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.

  • 3277
    MEMBERS
  • 185959
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Future of Firearms...    General Military Discussion

Started 22-Nov by manimal87; 2588 views.
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-Nov

I don't think anyone sane has any criticism for Ernest.

It was a superlative gun for it's time despite actually being birthed later than it could have been.

But time and technology move on and eventually what was superlative becomes no longer satisfactory.

This is just a fact.

Acting as if criticizing the FN of today is "disrespecting some legacy" is pants on head retarded. 

The maxim was even more superlative in it's day and yet is a weapon of desperation and last resort in places like Ukraine in 2014.

The dishonesty of this style of argumentation is breathtaking.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-Nov

I can see how someone would think this, I believe it's 100% wrong but I understand the sentiment.

I agree very much that we probably need something that can deliver the sheer weight of accurate fire at extended ranges you talk about though.

I just don't think that limping along an aged design like the 240 or a pretty mediocre new one like the mg5 is the right approach.

I see these two as our fallback safety net options should we really not be able to build lighter better guns today but not where the main thrust should be.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-Nov

No, it's an indication that they have selectively bought out the competition, traded on their name and favors, and convinced people that should know better that this is "good enough".

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-Nov

In general, the smg as you're thinking of it is probably a dead end.

Caleb Crye has a very interesting patent for what's essentially a 300 blk Machine pistol though which may be of use at some point.

Even as someone who is actively playing around in this exact design space, which I believe has lots of room for very useful Improvement, while knowing that the actual usefulness and usability in modern or future warfare is quite limited.

Sure we can make fairly substantially better pistols and machine pistols which could probably substantially open up their range bracket, effectiveness, usability, and do all of it while driving weight down a very non trivial amount.

That's not even in question, I'm working on doing it right now.

Where you run into the issue is that these are effectively side shows that it's not really worth it for large conventional militaries to pursue due to the limited use cases and what already exist being for the most part good enough (much as I hate to admit that)

Combine that with every harry the paramilitary having the ability to slap together parts from wish.com Alibaba and PSA for a 300 blk lead slinger on the cheap if they need something like that, along with rifle or pseudo rifle format guns being more usable by untrained people...

And what you're left with is a very narrow market of people like specops and etc who have any impetus to drive something in this range forward, especially since I can slam together a 300blk shorty with a brace in an afternoon with $500.

That cost factor actually affects things too because traditional users of things like you're talking about other than specops tend to have very finite budgets and a lack of people/time/ambition to do something better.

Frankly, it's why I'm very interested in this particular design space. It's not that hard to do something better but since there's no real drive for something better people haven't done it. That gives basement tinkerer's like me the opportunity to look way better than I actually am from sheer lack of anyone else doing anything interesting LOL. 

Below is the Caleb Crye 300 blk Machine pistol.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

23-Nov

roguetechie said...

Yeah, there's room for criticism.

I’m don’t intend to say that there is no room for criticism. Rather that criticism taken to the extremes is silly.

roguetechie said...

We know the industry can do better because it HAS lol.

Yet the MAG and Minimi are still widely used. They can’t be terrible because something better would surely have eclipsed them. They might not be as good as they could be, but they’re not bad.

The many abortive small arms programmes over the decades seems to suggest that improvements are not so trivial as commenters like to imagine.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23-Nov

Guardsman26 said:

The best way to describe the FN Evolys is a belt-fed assault rifle. It does not have a user-removable barrel or a heavy barrel, so I am not convinced that it can deliver a sustained high rate of fire.  I'd as far to say that it is an answer to a question nobody asked. In fact, it was FN's submission to NGSW and was not down-selected

I don't think thats entirely accurate as far as weight savings goes.

FN's Evoly 7.62 is 13.6lbs vs 18.26lbs for the MK48, as savings of 4.66lbs.

An entire 19" MK48 barrel is 5.4lbs, while a 16" AR10 barrel is 2.25lb. 

Its highly unlikely they went as low as the AR10 barrel in weight, but even if they did, that only gets them -3.15lbs, leaving another 1.51lbs of weight that was removed through modern construction methods / FEA of the LMG itself. 

I suspect a good bit of the weight savings is from 

-FEA of all the parts

-Extruded / machined aluminum construction of the LMG's receiver and rail 

-Carbon Fiber bipod 

-Going from 19" to 16" barrel 

-Deleting QCB barrel removal handle 

In terms of not having a quick change barrel, neither does the PKP Pecheneg GPMG. And I suspect the deletion of the QCB is partly a result of combat experience from US troops where many did not bother to carry a spare barrel for their LMG's. 

I suppose we'll see what happens with the Evoly vs M249/MK48 in upcoming LMG contracts. I believe France has an upcoming LMG program in the next few years?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23-Nov

RovingPedant said:

They can’t be terrible because something better would surely have eclipsed them.

I dont consider them terrible by any means, but there is a serious inertia and lack of competition in machine gun design. 

The FN Minimi / M49 entered production in 1974....as far as I can tell it didnt have another European competitor until 2001 with the introduction of the H&K MG4. And it had as far as I can tell essentially no competitior until 1995 with the introduction of the Negev. (Unless we consider the CETME Ameli a competitor which I don't really.) 

Meanwhile the Browning M2 .50 has been produced since 1921, and there still isn't any western competitor for it, and the only other .50 BMG hMG that I'm aware of is Singapores STK50, which didnt enter production until 1988.

I can't think of any weapon field thats as stagnant as machine guns; even bayonets and hand grenades have had more R&D/competition. 

BruhMomento

From: BruhMomento

24-Nov

nah

it has no piercing to modern body armour (cant even penetrate 80s soviet stuff). since .300 blk is there we cant say they are more silent than rifle ammo. 
 

BruhMomento

From: BruhMomento

24-Nov

speaking of the .300blk mp7 thing, how will they fit in? a wacky catridge?

stancrist

From: stancrist

24-Nov

gatnerd said:

I can't think of any weapon field thats as stagnant as machine guns; even bayonets and hand grenades have had more R&D/competition.

Meh.  Other than reductions in blade length, today's bayonets are essentially unchanged from those of 125 years ago.

And the standard US fragmentation grenade was adopted more than half a century ago.

The "stagnation" is a symptom of technological maturity.  Once a weapon type reaches that stage, major changes stop.  From that point on, all you get are refinements.

Take handguns, for example.  Two centuries ago, the standard service pistol was a single-shot muzzleloader.  A major change occurred with development and adoption of revolvers, which were in turn replaced by magazine-fed semi-automatic pistols.  At which point stagnation set in, and the refinement stage took over.  Today's M17 pistol is fundamentally no different than the M1911 that entered service before WWI.  The M17 is lighter due to the polymer frame, and has larger magazine capacity because of the smaller cartridge, but those are refinements, not major changes.

And there is the infantry rifle.  It was the subject of major revolutionary changes very similar to those of the service pistol.  Then in the 1960s, technological maturity was reached, and since then we've been in the refinement stage.  Today's M4 carbine is nothing more than a refinement of the Vietnam-era XM177.

There is no reason to develop a new .50-caliber machine gun.  The M2 Browning works just fine in the roles it's employed in.

  • Edited 24 November 2021 13:52  by  stancrist
TOP