Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[daftandbarmy]

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]

.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]

.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

 

[KevinB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.