M192 Lightweight Ground Mount

[tomahawk6]

https://peosoldier.army.mil/portfolio/sw/csw/M192LGMforMGuns.pdf

Big improvement over the old tripod. It is 6.5 pounds lighter at 11.5 pounds.

 

[vonGarvin]

Improvement may not be worth it.  The mount for the C6 SF allows traverse through 360 degrees.  The M192 appears to have a T and E mech like device (similar to that used with the M2HB)

 

[tomahawk6]

It is a much better tripod for 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons than the old one. Easier and more flexible to use. The weight saving is huge if you are having to hump it in the mountains of Afghanistan.

http://www.pica.army.mil/PicatinnyPublic/highlights/archive/2006/05-23-06.asp

 

[vonGarvin]

The problem with the canadian MINIMI is that blasted magazine attachment.  Though it allows the use of 30 round magazines when belts are unavailable, it precludes its use on the SF kit (tripod).  The current (Canadian) tripod for the C6 is very easy to use (though for indirect fire involves some use of the cranium), and is quite flexible.  As for weight, no argument here!
I guess it boils down to considering all the relevant factors and then making a decision based on those.  Factors such as weight, durability, flexibility, ease of use, and so forth.

 

[a_majoor]

T6, I'm with vG here, the flexability of the Canadian tripod with the ability to have 3600 traverse would seem to outweigh the reduced mass of this new tripod. I can recall too many times on exercise with the GPMG C-5 or the M-2 having an arc which was "just" larger than the amount of traverse available with the tripod and T&E. Going "free traverse" with those babies was no treat for the gunners, and in real life would have resulted in lots of noise but very little effective fire.

Now if this crew could apply that sort of materials science technology to the C-6 and the SF kit, I would be a happy man indeed.

 

[GO!!!]

The problem with the canadian MINIMI is that blasted magazine attachment.  Though it allows the use of 30 round magazines when belts are unavailable,

IME, only about 50% of all the C9s can actually fit and fire a magazine, the catch on the spring loaded mag cover is incorrectly placed, and will not hold a loaded magazine without a modification from a wpns tech (filing down the catch by about 1/32 of an inch). It appears that it was sized for an unloaded mag.

I agree with you though, the mag feeder is a useless attachment.

 

[KevinB]

New US M249's will do without the mag feed (a la Mk46)

I've shot the C5 off the old tripod (.30 cal US) - not pretty but it works with no T&E.

Does anyone actually site MG's anymore?      ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Does anyone actually site MG's anymore?      ;D

If they don't, then they should. I can think of a few places right around here......... >

 

[vonGarvin]

Does anyone actually site MG's anymore?      ;D

Has anyone EVER actually sited an MG since Korea?  Most of the time they are set in the middle of the defensive as an afterthought, facing straight ahead, with no considerations to siting characteristics at all 

 

[Kirkhill]

von Garvin: 

Are they still issuing Maj. Nette's "The Emma Gees". I know he was PPCLI but I am sure you can make allowances.

http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/emmagees/emmagees1.htm

 

[vonGarvin]

von Garvin: 

Are they still issuing Maj. Nette's "The Emma Gees". I know he was PPCLI but I am sure you can make allowances.

http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/emmagees/emmagees1.htm

PPCLI or not, that article was given to us when I did my Small Arms course in 1994.  That article had a profound effect on me (in terms of machine-gunning, anyway).  I don't know if they still issue it out to the current 3A, but if they don't, they should.  And they should give it out to DP 1.1 as well!  EXCELLENT article, in my professional opinion

 

[paracowboy]

Has anyone EVER actually sited an MG since Korea? 

3RCR did it everytime we were on Ex, when I was there.

 

[HItorMiss]

And I humped them as DFS for you too Para.

Every live fire we did had a well sited MG postion to provide defolade and enfilade. But I have to say man was that stupid heavy!

 

[MG34]

We at one time had an adapter that allowed the C9 to be mounted on the SF Kit, but seeing that a tripod mounted C9 was about as useless as tits on a boar it was dumped pretty quick. I'll take the current system,no T&E to frig with and as mentioned a 6400 mils traverse is handy as well as the elevation the SF Kit can give. As for siting of MGs yes it is done everytime by the book ,in defilade to provide enfilade fire and in pairs,the book may be old but that doesn't mean it should be thrown out.

 

[vonGarvin]

I must have had junk for pl comds when I was an NCM, because they never were in defilade. 

VERY encouraging to hear that there are those out there properly siting them!

 

[MG34]

I just don't let the officers near the MGs,I site them myself in consultation with the CSM.  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

The principles of MG are only sporadically applied, there have been some ex where things were done right, and others where the MG's were plunked in the middle of the position as an afterthought, or sited beside a crossroad or some other silly thing.

The worst part is when your professional opinion is discounted ("Why would you want the C-6 by the C-9 trench anyway, Sgt?"), but without live fire, MILES or WES to prove your point...... : The "Emma G" article/paper/story (how do you characterise something like that?) is fantastic and should be required reading on all leadership and phase courses.

 

[vonGarvin]

I just don't let the officers near the MGs,I site them myself in consultation with the CSM.  ;D

Now now now!  Don't be like that.

But, in all seriousness, I can imagine why you would.  Having said that, the GMPG and other Pl Spt Wpns are the responsibility of the OC to site in accordance with his plan.  As a_majoor pointed out, the "emma gees" article should be required reading (in spite of the very obvious cold-war-going-hot story line).  In fact, I am going to issue it this weekend to my DP 1.1 candidates, I beleve


Garvin out.