F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #81
Yeah I think thats how it is, plus the difference between 1000 rpm and 1200 rpm is not that much.
Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
It's very significant in potential effects on dispersion and the clear effects on the barrel. One of the reasons the M60 was tolerated for its faults was its low rate of fire of under 500 rpm enable the weapon to be easily controlled and did not place undue strain on the barrel. High rates of fire only provide an advantage for sustained fire machine gun shooting (indirect from a tripod with dial sight) and anti-aircraft shooting. Otherwise to equalise the effect on the barrel you need to spend a lot more time of every minute pausing between bursts. While the amount of bullets going down range is the same the lower rate of fire machinegun creates more lethality by spreading the lethal time (when bullets are flying) over more of every minute.Yeah I think thats how it is, plus the difference between 1000 rpm and 1200 rpm is not that much.
Nothing a seasoned machine-gunner on the MG-3 can´t do... Make continuous 1-3rd bursts, and you have lead in the air all the time, while not straining the barrel too much... In sustained fire mode, you just shoot 200rds, change barrel, and shoot again... It should take less than 6 seconds if you have some training...It's very significant in potential effects on dispersion and the clear effects on the barrel. One of the reasons the M60 was tolerated for its faults was its low rate of fire of under 500 rpm enable the weapon to be easily controlled and did not place undue strain on the barrel. High rates of fire only provide an advantage for sustained fire machine gun shooting (indirect from a tripod with dial sight) and anti-aircraft shooting. Otherwise to equalise the effect on the barrel you need to spend a lot more time of every minute pausing between bursts. While the amount of bullets going down range is the same the lower rate of fire machinegun creates more lethality by spreading the lethal time (when bullets are flying) over more of every minute.
But a rather cramped trigger finger within a minute...Make continuous 1-3rd bursts, and you have lead in the air all the time, while not straining the barrel too much...
Nope, I can easily keep up that pace for 5 minutes... It´s worse on the shoulder and elbows...But a rather cramped trigger finger within a minute...
Here's the solution for the cramper fingers, sore shoulders and elbows:
http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/compareoriginal.wmv
http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/compareoriginal.wmv
actually the m60 was 550rpm and was used in the sustained role effectively. although the the pig was a touch unreliable with age, trained soldiers are able to maintain and reduce this flaw to a managable amount with modification. I have seen m60 fire as many and at times more than L7/M240 in the sustained role....but, also on failure these in a high percentage caused the weapon to be U/S.
one of the main advantages of the M240 is the ability to allow a barrel change and not needing to hold the weapon as the bipod is fixed to the body not the barrel.
I found the main weakness of L7/M240 was the feed system which can quickly fail due to ingested dirt why conducting IMT's. The minimi suffered from similar feeding stoppages and sometimes when the weapon jammed it jammed up for good.
one of the main advantages of the M240 is the ability to allow a barrel change and not needing to hold the weapon as the bipod is fixed to the body not the barrel.
I found the main weakness of L7/M240 was the feed system which can quickly fail due to ingested dirt why conducting IMT's. The minimi suffered from similar feeding stoppages and sometimes when the weapon jammed it jammed up for good.
I never said the M60 wasn't effective in sustained fire. Note: talking about indirect sustained fire. There are different approaches to achieving different effects in long range sustained fire but certainly if you want to achieve high rates of wounds (rather than just suppression) then high rate of fire (the 200 rounds in 10 seconds followed by a 10 second barrel change followed by 200 rounds in 10 seconds and so on of the MG42) makes the beaten zone far more 'beaten' than the bursts of an M60 or Vickers SFMG. More than twice as many bullets into the zone at the same time means more than twice as likely to score a hit thanks to the natural dispersion pattern.actually the m60 was 550rpm and was used in the sustained role effectively.
When in the direct sustained fire from the bipod the lower ROF of the M60 is better for being able to adjust fire onto the target and enabling long in time burst with less effect on barrel temperature. Say you are suppressing a wire gap to stop the enemy crossing it with an M60 you can keep bullets in the fire zone for more time per minute than the faster shooting MG42. Because its not the amount of bullets down range that counts but just how freaking scary you can make this zone so the enemy don't try and cross it.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #89
Thats what M249 and M240 gunners also do. As long as they have spare barrels they can keep on firing.Nothing a seasoned machine-gunner on the MG-3 can´t do... Make continuous 1-3rd bursts, and you have lead in the air all the time, while not straining the barrel too much... In sustained fire mode, you just shoot 200rds, change barrel, and shoot again... It should take less than 6 seconds if you have some training...
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #90
Yeah the German MG-42 had the same effect in WWII, yeah they fire for less time but they did not have too because they just killed more targets in less time then with the M1919 that U.S. forces has at the time.just how freaking scary you can make this zone so the enemy don't try and cross it.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
Yeah none of them will be any good and their not going to replace the SAW. 30 rounds just does not give the suppressive fire that is NEEDED to the squad machine gun. Thats why I believe the belt-fed machine gun will continue to serve the armies of not just the U.S. but many others for years to comes because they are more reliable and have the firepower needed to do the job at the expense of being heavier. Heavy is not always bad.The IAR selection trial was over and I believed 3 weapons were selected for further trial...SCAR, HK and Colt...
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #94
At least 100 should be in the IAR magazine. Like a build a reliable 100 round drum that can stand up to the field conditions of modern warfare and not jam so often. 100-200 rounds is the right amount for the suppressive fire role.So, in your opinion, how many rounds in the mag should we have for the IAR?
IAR concept lets the squad take the suppressive fire support with them towards the objective.
And if you are moving and shooting, jumping through windows, crawling through mud...etc. 200rd on the weapon may be a tad bulky or heavy and slow you down.
And if you are moving and shooting, jumping through windows, crawling through mud...etc. 200rd on the weapon may be a tad bulky or heavy and slow you down.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #96
Most SAW gunners prefer the 100 round belt but being able to move faster does not count for much if they don't have the firepower to actually suppress the enemy. They tried this countless times like as I said before the British did the exact same thing with the SA80 LSW they thought since it was lighter they could have moved faster on assaults and reload faster with the mag but they learned fast they they need something more than a 30 round mag and went for the M249.IAR concept lets the squad take the suppressive fire support with them towards the objective.
And if you are moving and shooting, jumping through windows, crawling through mud...etc. 200rd on the weapon may be a tad bulky or heavy and slow you down.
The whole concept of the IAR is complete crap sure it would make a good replacement for the M16 and M4 but not the M249.
You also seem to talk about the SAW like its only a stationary weapon and the troops on the ground for some reason can't move while carrying the weapon like its a M2 heavy machine gun or something. The Army does not seam to have a problem with it and I have seen U.S. troops running while at the same time carrying the SAW.
maybe we are looking at it the wrong way, if the USMC are looking to increase individual fire power than going towards the scar is the right way and using good fire control with a 40rd mag would be ideal. If this round also was larger in calibre and small in case size without a bottle neck, then increase of capicity and near to no increase of mag length this would be achievable.Most SAW gunners prefer the 100 round belt but being able to move faster does not count for much if they don't have the firepower to actually suppress the enemy. They tried this countless times like as I said before the British did the exact same thing with the SA80 LSW they thought since it was lighter they could have moved faster on assaults and reload faster with the mag but they learned fast they they need something more than a 30 round mag and went for the M249.
The whole concept of the IAR is complete crap sure it would make a good replacement for the M16 and M4 but not the M249.
You also seem to talk about the SAW like its only a stationary weapon and the troops on the ground for some reason can't move while carrying the weapon like its a M2 heavy machine gun or something. The Army does not seam to have a problem with it and I have seen U.S. troops running while at the same time carrying the SAW.
although there would be the need also that there is an increase in burst fire say around 10 rds so maybe a weapon with cyclic of around 450rds and burst of 1200rds.
meaning that if in burst mode of 10 equiv cyclic would be 1200rds. seems to me that the USMC is going back WW1 with the concept of walking fire.
I don't see why you should be hung up with the number "30" as the ultimate limit for IAR ammo capacity.......the British did the exact same thing with the SA80 LSW they thought since it was lighter they could have moved faster on assaults and reload faster with the mag but they learned fast they they need something more than a 30 round mag...
USMC spec a weight limit for the IAR that's lighter than the M249. Why?You also seem to talk about the SAW like its only a stationary weapon and the troops on the ground for some reason can't move while carrying the weapon like its a M2 heavy machine gun or something. The Army does not seam to have a problem with it and I have seen U.S. troops running while at the same time carrying the SAW.
And you keep insisting that the IAR concept is crap, as if it's already been tested in battle and failed. The M249, OTOH, has been tested in battle by the USMC and found wanting. I don't necessarily agree either, but in the end how can you argue with REAL combat experience?
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #100
Ok here is the thing I know I'm sounding like a broken record over and over again but the weight requirement for the IAR is 12.5 lbs. The SA80 LSW was around 11 lbs and had a longer barrel for greater accuracy. The IAR will have a shorter barrel than the SA80 LSW making it less accurate at range and it is 1.5 lbs heaveir.I don't see why you should be hung up with the number "30" as the ultimate limit for IAR ammo capacity...
USMC spec a weight limit for the IAR that's lighter than the M249. Why?
And you keep insisting that the IAR concept is crap, as if it's already been tested in battle and failed. The M249, OTOH, has been tested in battle by the USMC and found wanting. I don't necessarily agree either, but in the end how can you argue with REAL combat experience?
The Marines what the IAR to be faster and more accurate than the SAW but the SA80 LSW was even lighter and more accurate but even then it did not work because I will say it again the 30 round mags. So your right the IAR is not proven so we don't know how it will work but I say the IAR will fail because the British SA80 LSW had the very same concept and it did not work so I'm taking this leason from history and implying it to this situation because they are almost the same.
I also say its limited to 30 round mags because thats the only type of mag the USMC is talking about since they dropped the 100 round mag requirement which basicly set this program on a death sprial.