PRM2 said:

How can anybody with half a brain and any practical experience dare to criticise a classic and successful design like the MG42/MG3

In fact you can and you must look critically at every design, be it successful or not, to learn from it. Because no design is ideal and every one has its failings and shortcomings. And without learning those you bound to repeat mistakes made by your predecessors, time after time

The desire to make new designs "different" and "modern" is a common plague, as creating improved versions of older designs is boring, and has little moral revard of seeing one's own ingenuity and creativeness. And it would take an extremely professional and knowledgeable management and client's side representattives (those who write requitements and accept resulting designs) to reign designers into the correct lane.

mpopenker said:

In fact you can and you must look critically at every design, be it successful or not, to learn from it. Because no design is ideal and every one has its failings and shortcomings. And without learning those you bound to repeat mistakes made by your predecessors, time after time

Absolutely true.
Just accepting what has been perceived as good in the past and concidering it the one sacred truth is as wrong as concidering everything done in the past as outdated and wrong. These are two oposit extremes of the same narrowminded thinking.

mpopenker said:

The desire to make new designs "different" and "modern" is a common plague, as creating improved versions of older designs is boring, and has little moral revard of seeing one's own ingenuity and creativeness. And it would take an extremely professional and knowledgeable management and client's side representattives (those who write requitements and accept resulting designs) to reign designers into the correct lane.

Also very true.

The ironic part is that the MG3 is coming back or going to stay. Depending at how you look at it.
Because the ingenious designers of the MG5 failed to test if their gun actually fits into every mounting the MG3 is used from it doesn't. In some cases it can't even be fixed by using adaptors or changing the mounting. The MG5 because of its different shape does not fit.
So the MG3 has to be kept in service until all the mountings and the AFV these are on are phased out of service. Which will take dekades.
As a result the MG3 has to stay. Since the old ones are worn out, spare parts are few and the attempts to buy spares and guns from abroad did not work out now brand new MG3 and spare parts are being build in Germany. The fun part is that these guns are not made from stamped steel parts but milled from aluminum with steel inserts. So basically the new MG3 are of the old design but manufactured with the latest technology. It will be very intresting to see how these new guns are received.

schnuersi said:

The fun part is that these guns are not made from stamped steel parts but milled from aluminum with steel inserts. So basically the new MG3 are of the old design but manufactured with the latest technology.

Are there any photos of these new MG-3 publicly available? I'd really like to see them.

I completely agree with your observations, all engineering is a balance between not re-inventing the wheel, learning from past experience and embracing innovation. I can't add to the detailed answer that schnuersi has given about the MG5 versus MG3 issue, and am equally fascinated by what can be achieved by enhancing well proven designs using modern fabrication techniques.

It is difficult to see where rifle design using cartridges can progress beyond perfecting either AR or AK platforms. Both are definately in the 'good enough' category, especially when paired with enhanced soldier proof aiming aids and improved bullet and cartridge case design.

A future development may be to use high strength additive manufacture to produce complex items in a cost effective manner, without the need for dedicated tooling and machining, except perhaps for the barrel. This could also be a way to rectify the weight issue with the current SIG NGSW candidate.

mpopenker said:

Are there any photos of these new MG-3 publicly available?

Not yet.

At least not that I am aware of.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: I think that is overstating the case.  While there would be significant logistical benefit to a "matched pair of weapons" that have a high degree of parts commonality, in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance. 

And I know one guy who shot a team mate while clearing a M249 after returning from a patrol. He checked that there was no rounds into the chamber and "dry fire" the gun, just like what he was trained to do with his FAMAS.

Hmm.  Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.

stancrist said:

Hmm.  Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.

Well.

stancrist said:

 in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance. 

Ok, so training is overrated, unless it isn't.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Yes but forward assist was gone already on many AR15 clones as an unnecessary addon , look at UKs LMT DMR

First, the UK L129 is an AR10 variant, not an AR15 clone.

Second, there are not many such.  There are only a few:

   LMT  (UK L129, NZ DMW) 

   KAC  (US M110 SASS)

   HK    (US M110A1 CSASS)

Third, AFAIK every AR15 clone in current military use has a forward assist, even the versions in armies which use 7.62 DMRs without a forward assist.

I am aware its an Ar10 clone but ar10 and Ar15 are quite generic and NGSW is in ar10 not ar15 size territory

The important part is forward assist less rifles and uppers have been around for a while so its not some experiment into unknown,and Stoner himself was of an opinion that is was of questionable value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHSSO-vJTSs&t=736s

PRM2 said:

Thanks for the reference, it was an article I had missed, despite regularly looking at the TFB website. ... It is a shame that he doesn't contibute anymore, I get the feeling that he has the type of sharp and incisive mind that finds it difficult to have to repeat glaringly obvious facts to idiots like me.

He is very knowledgeable, and I very much miss his informative TFB articles.  However, I don't miss very much his participation in the forum, because he generally displayed an exaggerated sense of his own importance in the world -- he acted as if everyone should read and commit to memory every single word of every single post that he made -- and he tended to be needlessly rude and offensive.

PRM2 said:

Getting back to the topic of what NGSW should be, how about M4A1 plus the NGSW-FC, followed later by a updated M4, with a heretical 16 inch barrel to give an AP projectile a fighting chance?

I dunno.  If one wanted to go for an updated M4 with a longer barrel, I'm not sure if an increase of 1.5" would be worth the cost.

Judging by the barrel length versus muzzle velocity graph below, I think I might be more inclined to go with an 18" or 20" barrel.

                                                                                        M855