gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185619
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31/7/20 by autogun; 16808 views.
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

It's called trying to make it work.

If we're Stuck with these lemons, GD's setup is the best but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

3/8/20

It's been amusing seeing everyone try to get on my case for pointing out that GDOTS is the only submission that appears to offer a pathway to an actual weight reduction, as if I'm somehow irrationally biased towards the bullpup entry.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

Maybe we steal a trick from jiri cermak's URZ concept and make the GD heavy version use the internal belt feed style drum with updated polymer links... Then it can be a bastard proto belt fed

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

3/8/20

Oh god please no.

Red7272

From: Red7272

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

Maybe we steal a trick from jiri cermak's URZ concept and make the GD heavy version use the internal belt feed style drum with updated polymer links... Then it can be a bastard proto belt fed

Excellent idea. Though to be fair i just looked up the patent and I still don't understand how it's supposed to work. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

It's called trying to make it work.

LOL.  No.  It's called:  Nat dislikes belt-fed squad autos, so he builds in a weight bias for his comparison by reducing the mag-fed ammo load by 33%, but keeps the belt-fed ammo loads at 100%.

roguetechie said:

If we're Stuck with these lemons, GD's setup is the best...

Strongly disagree.  The GD's 20-rd ammo capacity is laughably small.  Imagine trying to lay down suppressive fire.

Plus, the belt-fed weapons could be used in lieu of the platoon's M240 machine guns.  GD's mag-fed AR could not.

  • Edited 03 August 2020 20:49  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

QuintusO said:

It's been amusing seeing everyone try to get on my case for pointing out that GDOTS is the only submission that appears to offer a pathway to an actual weight reduction, as if I'm somehow irrationally biased towards the bullpup entry.

Actually, it's that you're biased toward mag-fed ARs, and against belt-fed.  And your bias shows in reducing the mag-fed ammo load, but not the belt-fed ammo load.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

I'm not sold on the GD AR either but it's still kinda the best of breed with the ammo design which is frankly more important than the guns themselves in a lot of ways.

For example... The Sig belt fed is at least mildly interesting to me but their ammo design makes it trash. It's heavier than 7.62 NATO round per round and that's plain unacceptable.

As far as the reduced load setup. I'm pretty certain he has a chart with the standard load for the GD AR too but, as we can all plainly see, it would be unworkable to do a full standard equivalent load for it. Thus he chose not to include that.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

The URZ setup is very similar to the belt feed mechanism from the xm235/xm248/Dover devil(gd lwgpmg or whatever)/one of the belt fed 5.56 AR kits.

With the xm235/248 you have a rotary belt feed sprocket attached to the lower long stroke piston with an anti backfeed arrangement and the belts go in "upside down" compared to m249. It had a quick change box or could be ran with loose belts by hooking the first link into the sprocket then advancing it one position forward with a finger.

In the URZ there was a mating surface interface between the quick change drum that drove the rotor In the drum off the guns cycling energy. In order to run loose belts you still need one of your drums attached because part of the belt drive mechanism is built into the drums. From everything I can gather the Chinese ultralight 35mm qlz87 AGL uses a similar system too fwiw.

That said I don't actually think it'd be possible to just graft a feed system like that onto the rm277 from GD.

stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

I'm not sold on the GD AR either but it's still kinda the best of breed with the ammo design which is frankly more important than the guns themselves in a lot of ways.

The flaw in your comment is that NGSW is a system.  The gun is at least as important as the ammo.

roguetechie said:

For example... The Sig belt fed is at least mildly interesting to me but their ammo design makes it trash. It's heavier than 7.62 NATO round per round and that's plain unacceptable.

Hmm.  While I don't care much for SIG's hybrid case design, they said it is significantly lighter than brass.  What's your basis for saying it's heavier?

roguetechie said:

As far as the reduced load setup. I'm pretty certain he has a chart with the standard load for the GD AR too but, as we can all plainly see, it would be unworkable to do a full standard equivalent load for it. Thus he chose not to include that.

I understood that.  The problem is that he chose to compare a reduced ammo load for the mag-fed AR, against a full ammo load for the belt-fed guns.  That gives a very distorted result.

It is unrealistic to expect the automatic rifleman to carry the same quantity of 6.8 linked ammo as is currently done with the smaller and lighter 5.56 linked ammo.  M60/M240/Mk48 machine gunners are not expected to carry as much ammo as M249 gunners, right?

And speaking of "unworkable" things, does anybody here honestly think that 220 rounds is actually a viable basic load for the squad's automatic riflemen?  Shoot, that's only ten more rounds than the current basic load for riflemen!  And how would the 10 x 20-rd spare mags be carried, anyway?  There is clearly not enough available "real estate" on the plate carrier for anywhere near ten mags.

  • Edited 03 August 2020 22:12  by  stancrist
TOP