.

I can see it now:

RCR - Present Staffs.  Shoulder Staffs.  Order Staffs.  Ground Staffs.  Pickup Staffs.  Fix Paintbrushes..... >


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As a reminder of what it takes to be successful in the assault against a peer/near peer enemy....
> 
> This is a picture of 5 soldiers from an 8 man section of 3 PARA on the ranges in Belize, Baldy Beacon ranges, in 1983 immediately following the Falklands War.
> 
> ...



Just a point on the 2x GPMG per section - I found it interesting reading in Frost's "2 Para Falklands" that although the sections were issued 2 GPMG each, half way through the Goose Green action Platoon commanders and Coy Commanders were grouping their GPMGs to get better suppressive effects and control ammunition expenditure.    The practice was apparently continued in the later battles.

Weren't 2x L4 Brens per section also issued to some battalions for the Falklands?


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just a point on the 2x GPMG per section - I found it interesting reading in Frost's "2 Para Falklands" that although the sections were issued 2 GPMG each, half way through the Goose Green action Platoon commanders and Coy Commanders were grouping their GPMGs to get better suppressive effects and control ammunition expenditure.    The practice was apparently continued in the later battles.
> 
> Weren't 2x L4 Brens per section also issued to some battalions for the Falklands?



In addition to the section GPMGs, each battalion had (and still has) a MG platoon with 9 x GPMGs. And they desperately needed all of them. 

The Bren guns were also used by those in 3 Cdo Bde as that Bde has an arctic warfare role for which the Bren Gun was used - while skiing if you can believe it. Much handier and easier to travel with than a GPMG, and a 7.62mm round that is needed to 'beat winter'.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Feb 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just a point on the 2x GPMG per section - I found it interesting reading in Frost's "2 Para Falklands" that although the sections were issued 2 GPMG each, half way through the Goose Green action Platoon commanders and Coy Commanders were grouping their GPMGs to get better suppressive effects and control ammunition expenditure.    The practice was apparently continued in the later battles.
> 
> Weren't 2x L4 Brens per section also issued to some battalions for the Falklands?


Grouping of Brens was also done in some units in the Second World War. .


----------



## Loachman (11 Feb 2015)

KerryBlue said:
			
		

> Where can I get one of those... toys were so much cooler in the 60's



A friend had one of those.

I had https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DkYTRYB6tU


----------



## Loachman (11 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's too bad we seem to be regressing to accepting a smaller calibre light support weapon at the section level just because it's lighter.



It's alright, though. The loss of weapon and ammunition weight has been compensated by the addition of body armour and battery weight. Everything balances out.


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> the good thing is the new ammo type is much lighter in weight, testing the states has done suggests a soldier could carry 3x the ammo for the current weight.



Negative ghostrider.

CTA ammo saves aprox 30% *depending upon caliber and weight of projectiles.  Your dumping the brass casing, for a polymer housing.

CLA (Caseless) can save 50-55% *Same caveats as above -  but CLA is still not ready for prime time in small arms.

Even at the best case scenario with CLA your only really going to half your ammo weight, with the more realistic CLA options is you will save 30% in ammo weight -- so now you have room for more batteries etc...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2015)

Tangent Alert (quelle surprise)

On the battery front, rather than having spare batteries for everything howcome all this gear doesn't come with USB trickle charge ports?  Then you would carry only the batteries on board the gear and one High Amp-Hour battery with a USB cable to recharge all the rest.

Kind of like this thing






(Apparently called The Wirecutter.

Or maybe they could just put USB ports on the radio bricks and issue on standard battery that would not only supply  the radio but could also recharge all the other devices in the platoon.


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2015)

All the Powered Rail stuff so far arcs out when wet...

Not good for Mil usage.


It's coming, but not in 5-10 years IMHO.
  At that point you can use the weapon's cycling action to generate electricity...


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2015)

Didn't caseless ammunition fall by the wayside due to issues with, among other things, having to use it by a certain time period once a package was open. I think I remember reading there were issue with ammo getting wet too.


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2015)

Most of the caseless ammo issues WRT storage and handling has been solved.

The biggest issue is the heat generated - with no brass case, or polymer case to act as insulator/heatsink - the firing heat goes into the chamber with great speed.
   So then your chamber and beginning of barrel needs to be Stellite or something with high heat tolerance, and resistance to wear at those temps.  Or you live with a 30rd cookoff threshhold.

Second issue is chamber fouling - with no case to contain the residue...

CTA offers a way to have no fouling in the chamber, less heat, and lighter and more robust.


If your in the Small Arms field and not working on CTA systems, your wasting R&D dollars.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2015)

How about that Frag-12 round Kevin?  Do you know anything about it?


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2015)

Payload issues from the rumors I heard.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2015)

Makes sense.

12 ga = 19mm vice 25mm vice 40mm

But you could carry a lot of them and fire them quickly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> All the Powered Rail stuff so far arcs out when wet...
> 
> Not good for Mil usage.
> 
> ...


That's not a bad idea, the M4 tube and buffer could work, the question is would it make enough under normal use to charge the batteries to justify weight and complexity? Possible a solar cell on the gun might also work. 

As I understand it the new RCMP patrol carbines (aka assault rifles) optics are meant to be left on and when the rifle is cycled through the workshop every two years the batteries are changed.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2015)

The big problem I see with the powered rail is that you have to discharge your weapon to recharge your batteries.  Might be a problem if you want to stay quiet or on constabulary patrols (I suppose you could issue blanks but what would the neighbours think if you are patrolling a Green Line).

Electricity is like water it flows and it can be stored.  So why not use big batteries (bladders) to fill little batteries (canteens) to fill smaller batteries (cups and sips)?.

Everybody is carrying batteries now.  Why not issue everyone one radio battery which can be used to supply the radio but can also be used to recharge everything else in the section/platoon?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Payload issues from the rumors I heard.



Not just payload, but the range of thse things are pretty limited as well. I once saw an impressive as hell demonstration using an automatic AA-12 shotgun showering a target with these things; quite spectacular until you realized that mayhem was only 100m away from the shooter (apparently the max accurate range for the round).

Of course the laws of physics are rigerously enforced at all times and places; getting more range would either require a lighter and less lethal round, or more recoil than the human body wold be comfortable in handling. I actually thought the XM-307 HMG concept was rather sound, where a large weapon absorbed the recoil force of the 25mm frag round (although the overly complex mechanism eventually killed it). Since it weighed 25Kg, it was actually reasonably sized and could be considered "man portable" (it was actually lighter than either the M-2 or the CIS .50). I should also point out the Chinese have a 35mm automatic grenade launcher which is about the same size and weight as a C-6, so with some clever engineering it is indeed possible to have pretty hard hitting weapons right down to the section and platoon  level.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

Meanwhile, in the Ukraine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vF-WvIL82Q


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2015)

Well there goes that grid square


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2015)

I think the army would be in for quite a shock against even a vaguely near peer armed with Grads. Been following quite few threads on this and the level of destruction of AFV's and support vehicles is quite high, much less the causalities who reports say most are killed by artillery.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think the army would be in for quite a shock against even a vaguely near peer armed with Grads. Been following quite few threads on this and the level of destruction of AFV's and support vehicles is quite high, much less the causalities who reports say most are killed by artillery.



A battery of field artillery is worth a thousand muskets.

- General William Tecumseh Sherman


----------



## dimsum (13 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the Ukraine...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vF-WvIL82Q


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

>



Trivia Tangent:

One of our homies, Tyrone Benskin, played the part of the (soon to be one armed and dead) Persian guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Benskin


----------



## GnyHwy (14 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the Ukraine...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vF-WvIL82Q



Thanks!!! Now I can't stop wringing my hands.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Feb 2015)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Thanks!!! Now I can't stop wringing my hands.



A newer version of Stalin's Organ.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2015)

While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...



If that was the case, I'd hate to see the heavies. ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...




Sadly, I think this is what our potential opposition views as 'light support weapons'.


----------



## medicineman (15 Feb 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sadly, I think this is what our potential opposition views as 'light support weapons'.



Their version of a supercool 60mm mortar?

MM


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2015)

If they start playing with those beasties I hope somebody held onto a few cluster munitions for counter-battery work.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Feb 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If they start playing with those beasties I hope somebody held onto a few cluster munitions for counter-battery work.



Cluster munitions ......the next thing the soft headed sheep will want banned, but only for us.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2015)

I Believe we are banned from using them and they have a high failure rate.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2015)

I'm pretty sure your right on the ban Sheep Dog.  Hamish's wooly heads got there first.  

High failure rate or not plastering an open field like those in the Ukraine would have to be more than marginally effective at reducing the incidence of repeat actions.

But, as Thucydides noted, we're no longer talking light support.


----------



## GnyHwy (15 Feb 2015)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I Believe we are banned from using them and they have a high failure rate.



I think they've got it down to <1% now, but anything more than 0 is a high rate in some people's minds. 

Using the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vF-WvIL82Q as a reference, they fired 40 missiles each for a total of 160.  If they were cluster munitions with about 200 bomblets in them, using a 0.5% failure, you would end up with 160 UXOs in the target area, therefore making it contaminated, which is fine I guess, if you don't need to go there.

There can also be self destruct functions to make the number lower, but still not guaranteed to be 0.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...



If we're gonna hijack the thread, it might as well be with rockets.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Feb 2015)

Here's a video about the separatist Luhansk EOD unit showing what they've recovered.  See 4:49, 5:48, 6:25, and 6:46 for examples of submunitions and rocket bodies/carriers.  There has been indiscriminate use on both sides of Grad, Uragan, and Smerch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDFZqtLqJ4

Canada has passed legislation making us a party to the Convention on Cluster Munition as of last June.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...



this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_63_multiple_rocket_launcher

and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mumt5M0gusE


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_63_multiple_rocket_launcher
> 
> and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mumt5M0gusE



It's still 602kg, so it is in the same class as a C-16


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2015)

I didn't find the thread for the proposed new Infantry weapon that DRDC is working on, but here is a bit of an update with some embedded videos. The one about the weapon itself isn't very informative (although a single device with a 40mm grenade launcher, a shotgun and a 5.56 rifle seems a bit unwieldy. I would have split the difference by having the "shotgun" barrel and multi purpose ammunition that the user could select. There is a 12 gauge "grenade" round already, and having a sabot around one or more flechettes fired from a shotgun was actually the inspiration for the ill fated SPIWS system back in the 1960's (while the shotgun with flechettes worked reasonably well, the rifle firing flechettes ran into multiple difficulties).

Some other embedded videos of various bull pup weapons designs as well, for those who are interested.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/canadas-possible-future-rifle-that.html



> *Canada's possible future rifle that shoots standard NATO round, shotgun shell and grenade ammo*
> 
> Canadian Forces through the Soldier Integrated Precision Effects Systems (SIPES) project have developed next generation prototype gun. A bullpup design that features the ability to install either a three round 40 mm grenade launcher, or a 12-gauge shotgun. The next phase will feature a TrackingPoint style system to automatically detect targets and assist in engaging them. When optimized, the integrated weapon prototype could weigh less than a C7 equipped with a M203 grenade launcher, reducing the burden on soldiers.
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I didn't find the thread for the proposed new Infantry weapon that DRDC is working on, but here is a bit of an update with some embedded videos. The one about the weapon itself isn't very informative (although a single device with a 40mm grenade launcher, a shotgun and a 5.56 rifle seems a bit unwieldy. I would have split the difference by having the "shotgun" barrel and multi purpose ammunition that the user could select. There is a 12 gauge "grenade" round already, and having a sabot around one or more flechettes fired from a shotgun was actually the inspiration for the ill fated SPIWS system back in the 1960's (while the shotgun with flechettes worked reasonably well, the rifle firing flechettes ran into multiple difficulties).
> 
> Some other embedded videos of various bull pup weapons designs as well, for those who are interested.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2015)

Not every weapon is as awful as the SA-80. I have had the opportunity to use the Styer AUG and found it to be light and well balanced. Changing magazines was a bit off at first, but I think with enough repetitions of the drill it would have become quite fluid. The built in carrying handle sight was a harder thing to get used to, but most AUG's have done away with that today.

The video comparing the AUG, Tavor and FN-2000 was interesting, but I would have to have the item in my hand to actually render judgement (besides it having a high LCF). The approach the FN 2000 took seems to have been to answer every objection to bullpups, from its very smooth design (no snagging inside vehicles, helicopters or confined spaces) to the ejection tube throwing casings out the front. My understanding of the Tavor is it has most of the controls in the same spots you would find on an M-16 family weapon, meaning conversion would be rather quick.

Getting back to the new "rifle", I would rather see something along the lines of the XM-25 as a section support weapon, using a much larger magazine and hopefully being much more affordable that the current iteration of the XM-25 idea.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not every weapon is as awful as the SA-80. I have had the opportunity to use the Styer AUG and found it to be light and well balanced. Changing magazines was a bit off at first, but I think with enough repetitions of the drill it would have become quite fluid. the built in carrying handle sight was a harder thing to get used to, but most AUG's have done away with that today.
> 
> The video comparing the AUG, Tavor and FN-2000 was interesting, but I would have to have the item in my hand to actually render judgement (besides it having a high LCF). The approach the FN 2000 took seems to have been to answer every objection to bullpups, from its very smooth design (no snagging inside vehicles, helicopters or confined spaces) to the ejection tube throwing casings out the front. My understanding of the Tavor is it has most of the controls in the same spots you would find on an M-16 family weapon, meaning conversion would be rather quick.
> 
> Getting back to the new "rifle", I would rather see something along the lines of the XM-25 as a section support weapon, using a much larger magazine and hopefully being much more affordable that the current iteration of the XM-25 idea.



No.

The C7/M203 is a good infantry weapon. I would take it over the SA 80 in a heartbeat. The SAS & SBS did.

When armies try to jazz up the basic killing arm of the 'close with a destroy' gang, it usually has something to do with saving $ by getting rid of the things that really win the big wars like artillery, heavy machine guns, auto-cannon, mortars, engineer/ pioneers, and the right kind of armored and air support.

If you want to make our rifle better, give us a bayonet that doesn't break (which it does with alarming frequency) because, in the end, the rifle is merely a club and a spear. Especially for the infantry. 

And now that they gave us a coat hanger for a rifle stock, the 'stabbing thing' will likely have to take up the slack.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2015)

I sense conflicting requirements:

Clubs work best with lots of mass.
Rifles are being designed with less mass to handle more ammunition.

On the other hand - a rifle with more mass will absorb more recoil (and shot more accurately?).

As for sharp pointy things - they should be sharp and pointy (and mounted flat to slip between the ribs).


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2015)

I suspect any radical new weapon is going to be built around a radical new ammunition technology. Caseless or telescoping cased ammunition (like the LSAT) is one way to go, giving soldiers the ability to carry more ammunition ("when I was a private, I carried 100lbs of really heavy stuff. Now thanks to modern technology, I can carry 100lbs of really light stuff instead...).

The more I think of it, the more I am inclined towards the idea of explosive ammunition rather than causeless ammunition. LSAT type weapons don't deliver fundamentally different end effects from any automatic rifle developed since the StG 44, and like any rifle, depend on very rigorous training to to be used well. Given the realities of training these days, I don't see the sort of intensive training needed to make good riflemen coming back. (How many people have been to the range more than once a year, for example?)

Explosive ammunition also allows the section to deal with some sorts of targets right away without calling on platoon, company or higher level weapons. (As an aside, other weapons like the mini Spike Anti _Personnel_ Guided Missile are man portable at the section level, and allow the section to suppress or destroy things like enemy machine guns at ranges of up to 1200m in the current form). As we evolve towards distributed operations (wether we like it or not), being able to deal with a wide range of targets immediately and by yourself is going to be more and more important. Waiting for a super long range FOG-M launched 60 km away might not be a viable option for a section or platoon taking fire right now.


----------



## NavyShooter (31 May 2015)

I will interject with a half-memory of something I read a while ago.

The ability to win a battle is significantly increased not by application of bullets, but by application of High Explosives.

Moving HE capability down the tree to a lower level makes sub-units that much more capable.

NS


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2015)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will interject with a half-memory of something I read a while ago.
> 
> The ability to win a battle is significantly increased not by application of bullets, but by application of High Explosives.
> 
> ...



At the risk of re-opening cans of worms, that HE capability used to be available in the form of the 60mm MOR.  ;D

And I believe that explosive bullets are banned under the Hague Convention.

Ultimately, the infantry can not fight alone and win. No one can.

IMHO the effort to further 'trick out' our basic rifle is evidence of a failure at the highest level to integrate the combat arms team successfully, with the result that empire building has taken over and shows up by having them foist something on us that looks like it was drawn from the Mobile Infantry's weapons lock up.


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2015)

While I fully agree that a 60mm mortar is an ideal infantry weapon from most perspectives, for the moment we don't have any....

The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 bans the use of exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams which can explode inside a human body. This does not apply to automatic cannon or artillery, and given current technology, a 400 gram projectile with an explosive charge would be quite lethal to unarmoured or otherwise unprotected soldiers.

The final point about integration is not quite correct. Looking at history, a great many supporting weapons have been introduced over the centuries. Initially they were separate arms or housed in separate subunits, but have gradually become subsumed into the Infantry. The oldest example would be the Pike; separate units of pikes were incorporated into units during the introduction of gunpowder to protect the Arquebusiers from Cavalry and enemy Infantry while they reloaded. Eventually, the pikes were replaced as firearms became more reliable and the weight of fire counted more for combat. Since Infantry still needed close protection, the bayonet was developed to turn the gun itself into a pike. Similar progression has been made in the form of machine-guns (formerly in separate battalions, now each section has two light machine guns and a dismounted platoon has 6 plus one GPMG), artillery (Infantry regiments used to have "regimental artillery" directly attached, now most of the world's Infantry has mortars at the platoon, com pay and battalion level, and anti tank guided missiles and all manner of anti armour weapons down to section level for direct fire power).

This is not to dispute the fact that combined arms are needed, rather to suggest that combined arms are there to provide "more" to the Infantry. The 1980's era Mech Infantry Battalion was a reasonably balanced formation, and hooked up with Artillery to provide "more" indirect fire, Armour to provide "more" direct fire. Engineers to give more mobility/countermobility help and so on. (This is an internet post, so I'm dealing in generalities here). The modern US SBCT blends a lot of that functionality down to the company level, which goes to the point that a lot of what used to be separate is now packaged together.


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 bans the use of exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams which can explode inside a human body. This does not apply to automatic cannon or artillery, and given current technology, a 400 gram projectile with an explosive charge would be quite lethal to unarmoured or otherwise unprotected soldiers.



A 40mm grenade weighs about half of that limit, and have been in regular use for 50 years. I suspect that if we wanted to use explosive ammo as a standard, we could go ahead and issue semi-auto shotguns firing Frag-12 explosive 12 gauge rounds, call it the C100 Individual Grenade Rifle, and no one would go to jail. The reason we don't is because of the limitations of technology, not because of the limits of international law.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is not to dispute the fact that combined arms are needed, rather to suggest that combined arms are there to provide "more" to the Infantry. The 1980's era Mech Infantry Battalion was a reasonably balanced formation, and hooked up with Artillery to provide "more" indirect fire, Armour to provide "more" direct fire. Engineers to give more mobility/countermobility help and so on. (This is an internet post, so I'm dealing in generalities here). The modern US SBCT blends a lot of that functionality down to the company level, which goes to the point that a lot of what used to be separate is now packaged together.



I agree. More 'stuff that goes boom' lower down the food chain is always better. The rifle is merely a bit player in the wider scheme of things of course. Unfortunately I believe that - unlike the USMC - we are dangerously under resourced at most levels and, as always, it will be the 17 year old grunts who pay the price. 

I'd take a Lee Enfield over the C7 if you could get me all the indirect fire support and tanks I needed (well, OK, maybe make that an SLR  ).


----------



## crowbag (2 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The C7/M203 is a good infantry weapon. I would take it over the SA 80 in a heartbeat. The SAS & SBS did.



Really? What is your reasoning? The SA80 A1 I used in depot was terrible, but I found the SA80 A2 to be excellent – and easier to hold in a decently alert position (when patrolling etc.) than a C7. The kicker for me has to be the HK UGL versus the 203 – I found the C7 w/203 to be cumbersome as hell, but the A2 w/UGL to be comparatively easy to handle. 

Curious to hear your thoughts. I suppose beyond the stats it comes down to personal preference…


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Really? What is your reasoning? The SA80 A1 I used in depot was terrible, but I found the SA80 A2 to be excellent – and easier to hold in a decently alert position (when patrolling etc.) than a C7. The kicker for me has to be the HK UGL versus the 203 – I found the C7 w/203 to be cumbersome as hell, but the A2 w/UGL to be comparatively easy to handle.
> 
> Curious to hear your thoughts. I suppose beyond the stats it comes down to personal preference…



I have not carried the newer version but hauled the old SA 80 around a lot in NI (back when the earth was cooling a ground fire was always light to moderate). It was like carrying an 11lb pistol in your right hand. Torture, especially for someone with little girl wrists like me. The SLR was much easier to carry for longer periods of time as you share the load between hands. A longer barrel also lets you scan, cover arcs and engage from cover better than the 'assault pistol', which forces you into the open more often.

It was also minus a forward bolt assist, so in some cases its puny return spring caused 'dead man's click' in some firefights, which certainly eroded our confidence with the weapon. We issued out the Bren Guns to help address this confidence problem.

In Norway it was handy, being short, but more prone to finicky stoppages than the good ol' SLR for the heroic ski troops of the high arctic and low temperatures. Or the C7/ M16 for that matter, which I trialled during one winter deployment.

And I note that no one else in the world has bothered to waste their money on the SA 80, even after the various (horrendously expensive) HK rebuilds. 

Again, the UK SoF, and anyone else who has a choice in the matter, use the C7 and it's variants vs. the SA80. A true test of relative uselessness.


----------



## crowbag (3 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> A longer barrel also lets you scan, cover arcs and engage from cover better than the 'assault pistol', which forces you into the open more often.
> 
> Again, the UK SoF, and anyone else who has a choice in the matter, use the C7 and it's variants vs. the SA80. A true test of relative uselessness.



Good points. I hadn't thought about the shorter barrel forcing you into the open more from cover. I know I'd rather poke my head over a parapet to fire a C7 than an SA80 in terms of not exposing myself. 

I did really like the UGL (HK AG36) as it felt more balanced than the front heavy C7/203 combo. Also the breech opening to the left was easier to operate, as well as a proper pistol grip and breech opening button. Doesn't really make the argument for the rifle as a whole though.  

Really makes you wonder about the procurement process over at the MOD...doesn't seem like the best call they have ever made. Would be interesting to get into the details of their rationale...


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Sep 2015)

It seems to me that the British Army was developing a .280 cal bull pup rifle in the 1950s, but the project was cancelled by PM Churchill in favour of the 7.62mm FN as part of NATO standardization. (I joined the Canadian Army in 1957.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Really makes you wonder about the procurement process over at the MOD...doesn't seem like the best call they have ever made. Would be interesting to get into the details of their rationale...



It's main role was to ensure the survival of the second rate British small arms industry through shoveling tax dollars into Enfield. They even had to hire HK to fix the stupid thing for them.


----------



## crowbag (3 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's main role was to ensure the survival of the second rate British small arms industry through shoveling tax dollars into Enfield. They even had to hire HK to fix the stupid thing for them.



Yup. Sounds about right. And damn the consequences for those carrying it...


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Yup. Sounds about right. And damn the consequences for those carrying it...



As per SOP.

However, they saw a lot of use in AFG and if the Toms there were happy with it, who can argue...


----------



## KevinB (3 Sep 2015)

I find it interesting that every Army that has used a Bullpup in combat is going away from them...

  Aussie SASR are actively teaching their Big Army units why the AusSteyr in a steaming turd - and FN is discontinuing the F2000.

And the CF (look at my little Johnny he's the only one in step) is going the other way.

 :


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (4 Oct 2015)

Because of that weird prototype we saw? That is serious?


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Oct 2015)

That's been in the works for years.

I saw it at the Small Arms conference in 2013.

The fact is that the last 'successful' small arm that was built and fielded in Canada was the Ross has much to speak about our capabilities....

(Note, I own a Ross, 1916/243, (243'd rifle built in 1916) and while it shoots well, it's not on the same level of reliability as the Enfield....of which I own several.)

NS


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (5 Oct 2015)

The horror... the horror.


----------



## Spencer100 (24 Feb 2016)

"The Biggest change for infantry since WWII."

I think this statement may be a little over top but I know nothing.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/biggest-change-for-infantry-since-wwii-xm25/


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2016)

I actually do believe that bringing precision guided weapons down to the individual infantryman is a revolutionary step.

While the XM-25 is obviously a gold plated "full meal deal", there is no reason that this sort of technology cannot be imported to current 40mm grenades fired from under barrel launchers. The effects of having an integrated day/night/rangefinding sight on the rifle itself will also be pretty amazing (most shooter error is a result of not being able to estimate ranges accurately). If that wasn't bad enough, consider weapons like the Mini-Spike Anti _Personnel_ Guided Missile, which let you engage man sized targets from 1200m away. For most practical purposes this means that support weapons like machine guns can be held under threat by individual infantrymen (While a C-6 on the SF kit has a longer range, how often do you get 1800+m sight lines?). Since weapons like the XM-25, putative guided 40mm grenades and APGM's all have explosive warheads, this also complicates trying to protect soldiers and systems. How much body armour is it practical to wear to protect yourself from such an attack before you are immobilized by weight or fatigue?

The end result will be soldiers will be able to engage targets at extended ranges with a higher level of effectiveness, and use fewer rounds to get a kill. Tactically, this also means that exposing yourself will be extremely dangerous, so dispersion, movement under cover, stalking and camouflage will become far more important than ever. Crossing any sort of open ground in "Arrowhead" formation will be seen to be as relevant in modern warfare as forming a square. Mass firepower drove infantry into open formations, accurate firepower will render combat into an increasingly deadly game of hide and seek.


----------



## NavyShooter (25 Feb 2016)

The inability to accurately estimate ranges correctly is one of the factors that drove the US to investigate the original SCHV (Small Caliber High Velocity) program, which led to the various Flechette based systems that were experimented on in the 60's (mostly).  

The extremely light but long flechettes were VERY flat shooting, (I'll have to go back to the book to get the trajectory) 







The long flat trajectory increased the PH (Probability to Hit) and the speed of the projectile did the same, both by reducing aiming errors due to trajectory/range issues, but also because of the shorter time of flight against moving targets.

This was the same project that developped some of the initial duplex rounds, with multiple bullets in the same cartridge case, usually one correctly aligned with the bore, the other deliberately designed to offset from the first to give a 'pattern' rather than a group.

NS


----------



## NavyShooter (25 Feb 2016)

http://www.thegunzone.com/spiw.html

The SPIW, the Deadliest weapon that never was.


This rifle was designed to feed from the front magazine first, then the rear, giving a larger capacity:







This one has an integrated fore-end grenade launcher and a rotary/drum magazine for the flechette rounds:






And another variation on the theme:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2016)

Probably the biggest change is that every program from SPIW to the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) in the 1990's all depended on _mechanical_ improvements to the weapons and ammunition. SPIW used hypervelocity flechettes, and the HK G11 from the ACR program used a breech mechanism which looked like clockwork to cycle at an incredible 2100 RPM in burst mode, so the shooter only felt the recoil impulse after the last of three rounds left the barrel.

Post 1990, we are now looking at advances in computerization (rugged, low cost and low energy use devices), communications (between the sight and the round, in the case of the XM-25) and integration with other systems (using UAV's to spot targets, for example) to increase pK and other performance metrics in the weapons. Firing a missile at an identified shooter may seem a bit extreme, but if the shooter is otherwise not targetable because of cover, the presence of civilians or collateral damage concerns, then a missile like Mini-Spike is much preferable to blasting the shooter out with a tank round, artillery or unguided bursts of GPMG fire (Mini-Spike can have the warhead deactivated by the operator, leaving the target to be struck by a 4kg projectile moving at high sub-sonic speeds.)

Now we need to ally these advances in computerization with already known technologies and management techniques to make these cheap and ubiquitous. Remember your "smartphone" has many of the features of these devices like communications through multiple means (cell and WiFi), GPS tracking, internal accelerometers, cameras etc. in a $600 device. Mass producing APGM's and "smart" 40mm grenades to bring the cost down to mass issue would be a huge game changer on the battlefield.


----------



## C.Balogh (9 Oct 2016)

Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2016)

battletoad said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?



If you're stuck with the 200rd plastic boxes, kinda hard... And then with those every once in a while you'll get the 'bungee box'; the unmistakeable 'dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzunk!' of a box detaching from the gun and dropping to the ground with all the rounds comming out, invariably followed right away by savage profanity.

The best trick is grab a bit of cardboard from your IMPs. Crack open the plastic ammo boxes, and line both of the large flat faces on the inside with a thin bit of cardboard. It dulls some of the clacking of the rounds inside. You can also stick a small bit of cardboard underneath the latch on the plastic ammo box when it's mounted to the gun, this will help to keep it secure. No way about it though; carrying a C9 on anything where stealth is required sucks.


----------



## childs56 (9 Oct 2016)

Pull about 20rds out of the box break the link place the rest of the ammo in carrier pouch. Practice contact drills where you can pull the remainder of the ammo out of the pouch quickly and either reload and or connect the links. you still have to be aware of your 20rds clinking and clacking. but its a bit more manageable. 
 As for those plastic boxes, just pull all your ammo out of them and just carry the ammo in soft pouches. 

If your COC will not let you do that then the cardboard will lesson the noise


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2016)

battletoad said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?



Those boxes are in the system.  I asked my unit to order some and they came in in a few weeks from Montreal.   You can approach  your QM and see if they can order some.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2016)

Re: soft bags, this may be one of those things the refs take for granted that reserve units generally don't have.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Oct 2016)

A C6 with a belt of 50 (and 220 in your Bergen) is silent but deadly


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2016)

For interest, the Colt CMG-3 machine gun. A lightweight 7.62mm design which was offered to the Navy for the SEAL's, its downfall was a lack of durability. A rather interesting design with a few quirks :  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3aayF-S2ps

Certainly a weapon combining the firepower of a c-6 with only half the weight would be of interest, and modern materials should allow for a more robust weapon than the CMG-3


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Oct 2016)

Well if any follows the RFP's that go up closely, a few years ago an RFP went up for what was basically a 7.62mm C-9, most likely for CSOR, JTF-2 types.


----------



## brihard (28 Oct 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well if any follows the RFP's that go up closely, a few years ago an RFP went up for what was basically a 7.62mm C-9, most likely for CSOR, JTF-2 types.



Yeah, the Mk-48. It's a scaled up C9 made by FN. Fires 7.62. I suspect it was one of those cases where CANSOFCOM knew exactly what they wanted and the RFP was rather precise as a result.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2016)

Going at the problem the other way, rather than having an automatic rifle at all, why not make infantry solders much more capable shooters? This US army project is designed to remove the "shake" shooters can induce in a weapon when holding it unsupported. While the illustration shows a very bulky "proof of concept", it can certainly be miniaturized with development. Aimed, accurate fire can certainly be far less resource intensive than putting down a lot of fire in the general area.

Shooters will still need to train relentlessly in the principles of marksmanship and live fire,otherwise if something goes wrong with the mechanism, they will be carrying rather large clubs into battle.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/us-army-live-fire-testing-smart-gun.html



> *US Army live fire testing smart gun that actively corrects aim*
> US Army testing actively aim stabilized gun.
> 
> This month the U.S. Army's Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiments (AEWE) program tested the AimLock Stabilized Weapon Platform for the first time during a live fire exercise. This ungainly-looking gun seeks to revolutionize the average infantryman's combat effectiveness by removing human error from the equation entirely.
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Going at the problem the other way, rather than having an automatic rifle at all, why not make infantry solders much more capable shooters? This US army project is designed to remove the "shake" shooters can induce in a weapon when holding it unsupported. While the illustration shows a very bulky "proof of concept", it can certainly be miniaturized with development. Aimed, accurate fire can certainly be far less resource intensive than putting down a lot of fire in the general area.
> 
> Shooters will still need to train relentlessly in the principles of marksmanship and live fire,otherwise if something goes wrong with the mechanism, they will be carrying rather large clubs into battle.
> 
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/us-army-live-fire-testing-smart-gun.html



That's the same philosophy that pitted the Bren/ BAR against the MG 34/42, unfortunately.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2016)

IMO our C9s should be switched out with MK48s.  3 pounds heavier but it would give sections more punch and range.  Seems logistically beneficial too to do away with the requirement for 5.56 4b1t.








Switch 20" C7s to 15.7" C8s and give everyone an extra belt of 7.62


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> IMO our C9s should be switched out with MK48s.  3 pounds heavier but it would give sections more punch and range.  Seems logistically beneficial too to do away with the requirement for 5.56 4b1t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My hand is up... can you see it from there?

Even better if we can fix a bayonet on it.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's the same philosophy that pitted the Bren/ BAR against the MG 34/42, unfortunately.



And the MG34/42 won through volume of fire. But what if the Bren/BAR gunners had the accuracy of marksmen when putting down a round or a burst?

To tell the truth, I actually see something like an evolved XM-25 to be the evolution of the section/platoon support weapon, but coupling that with a high degree of accuracy to ensure any aimed round on target is an effective round on target would make such a device totally devastating.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Feb 2017)

On the support weapon side, atleast I think it kinda is, apparently the CaF is looking to acquire a semi-auto sniper weapon, program designated SASW, currently in the planning phase. It's intend is a lot of volume of accurate fire at closer ranges, sounds like to me something akin to the C3 sniper rifle, 7.62 calibre.


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> On the support weapon side, atleast I think it kinda is, apparently the CaF is looking to acquire a semi-auto sniper weapon, program designated SASW, currently in the planning phase. It's intend is a lot of volume of accurate fire at closer ranges, sounds like to me something akin to the C3 sniper rifle, 7.62 calibre.



It's just anecdotal, since I haven't seen any actual operational analysis of CF small arms engagements in Kandahar province, but from the guys I talked to, the AR-10(T) proved very effective in combat.


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Feb 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It's just anecdotal, since I haven't seen any actual operational analysis of CF small arms engagements in Kandahar province, but from the guys I talked to, the AR-10(T) proved very effective in combat.


Wasnt the 10T part of a trial to give infantry sections a DMR?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Feb 2017)

Anecdotal, based on team armourer's experience with two of the CAF's rifles in the UK last summer....AR-10(T) has a specialized trigger mechanism that is only available through Armalite.  A lack of forward planning and parts procurement resulted in the rifles having to be cobbled together to make one function.  

From the somewhat experienced Weapons Tech:  "Don't buy an AR-10"....

I will note that I was once offered one of the ex CAF AR-10(T) upper receivers (had the squared-profile Badger Ordnance fore-end) and chose not to buy it.

I understand that the rifles in the system were procured as a 'one time buy' in the early 2000's.

NS


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Feb 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Anecdotal, based on team armourer's experience with two of the CAF's rifles in the UK last summer....AR-10(T) has a specialized trigger mechanism that is only available through Armalite.  A lack of forward planning and parts procurement resulted in the rifles having to be cobbled together to make one function.
> 
> From the somewhat experienced Weapons Tech:  "Don't buy an AR-10"....
> 
> ...



Specialized parts is nothing new for a weapons system, this just sounds like poor planning from high combined with the fact that said trigger mech will be an A class part, meaning you can't just order up a couple spares.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My hand is up... can you see it from there?
> 
> Even better if we can fix a bayonet on it.



I like th bayonet idea..... 

Serious, two per section? Very cool and a good idea.
Or will some big brain decide since its 7.62 then it's too expensive for two per section, and doctrine will change to one/section?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I like th bayonet idea.....
> 
> Serious, two per section? Very cool and a good idea.
> Or will some big brain decide since its 7.62 then it's too expensive for two per section, and doctrine will change to one/section?



Or you can drop the section to 6 (with one per) and form the other 3x2 into an MG Det with two guns or even a Weapons Group from 3x4 with an MG Det and an DFS Det (CG84s and Anti-Materiel Rifles).


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Feb 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I like th bayonet idea.....
> 
> Serious, two per section? Very cool and a good idea.
> Or will some big brain decide since its 7.62 then it's too expensive for two per section, and doctrine will change to one/section?


CSOR has 7.62 C9s so why not the rest of us? 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CSOR has 7.62 C9s so why not the rest of us?
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



Which takes us back to this topic:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/110167.0


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Anecdotal, based on team armourer's experience with two of the CAF's rifles in the UK last summer....AR-10(T) has a specialized trigger mechanism that is only available through Armalite.  A lack of forward planning and parts procurement resulted in the rifles having to be cobbled together to make one function.
> 
> From the somewhat experienced Weapons Tech:  "Don't buy an AR-10"....
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> On the support weapon side, atleast I think it kinda is, apparently the CaF is looking to acquire a semi-auto sniper weapon, program designated SASW, currently in the planning phase. It's intend is a lot of volume of accurate fire at closer ranges, sounds like to me something akin to the C3 sniper rifle, 7.62 calibre.



Could go to HK and ask them to do same thing with HK417 they just did for Marines with HK416 in creating the M27 (IAR).


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2017)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I like th bayonet idea.....
> 
> Serious, two per section? Very cool and a good idea.
> Or will some big brain decide since its 7.62 then it's too expensive for two per section, and doctrine will change to one/section?



I led platoons with 2 x C6 per section, albeit in peacetime training, and it worked great. At the section level, each 4 man team had its own 2 man fire base and 2 man assault team. Talking to my colleagues who used that org in the Falklands it was one of the biggest success factors when fighting through positions where you generally had little idea where the bad guys would pop up which, IIRC, would be like most situations during the real thing. The argument that the gun is 'too heavy' is ridiculous, of course, when the question of life or death pops up.

They were pretty adamant about the need for a belt fed 7.62 weapon too as the weight and continuity of fire was critical.


----------



## GAP (13 Feb 2017)

I'm dated, but we always were more comfortable with a M60 in friendly reach


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Could go to HK and ask them to do same thing with HK417 they just did for Marines with HK416 in creating the M27 (IAR).



That would be cheating.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2017)

M27 is interesting. C9 replacement that's also accurate enough to be used as a designated marksman rifle apparently.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'm dated, but we always were more comfortable with a M60 in friendly reach



Get some


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> M27 is interesting. C9 replacement that's also accurate enough to be used as a designated marksman rifle apparently.



The M27 I like because of the short stroke pistol action, but really slap a C7 on full auto and give it a bi-pod (if you desire) and you basically have the same thing. I would like to see the stress test's and combat reports for the M27. The barrel of the FN Minimi family get's hot, and fast, how bad is this in the M27? how fast is the heat dissipated? and many other questions I have about the M27. It's a different way to do things for sure, but this shift for the USMC will have it's drawbacks as well.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Jul 2017)

I heard and saw pictures over a year ago but it is official now.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/07/new_machine_gunsforcanadianarmedforces.html


> July 26, 2017 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> The Government of Canada is committed to providing the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment and training they need to do their jobs. To support this commitment, the Government of Canada will purchase 1148 new C6A1 FLEX General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG) from Colt Canada, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced today.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The M27 I like because of the short stroke pistol action, but really slap a C7 on full auto and give it a bi-pod (if you desire) and you basically have the same thing. I would like to see the stress test's and combat reports for the M27. The barrel of the FN Minimi family get's hot, and fast, how bad is this in the M27? how fast is the heat dissipated? and many other questions I have about the M27. It's a different way to do things for sure, but this shift for the USMC will have it's drawbacks as well.



I'm pretty sure that Canada was offered a version of the C-7 as a SAW when it was first brought out (I think the Dutch Marines actually bought it). Heavy barrel, bipod etc. I personally don't see anything like this being an improvement over a C-9 or similar LMG, the increase in firepower due to belt feed and changeable barrels is far greater than anything an assault rifle on steroids can produce.

As a counterpart, the US Army seems to be planning to recreate the M-2 HMG in an all titanium version in order to radically reduce the weight. While the idea of a much lighter gun has lots of merit, it should be noted the "Dover Devil" HMG prototype was made of steel and far lighter than the M-2. The CIS .50 was reverse engineered from many of the ideas of the Dover Devil, and only weighs 30kg. I suspect that a similar design scaled down for 7.62 would be significantly lighter than the current C-6 (and having a dual feed would provide for interesting options, assuming there is the desire to purchase different types of 7.62 X 51 ammunition).

Of course, if I was in charge of things, we would be diligently working to get a 7mm LSAT into production as the single calibre for infantry rifles, section and platoon machine guns instead....


----------



## Underway (26 Jul 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I led platoons with 2 x C6 per section, albeit in peacetime training, and it worked great. At the section level, each 4 man team had its own 2 man fire base and 2 man assault team. Talking to my colleagues who used that org in the Falklands it was one of the biggest success factors when fighting through positions where you generally had little idea where the bad guys would pop up which, IIRC, would be like most situations during the real thing. The argument that the gun is 'too heavy' is ridiculous, of course, when the question of life or death pops up.
> 
> They were pretty adamant about the need for a belt fed 7.62 weapon too as the weight and continuity of fire was critical.



Were the platoons you lead equipped with body armour?  I'm sure the Falklands ones weren't just for comparison.  Not saying that too heavy is or isn't a problem but it's probably less of a problem when you don't have the extra 13.5lb of body armour on.  If you add the extra C-6 does that mean you should drop the armour in the platoon? Just throwing that out there as a potential snag.  Also does CSOR wear body armour on a regular basis? I'll sit back and let the experts talk again.   :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jul 2017)

The US recently did test on a .338 mmg that found that it had similar stopping power to a .50 for minimal loss of range, and a substantial decrease in weight. It is perfectly possible that the wide spread use of the .50 could be declining in the near future.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Aug 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Were the platoons you lead equipped with body armour?  I'm sure the Falklands ones weren't just for comparison.  Not saying that too heavy is or isn't a problem but it's probably less of a problem when you don't have the extra 13.5lb of body armour on.  If you add the extra C-6 does that mean you should drop the armour in the platoon? Just throwing that out there as a potential snag.  Also does CSOR wear body armour on a regular basis? I'll sit back and let the experts talk again.   :nod:



No, we never wore body armour (or helmets if we could get away with it). Except in the cities in Northern Ireland where we wore INIBA (no helmet again) and carried as little as possible to facilitate sprinting after pond life, and endless foot patrols. On an average tour it was estimated that a squaddy could cover over 200kms weekly on foot. No INIBA or helmets in the cuds in 'Bandit Country'.

We did, however, regularly practice moving quickly across country/mountains on foot, up to 40-60 miles over the course of 4-5 days. We carried 4 days rations per man as an SOP. And C6 SF, and 84mm MRAW, and 81mm MOR etc etc. Personal kit was bare bones: 3 pairs of socks, rain jacket (semi-waterproof) and a 'wooly pully'.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The US recently did test on a .338 mmg that found that it had similar stopping power to a .50 for minimal loss of range, and a substantial decrease in weight. It is perfectly possible that the wide spread use of the .50 could be declining in the near future.



The "Dover Devil" and the CIS .50 HMG weigh in at @ 30kg, how does this .338 MG compare? 

Truthfully, I also see a decline in the venerable.50 HMG as well, but think that automatic grenade launchers, especially with ballistic computers and advanced ammunition (think of programmable shells like the XM-25, but these fuses are fitted to 40mm grenades) are probably the next wave in heavy direct fire weapons. Bringing the weight of these weapons down to the level of the AGS-30 (16 kg complete with tripod) is needed to make them much more useful on the battlefield, however.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The "Dover Devil" and the CIS .50 HMG weigh in at @ 30kg, how does this .338 MG compare?
> 
> Truthfully, I also see a decline in the venerable.50 HMG as well, but think that automatic grenade launchers, especially with ballistic computers and advanced ammunition (think of programmable shells like the XM-25, but these fuses are fitted to 40mm grenades) are probably the next wave in heavy direct fire weapons. Bringing the weight of these weapons down to the level of the AGS-30 (16 kg complete with tripod) is needed to make them much more useful on the battlefield, however.



The .338 LWMMG produced by GD is about 10kg, effective range by it self on a bi-pod is 1700m, max range 5,642m, 500RPM, Give it a SF kit and I'm sure it will work great.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Aug 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The .338 LWMMG produced by GD is about 10kg, effective range by it self on a bi-pod is 1700m, max range 5,642m, 500RPM, Give it a SF kit and I'm sure it will work great.



Give me great arty/mor support and a butter knife, and I'll trade you for the long range rifle 'bells and whistles.'

The weaker the indir fire support, the more the infantry has to rely on DIY options, sadly...


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Were the platoons you lead equipped with body armour?



Bear in mind that there are new hard armour plates in the system that are down to a couple of pounds each. The big ceramic bastards we were wearing in Kandahar are still in general circulation, but the CAF can easily choose a much lighter option for conventional forces should they be willing to spend the money.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Aug 2017)

Its a question of how much risk we're willing to take. I was in Kandahar when they started replacing the crappy shoulder flaps with full bicep protection, and when I went to Kabul 4 years later we had neck protection as well. No option to remove some of that soft armor, full thing had to be worn. We're so risk adverse, if someone sold a ballistic bubble wrap that said it would stop someone from ever being injured, the Puzzle Palace would decree everyone will be required to be wrapped in it, regardless if they could complete their mission or not.

Super lightweight plates are out there, but when that weight comes off, so does the protective levels, especially from high velocity rounds.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Aug 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a question of how much risk we're willing to take. I was in Kandahar when they started replacing the crappy shoulder flaps with full bicep protection, and when I went to Kabul 4 years later we had neck protection as well. No option to remove some of that soft armor, full thing had to be worn. We're so risk adverse, if someone sold a ballistic bubble wrap that said it would stop someone from ever being injured, the Puzzle Palace would decree everyone will be required to be wrapped in it, regardless if they could complete their mission or not.
> 
> Super lightweight plates are out there, but when that weight comes off, so does the protective levels, especially from high velocity rounds.



Here's a theory for you: the less we care about flak jackets, the more we care about national survival.

Discuss....


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Aug 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Here's a theory for you: the less we care about flak jackets, the more we care about national survival.
> 
> Discuss....



Due to geography, Canada's not in a position to fight a war of national survival, nor arguably have we ever been in such a position. Even during the War of 1812 the US was never in a position to fully seize all of what would become British North America; 'adjustments' to the borders were a more reasonable war aim.

But by looking at other countries, casualty aversion doesn't seem tied directly to wars of national survival. Israel is very casualty averse, despite being in a vulnerable strategic position. There are other factors at play.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Aug 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Israel is very casualty averse, despite being in a vulnerable strategic position. There are other factors at play.



People are harder to replace than equipment.  At least I think that is their theory.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Aug 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> People Public opinion is harder to replace than equipment people.  At least I think that is their theory.



TFTFY   Probably the same theory of political practice in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Aug 2017)

One other point about Israel.

No need for strategic mobility.  400 km x 100 km at its widest point.    1 to 2 hours drive to any front.  A couple of minutes flying time.  Assuming that they are not living at the front.

Consequently they can indulge in heavy (ie very heavy) forces.

That and the fact that they take a dim view of losing any more of their numbers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2017)

Plus they know exactly where they will be fighting


----------

