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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Apsyda said:

The BAR was fairly maligned after Korea for its lack of utility in the SAW/LMG role.

The M1918A2 BAR has a non-QC barrel and is fed by 20-rd magazines.

The M14A1 -- the replacement for the BAR -- has a non-QC barrel and is fed by 20-rd magazines.

Apsyda said:

And the RPK was a failed experiment given the wide issue of the PKM in Soviet and later Russian militaries for better firepower.

Granted.  However -- as with the BAR -- the reason for the RPK's inadequate firepower was due to being mag-fed, not the non-QC barrel.

Like the RPK, the current squad automatic weapon -- the PKP -- has a non-QC barrel.  The difference is that the PKP is a belt-fed weapon.

Apsyda said:

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.

Something else that seems to have slipped your mind is that all of those weapons are magazine-fed.  That's the real problem, not the lack of QC barrel.

Apsyda said:

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.

Totally agree.

YouTube

FIREFIGHT ON HELMET CAM IN AFGHANISTAN - PART 1 | FUNKER530

The Funker530 Mobile App is now available with daily combat and bodycam videos we can't post here. Enable notifications for comment awards, replies, giveaway...

Changing barrels isn't really because it will make the gun stop working when they overheat.

YouTube

GunBusters: AK-103

"This is the most robust weapon I've ever held in my hands". Destroying the AK-103! LIKE WHAT YOU SEE? Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/chan...

As this gimmicky video shows. Its mainly to keep combat accuracy and prevent the barrels from being prematurely shot out from what I was taught.

You do have a very good point however -

Current US squad organizations are not conducive to a SAW/LMG focused system. With there being no specific assistant gunner there to keep things running for either of the M249. But I think that is more than partially a result of whom they're being deployed against. That being disorganized irregulars lacking large numbers typically nor making attempts at much great tactical maneuver efforts. In such conditions you don't need to have a rotating group of barrels to move between to deal with advancing targets or targets that you are advancing on. And an assistant gunner either becomes an extra member that doesn't do much, or is just given a new job/cut entirely for the sake of keeping squad sizes small and flexible.

I don't know how well that holds when factoring in facing a more established and conventional enemy force. Such as the PLA. That certainly does exist in large numbers and has aggressive tactical maneuver as a cornerstone of its doctrine. Even in Vietnam against the pseudo-conventional NVA, the M60 was issued to a gunner-assistant duo due to the fire power demands on a squad. And the NVA was far from the most peer level force on the planet even at the time.

Apsyda said:

Current US squad organizations are not conducive to a SAW/LMG focused system. With there being no specific assistant gunner there to keep things running for either of the M249.

I don't know what you mean by "a SAW/LMG focused system" but since the US Army rifle squad has been successfully operating with LMGs and no assistant gunners for decades, it seems illogical to claim that the squad organization is not conducive to LMG use.

Apsyda said:

I don't know how well that holds when factoring in facing a more established and conventional enemy force.

Fighting some of the most capable conventional enemy forces in history, US Army airborne squads used LMGs that lacked QC barrels.

Apsyda said:

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.

Agree 100 %

gatnerd said:

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

But this might be theatre specific. Actually there are stong indications that is was.

gatnerd said:

Especially as these guys dont have an 'assistant gunner' like a GPMG / M240 team does to change and carry a very hot barrel.

Why is this a problem. As a on the spot fix the squad leader can assign on of the rifleman as assitant gunner. Also the gunner himself can carry the spare barrel. Usually its best to let the gunner carry the spare barrel and the assistant extra ammo.