"Light" Machine gun in 338? - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


"Light" Machine gun in 338?

This is a discussion on "Light" Machine gun in 338? within the Full Automatics forums, part of the Gun Forum category; Originally Posted by rangerdave I was in a heavy weapons company for five years, and I've had plenty time behind (and humping) the 240 and ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Full Automatics

15Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 17th, 2017, 07:10 PM   #16
Master Gunner
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerdave View Post
I was in a heavy weapons company for five years, and I've had plenty time behind (and humping) the 240 and .50's. To be able to have a machine gun that is lighter than the 240, with the same range as the .50, and having good accuracy is an infantyman's wet dream. Yeah, maybe the chances of throwing lead downrange at 2000m in real life is a little on the slim side, but it is nice to have that capability without driving a humvee or toting a .50 on your back.

Just my humble .02
Exactly!! Weight is every Infantryman's enemy. That's why so many grunts have bad knees and backs. Also why so many HMMWV's have bent or broken frames.

PS I did 2.5 years in a weapons squad. Something the weight of an M60 but with a bigger punch and the range of a .50? Heck yeah!

Thanks from rangerdave

Last edited by ArmyPilot; May 17th, 2017 at 08:04 PM.
ArmyPilot is online now  
Remove Ads
Old May 18th, 2017, 05:03 AM   #17
Automatic Rifleman
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston Texas Area
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander View Post
The Barrett weapons are semi-automatic weapons intended for point targets. You want a full-auto for area suppression.

What "light", "medium" and "heavy" have been covered.
Well of cou are right about the semi-automatic .50 rifles. And I am sure that the terms Light, Medium and Heavy have been discussed on these forums in depth (I am still a new guy here). From reading the Yahoo report, the Army is looking for a "Light-Weight" machine gun with the reach and punch of a 338 magnum. The Norma cartridge is considered because some company actually has an MG in that chambering.

Re: the 338 and 5 0BMG sniper rifles from Barrett and others: I only point out that they are more easily transported than a belt-fed MG of those calibers. I am suggesting only that the companies that mfg therm could use their rifle as the basic platform and engineer them for limited full-auto operation. The Marines have done pretty much the same thing in the 5.56 range, by adopting the HK-416 as a fully automatic rifle to fill in for the M-249 as an even lighter MG for the squad. The Marines did have a discussion about sustained rates pf fire from belt-fed vs magazine fed weapons.

That any of this is a good idea is debatable. Frankly, I think that the requirement is not widely desired within the Army. Someone is trying to push the Army into buying their existing but not yet sold, Magnum MG. A better idea might be be (and I don't really know) to deploy the "Pike" rocket grenade or an extended range 60mm morter round.


Last edited by ManxumFoe; May 18th, 2017 at 05:22 AM.
ManxumFoe is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 07:04 AM   #18
Master Gunner
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 875
Have you ever been in the military?

Comparing a purpose built sniper/anti-material rifle to a MMG is like comparing a potato to a tomato, they sound the same but are very different.

The Marines M27 (HK 416 variant) is an automatic rifle, not a LMG. IMO, a M27 will not be able to down put down the same amount of suppressive fire that a M249 can (the Marines already conceded this). The basic Infantry tactic of "fire and maneuver" loses a lot of fire with the M27.

Comparing RPGs and indirect fire weapons to MGs is potatoes/tomatoes again.

Don't get firearms or defense news from Yahoo.

PS I don't think Light/Medium/Heavy has been discussed here other than barrel profiles but are well defined military terms in re MGs. That's why my first question is what it is.

ArmyPilot is online now  
 
Old May 18th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #19
Old Salt
 
Rich D's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 1,690
I like big, heavy bullets.



Rich D is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 07:54 AM   #20
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,056

Awards Showcase

A 24 lb belt fed suppressive fire weapon that is effective at 2k yards, using polymer cased cartridges?

No problem. Did they want it mounted to a unicorn or a mermaid?

KurtC is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:01 AM   #21
Master Gunner
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 875
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ine-gun-lwmmg/

2012, only missing the polymer cased ammo...at that time.

Unicorns for SFGs and mermaids for SEALs.

ArmyPilot is online now  
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:04 AM   #22
Lifer
 
GardenValley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,887

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyPilot View Post
The designations Light, Medium, and Heavy have nothing to do with weight. They refer to caliber.
What are your thoughts on the .30 Cal M1917A1 Heavy Machine Gun?

GardenValley is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:19 AM   #23
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,056

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by GardenValley View Post
What are your thoughts on the .30 Cal M1917A1 Heavy Machine Gun?
I believe it has a short effective range. Even the BAR was longer.

KurtC is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:52 AM   #24
Lifer
 
GardenValley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,887

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtC View Post
I believe it has a short effective range. Even the BAR was longer.
The M1917A1 has a maximum effective range of 1,500 yards. I don't believe that would be viewed as a short effective range.

However, the point of my comment was that the quoted post stated that a designation of light, medium, or heavy is determined by the caliber. The .30 cal M1917A1 was classed as a heavy machine gun and the M1919A4 was classed as a medium machine gun. The caliber of the machine gun is not the sole determining factor as to it's class.

GardenValley is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #25
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtC View Post
I believe it has a short effective range. Even the BAR was longer.
The Browning M1917 firing M1906 ammunition had a maximum effective range of almost 2000 yards with the tripod and the T&E device (the bullet is still going over 600 fps, plenty of wounding potential at that range), demonstrated in WW1. Similar results could be obtained with as the M1919, tripod, and T&E. With the M1 ammunition the range was increased about 1000 to 1500 yards. However, in order to achieve effects at this range, you needed to walk the impacts to the target, much like indirect artillery fire.

The BAR had a shorter effective range due to limits by the iron sights, and the dispersion from only being able to fire off the bipod.

The problem with the M1917 was the weight, with the tripod, water and condenser, the whole things weighs over 100 pounds.

In the case of the M1917, the use of "heavy" refers to the method of employment of the weapon. It was, due to its immobility, primarily, and its sustained fire capability, used only in fixed positions.

Thanks from ArmyPilot
lysander is online now  
Old May 18th, 2017, 10:16 AM   #26
Master Gunner
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by GardenValley View Post
What are your thoughts on the .30 Cal M1917A1 Heavy Machine Gun?
Back then there were only two classifications really, light and heavy. Light MGs normally operated off a bipod and were air cooled. Heavy MGs had to be tripod or vehicle mounted and could be water or air cooled.

In modern times US MGs in 5.56mm are Light MGs (SAW), 7.62mm are Medium MGs (or GP, General Purpose), and 12.7mm (.50 cal) are Heavy MGs. This is the era were talking about.

ArmyPilot is online now  
Old May 18th, 2017, 04:42 PM   #27
Old Salt
 
nicholst55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Daegu, Korea
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by danthman114 View Post
There gos the army thinking again... I swear there must be some idiots in charge over there...
Uh, yeah. Could be. Some retired general is on the Board of some company and he's trying to make mega-bucks on a new contract. He talked it up to his buddies over golf and cocktails... Isn't that how we ended up with the M16? No wait, that was BBQ and watermelon!

nicholst55 is offline  
Old May 18th, 2017, 05:57 PM   #28
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyPilot View Post
Back then there were only two classifications really, light and heavy. Light MGs normally operated off a bipod and were air cooled. Heavy MGs had to be tripod or vehicle mounted and could be water or air cooled.

In modern times US MGs in 5.56mm are Light MGs (SAW), 7.62mm are Medium MGs (or GP, General Purpose), and 12.7mm (.50 cal) are Heavy MGs. This is the era were talking about.
If you go back far enough (prior to WW1), the Army did not even bother to classify machine guns. The M1909 Benet-Mercie, the Lewis, and the M1916 Vickers, were all just "machine guns" and tactically (according to doctrine) interchangeable....

After experience with the M1917, Chauchat, and Lewis in the field, they started to differentiate between "heavy" and "light", mostly by method of employment.

Thanks from ArmyPilot
lysander is online now  
Old May 18th, 2017, 07:06 PM   #29
Master Gunner
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholst55 View Post
Uh, yeah. Could be. Some retired general is on the Board of some company and he's trying to make mega-bucks on a new contract. He talked it up to his buddies over golf and cocktails... Isn't that how we ended up with the M16? No wait, that was BBQ and watermelon!
There we go, I was just waiting for the M16 comment. Never mind that the M16 series is the longest serving standard issue service rifle the US Army has ever had, it's still junk. No, the M14 is not currently a standard issue service rifle, sorry.

After reading some of the comments on here I have decided that the Army shouldn't pursue anything modern. I have seen the error of my ways.

We should continue to rely on technology that is over 100 years old, just like the M2 and M240 (based on an upside down M1918 BAR action adapted for belt feed). Matter of fact if it wasn't designed by someone named John the Army shouldn't even test it. If cotton and wood was good enough for the Wright brothers then by God, it's good enough for today's Army Aviators. If 12 pound Napoleon's were good enough for Henry Knox, they're good enough today. If Patton could fight from a 1915 Dodge touring car, then everyone can.

What was I thinking, lighter weight, more range, more accurate, and light weight polymer cased ammo? That's heresy!!! Buy them muskets and teach them proper drill like von Steuben wrote.

Stupid Army, always trying to innovate and modernize.

No, my post isn't in purple.

ArmyPilot is online now  
Old May 19th, 2017, 04:39 AM   #30
Automatic Rifleman
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston Texas Area
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyPilot View Post
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ine-gun-lwmmg/

2012, only missing the polymer cased ammo...at that time.
Ok, I see that it is a real gun derived from the m-240 system. So the only real questions are: Does the Army really need it? And can it go out on patrol replacing the M-240? Logistics is also a question.

If adopted, how long before a special purpose AR platform in338 Norma is developed ?

ManxumFoe is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Full Automatics

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting NYTimes Article Duce Gun Rights 19 September 17th, 2013 09:04 AM
Obama's second term gun restrictions High Hat Gun Rights 19 November 3rd, 2012 08:25 AM
BATF Harassment at Gun Show thomastred Gun Rights 1 December 20th, 2009 12:10 PM
Col. Mitchel Paige US Marine Corps Hawk Wall of Honor 6 July 18th, 2004 11:57 AM
Gun Owners of America e-mail Jefferson F. Davis Gun Rights 1 March 3rd, 2004 09:25 AM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List