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.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189795
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

FN SCAR Mk 2 and Evolys   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14-Apr by Guardsman26; 7492 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

26-May

Not to mention QC barrels present some issues now that you are off irons as its very hard to get no POI shift from barrel to barrel each change ,less of an issue with iron signts as each barrel front sight could be adjusted to for its zero

graylion

From: graylion

26-May

nincomp said:

gatnerd said: Regardless of what word he used, he's describing the bolt bouncing off the rear of the receiver, adding a bit more power to the bolts forward stroke then spring power alone.  Some buffers can also add power to the forward stroke.  A spring type can prevent solid impact with the rear of the receiver,  if it is not fully compacted at the end of the bolt's travel, then use the stored energy to accelerate the bolt forward.  The amount of energy returned to the bolt would likely be higher than if it had impacted the rear receiver.   A hydraulic buffer can also return energy for forward bolt motion, although by design, a certain fraction of the energy has been absorbed.  Nevertheless, since a hydraulic buffer, like an automotive shock absorber system, can be combined with springs and valved for relatively high damping in compression and low damping in "rebound",  it can return a significant amount of energy to accelerate the bolt back to its original position.

So this leads me to the question whether one could use this to increase the ROF to WWII German rates ...

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

26-May

Happy to hear that. Call me a conservative, but I don't trust any mainline SAW/LMG that doesn't have a QC barrel.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

27-May

Of four weapons you bring up, two are piss poor LMGs, one is at least controversion and for one the jury is still out.

So I would say Apsydas lack of trust is understandable.

Its amusing to me that the latter one, which actually has the potential to be a very good LMG, is the only full caliber weapon of the four.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27-May

schnuersi said:

Of four weapons you bring up, two are piss poor LMGs...

That's because three of the four are automatic rifles, not LMGs.

schnuersi said:

Its amusing to me that the latter one, which actually has the potential to be a very good LMG, is the only full caliber weapon of the four.

Hmm.  Are you quite certain of that?

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

27-May

stancrist said:

Hmm. Are you quite certain of that?

Yea sorry I forgot the BAR. Since its the only WW2 weapon I had it checked off as irrelevant.

stancrist said:

That's because three of the four are automatic rifles, not LMGs.

In that case they are irrelevant as reply to Apsyda because he never mentioned automatic rifles.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27-May

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: That's because three of the four are automatic rifles, not LMGs.

In that case they are irrelevant as reply to Apsyda because he never mentioned automatic rifles.

He said "SAW/LMG".

SAW = squad automatic weapon, which includes automatic rifles.

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

27-May

Two of those were dropped for proper QC barrel and belt fed guns. The BAR was fairly maligned after Korea for its lack of utility in the SAW/LMG role. And the RPK was a failed experiment given the wide issue of the PKM in Soviet and later Russian militaries for better firepower. The M27 is the next attempt at the concept, and personally I see very little evidence so far that its going to do any better than the many attempts to do a non-QC barrel SAW. A footnote in the books alongside the C2A1, the L86 LSW, the QJB-95, M15/M14E2, and probably a handful of others that have slipped my mind. 

Its a bad system in my mind for combat beyond that of a raid on a compound or an infiltration mission. Automatic fire gets things hot, fast and the SAW gunner is relied upon pretty significantly for providing the squad's firepower. Accuracy can only do so much when the enemy also has a say. This new generation of light belt-fed guns are a godsend, but they should not make the mistake of overfocusing on lightening the action and construction at the cost of being able to sustain fire against an enemy force. I worry that too much experience fighting low intensity guerilla warfare against poorly equipped opponents could cloud judgement.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27-May

Apparently many / most M249 gunners did not carry a spare barrel in Iraq / Afghanistan, either due to weight or deeming it non-essential. 

Theres a video of a M249 gunner firing ~800rds in ~10 minutes, no barrel change.

So the increase in accuracy of deleting the QCB may be worth it, especially if QCB's are not employed regularly by SAW gunners. Especially as these guys dont have an 'assistant gunner' like a GPMG / M240 team does to change and carry a very hot barrel.

TOP