Posted on 03/11/2008 6:36:34 AM PDT by LSUfan
This 10-minute video contains a vivid comparison of the power difference between the 5.56mm NATO round and the 7.62 NATO round. It is DRAMATIC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QTIiEGFbCQ
Wouldn't part with it if you offered me a brand new SOCOM in trade.
Ok maybe for a SOCOM...
L
It was just for fun........
Next up. Ultra-match.
For shootin’ haji, give me 7.62 every time.
One thing to keep in mind is the recoil and weight of the weapon. Our troops are wearing more crap now than ever before and weight is a concern along with the wussification of our culture some fellows and gals are ill-equiped to handle a large round unless the gas automatics can alleviate most of the recoil.
I myself love the M-14 and the M-16 but in a house to house fight I’d rather have a Thompson 45 ( clip fed ) or an MP-5 .40 cal.
well, several things come to mind:
1. should American forces be using a Belgian MG when American gun makers are having a tough time?...why not give the business to one of our own?
2. at a cyclic rate of fire of 730 rpm that baby is going eat a lot of rounds....that means a lot of weight on somebody’s back....the whole purpose of the 5.56 was to allow more rounds to be carried in the field.
3. I wonder how controllable it is....that was the big criticism of the old 7.62 M-14...on full auto it hopped around so much the average troop couldn’t qualify on the weapon.
4. ever see the old WW2 news reels of the German MG 42?...the ones where the assistant gunners are literally feeding the belts hand over hand into the breech?....that’s what this MG reminds me of....ferocious firepower....but will it air cool under sustained use and will an a-gunner have to tote an asbestos mitt and spare barrel?
>> Converting a little bit of “M” into a whole heck of a lot of “E” can be amusing ... <<<
That’s because “C” is a very big number!
Gimme a 40mm M203 round.
Short that, gimme an M67.
The weight and recoil of 338 long action cartridges make them unsuitable for light machine guns. It would defeat the purpose of being a LIGHT machine gun.
.338 burns out barrels MUCH faster than .308 & other options.
...one more comment....for years people have been trying to figure out how to eliminate the brass cartridge casing and thus cut dramatically weight/cost....last I heard the Dynamite Nobel Corp in Sweden had come up with a solid block propellant that the bullet mounted on....it was going to be fired electronically....anybody hear what ever happened on that?
There are still versions of the MG 4 manufactured today and many new and old are in service around the world. The "joke" was that the German infantryman's only purpose was to haul ammo for machine gunners. We probably could never adopt something like that because the Germans used it in WWII.
It also allows FN to produce for the US markets the P90 and the FS2000.
The M249 is the prefered weapon for the Special Forces, simply because of it's capacity and ability to spit out a lot of rounds in a very short span.
My understanding is all such programs have been dropped as there didn’t seem to be any way to make such a round that wouldn’t cook off under sustained use.
That superior power comes at a higher cost.
- weight - not only per round, but for overall system. An AR10 weighs significantly more than an M4.
- capacity - harder hits, but fewer total. Running out is A Bad Thing (TM).
- wear - both on tool and user. One can use 5.56 all day ... 7.62, not so much.
_Everything_ (within reason) is superior to something else in some factor. Thing is, ALL factors must be taken into account, and a best possible (albeit never optimal) balance achieved. Improve one area, most likely sacrifice something else.
5.56 has been in service longer, and used more, than any other primary system. Yes, some of that is politics & momentum ... and a lot of it is because it works. Yes, it had problems in the past ... most of that was worked out long ago. Yes, 7.62 hits harder ... at a cost that the average grunt doesn’t want to pay. Yes, 6.8 may be the best compromise ... takes time to decide it really is before trusting _our_ grunts’ lives on it and revamping a huge supply chain. 5.56 is getting the job done.
I qualified with both the M-14 and M-16. It’s 7.62 hands down. Damn the extra weight! (Admittedly unscientific, anecdotal evidence)
All the riflemen were there to support the MG, in the US military, the MG was a support weapon for the riflemen.
Which is why we had the Garand, and the Germans still used the Mauser bolt action.
But what’s the purpose of a LIGHT machine gun?
“Oh hi guys, we just got to the party!”
First of all, I want US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to have the best weapons, no matter where they are made. Besides, FN produced weapons for the US military in South Carolina.
Yes, that is indeed a high cyclic rate of fire, but cyclic rate is not particularly meaningful from a practical standpoint, except in terms of training.
The M14 should never have been issued with a full auto capability. Even the M16 had its full auto capability reduced to 3-round burst. No weapon is really that controllable in full auto. The Mk 46 is 7-8 lbs lighter than the M240. Fired prone from the bipod, it should be slightly less controllable than the M240. This can be overcome with training.
Like the M240, and unlike the old M60, the Mk48 has a non-heat conducting handle with which to grasp to change the barrel, which can be accomplished quickly, without the asbestos mit, or a t-shirt, or a towel, or the sleeve of your utility blouse.
What has been found is that the ability to carry more rounds has limitations too. The M855 round has some stopping power deficiencies, which is why SOCOM had FN produce the Mk48.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.