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.

  • 3258
    MEMBERS
  • 184827
    MESSAGES
  • 12
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31/7/20 by autogun; 16491 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

Does that somehow prevent Danish infantry being able to carry 5.56mm carbines and 7.62mm machine guns in mountainous terrain?

The Royal Welsh on Twitter: "Vidar Company from our Danish allies ...

Red7272

From: Red7272

3/8/20

stancrist said:

Does that somehow prevent Danish infantry being able to carry 5.56mm carbines and 7.62mm machine guns in mountainous terrain?

Yes, Stan, it completely stops them from wandering around the hills of their base and 50 metres from their transports.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

It's called trying to make it work.

If we're Stuck with these lemons, GD's setup is the best but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

3/8/20

It's been amusing seeing everyone try to get on my case for pointing out that GDOTS is the only submission that appears to offer a pathway to an actual weight reduction, as if I'm somehow irrationally biased towards the bullpup entry.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

Maybe we steal a trick from jiri cermak's URZ concept and make the GD heavy version use the internal belt feed style drum with updated polymer links... Then it can be a bastard proto belt fed

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

3/8/20

Oh god please no.

Red7272

From: Red7272

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

Maybe we steal a trick from jiri cermak's URZ concept and make the GD heavy version use the internal belt feed style drum with updated polymer links... Then it can be a bastard proto belt fed

Excellent idea. Though to be fair i just looked up the patent and I still don't understand how it's supposed to work. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

roguetechie said:

It's called trying to make it work.

LOL.  No.  It's called:  Nat dislikes belt-fed squad autos, so he builds in a weight bias for his comparison by reducing the mag-fed ammo load by 33%, but keeps the belt-fed ammo loads at 100%.

roguetechie said:

If we're Stuck with these lemons, GD's setup is the best...

Strongly disagree.  The GD's 20-rd ammo capacity is laughably small.  Imagine trying to lay down suppressive fire.

Plus, the belt-fed weapons could be used in lieu of the platoon's M240 machine guns.  GD's mag-fed AR could not.

  • Edited 03 August 2020 20:49  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

3/8/20

QuintusO said:

It's been amusing seeing everyone try to get on my case for pointing out that GDOTS is the only submission that appears to offer a pathway to an actual weight reduction, as if I'm somehow irrationally biased towards the bullpup entry.

Actually, it's that you're biased toward mag-fed ARs, and against belt-fed.  And your bias shows in reducing the mag-fed ammo load, but not the belt-fed ammo load.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

3/8/20

I'm not sold on the GD AR either but it's still kinda the best of breed with the ammo design which is frankly more important than the guns themselves in a lot of ways.

For example... The Sig belt fed is at least mildly interesting to me but their ammo design makes it trash. It's heavier than 7.62 NATO round per round and that's plain unacceptable.

As far as the reduced load setup. I'm pretty certain he has a chart with the standard load for the GD AR too but, as we can all plainly see, it would be unworkable to do a full standard equivalent load for it. Thus he chose not to include that.

TOP