This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 6/2/21 by gatnerd
Latest 7:01 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 6:53 by poliorcetes
Latest 1:40 by gatnerd
Latest 23-Sep by RovingPedant
Latest 15-Sep by smg762
Latest 15-Sep by DavidPawley
Latest 14-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 10-Sep by QuintusO
Latest 8-Sep by Red7272
Latest 7-Sep by EwingGreg
Latest 6-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 6-Sep by stancrist
Latest 5-Sep by QuintusO
Latest 4-Sep by smg762
Latest 3-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 26-Aug by gatnerd
Latest 24-Aug by poliorcetes
So is it accurate that most of the weight savings for the GDOTS combo comes from a sharply reduced ammo load for the AR/LMG?
Yes. I have them carrying 1,420 rounds per squad, instead of 2,980 rounds for the other two.
How are the Marines loading up their AR gunners with the M27? Just a 30% increase like you're calculating for the GDOTS AR?
Correct. 11 magazines (330 rounds for the M27, 220 rounds for the GDOTS NGSW-AR).
Assumptions are 140 rounds per gun for all the NGSW rifles, 1,000 rounds per gun for the NGSW belt feds, and 220 rounds per gun for the GDOTS mag-fed AR.
GIGO. Your assumed ammo loads may be quite different from the actual ammo loads.
Yes, but for comparison purposes using the same number of magazines as currently issued as basic load is a reasonable basis.
I'm not sure how "reasonable" -- or useful -- it is to make a comparison that may have no resemblance to reality.
And IIRC, the early statements were that the same number of rounds would be carried, not that the same number of magazines would.
I'm so glad I have Stan blocked lmao. Life is bliss.
If you go with the same number of rounds you have two very major issues.
Weight goes up massively and you run out of places to put magazines.
Going with the reduced round counts is an attempt to make the situation look fair and sane since keeping round counts the same gives insane and outright ludicrous weight increases
If you go with the same number of rounds you have two very major issues. Weight goes up massively and you run out of places to put magazines. Going with the reduced round counts is an attempt to make the situation look fair and sane...
I question that. It looks more like a dishonest attempt to make the mag-fed AR appear better than the belt-fed candidates.
Notice that he reduced the round count for the mag-fed, but kept the round count for the belt-feds the same as the M249.
Also, if it is "reasonable" to assume that the automatic riflemen can carry 11 magazines, why can't riflemen do the same?
Now, if you want to talk about what ammo load is realistic, considering the bulk of 6.8 NGSW mags, it looks to me like there is insufficient room on a plate carrier to have pouches for more than four spare mags.
100-125 cartridges were good enough for their great-great-grandfathers, by cracky!
The scary thing is someone will try to use that as a legitimate argument.
This is all so weird.
So this isn't a SAW in the usual sense, it's some kind of glorified AR/DMR with a single operator. More of a fireteam weapon than a squad weapon. Rather than carrying the random crap of his squadmates he just gets a slightly heavier gun and more ammo. This makes the belt fed guns look like an exceptionally stupid. A heavy barrel, 50 round drum and a bipod on the standard rifle being a better idea.
Trying to achieve all this with the same 20 round magazine as the squad seems optimistic.