autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3175
    MEMBERS
  • 180422
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31-Jul by autogun; 9612 views.
graylion

From: graylion

5-Aug

How would you build an asymmetrical squad?  2+6? 2+5? 3+5?

In reply toRe: msg 51
stancrist

From: stancrist

6-Aug

I'm still interested in learning why Nat and some other folks here think it's impossible for an automatic rifleman to carry 330 rounds of the TV ammo, but somehow possible for him to carry 1000 rounds of the SIG ammo?

Can anyone please explain?  Roguetechie?  DavidPawley?  Anybody?

manimal87

From: manimal87

6-Aug

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

  • Edited 06 August 2020 15:39  by  manimal87
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

6-Aug

We won WWII with a 20 round mag auto rifle, I don't see the problem. ;)

stancrist

From: stancrist

6-Aug

manimal87 said:

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

I don't know how many mags might be feasible for the automatic rifleman to carry, but it appears that you misunderstood the situation.

Those guys are saying that SIG's entry makes less sense, in part because its ammo is so much heavier than the ammo used in GD's gun.

Despite that, they also plan for the SIG gunner to carry over four times as much ammo as the GD gunner!  Which makes no sense at all.

If the GD automatic rifleman can only carry 220 rounds, it is beyond ludicrous to plan for the SIG automatic rifleman to be carrying 1000.

  • Edited 06 August 2020 16:26  by  stancrist
Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

20-Aug

My basic take away.  Replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 with a new 6.8mm cartridge.  There has been talk of upgrading the M240 to .338NM (8.59x63) which would give it much of the advantage of the M2 .50 cal but with less weight and recoil.

As for the M4, it may not go away for the support troops.  However there has been some exploration of a PDW based on an M4.

Here is an example from Sig https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sig-mcx-rattler-sbr.html

Sig also has, so it happens, an upgrade kit for the M4 https://www.sigsauer.com/store/mcx-rattler-upper-assembly-5-5-300blk.html

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

20-Aug

You can't rechamber the M240 to .338 NM, nor would it be a good idea to if you could.

Enough of the memes.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

20-Aug

In addition to 240's not being rechamberable to 338 as quintus pointed out, i have an issue with the idea that 338 is anything resembling close to .50 bmg performance. You can flat do things with .50 like raufoss that isn't even close to worthwhile in 338.  

The one place that they are like .50's is in ammunition weight and bulk only without the performance increase commensurate to that added weight and bulk.

I also have another serious question for you. Why do you hate buffer tubes so much? Would a shortened buffer tube carbine be acceptable in your eyes?

I see a lot of people that seem to have a strange hate for the AR buffer tube and it honestly baffles me. 

I own and shoot a bufferless AR as well as various other bobbed tube and etc mutants. They're cool, and kinda convenient, but in the end for a combat rifle reliability and consistency often outweigh convenience.

There's about a hundred other upgrades updates and reworks you could do to m4/mk18's that seem to have astronomically better payoff and usefulness imo.

So hopefully you can help me understand why a folding stock and no buffer, and ONLY THAT, is your focus to the exclusion of other approaches.

Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

20-Aug

1.  referred to the .338NM (8.59X63) rather than the .338LM (8.59x70).

2. Don’t discount the value of the .338 Lapua Magnum, though. It may seem like an inferior cartridge when all of the specs are listed side-by-side with the .50 BMG, but it can deliver nearly equal performance in almost all of the same scenarios. Its accuracy at 1000 yards is easily equal to the .50 BMG, but farther shots will probably require more sight adjustment due to the slightly lower muzzle velocity and more dramatic trajectories.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bullet-battle-338-lapua-vs-50-bmg-which-deadlier-71196 

3. Buffer tubes make it difficult to have a compact weapon.
 

TOP