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.

  • 3250
    MEMBERS
  • 184508
    MESSAGES
  • 6
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31/7/20 by autogun; 16197 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

1/8/20

QuintusO said:

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.

renatohm

From: renatohm

1/8/20

Thanks for this!

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

2/8/20

Yes, but for comparison purposes using the same number of magazines as currently issued as basic load is a reasonable basis.

stancrist

From: stancrist

2/8/20

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.

  • Edited 02 August 2020 11:24  by  stancrist
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

2/8/20

I'm so glad I have Stan blocked lmao. Life is bliss.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

2/8/20

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

stancrist

From: stancrist

2/8/20

roguetechie said:

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.

combat #action #activity #military #war #operator | Airsoft ...

Pin by Spirit of woodland on Special Forces | Active duty, Special ...

  • Edited 02 August 2020 17:40  by  stancrist
Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

2/8/20

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.

Red7272

From: Red7272

2/8/20

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. 

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

2/8/20

SAWs were supposed to be fireteam weapons with a single operator. That's kind of why they suck (belt feds need an AG).

There are 2x M249s in the Army Rifle Squad (one per fireteam) with no AGs.

TOP