/k/ - Weapons

The large space between barrel and sights indicates that there is something going on under that handguard, the charging handle is in the rear of the rifle, so it can't be a G3 thing either.

Long stroke or short stroke? Since it's a Kalash I assume they used their standard long stroke system. Maybe this is some sort of advanced RPD, but the fact that they mounted the sights just on a top rail (and the entire receiver appears to be one piece from the front to the back) I highly doubt that this one carries a lot of AK blood. The safety is different too. What IS that? I want to see it naked!

>fireteam

Nah one per section is enough.

>that's better than M60.

That's not exactly a difficult achievement

>>605587

No it's not.

>>605588

Heildubs checked!

>>605595

(SCAR-H sorry).

>>605582

A sharp stick would be better than the M60

>it took almost 50 years for the US army to adopt the MAG because "grrrr, fucken foreign gunz!"

Based

>>605595

I will only be impressed if the recoil is similar to the AK-107

>>605595

Interesting, shame they'll never be imported into the US thanks to Zognald. We might get straight pull versions here though, I've seen 5.56 straight pull Kalashnikovs imported here before.

The closest you can get is a Yugo M77 with a butchered slant-cut reviver or a Galil ACE.

>>605595

>AK-308

Its fallout from Indian request I guess.

http://indiandefencenews.info/7-62x51mm-assault-rifles-for-indian-army/

US already makes M240L a long time ago, just no one adopts it.

>>605875

It's the exact same problems as M60.

>>605905

I doubt it jams as much as the M60.

>>605905

The what? It is M240 with some some weight trimming, no change in mechanism.

That or the HK gun.

>>605905

No, the Gimpy doesn't have the issue of the entire trigger mechanism just snapping off under normal use and having a runaway of 200 rounds downrange.

It also doesn't have the issue of the front trunnion being made of whatever the Americans could find, so it doesn't crack every few hundred rounds.

It also doesn't take a PhD in mechanical engineering to change the barrel.

>>605905

The M60 is literally American trying to make their buzzsaw and fucking suck at it.

It is one of the reasons I doubt the quality of American guns over yurop guns, imagine instead if the murican just adopt an MG3 with shorter barrel.

>>605875

First of all the US aren't making M240 all M240 variants are developed by FN MAG, FNH is a Belgian company.

The US doesn't make weapons. They spend billions in R&D programs that aren't meant to be adopted and are simply there to generate tremendous profit for the US MIC. Which is why everything they adopt and works is either of a US made/foreign designed or is simply an early cold war variant (or end up being a total failure).

Second the reason why no one buys that gun is… because everyone is already using FN MAGs.

No sane military on the planet is gonna drop at least 10k to 15k per gun (we're talking titanium receivers here…) to replace the model they already have and work for a more complex, harder to maintain and a bit lighter identical gun.

Third is, FN MAG were always meant to be a "multipuprose" machine-gun, IE the one clamp mounted on vehicles, that can be used by infantry as a support weapon when needed. FN do make a 7.62 light-machine gun specifically for infantry use, the Minimi, and the Minimi was always intended to shoot 7.62 a LOT of it's reliability issues came from the stupid insistence by NATO of the "all 5.56" mainly the addition of a STANAG magazine port and the 5.56 cartridge themselves that don't run the action as reliably as 7.62 NATO does.

So the idea to buy FN MAG super costly modded specifically to be used by the infantry, when you can buy a cheaper, lighter, gun that was actually designed for it from the same company is just pure insanity.

Back in the days, the FN conception of small arms for a section would have meant FALs for everyone less one guy that has a MAG and double as the gunner of his APC (G3/MG3 for HK).

The soviets introduced light machine guns to the mix with the RPD, then took a step backward with the RPK, but competent gun designer obviously wanted to go full LMG rather than "a bit bigger assault rifle", which they just found retarded (because it is). FNH response was the Minimi (in 7.62 as they considered it a mistake to make them in 5.56 as 5.56 is a terrible round when it comes to penetration and chewing through cover is one of the jobs of a machine-gun). In case you're wondering HK response was the HK21… Which are light weight, full power, belt-felt machine-gun specifically meant for infantry (one guy can carry the gun and a reasonable amount of ammo alone).

The M240L is one of those corrupt scheme the US MIC came up with, whoever is making the parts for the M240L kits is bribing the right officials.

>>605927

The US has always had good gun designers, they run into problems by repeatedly handing that good design to the lowest bidder.

>>605933

M240L is experimental shit made by a private corp to prove a point, it is not funded by govt.

>>605937

My bad, should have said M240LW.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/first-look/barrett-introduces-new-m240lw-machine-gun/

M240L(ima) is already being used by muhreen, made by FNH themselves.

>>605941

True, US bidders are fucking shit, we can agree there.

>>605946

If so, why not just adopt the polish 7.62 NATO firing PKM?

>>605949

Exactly, why the fuck NOT?! It's made of wood, I bet weight could be reduced even more.

>>605951

Stupid ass american bidder I guess.

>>605582

1. For the purpose of long range fire support, the 6.5 Grendel is superior in every single fucking way.

2. The M60 was dogshit. Pure fucking dogshit.

>>615402

Does an LMG honestly need all those fucking rails?

>>615407

Batteries 12, laser 3, grip 6 snickers 9. Maybe add a cupholder on the 7, or 8, but at that point you would be pushing it.

>>615400

what if i want to put a payload into my projectile. 7.62 incendiary is objectively better than 6.5 incendiary what if my goal from my support weapon is barrier penetration. what if first round hits are a non issue in a support weapon and what if the more pronounced trajectory is overcome with tracers and observing impact.

>>605952

The thing is, it's not as if Americans have brain damage. There is a manufacturer in illinois or vermont or arizona or SOMEWHERE who could copy the PKP and pass it off as "merika ngyneerin".

It wouldn't even be difficult, Pooland already makes 7.62 NATO PKPs

>>615448

Or just, like, I don't know, import shit from allied countries.

H&K has a really nice "new": the MG5, which is everything all you niggers say a good GPMG should have.

Used it a couple times. It's neat.

>>615469

>HK 121

I'm still pissed HK didn't enter it in the contest to change french GPMG, they entered the 221 instead (which is just a German built FN MAG and if you're gonna buy an FN MAG might as well just buy it from Belgium. Guess what happened…)

>>615469

>america

>adopting foreign guns

>>615423

The SUVs of the firearm world.

>>615550

>what is the M240

>>615550

>M240

>Chauchat

>M1 Garand

>>615550

The Belgians are making most of our guns for us these days, FN even has the M4 contract at the moment.

>>615765

Nice cherry picking the numbers, faggot.

The universal version with a longer barrel and a heavier bipod weighs 11,2 kg. The standard infantry version is at 9,9kg.

RPM is adjustable by the shooter using an adjusting lever. You just picked the lowest setting. It has three settings: 600, 720, 800 rpm.

Muzzle velocity depends on barrel configuration. In the standard infantry version with a 460mm barrel it has a v0 of 785 m/s.

>belts in drum

That's just wrong. The MG5 can be fed from any container with standard NATO attachment or just a plain belt. That includes sacks. The sacks provided with the standard infantry version hang below the weapon and also serve as a brass deflector.

Saying that it is "insulated by plastic" is false. The gun is passively air-cooled, like 99% of all machine guns. Cooling the barrel isn't the way the gun is meant to be used. It has quick change barrels for this reason.

There is also no point in the entire design where plastic touches hot metal. The handguard is attached to the part where the gas system connects with the receiver, which is cool by design. The barrel shroud you see on some versions is made from sheet metal.

Don't make me get my rake, faggot. At least make fun of real issues, like the fact that the standard infantry version comes with a grip-pod, and has a 460mm barrel instead of making shit up.

>>615765

>>615778

>implying low rate of fire is bad

I sure hate longer periods of sustained fire and lessened barrel wear, allowing me to not only hit the enemy with more accuracy but also provide more consistent and effective suppression. All machine guns need at least 900 rpm, 1200 is preferable! Shooting pinned down soldiers is just like dogfighting in supersonic jets! Hitler's buzzsaw!

Also, are we supposed to believe a 10m/s difference in muzzle velocity matters at all, at any range? That can literally be a measuring error between two cartridges from a single lot of ammo. Powder burns inconsistently, especially in military ammo which isn't made to the quality standards a lot of civilian shooters hold to. The army wants what's cheap, not what's best most of the time. That's akin to if I said that my Sako 85 is a bad rifle because it shoots 1.5-2 MOA with 7.62 NATO M80 Ball… instead of acknowledging that I'm using low-quality ammo with a lower standard pressure and different headspacing, I'd be blaming the gun despite the fact that it can easily shoot .5 MOA with .308 Winchester Federal soft points. Performance varies, especially with ammo never designed for high performance in the first place.

>>615781

I am just angry at the leaf for being retarded.

>>615783

Very understandable. I don't know what mental device Canadians have in their brains that made most of them completely internalise the 'hurr fuggen leafs' shitpost, because a couple years ago none of them were like this. Now at least half are retards who profess to talk big shit about things they lack any education about. It's to the point where an actually intelligent leaf is a refreshing surprise. What happened? Did they get progesterone-nuked by Current Year Man?

>>615550

>what is M27 IAR

As long as it works for them

>>615802

>Another flaw was idiotic placement of bipod

Bipod position is trade-off.

Barrel end position reduces full auto dispersion what is very good. But it also reduces field of fire and if mounted directly on the barrel increases POI shift under barrel load.

Gas tube position is opposite.

>>615808

Another funny fuckup with M60 is the version USAF got in mid 80's, basically same as what 'muhreens and Navy SEAL's got. Marines and SEAL's opted for lighter version M60 with shorter barrel, vertical fore grip and repositioned bipod. USAF wanted even lighter barrel. So light that barrel change came up earlier than new belt if they got into shitty situation.

>>615811

Bipod that makes spare barrel more bulky and expensive is also a trade off. Just like things like chromed bore, bolt, bolt carrier and possible just chroming chamber without entire bore, as happened with early variants of M16.

With both rifles and machine guns there few things that needs to be balanced and prioritized correctly. Generally it is about three things. Reliability, accuracy and weight, but when it comes to armies fourth inevitable thing will be price. I generally consider durability as part of reliability. Are you willing to sacrifice accuracy for more reliable gun. Do you want lighter but less reliable rifle? If caliber is still open recoil, penetration, stopping power and range also becomes factors.

>>615815

It was far more suitable cartridge than 7.62mm real fucking NATO in early 50's when NATO was formed, last iterations .280 bongoloid and .270bongoloid were bit too hot. With lots modern day hindsight they should have gone with six point something by about 40 millimeter caliber. Some good midway point between 5.56mmNATO and 7.62x39mm. The fact that ideal intermediate round is smaller than .30 or 8mm was well known in 30's. The fact that Soviets could go with less tooling changes led to 7.62x39mm becoming first iteration of Commie intermediate round. Same thing Germans and 7.92×33mm Kurz, they already had tooling for 7.92mm barrels.

The reason why current calibers are what they are is largely because changing it calibers costs a lot for military, not worth it if performance gain is minimal. When some special forces units get some new caliber for a random optimized task, .300 blackout is a good example of that, it doesn't affect army at large at all. Purchases are some hundreds of rifles and relatively few rounds new ammunition.

>>615836

>Same thing Germans and 7.92×33mm Kurz, they already had tooling for 7.92mm barrels.

Not just that, the case is literally a shortened 7.92 Mauser case. I guess they also used the same bullets, but I'm not sure. It's funny that 7.92 Mauser, 30-06 and 7.62 NATO all share the same base diameter, so you can manufacture 7.92 Kurz from any of them.

>The reason why current calibers are what they are is largely because changing it calibers costs a lot for military, not worth it if performance gain is minimal.

It only really worths the effort if it's part of a complete rearmament program for the infantry based on a new doctrine that requires different weapons. I doubt anything would have changed if NATO kept 30-06 instead of adopting its slightly shorter version. 30-06 becamse so cheap after the war that lots of small(ish) countries switched to it simply to buy American surplus.

>>615836

>It was far more suitable cartridge than 7.62mm real fucking NATO

Pls. Its piss weak to replace GMG round so something like .30-06 have to stay so it can't work as unitary 7.62x51.

And its to heavy big and rainbow trajectory for assault rifle in the two cartridge system.

> 7.62x39mm

Replaced as not delivered promised performance, outdated and outclassed by 5.56x45.

>The reason why current calibers are what they are is largely because changing it calibers costs a lot for military, not worth it if performance gain is minimal.

Fun fact: after WWII USSR made 4 military calibers and replaced 2 of them as outdated. BASED.

>less tooling changes

No an argument for US. All these US failure attempts to cheap out wuth M14 and so on were so laughable. US guns in WWII were so luxurious. Semi-autos rifles. PDWs with locked breaches for non combat troops, not straight blow-back SMG. Ammo issued in bandoliers and pre-loaded single use belts. 4 types of small arms ammo (.45, 7.62x33, .30-06 clips in bandoliers, .30-06 belts in cans ). Unthinkable staff for everyone else. But after WWII they suddenly decided to spare couple cents. So much lol.

>>615778

>other versions

You can't pick the best variables between ten different versions, and present it as if its from one gun.

>keeping your bullets in a bag is not a real issue

Why don't you put your ipod earbuds in your pocket for a day, pull them out, and try to run them through a hole exactly their size.

>>615779

Being able to SELECT lower rate of fire is fine, but you need a high rate of fire for most of the missions a GPMG is sent on.

>>615781

>>615783

>>615786

>passive aggressive vaginas spotted

Don't let me stop you from dripping. When you want to talk to me feel free to link one of my posts.

>>615874

>You can't pick the best variables between ten different versions, and present it as if its from one gun.

I didn't cherry pick anything, faggot. I consistently gave only the numbers for the standard infantry version. Can you not read?

<keeping your bullets in a bag is not a real issue

Read again:

>The MG5 can be fed from any container with standard NATO attachment or just a plain belt. That includes sacks. The sacks provided with the standard infantry version hang below the weapon and also serve as a brass deflector.

The sacks are entirely optional. The MG5 is provided with bags in the infantry version, that doesn't mean that the plastic boxes we have used for the past decades suddenly disappear, or that you can't leave the belt hanging around.

It is obvious that you are looking for flaws where there are none. Instead of complaining about real issues like the size of the bag, which is a real issue, because you can barely fit the 50 rounds in there, you pick a non-issue and make it one.

You remind me so much of the budgeting department at my old job. I hate you.

the american may be confusing a SAW with a GPMG…. a SAW actually benefits from lower rate of fire.

>>615914

And if you would, do show your work and mathematically prove that 33 ft/s and 400 ft/s are the same thing. I'd love to hear that one. The point was about how individual round-to-round velocities can vary as much as +/-50 ft/s even with half-decent ammo, so your nebulous and not even proven claim about a whole 33 fucking ft/s doesn't mean a lick of shit. Evidently, you lack the reading comprehension to understand that.

>>615941

The Maori are pretty white tbh. Every one I've met listened to progressive metal, the whitest of all genres.

>>615434

*laughs*

That shit doesnt matter.

>>615787

What that butthurt retard was mad about, and what butthurt trolls are mad about, is that .276 , .280 and currently 6.5 Grendel are actually BETTER for long range shooting. As in, they deliver MORE FORCE at those ranges and HIT HARDER.

7.62 and 7.92 IS SHIT at those longer ranges.

>>615779

The high burst rate is advantageous when you have a limited window of engagement Nd need to throw a handful of bullets down range quickly, flooding an area the size of a few men.

600rpm is shit.

>>615989

>"they deliver more force"

that depends on what bullet you're using.

a 180 grain 7.62 will have more energy downrange.

>muh rpm

>>615914

>It is not an improvement over PKP which is what you originally claimed.

Where did I claim that? Would you please provide a quote with your claim, faggot.

I remember writing:

>H&K has a really nice "new" [sic]: the MG5, which is everything all you niggers say a good GPMG should have.

It's light weight, it's 7.62, it's sturdy and it can be adopted to be used in tripods, in vehicles, or by hand. The rate of fire can be adjusted to make it work for anti air and anti infantry roles as you see fit. That's what makes a good GPMG.

>Even that variant has 400fps slower bullet

Don't use Burgerunits. v0 is measured in meters per second.

The infantry version of the MG5 has a v0 of 785m/s, compared to the M240s 850 or the PKPs 900m/s. I never disputed the fact that it has a lower v0. Nobody ever denied that. I even pointed it out in:

>>615778

>Muzzle velocity depends on barrel configuration. In the standard infantry version with a 460mm barrel it has a v0 of 785 m/s.

and said that

>At least make fun of real issues, like the fact that the standard infantry version comes with a grip-pod, and has a 460mm barrel instead of making shit up.

>and uses the same obsolete cooling method.

That is debatable. Replacing barrels is the quickest and most reliable way to cool the barrel of your gun down to a reasonable level in less than ten seconds. All it takes is another barrel, and a few seconds of time. While I agree that it's not optimal, I wouldn't like to carry around a canister of water, or have to cease shooting as soon as the forced air cooling barrel overheats.

>I'm sorry no one is buying the Apple of firearms, I even see it needs a special adapter to be mounted on vehicles for fucks sake

Where is the problem with using an adapter to make it compatible with old MG3 tripods and mounts? It's better than buying a bunch of new proprietary hardware, you know?

If you have any valid criticisms, please bring them forward.

>>615788

>>615802

>>616010

>Studler

>frog name

You need to stop drinking that's clearly an Alemannic name (so south Germany, Swiss. The only french with that name are gonna be Alsatians…)

>>615930

>round-to-round velocities can vary as much as +/-50 ft/s even with half-decent ammo

This isn't round to round, it's already averaged, and they're using the same cartridge and brand (military supply). CLEARLY the difference is due to inches of barrel being chopped off.

>>616020

>everything all you niggers say a good GPMG should have

>except all these massive flaws!

So you call me a nigger, act all aggressive, only to admit you're wrong? I'm fucking done. What was your master plan? To look ridiculous?

>>616104

>850m/s - 785m/s = 33fps

>pony degeneracy

>>616108

The image YOU CITED said 840 m/s, you autistic fucking disingenuous lying subhuman nigger.

>>616135

>Hidden flag

>Sperg the post

Don't make me get my fucking rake out.

>>616046

I will repeat myself:

It has everything all you niggers say a good GPMG shouldhave

It's:

>Light weight

>7.62

>can be modified by the shooter to fit different roles

>The fire rate is acceptable for any purpose (because you can change it on the fly with nothing but a case)

>It can mount any optics

>It can be mounted in vehicles or in tripods

You are still not presenting any criticism of the gun

>>616144

Its not light, certain models are even heavier…. and the lightest variant you quote compromises 7.62 effectiveness with a shorter barrel to save a few grams.

>It can be mounted in vehicles or in tripods

With a special adapter which exists for no reason but money.

>tries to rebutt criticisms

>"you still have not criticized it"

Then why so mad?

Im sorry but I want more from a GPMG.

>>616144

GPMGs are outdated. "One fits all?" Something something about F-35.

Modern rifle calibers MGs should be:

1. Minigun for real AFVs and aircrafts.

2. Tripod/pintle mounted MG for defensive positions and shit tiers AFVs (MRAP etc). MG5 fits here.

3. Lightweight infantry MG.

>>616229

Honestly, 7.62x51 is really an outdated round.

They really should adopt 6.5 grendel for both standard line rifle and machine guns.

Leave the bigger bullets ONLY for dedicated sniper rifles.

>>616230

>6.5 grendel

Are you kidding me? Why do pick cuck 6.5 when you can pick Chad Creedmore? Go higher not stand in place. Only reason Grendel exists is limitations of AR-15 platform. Why ever tie performance of the new RIFLE caliber and MGs performance to the old ASSAULT rifle?

And yes all calibers are terribly outdated (except 5.45x39) and with modern achievements new round can posses much higher bang in the same package.

SOCOM does it adopting 2 of 3 essential advancements:

1. Low drag bullets with adopting of 6.5 creedmore.

2. Lightweight cases for said caliber.

Third is completely changing bullets technology. Going away from jacket rifled bullets and using plastic driving bands like auto cannons already do. But no one has guts to go there yet.

>>616216

>Its not light, certain models are even heavier

Debatable. Just because there are other guns that are lighter than it (PKP or SAWS) doesn't mean that 10kg isn't light weight for a reliable 7.62 general purpose machine gun. Remember: this gun isn't meant to be an LMG. It is a GPMP. It is meant to bridge the gap between a LMG and a HMG.

If you want faggots to run around with it like it's a normal rifle you go with LMGs. For it's purposes, it's weight is pretty damned light weight.

>With a special adapter which exists for no reason but money.

Yes, it saves money. Instead of having to buy thousands of new tripods (two per platoon), vehicle gun mounts (two per vehicle), and AA tripods (one per platoon), you get a cheap adapter with every gun that can make the new gun (which is entirely differently shaped than the old MG3) work in all the old mounts. Getting new tripods, mounts and AA tripods would be a massive waste of money. The old ones still work fine.

>Im sorry but I want more from a GPMG.

Like what? Do you want it to suck your dick and butter your toast as well? It does it's job well. It spits 7.62 at your desired rate of fire, can be mounted in different versions, doesn't weigh a ton, and can be customized for your needs. That is literally what a good GPMG should do. It does those things.

>>616233

>It is meant to bridge the gap between a LMG and a HMG.

Only problem - there is no LMG.

>>616234

LMGs were replaced by the F switch on assault rifles.

>>616235

Too bad main AR fire doctrine of NATO countries is semi-automatic fire.

F switch is by default on is soviet/Russian doctrine.

>>616237

You don't know German doctrine then.

No movement without fire on the enemy. When the MG has to relocate all soldiers open fire in semi on the enemy. If the number of rifle-men available to suppress the enemy is too low, you switch to Frieden and make the enemy keep their heads down.

They teach this shit in basic.

>>616238

You are answer has nothing to do with my post. NATO mostly doesn't use automatic fire from assault rifles. So rifles can't replace LMG. LMG is automatic gun and fires automatically not semi-automatically. That bring us back to the point

> there is no LMG.

>>616230

6.5 Grendel is still not powerful enough, it's slightly less powerful than 6.5 Arisaka, a round replaced for not having enough stopping power. Still better than 5.56 though.

>>616234

>>616235

>>616237

LMG in 5.56 are honestly kinda bad, it is better to just lighten the GPMG and make it a LMG, like the MG5A2 or PKP.

>>616240

>Germany is a NATO nation

>Germany replaced LMGs with the F switch on assault rifles

I understand what you are trying to say. Other NATO countries don't use the same tactics as Germany, and thus need an LMG, but there isn't one on the market (besides maybe the MG36 or the M27IAR, among which the M27 is far better suited for the role).

>>616241

>it's slightly less powerful than 6.5 Arisaka, a round replaced for not having enough stopping power.

Japanese replaced 6.5 in MGs because of lack of good special bullets in such caliber (AP and incendiary ammo). Though this pre WWII craziness of 7.62 ammo killing tanks and aircraft's ended as complete failure.

6.5 remained as rifle round and Americans been on receiving end praised its unhuman bullet and stopping power.

>>616246

They replaced it in rifles too…

>>616229

>not making one-fits-all solutions

The F-35 is a plane, it has aerodynamics and shit. Yet you can use the same train to pull wagons of ore, fuel, people, grain, cattle, ammunition and spare parts, because a train doen't have the same limitations as an aircraft. So developing different trains to pull fuel and ore would be extremely retarded.

>that list

I'd do this:

>a chaingun with an adjustable RoF for vehicles

>an automatic grenade launcher that can be mounted on vehicles or used by the infantry on tripods

>a lightweight machine gun for the infantry

You could put a remote-controlled weapon station on every vehicle that comes with the chaingun as standard, but can be equipped with the grenade launcher or a pair of ATGMs as additional weapons. As for the infantry, a machine gun on a tripod is too heavy for what it does. An automatic grenade launcher can suppress a greater area for the weight of two of them, and do it either with direct or indirect fire.

>>616253

They never managed to phase out the 6.5mm weapons, therefore they were used side-by-side. And they wanted to replace the rifles too because it makes no sense to use different ammunition in the rifles and machine guns.

>>616261

Why throw away a rifle if it still works and you are in an army where even the fabric for rank badges and such is being rationed? Of course they would be used side by side. But the later into the war the rarer they became. The reason they themselves gave was stopping power, the Japanese claimed the 6.5 was not dropping Chinamen like it should.

>>616261

>>a chaingun with an adjustable RoF for vehicles

Why use cuck chaingun when you can use Chad minigun? Why limit your firepower?

>As for the infantry, a machine gun on a tripod is too heavy for what it does

From defensive position or as pintle mounted weapon weight is non issue at all. additional 20 or 30 kgs doesan't matter for weapon that is transported by car.

Automatic grenade launchers ammo costs 100 times more and has issue of collateral damage (both for neutrals and your own troops in close contact) so it can't replace MGs. Only supplement.

>>616263

>The reason they themselves gave was stopping power, the Japanese claimed the 6.5 was not dropping Chinamen like it should.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvsurgconvoli/DEFAULT.htm

>>616269

So? I'm not going through all of those documents, at least link the document you want me to read.

>>616270

Spoonfeeding is for kids. Operational protocol is to ban kids.

>>616271

Normally I would agree but there are dozens of separate documents there and I am not going to spend my night reading them all, either point out which one it is or I will assume you are sending me on a goose chase after something that does not exist.

>>616272

>i can't into information search

>>616269

>Why limit your firepower?

An AGL has much more firepower than a Gatling gun, and you can overcome the problems of killing people who are to close by combining it with a simple machine gun. Therefore you are the one who wants less firepower.

>From defensive position or as pintle mounted weapon weight is non issue at all.

If you keep firing from the same position then it's just a question of time until the enemy infantry either uses something like a recoilless rifle to destroy your postion, or calls in mortar fire. Even if you have a decent cover, a smoke screen can completey cockblock you. And a machine gun on a tripod is too ungainly to quickly relocate it.

>Automatic grenade launchers ammo costs 100 times more

Even if that's true, I don't see the problem. You get much more out from a belt of grenades than a belt of bullets.

>and has issue of collateral damage (both for neutrals and your own troops in close contact) so it can't replace MGs. Only supplement.

Shooting hundreds of bullets in the general direction of the enemy and lobbing a few grenades there is really not that different. MGs on tripods normally have predetermined zones-of-fire, and the infantry is instructed to keep themselves out of that area. In that sense they are like miniature artillery, but without the destructive power of artillery. AGLs do bring that destructive power.

>>616230

>>616232

6.5 is good for shoulder arms not machine guns. The flat arc is less relevant when shooting from a fixed position with tracer rounds to aim by impact when the goal is area suppression. The weaknesses of 6.5 in terms of barrier penetration become a real problem in a machine gun where they are not for a individuals rifle. And to make matters worse 6.5 has less room for a pay load. 7.62 inciderary or 7.62 explosive are better than their 6.5mm counterparts which is a big deal in a machine gun as that is how it can be effective against lightly armoured vehicles and implaced positions as well as enemy material like transformers radars gun emplacements.

6.5 might better for landing single aimed shoots at long range but is that what you use a machine gun for.

There is no perfect bullet or calibre.

>>616275

Nobody is asking for the perfect round, just the best average round.

Honestly, both 5.56 and 7.62x51 are horribly outdated, and the attempts to modernize them (making them heavier) is better spent on adopting a new round.

>>616244

Huh, you know the MG5 but you don't know the MG4?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_MG4

And honestly, both ruskies and germans got it right, LIGHTENED GPMG should be a squad level weapon, LMG is shit.

>>616278

>Kill vehicles

What is a technical. That is why I specified lightly armoured. Clearly I forgot that the only presence on the battlefield is main tanks

>Penetration

I used the wrong word I meant destruction. And well one round might not go through and still be effective it destroys the brick for the next round in the burst, which is why you fire more than one shot. This also comes back to pay load 7.62 armour penetrating explosive round will fuck up a brick wall

>>616283

Man, 5.56 alone is enough to down technical, assuming you are talking about improvised ones, Suzuki/Toyoto whatever.

Technical is a non-issue for a properly armed squad.

>>616285

What about a quickly moving technical at 800m with a dshka on its bed that is moving into position to engage you squad from outside the effective range of 556. What if you also face a threat from real amour making losing your heavy bulky and limited anti tank weapons on a Toyota a phyaric victory

>>616287

>moving at 800m

That's when RPG comes in.

That's definitely the job for RPG right there.

Also, my ideal squad would have a big guy lugging at M240 or MG3, and a Designated Marksman with a 7.62 rifle, FUCK 5.56 MG, FUCK THAT.

>>616283

>What is a technical. That is why I specified lightly armoured.

>dueling technical with at least HMG mounted and even Zu-23 using rifle caliber MG

Suicidal much?

And against ISIS kamikaze VBIEDs rifle caliber MG were found pathetically insufficient , even HMG can fail. Seriously stop making boys do adult's job it failed in WWII and it fails today. If you need to kill vehicle shoot them with real cannon.

>>616290

AGL is a bitch to carry, and its ammo are heavy.

Also lesser range than a RPG, better to carry a RPG.

You can perfectly make do with a normal grenade launcher.

>>616289

>>616288

I don't believe that it is the idea solution and I agree that it would be better to have a specialised weapons system for every threat if it was available. But you can't expect a small group of men to carry this with them all the time. So a less than optimal general purpose solution with a lot of relatively light ammunition on hand and the ability to call in specialised support is achievable.

>Job for a dog

Unless you want to use a guided missile that costs the same as 10 technicals good luck landing a hit on a fast moving target at 800m. With a 200 round belt of much cheaper explosive 7.62 much more likely

>>616292

Nowadays NOT jugging around a RPG is stupid, they make LAW for that for the US, and the germans have Panzerfaust.

The ideal squad composition is:

1. Team leader/Grenadier.

2. Rocketman.

3. Line dude/ammo carrier

4. Machine gunner (this dude must be given special training because it's this dude who will either make the most kill or stop the enemy).

5. Designated Marksman.

>>616284

Actually, it's not the form factor that's the problem but the bullets' low sectional density. You can use boat tail bullets so the overall shape is optimal but the weight if the bullet still does not allow it to be used at long range. If 2 bullets have the same form factor but one is made from lead and another from steel while having the same diameter and SD they'd probably fly the same with steel one being longer.

Increasing form factor is not really "free" because changing it for a more modern one decreases the size of the bullet - think of round nosed and spitzer bullets and how does this impact their length. Boat tail and taper do the same thing, to have the same weight it'll have to be longer. It's the reason most pistol calibers don't have spitzer bullets.

>>616293

I wasn't saying not to carry a RPG. I was saying you can't carry everything in unlimited quantity. I agree that cheap RPGs and laws are must haves. They do have limitations though. Like the the fast fast moving target at long range I brought up before. You would most likely waste your RPGs on missing.

>>616295

When will we get depleted uranium 6mm 3km rifles. Gold jacketed of course

>>616296

If you are being attacked by a group of 02-05 technical out of nowhere, then you or your higher up fuck up somewhere in basic scouting.

>Like the the fast fast moving target at long range I brought up before. You would most likely waste your RPGs on missing.

Not technical bro, unless he's some skilled driver or in urban area.

>>616291

They are support weapons, of course they are heavy and need to be set up. Think of them as mortars that can fire so quickly that they can replace machine guns. Mortars are also heavy, and their shells are even heavier.

>>616293

You aren't autistic enough for this game.

>take 7 grunts

>give everyone a belt-fed bullpup that fires a general purpose cartridge and can handle firing rifle grenades

>give them a crate full of boxes of belted ammunition

>give them an other crate of combined hand/rifle grenades that weight around 250-300g and come in thermobaric and white phosphorus flavours

>give them a third crate of rocket-propelled rifle grenades that come in AT and HE variations

>teach 6 of them to fight in pairs

>teach the pairs to support each other

>teach the 7th one how to coördinate the 3 pairs

>train them as shock troops

>let them figure out how to carry the ammunition and grenades in the most effective manner

Now you have something that the Vietnam-era SEAL teams that carried only M60s the LMG variants of the Stoner 63, but with much more explosives. Once this part of the training is over you can put them into an IFV that has a crew of 3 and train them how to fight as Panzergrenadieren.

>>616299

Mortar does come with heavier load ammo and much better range radius, and it's already brought up by specific mortar team.

I don't see a need for every squad to become a mortar team, because a mortar team requires support from other squads to survive to begin with.

Just keep AGL on tanks/armored vehicles.

>>616298

You can drive pretty fast in desserts or mountain plateaus or just dry grass in summer. I am from the country and although I've gotten stuck in the mud a few times and crashed a few cars it is definitely possible some times.

>Scout fails in that situation

They most certainly did but that could definitely happen and have a possible recourse.

>>616302

It could happen, but if it takes 02-05 technicals to suppress a squad, it's already good enough odd.

Honestly, most ambushes in Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones being ambushed being arrogant idiots who ignore intel beforehands.

If it's me, I would do eye on the sky 24/7 and have view on everything a fucking RTS.

>>616303

Your imagining everything as an ideal situation with you self in full control of it. I don't think that that is reasonable

>>616304

Never said that, m8. You are imagining thing.

I just take what is REASONABLE loss, and what possible counter-measures.

I am against the thoughts that troops should just wait for support. Support only should arrive when it's necessary, the US overuse of air support for example is a waste of money.

>>616305

>

If it's me, I would do eye on the sky 24/7 and have view on everything a fucking RTS.

>>616306

That is actually possible though.

Flying DRONE is cheaper and less exhausting than manned-flight.

I'm not even talking about armed drone, but basic recon drone on about 2000-3000m off-ground.

>>616307

I didn't say that it wasn't possible just that it was the ideal situation and that I think it is unreasonable to only plan for the ideal situation

>>616308

Disagree, it's not ideal, it's necessary.

I mean, if you can help it, why not have a recon group up there? Especially if it's a plane + camera.

>>616301

Who said to give every squad an AGL? They are support weapons just like mortars, therefore they should be deployed just like mortars.

>>616311

That's reasonable I guess, and already existing I think.

>>616309

What if you don't have control of the skys. What if there is a coordinated attack on multiple fronts by a capable enemy and you are struggling to split your recon assets and attention between all fronts

>>616313

1. If you don't have control of the sky, it means you are losing the war. But regardless, even the US is going to deploy manned flight 24/7 to stop drone.

2. Multiple attacks.

You should have multiple drones, and a drone alone can observe about 2-4km (I think?), so it should be able to monitor combat close to each other.

Again, multiple drones is still cheaper than the enemy committing attacks in multiple fronts and you being blind.

Being blind is not good. Period.

>>616315

>But regardless, even the US is NOT* going to deploy manned flight 24/7 to stop drone.

>>616315

>>616316

>If you don't have control of the sky, it means you are losing the war.

This is what I mean by you are imagining an ideal situation. The Vietnamese were losing for more than a decade but they still won with out air superiority.

You don't need a fighter jet to take out a drone either aa will get the job done

>>616317

1. The Vietnamese only win by toughing it out and waiting until the US gets out so they can "win". Then again, occupation war is shit and I myself will never get to do occupation. My doctrine involves kicking their ass out, looting their shit and moving out ASAP.

2. A drone stationing at 2km off ground requires some kind of missiles to take out, anon.

And the drone itself can evade and has flares.

>>616318

Even if it requires a missile it will happen and there will be attrition. If that attrition happens faster than you can replace the drones and bring them to theatre there will be gaps in your recon. Why are you fighting a war with out occupation. You won't gain any resources or control of the political situation and risk making the situation worse alla Libia. A war with out an occupation is also what I would call an ideal situation again

>>616237

Yeah because Germany figured out in WW2 that they already got a good MG and only needed something that bridges the time when the MG reloads or moves its position, hence the Sturmgewehr was born and every country that copied the Sturmgewehr continued with that decision.

Meanwhile the Soviets Russians were crazy about machine pistols in WW2 and so when they decided to create their own automatic rifles after the war, they decided to create an upscaled machine pistol that had more penetration power, thus the AK family was born.

In the end it doesn't matter from where your automatic fire comes from, it just matters that you have it.

>>616319

You underestimate how cheap is a drone is compared to its usefulness, and how is it to make a drone with a camera.

In fact, if it's a drone is taken out, it means there's the enemy there, which alone is worthwhile information.

Believe me, if you are not running out of missiles, you are not running out drones.

>Why are you fighting a war with out occupation

I mean, why would you?

>A war with out an occupation is also what I would call an ideal situation again

It's really not.

>>616321

Even if they create a half a day or a 2 day time period where you don't have enough drones to cover the entire theatre of operations that is a significant window of opportunity in mechanised war. I know drones are cheap but they don't just spawn where you need them and time is a significant resource as well as material expenses.

I think we have a different understanding of ideal. I think that it means a situation or thing that is exactly as you want it to be.

>>616324

1. You should have a stock of drone before the war even commences.

2. You should replace that stock in time when they are turned down.

And again, I tell you, if the enemy you are fighting possess the same/nearly the same level of industrial output, they would do the same to you.

And no, drones are cheaper than missiles. Yet drones will save lives.

>>616325

Once again you have presented the ideal situation. Yes you should have enough drones and yes you should replace them as quickly as they are destroyed. But imagine if that didn't happen for some reason. Maybe a factory is hit by an earthquake or a strike maybe they have to be shipped to theatre because no one will allow you to use there country's air space and you can't risk widening the war.

>>616326

I think you are imagining things in order to make it harder.

In case of you don't have drones, you can use vehicles, sniper team or recon planes to scout.

That's basic in the military. Never go in blind.

>>616295

>Actually, it's not the form factor that's the problem but the bullets' low sectional density.

>5.56mm BRL-1 with sectional density of 17 grams/cm2 has better BC than 7.62mm NATO M80 with 20 grams/cm2

What is wrong with your post and outdated 7.62 real fucking NATO?

>>616292

> But you can't expect a small group of men to carry this with them all the time

Its idiotic to ask small group of men to be jack of all trades and assault entranced positions and armored vehicles by themselves.

>>616290

>and Russians also developed an IFV turret that has both an autocannon and an AGL.

Because they can't into airburst and AGL is better against low profile targets (like troops trenches), so it is bubba low tech solution (but bubba is normal state for slav)

>They can be used for indirect fire like mortars

Too bad no NATO AGLs have sights for inderect fire. And you can just use you know, mortar, that many times better for underact fire. Also your know there is no TOEs of units without mortars.

>Then why would you want a dedicated weapon for them, when you could give them the same AGL that is mounted onto vehicles?

Because they are much cheaper and can deployed in larger numbers, like everywhere and have no issues with collateral damage.

Also AGLs are meh for vehicles because they sauck at shooting at other other vehicles, too slow and rainbow trajectory.

>>616331

Has anyone ever made vehicle mounted automatic mortar?

>>616331

They don't need to be assaulting a position to get into a fire fight. They could be on patrol and be engaged by the enemy and want an alternative to laying down and waiting to die. They could be defending a remote outpost at a time when support is committed else where and it is imprudent to waist expensive guided munitions on a low value target when higher value targets could arrive. The outpost could be in a hard to access position like the top of a steep hill, necessitating carrying weapons and ammunition up by hand and putting weight the weight and bulk of weapons at a premium.

>>616233

I guess I don't want my 2018 guns being barely competitive with 1970 technology. We can do fucking better, if we're investing in a new gun already why not use new techniques? Forced air cooling isn't that hard.

>>616261

More or less what Russia is doing. They have low velocity autocannons ("chain guns") on vehicles, AGS-30 on vehicles or on tripods, and the PKP. It works really well in Syria, even when Syrians are using it.

>>616291

>AGL is a bitch to carry, and its ammo are heavy.

Not if you make them correctly.

>>616292

Rifle grenades can shoot moving vehicles in their effective range. They're much more accurate than RPG.

>>616331

>elite high tech airburst solution

>50x more cost per round

>only 45% of the shrapnel of the round actually impacts the enemy, rest scatters into the sky

>need 2x the caliber to have the same effect

>velocity gate breaks down and your gun becomes less than useless

No thanks.

>>616332

It's called Vasilek.

>>616341

>>50x more cost per round

Its actually 4.25 times, $860 vs $200 for conventional 30mm HEI. Numbers are from 2019 budget. And this is first year of mass production. For example today acquisition price of M885A1 is 3 times less than in the first year.

And FYI for 30mm AGL target engagement takes around 80 seconds and this is for 1000 meters range

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/552102.html

>>616360

>What rises question why just don't mount AGS on APC and fire from there without bothering with long and tiresome process of dismounting AGLs and their munitions?

Can't put a BTR on top of a roof.

>>616361

You know that pintle mount doesn't prevents you from carrying tripod right?

>>616331

>Because they can't into airburst and AGL is better against low profile targets (like troops trenches

As the canuck said, using airburst is both less effective and more expensive.

>Too bad no NATO AGLs have sights for inderect fire.

NATO AGLs are shit, they fire a high pressure variant of the anemic 40mm cartridge of the underbarrel grenade launchers. You are better off forgetting that those things even exist.

>you can just use you know, mortar, that many times better for underact fire.

That's a wild claim to make. There is no reason a mortar shell would be better than a grenade, and you can make a tripod for a grenade launcher that allows indirect fire. After all, you can make one for any weapon, even .22 rifles.

>Because they are much cheaper and can deployed in larger numbers, like everywhere and have no issues with collateral damage.

A single AGL can do the job of several machine guns if employed propelly. And all of those machine guns would need at least a crew of two, so you'd have to pay a lot more in salaries.

Speaking of Russian AGLs, the AGS-40 seems to be a weapon that could indeed replace light and medium mortars a medium machine guns. It's about as heavy as a 81mm mortar and can lob grenades with a weight of 0.5kg to more than 2km away.

http://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/russia-grenade-launchers/balkan-eng/

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/01/09/russia-adopt-ags-40-balkan-automatic-grenade-launcher-2018/

>>616337

By chain gun I mean a machine gun that uses the same cartridge and belt as the light machine gun, but overall a lot more robust with a very heavy barrel and an externally driven action. By the way, did Russians abandon heavy machine guns?

>>616330

Well, i meant that form factor is not that big of a problem, it's easily solvable by using bullets of the G7 form factor in rifle rounds, while sectional density isn't solvable that easily. The low-drag bullets for rifles should be the standard the same way spitzer bullets almost completely outnumbered round nosed ones so they're only left in tubular mags, pistol rounds and cheap soft points. Maybe using them in 556 would be insufficient but 556 doesn't deserve to exist anyway.

>>616373

>almost completely phased out*

>>616369

>There is no reason a mortar shell would be better than a grenade

For a fist thing mortars has variable charges so they don't need lob shells with full velocity along long ark every time. So they have faster flight time, better accuracy and less wind deflection comparing to AGL firing in the high trajectory indirect mode.

> the AGS-40

AGS-17 already have rounds with 2400 meter range. AGS-40 is stillborn baby no one asked for.

>>616356

You shouldn't be comparing fused 30mm autocannon with unfused 30mm autocannon ammo. Because in reality you're comparing performance of fused 30mm autocannon with 30mm AGL ammo.

$850 is a lot of money, I bet an entire AGS-30 team can be equipped and loaded with ammo for the cost of a single shell.

>>616360

>What rises question why just don't mount AGS on APC and fire from there without bothering with long and tiresome process of dismounting AGLs and their munitions?

See >>616274

In short, a weapons carrier can carry more than one AGL team and a fuckload of ammo. It is stupid to risk all that by bringing a high profile, armor-less vehicle within striking range of the enemy. Especially considering AGS-30 is so light a loaded weapon can be carried by a single man running up and down stairs without a problem, so its a lot more maneuverable and can be taken into thick forest or into building without a problem. The resulting location is more hidden and invariably is better position to attack the enemy from.

Plus if one of the multiple AGLs that it can carry get hit, the vehicle itself is still secure with all the ammo onboard, and can continue feeding the other AGLs its responsible for.

Mk-19 is literally twice as heavy and half as effective as AGS-30 it needs to be mounted on a truck because it's a failure. If American Army ever goes up against someone with anti materiel weapons or even AGS-30 in service, the humvees are toast. And they know this, which is why Oshkosh and Mk 47 are a thing although its still too heavy and fires weaksauce shells.

>>616372

They even have something called a machine gun artillery division.>>616372

>>616377

Ok, so pics of 556 that have flat bottom are not the ones army uses, good. Does not G7 include optimum proportions of the tail/straight middle/tapered tip? Of course i mean that the proportions should be optimized - they improve performance without any drawbacks.

>BTW 5.56mm AR-2 FABRL is flat base bullet (G1 from) and has better from factor than most of the G7 bullets…

Sectional density? AFAIK the only 2 factors that affect bullet effectiveness in flight: sectional density(i.e. how heavy for the caliber is the bullet) and form factor(the shape of the bullet), did i get it wrong?

>>616010

>save shekels

>while getting dead goyim

Just according to the plan, vey

>>6055

Not gonna lie, it's pretty fucking sexy. Too bad the slavs will flake on actual innovation and just throw the concept away and only slightly modify the PKM like they did with the AK12.

>>616513

Please tell me you're not referring to the hand cranked Mk-18 in your picture?

>>616589

Yes I am.

Those things worked better than the Mk19 ever did AND use the same ammo the infantry M79 (which is also way better than the M203), meaning they could use the entire range of ammo that was developed for the M79 (HE, airburst, HEAT, smoke, you name it).

The Mk19 is universally despised because it's a fucking jam-o-matic. It needs a quantity of it's own specific lube, to be cleaned after every time you used it and to chant Buddhist sutras while firing it.

You could fire the Mk18 all day and the thing never stopped. They could have improved on the design (better seal to get more range, electrical motor to get rid of the crank, etc…) except they couldn't figure out a way to do that, so since they couldn't figure out a way for 40x46mm to move an automatic action (even if the XM174 had no problem doing it), they picked the 40x53mm grenade that was meant for helicopters turreted guns. And because it was only meant for helicopter (in pre-loaded belts) it was dumb HE and that's it (there wasn't an airburst version of 40x53 until 2014!).

They field-tested the first Mk19. They completely and utterly didn't work, so of course they adopted it (seriously look it up).

Then they realized the infantry couldn't use the 40x53 grenade especially out of the new M203 which is ridiculously inaccurate where M79 with 40×46 could make pinpoint shots at 300+ yards (and the reason why US spec ops still treasure the ones they have left).

So the whole grenade system evolution that was supposed to improve upon the tandem M79/Mk18 and was always supposed to be compatible between dismounted infantry and the infantry vehicles because it's insane to pack up 2 types of 40mm grenades in the same trucks with very limited space, ended up being a failure.

Thus began the US infinite quest for the infantry grenade.

A quest that with the now official failure of the XM-25 and XM-307 is still ongoing and will last centuries.

>>616111

>take meme that mocks the US demographics

>"NO U!" U 56%!

This meme doesn't work in reverse, because we're not actually 56% white, unlike you.

>>616627

Damn, posts like this really make me think why USA army weapon research programs are such fucking failures

I get it, lobbies and corruption

But come the fuck on, even corrupt USSR was able to develop one of the best weapon systems still in use today and they had just as rotten political system as todays USA if not even more

>>616628

First of all, are you sure? Just because west euros stopped taking statistics or consider niggers born there to be natives, doesn't mean you're safe from the 56% meme.

Second of all, anyone using that meme is looking to derail a thread, it's a shitpost, nothing else.

>>616631

At this point I have to believe that the problem is twofold. First of all: since the death of Browning they just don't have people with raw talent. Truth to be told even Browning was more of an "ideas guy", but in an age when automatic firearms were a new and uncharted territory, and he was backed up by competent engineers to make sure that his ideas will work. Since him the only two truly significant American firearms are the AR-15 and the AR-18. The former has a retarded gas system and a retarded buffer tube, and it's only important because the armed forces and the civilian market of that country turned it into the default salt rifle. The AR-18 is a much better construction, but it was designed for third world countries, so the build quality was intentionally low, and the rifle sabotaged itself.

The other problem is that they don't have a good doctrine for small arms, and so they just run random research programs and randomly adapt weapons for no good reason. Then those weapons stay in inventory for nearly forever, because there is an inertia behind every single one of them. A good example is the M2: there are many better heavy machine guns out there, yet it's still used for no good reason other than there being a fuckton of it. And remember, it was originally a combined AA/AT "light artillery" system, and it was obsolete in both of those rôles by the end of ww2. Yet it's there to stay until the day some random decision replaces it.

>>616669

Yes, she's a divorcee jew mutt on top of that.

>>616651

>how do I refute the claims that Americans are all mixed race mutts

>I know, I'll post an American mixed race mutt

You sure showed us

>>616680

I must concur, at least our president is white.

This is now an amerimutt hate thread. Post every reason you hate the niggerjew56%amerimutts and why they deserve to be nuked off the face of the Earth.

mutts should not be allowed on /k/ for they are inferior creatures. How dare they be able to own guns that should rightfully be European.

Anyone who defends a mutt is a mutt and deserves death. Too bad the BO is a mutt cocksucker, though.

>>616684

>no flag

what are you hiding? Why not tell us which proud hu'white nation you're from?

>>616685

The one with no mutts, you inferior creature.

Go choke on an AIDScancerniggerburger.

>>616683

*Jewish

>>616683

top jej

Enjoy sucking off a kike, you stupid mutt. Oh wait, you always sucked off kikes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do us all a favor and drop dead.

>>616682

Now the kids will be whiter than the average American, what a shame.

>>616692

Oh, and as much as I like to bash the amerimutts, I have some bones to pick with you, limey.

You helped create muttistan. You colonized the new world. You set things up. Remember that the mutts are YOUR mutated bastard children.

Quite honestly, you deserve that. You deserve the trucks of peace. You deserve the loicenses for your loicenses.

Why? BECAUSE YOUR SORRY FU KING COUNTRY RUINED THE CHANCE FOR THINGS TO GO RIGHT BY GOING TO WAR AGAINST GERMANY. YOUR KIKE OWNED BANKS CAUSED THE WORLD WARS TO BEGIN WITH, YOU BLITHERING IMBECILE. YOU COULD'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH UNCLE ADOLF, BUT NO. FUCKING CUNT CHURCHILL AND HIS JEW BUDDIES HAD OTHER PLANS. SO DON'T ACT SO SMUG YOU FUCKING WANKER.

>>616719

It's alright Mohamed, it was just a dream.

>>616806

first image is correct, the police can't follow 400 angry and armed muslims, but they can terrorize britcucks.

>>616669

>vote for right wing party

>vote for brexit which is supported by right wing party

>the right wing party refuses to carry out brexit

>tens of thousands of children being raped

>fathers try to prevent it

>police arrest fathers

>cover it up in a conspiracy that goes as high as the queen

Yeah your government stats are trustworthy you absolute fucking idiot.

>>605595

What optic is that? It almost looks like an Elcan Specter.

>>617055

>How would cost of chaingun or minigun compare with GPMG or 12.7mm HMG?

http://weaponsystems.net

$20000 for minigun

$14000 for 50 cal

Both are negligible sum comparing to modern tank price tag.

>inaccuracy

>>617055

>Chaingun has is place as more reliable coax MG of a tank or IFV

To elaborate a bit: my idea of a chaingun wouldn't be some kind of a mechanical monstrosity. Imagine a machine gun, but with the gas piston replaced by a linear electric motor, and with a much heavier barrel for sustained fire. It would still have some parts compability with the standard machine gun.

>You probably should compare it with something made in same millennium like mk47.

The problem is with the grenades itself. They are simply bad compared to the soviet 30mm grenades, and now the new Russian 40mm caseless grenades make them look like a joke.

>>617056

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3643.html

Well, it could work, but it's a direct fire weapon that weights more than a 81mm mortar, and that's without a tripod and ammunition. Therefore it's not for the infantry, and they'd still need an automatic grenade launcher in my opinion. Now what's better: to equip IFVs with machine guns and grenade launchers that fire the same ammunition the infantry uses, or to add a new weapon with its own ammunition supply to the mix?

>>617067

That video starts with logo Dillon Aerospace, manufacturer of M134D. They only test it on ranges where minigun is better. There are situations where 12.7mm HMG is way superior. Things like shooting through barriers and on ranges where rifle caliber rounds lose their effectiveness past 1000m.

When it comes to negligible price, it isn't just the price of the gun. The biggest part is price of the training. Whatever they are paying the recruits and some instructors doing the training.

>>617078

Chainguns are pretty simple weapons mechanically, but those are always something more to platoon level armament that would have to be trained to everyone. Both operation and maintenance of the weapon. Maybe a day in classroom and couple days of disassembling, cleaning and assembling the gun. Couple days to learn to use it. Then add another range or two to live fire exercises, since most of the time spent in live fire exercises is waiting, you are waiting for 20min of shooting for some hours. Chaingun/minigun probably adds another round to supply system, it's own dedicated blank as using blank firing adapters is problematic at least with miniguns. Alternative for another ammunition item is dedicated training guns for blanks. Then we can start to talk about simulators. There is a very good reason why Finnish army uses assault rifles with 75 round drum magazines modified to fit into 12.7mm HMG cradles as alternative for 12.7mm HMG and 12.7mm blanks. Safety distance for 12.7mm blanks is pretty hilarious as 12.7mm blank firing adapter is pretty heavy and there is plenty of gun powder behind it. If BFA gets loose due to vibrations and shieet, it is capable of causing serious injuries quite long way down the direction it is shot at.

>>617055

Mk47 is not much of an improvement

>>617056

Wow I haven't been impressed with a western weapons system since john moses browning.

>>615550

>Beretta

I saw an army ad in a restaurant last night that showed a team doing tactical shit. I noticed they repeated paused on the machine gunner(s) but never gave a good look at the rifles.

>>616232

>Are you kidding me? Why do pick cuck 6.5 when you can pick Chad Creedmore

because the creedmoor completely misses the point of an intermediate cartridge. Just because

>muh kick

History of American machine gun is pure hilarity

>Hiram Maxim invents a modern machine gun right after he leaves America

>Lewis designs light machine gun and shows it to US army, told to fuck off, fucks off andsuccessfully markets his machine gun in Eurp[e

>US army ends up adopting Chauchat as LMG and somehow manages to fuck it up even more

>Brownings shows his automatic rifle to US army

>it gets adopted as LMG and is used it for decades even though it becomes more and more inadequate

>Browning designs a pretty good MMG

>US army tries to turn it into LMG as well

>after the war, Americans mongrelize the FG-42 and MG-42 into an unholy abomination known as M60

>M73 machine gun is so fucking bad, Americans actually considered adopting a Soviet PKT as tank machine gun

>and they are still using WW1 HMG, and it is totally because it is that good and not because they can't design a replacement

>>620052

Don't forget that Browning's potato digger was the first machine gun they adopted, and it was hardly any good compared to Maxim's.

>>620054

And before the Chauchat they had this.

>>620054

And right now they are trying to start a domestic production of Soviet machine guns, allegedly to arm friendly Middle Eastern combatants (which is not exactly a smart idea anyway).

>>620059

The domestic production part is pretty silly as everything they want is already being produced in NATO countries like Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.

>>620061

Nah, they are trying to get those countries to drop the Soviet stuff and start buying overpriced 'Murrican shit, encouraging them to build Soviet guns is counterproductive and might give them the wrong ideas.

>>615402

>HK

Damnit anon thats an MK43 which is modern US M60 variant. In a short glance they look similar, but its misleading. The HK121 is single piece metal and doesn't have rivets which would shorten its lifetime. Heres where the exact picture is from:

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=156

Now let me rant a bit, even though I want to love the weapon, I'm pissed that this will replace the MG3. It was the best for its purpose. The ww2 design is fucking geniusly made and these comments blow the current trend out of the water regarding LMGs:

>Machine guns by nature create a "beaten zone" of bullet dispersal. They do this to increase the area covered and to increase the probability of getting a hit on the target.

>In short bursts the MG42 could be very adequate in accuracy, but a machine gunner is more worried about having the range correct than he is about grouping shots. Actually the more lateral dispersion the better the coverage. Inspite of emphisis on accurate fire in training, most battle field shooting is really area fire intended to create as dense a beaten zone as possible. The better the coverage, the greater the danger to the enemy in this beaten zone or danger space.

>The lafette tripod, both for the mg34 and mg42, has a recoil actuated cam that, when set, elevates the unit with the first five rounds and depresses the unit for the next four rounds. The gunner moves the unit left and right within the limit stops set on the lafette. This left and right movement coupled with the automatic elevation and depression of the lafette cradle allows for the maximum area coverage for a given distance and width. The topic is covered in the excellent book by Folke Myrvang, MG34-42 German Universal Machineguns.

What I really don't like in the MG5 ironically has the very same fetishized US browning .50cal fat lunchbox ergonomics. MG5 also has the classic lever shaped charging handle which is pretty much all that is left from the MG42 design and its a shame because they could've kept the rounded, slim and way cheaper stamped body, yet we are back in 1890 with the carved out metal chunks. (It's less durable but that wasn't the point of the technology.) Metal chunks should be sparingly used and in necessity.

I'm not even expecting designers to give any credit to the old german looks and doctrine and keep moving further away from what a general purpose machine gun is. They were meant to be cheap and mass producible.

The HK121 is really good in its functions but takes a big fat dump on war use in favor of faggot beaurocrats who want an "army of one man armies" because they saw in movies despite the worldwide use of the ww2 German squad tactics. The weapons and the war tactics were constantly harmonised to their best advantage and I'm fucking pissed looking at manufacturers always cucking out to stupid demands.

>>620532

Forgot an important point:

The MG42/MG3's operation machanism is the most important thing that needs an upgrade because of the frequency of bullet catching.

Also the barrel release lever could be bent after abusing by trainees.

>>620064

By far it is the cheapest way to get those PKM's, AK's and NSV's to friendly goatfukers in the sandbox.

>>615550

nigger what….

>>616627

This reminds me of the camo contest the US Army did to adopt digital. They tested many patterns and picked the worst performing one in every category, then used it as a replacement for both in the field camo and basically every other uniform. We had a solid decade plus change where soldiers stood out like a sore thumb in every terrain except for fresh snow, and where to avoid dying soldiers in Iraq took to either never washing their uniforms or to dying the uniform with tea.

>>634192

I wish I had that one picture at hand that had bunch of finnish reservist silently laughing at some american in his ACU. Who was the retard that thought ACU was good for anything?

>>634229

>Who was the retard that thought ACU was good for anything?

It's good for lots of things. Presenting a marketable "high-tech" image. Lining defense contractor's pockets. It's just not good as camouflage.

>>617067

My takeaway from this video:

1. That's a different mount clearly between uses, which is basically the main thing that dictates machine gun effectiveness. Watch the few slomos in the video, the entire mount is shaking for the M2.

2. Video isn't measuring native accuracy, since they put a human in the loop. It would be piss easy to rig these to stay fixed at a target and then solenoid the trigger. Tells me there's a reason the human is there (its an advertisement).

3. It's comparing a gun developed in 1910s to a gun developed in 1960s, over fifty years difference in technologies. There are hundreds of machine guns that are superior to M2.

4. Even given the difference in tech and comparing their brand new gun to a shitty relic, 10 hits out of 200 is a 5% hit rate. All a real, modern 12.7mm machine gun would have to do is put 2 bullets on a man sized target at 1000m for it to be competitive.

5. In real life one machine gun bullet hitting a guy is enough, you don't need 10+ hits to have an effect, the ammo savings pays off far more than instant hit probability. A gatling can go through all onboard ammo reserves in a five minute firefight trying to keep the enemys heads down. At that point someone can just walk up to the gatling crew and kill them with a stone axe.

There's a reason rapid fire machine guns went out of style after WWII, they're good for shooting down aircraft but they're so wasteful that there's no point to them.

>>634230

>>634229

>>634192

Digitization is fine, it's the color scheme chosen for UCP that was retarded…which was developed by eggheads at Natick using computer modelling, rather than taking existing and functional color schemes and adapting them into a digitized pattern like the Marines and Canadians had done.

>>616651

>Thinking that the Monarchy still means anything.

>Posts literal Amerimutt woman living on welfare (The Civil List) to insult Britain

Are we witnessing peak burger?

>>634279

>Even given the difference in tech and comparing their brand new gun to a shitty relic, 10 hits out of 200 is a 5% hit rate. All a real, modern 12.7mm machine gun would have to do is put 2 bullets on a man sized target at 1000m for it to be competitive.

You could replace .50cal by something so much better today…

Appears to lack a quick change barrel.

Somehow better than the M60?

Do you even machine gun?

So, how heavy is it? The decisive factor for modern GPMGs is weight.

>crtl f

>negev

>nothing

If this thing is heavier than the Negev or if it is only marginally lighter and lacks a quick change barrel as the American mentioned it is still worse as a GPMG. Beating the M60 isn't a big challenge in 2018, you are going against a 1970 design before polymers and lighter metals came to proper use. It was still a muh steel n' wood era.

>>634962

Agreed on weight. It truly is a descive factor. I'm convinced, probably due to the lack of availability of full auto for civilians in the 'Murrica, that most people don't get how important changing machine gun barrels is, at least if it's not one of the older water cooled designs.

In short, repeal the NFA, if people own machine guns, some might even understand them, and threads like this wont be born, or maybe they'll be of higher quality.

>>634978

Well, I'm no fan of my county's (((greatest ally))), but I'm willing to admit they make a decent, or even excellent firearm from time to time. Those Palestinian children and Hamas fighters aren't gonna kill themselves, at least not without a suicide vest.

Still the MAG, or the M240 in it's modern burger incarnation is a perfectly acceptable machine gun, even if it's far from perfect.

>>634978

>7.6kg

Negev is a fat bitch. Here is the super lean and incredibly flexible Stoner 63. The LMG version is a mere 5.3kg.

>>634984

It's literally in a different weight class.

>>634978

Ever mentioning Israeli weapons will always bring about ad homs about being a Jew lover or trying to deflect by mentioning that the Tavor was initially sub par, even if Galil and Negev are excellent weapons. It really disappoints me.

>>634983

True, MAG is strong and reliable, we have Swede produced MAGs in the hands of conscripts that are twice or thrice as old as any of them and they still sling high power lead down range. However, it is also very heavy even for a GPMG and I think that replacing them all with 7.62 Negevs would seriously decrease load.

>>634984

Negev comes in a 7.62x51 GPMG variant too, that was the one I was talking about. It weighs around 7.90kg. Stoner 63 appears to be only available 5.56 and is not really comparable as a result.

>>634993

I'm a literal Jew, and I'm telling you that guy was a poor excuse of a Jew. Galil is top-tier, Negev is amazing, and Tavor is best bullpuppy.

>>634988

I mean the M2 is perfectly fine for what it is, but is hardly practical for a dismounted patrol. If you come under fire, it's a lot quicker for your gunner to go prone, kick out the bipod and start returning effective fire with an M240, than to stop, set up the tripod, and in some cases, the T&E device to start returning fire with an M2. Counting on your riflemen to effectively suppress an enemy machine gun or multiple machine guns while you set up yours is a losing proposition.

>>634994

Also, the Stoner is an LMG not a GPMG as several posters have already mentioned, and it's really an apples and oranges comparison. It's like calling an M4 a better battle rifle than a FAL, I'd rather take the M4 to war, but it's not in the same weight class, and thus won't be as effective at 800 yards

>>634997

Not the guy you were arguing with, but the Galil is fine for an era when fighting rifles had irons and mounting optics wasn't as much of a thing. The TAR 21 is stupid expensive, bull pup triggers are garbage, and the config isn't really an advantage in an age of Mk-18's. Modern studies out of crane and precision rifle shooters are showing that barrel length isnt really as important as fuddlore led us to believe.

>>634997

The Galil is very reliable and sturdy. We have had the things in the hands of conscripts for 20 years and they still shoot. Must be doing something right.

The Negev is similarly reliable and the GPMG variant appears to be the lightest out there. With GPMGs, weight (or lack there of) is king. Calling it a "meme" is not an argument.

Tavor is iffy. It had issues with the gas system when it was taken up to service, but I have never seen a brand new firearm taken into service that has seen zero issues. Perhaps it has had it's issues ironed out, perhaps not. Most Israeli conscripts still use M16A2s as far as I know, so we won't know how good they are in extended use until it has seen it.

>>635004

No, I shouldn't. If I mentioned GPMG multiple times and the thread is about GPMGs, I think it is more than clear I am talking about GPMGs rather than LMGs.

Pray tell, was the 7.62 Stoner ever produced and if it was, how heavy was it? I never thought that AR-like platforms are optimal for machine guns personally.

>>634997

> prioritized looks over internals

This sounds like mallninja lore. I've never seen it sourced anywhere reputable.

>shitty AK clone

Improved Valmet

>useless meme machinegun

You take that back. Negev is not useless. It mows down civilians like grass on my John Deere.

>>635004

Length is hardly the most important factor in how accurate a barrel is at range. And comparing the 5.56 stoner 63 to any 7.62 NATO machine gun is apples and oranges since this is a GPMG thread. however, I apologize, I should clarify I meant the 7.62 variant of the Negev, and will admit I was unaware that any 7.62 variant of the Stoner 63 entered service, and if so how much they weighed.

>>616812

That's from Australia.

>>635006

>improved valmet

You mean stripping it down to cut the cost only for SA to fix everything wrong with it.

>>635034

It always tickles me that a bottle opener had to be added because the Israelis kept messing up the feed lips

>>635055

They are literally the second worst soldiers on the planet….

>>635055

Coca-Cola is srs business.

I would hope it'd be better than the M60.

>>635070

Luckily for them all the countries around them are the worst soldiers on the planet.

>>641781

I would unironically buy that Glock.

>>635908

>>641781

>bejond ze grejvu

>>635908

I would ironically buy that 1911 if it was chambered in .454 Casull and had a full length dust cover

>>641781

>first pic

manly_tears_shows_off_his_glock43.jpg

>>653937

The little drum just holds a 50rnd belt, isn't actually a magazine.

>>635765

Luckily for them, America has Israel's back every time.

>>653937

>drum mag

Oh no no no

He fell for the COD WaW reload animation meme

>26lbs

>"ain't broke"

>>653959

To be fair, the US Army used the M1919A4 and A6 in infantry roles, and that was a couple pounds heavier. It also had a faaaar lower rate of fire, meaning it was probably a pretty damn comfy gun to use. I've seen the A6 shoulder fired for short periods, and it doesn't jump much… that's gotta be a strain on your arms, though. Big guys only.

>>653963

IIRC textron systems came out with a new M240 variant last year that had polymer components and was milled or something, and the entire gun boasted greater durability, less maintenance, and was much lighter than previous M240 variants

>>653953

good points, but sounds like stuff that could be worked out in a post WW2 program with higher quality production.

I guess the "drum mag" was just a drum with belt, but that sounds better because I hear there are reasons they replaced the drums on Tommy guns.

I hear when these were used (not too effectively) as airborne AA guns on bombers, if the bomber got shot down the crew could and did use them in a ground fight with the replaceable little drums.

I'm still liking the high rate of fire that they say was used more like a shotgun than a machine gun. A big sudden "blast" of bullets doesn't give you time to hide.

Here is pic of guy obviously using the little drums as an infantry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1983-109-14A,_Frankreich,_MG-Sch%C3%BCtze.jpg

>>605585

Balanced recoil system like on the AK-107 is my guess

>>653953

>See above. The MG 42 cost the equivalent of about $1800 per unit when it was adopted, which is rather expensive for a stamped receiver bullet hose,

thats wrong though

>>653953

The MG42 was so horrible that the Germans turned it into the MG3 after the war using 7.62 NATO and still uses it to this day, along with dozens of other countries who have used it successfully since WW2. Must be a horrible, horrible machine gun design.

>>674165

It's a good machine gun design but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. There's a lot of inertia there.

>>674131

Five minutes in google verifies that statement, both the unit price of the gun and that some other MGs of the time were cheaper. The guy is also right in general about the complexity and cost of manufacturing stamped components in the early 20th century, nobody had gotten that completely right yet.

>>674165

So a DPMS Panther is the same thing as an M16? 5.56 NATO is the same thing as .222 Remington? A Sig Sauer 1911 GSR is the same thing as a Browning M1900? How fucking retarded can you be to not realise the long list of design adjustments and improvements in build quality? Accounts of the MG 42 from WWII constantly talk about issues that German soldiers had with the guns, especially late in the war. You can't just pretend that those things never happened because 'Hitler's buzzsaw' is a cool meme.

>>674171

Late war production everything was getting substandard, some of the K98's out in the market today weren't exactly built by master craftsman to high standards. Rushed ammunition and rushed production guns make a difference in overall reliability that doesn't always speak that poorly of the design itself. I'm not so much defending the MG42 because of its legend, but rather the fact that the overall design HAS survived into the modern day with a good reputation.

Consider how long many new rifles take to be combat ready, and when was the MG42 developed and thrown into service? One thing to take into account on a lot of guns designed during major wars is that they are often rushed and forced into service, this doesn't make up for the times the guns failed and got men killed, but it also should be understood by those trying to judge the gun itself.

>>605936

Or sending it to a committee to be "optimized," bypassing the design intent of the actual designer. The M60 and M14 were both cases of design by committee.

>>615945

>The Maori are pretty white tbh. Every one I've met listened to progressive metal, the whitest of all genres.

Prog is overran with faggots who want to be Tool. A true patrician of European extraction listens to Doom.

>>674269

>not thrash

On this day, I decide to anoint my fists

Engaging them in the mode of power and war

Stopping at nothing that's short of fulfilling my destiny

Willing to die, and I will after you, for what I believe

A desperate avenger striking fear in their hearts

Invading their dreams before the day even starts

Wet with your blood, I sharpen my sword

No turning the other cheek like a coward

Come tomorrow I may lay down and die

But not this day

>>674270

>>674269

>not listening to power metal

>>674274

There is no such thing as 'power metal'. All it is is thrash metal in a major key, which underage faggots who listen to fake chiptune garbage like Dragonforce tried to claim was its own unique unicorn genre. Nobody even used the term 'power metal' when it was supposedly created, that's a modern neologism designed to sell songs on iTunes. Still not as fake as 'nu metal' which doesn't even describe any clearly defined or distinct thing, but pretty fake. Also, it can be really in-your-face gay sometimes and that's queer.

t. Helloween fan

By the way, there is literally nothing more European than gothic metal. Change my mind.

>>674282

Western music died with Wagner.

>>616028

>The only french with that name are gonna be Alsatians

>Alsatians

>French

>>674285

Are you me?

>>674294

Have you read Decline of the West by Spengler?

>>674288

>Gets forcibly integrated into "germany".

>10% of the native population literally choose to remain french event if it meant immediate exile.

>90% remaining are second class citizens within Germany.

>Alsace-Lorraine remained an occupied military administrated and was never granted the rights of a German Lander.

>Even when they finally (1911) did it on paper, the military quickly demonstrated they didn't give a fuck about and proceeded to continue to oppress them.

>Revolts and absurdity of the situation even led the Reichstag to a vote of no-confidence against the chancellor in 1913, which promptly disregarded it proving (if there was any further need for it) that the German Reich was nothing but a dictatorship that didn't give two shits about the rule of law. The subsequent parliamentary unrest played a major role in kickstarting WWI (has the military had to prove they were useful to shut up dissent)

>Comes WWI.

>Alsatians are still second class citizens.

>As everyone knows they will massively defect to France, they mostly serve in the marine.

>Comes the end of the WWI… massive naval mutiny that led to the kaiser abdication.

>Landtag quickly asks Paris to send troops as commies infection started spreading.

>French troops where acclaimed as liberators everywhere.

>WWII, almost every Alsatian conscript that ended up POW by the soviet were systematically sent back to Algiers where thousands of them signed up in the FFL, the day 1 FFL themselves having a big alsatians component (the notorious "oath of Kufra" of the French 2nd armor, done after the first successful combat action in the Libyan desert is to free, their home… Strasbourg!).

>>674302

Finished it a few months ago.

Is the MG3 the absolute peak of machine gun design?

>>674306

That's a funny way to spell Besal.

>>674306

Aaaaaaaand this thread has gone full circle in a month.

GG.

Just fookin read the thread just a little bit, bud.

>>674315

No one has proved whether there is something superior to the MG3 yet, anon

How about the MG5, PKP, or AEK-999?

>>674316

Besides the fact that it's heavy, has a unusuably high rate of fire, is unnecessarily complicated and is high maintenance?

Pretty much every other machine gun, including the MG-34, and with the exception of the M60 is better.

It's gets credit for "inventing" the "universal" machine gun but just like the Sturmgewher it's a not exactly a good gun.

Hell had the soviets come up with the DP-46 5 years earlier it wouldn't even be a debate.

>>674302

>Have you read Decline of the West by Spengler?

Of course I have. He ignored the bio-racial angle, but as a tour de force of occidental Kulturgeschichte it's second to none; breathtaking breadth and depth. I especially like his take on the culture-boundedness of numbers as concepts, which holds the potential of integrating Platonic idealism with concrete-empirical Aristotelian thinking.

t. True patrician of European extraction listening to Doom Metal while preferring the MG3 as his GPMG of choice

>>615469

MG3 is superior

>>674396

The barrel's too thin for proper use as an MG and their flimsy

<durr it's an M16 replacement

will never hold up.

Guise, what if we took the IDW and made it into a GPMG for shits and jollies?

I want a shitpost in machine gun form.

>>674396

>Although it's not a bullpup

The layout is stupid.

They really should have just padded the body and put the trigger group more in the front instead of "look guise it has a stock but you can remove it".

Loading is from the top it would absolutely not be hampered by it (even if you could somehow switch belt one handed in a stressful situation which is questionable).

Even if you don't go full bullpup you should have at least a fucking hinge to store it or as desperate shortening for CQC.

>>674591

>The barrel's too thin

Adding a much thicker one shouldn't be that bigof a problem, because it's already a quick-change system.

<durr it's an M16 replacement

As far as I understand they don't claim that, they are just marketing it as something completely new and different that's nevah-ben-dun-befo. In reality it's just a very light SAW.

>>674656

It's even more baffling if you consider that it's a striker-fired open bolt weapon, therefore you don't even have to worry about the trigger. Moreover, the FG-42 already proved that you can make a very simple trigger system that works for both open and closed bolt, regardless of the relative position of the trigger group and the feed system. I really don't understand why they don't make a version that can fire from a closed bolt in semi-auto.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/germany-machineguns/hk-21-i-23-eng/

>weight: 7.6-8kg

Why the hell is it so heavy? It barely looks bigger than a G3, and I simply can't see where all that extra weight comes from.

>>675491

At some point, it can be argued that in battle rifles in general, the usual 9.5 pounds of weight is actually beneficial for the more powerful rounds over assault rifles. DMR's having heavier weight is even more defendable. LMG/MMG's weight is often seen as an advantage because it does help stabilize the weapon in the field, sure its a pain to carry the thing everywhere, but when its set up an shooting from a position off the bipod that weight helps to control the burst fire. Weight breaks the back, but it also steadies the shot and mitigates the recoil.