Mediun/Heavy machine gun discussion... 338 Lapua?

[JoaMei]

Well, the most common Machingun calibers today are 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 12.7mm(.50 cal).
Between the 7.62 and 12.7 there is a comparably large gap, wouldnt it make sense to build a Machinegun that is in .338 Lapua Magnum for all these cases where a 12.7 is to heavy and a 7.62 has just not the range and power that is needed?

Discuss!

[Royal]

7.62 can be fired out to 4000m.

The issue is not it's range, but its accuracy. Accuracy is not required with an MG - the idea is to create a 'beaten zone' rather than to hit a point target.

[dacanadianbomb]

^
So thats ends the discussion I guess ;-)

[Katana-sr]

For what purpose?

If it's too heavy for the light machine gun role, there is not much advantage in having a caliber between 7,62mm and 12,7mm (and upwards).
You either need to overmatch the 7,62mm performance as a lmg with the same or not significantly higher weight, so it could replace the current lmgs and give more firepower, or you need to make a better crew-served medium type weapon than current designs provide. The ACSW seems to be a better way to go for medium type weapons and once you get in the heavy range 12,7mm is hard to beat.

[Royal]

^

Obviously not ;)

[dacanadianbomb]

Ahhh Sensei...I underestimated mp.net...again!

[Durandal]

^

Obviously not ;)

rofl rofl rofl

[JoaMei]

Barrett once tinkered with the .338 medium machine gun the idea, same maker of our .50 rifle

See, so my Idea is not completely wrong.
The .338 is able to defeat light armor and Body armor.

[Royal]

The .338 is able to defeat light armor and Body armor.

So are types of 7.62

[Durandal]

So are types of 7.62

Hell, even some steel core 5.56...

Weight increase using .338 LM over 7.72x51 would also be rather annoying as well.

[Hollis]

adding another caliber and MG to the list would also add to logistic issues. 50 cal is a anti-personal round, design to take out equipment, it does good on people too.

The other issue is range, Most infantry Vs Infantry conflicts are rather close range. Longer ranges uses other weapons. If it was a issue of fighting at distances of 3000 M greater, Infantry would kick back and watch the fight as Tanks, Fixed wing, Arty etc go at it. As the range shorten small Mortars/support weapons would open up, Infantry would probably not do much till the range is under 500M.

[Tony Williams]

There are probably two different answers to that question depending on whiether you are taking existing equipment into account, or looking at an ideal 'clean sheet' solution.

The existing 5.56/5.45mm SAWs obviously don't have the range or punch needed to replace the 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R MGs, as the latter remain in service. A .338 would be significantly heavier than a 7.62mm, and so would the ammo, so the infantry would not thank you for having to lug it around. The .50s are much heavier still, of course, but they are generally mounted on vehicles these days. And there certainly isn't room for a .338 MG in between the 7.62 and .50 MGs

In an ideal world the standard infantry rifle calibre would be something like the 6.5mm Grendel. In a SAW, this would provide sufficient reach that the 7.62mm MGs would not be necessary. So the question would then be whether or not there was a need for a long-range portable anti-personnel MG in between the 6.5mm and the vehicle-mounted HMG (which could be the 25mm XM307 rather than the .50). In those circumstances, I think you could make a case out for it.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[TacoDelRio]

7.62 can be fired out to 4000m.

The issue is not it's range, but its accuracy. Accuracy is not required with an MG - the idea is to create a 'beaten zone' rather than to hit a point target.

Shooting a "Pattern" versus a "Group".

[TacoDelRio]

With a .338LM, you've got a MG that might be too heavy for dismounts, maybe company support, would be good in the mountains IF it was light. Then again can't light mortars (lower than 120mm's) do the same kinda job with a little less weight?

[Katana-sr]

In an ideal world the standard infantry rifle calibre would be something like the 6.5mm Grendel. In a SAW, this would provide sufficient reach that the 7.62mm MGs would not be necessary. So the question would then be whether or not there was a need for a long-range portable anti-personnel MG in between the 6.5mm and the vehicle-mounted HMG (which could be the 25mm XM307 rather than the .50). In those circumstances, I think you could make a case out for it.


What would be the effective range of a 6.5mm Grendel SAW ? If it really is 800 meters or above, why use a .338LM mg when you can have the two-man portable XM307? Or do you want to equip a individual squad with both 6.5mm SAWs and a .338LM mg?
You could have assault rifles, SAWs, designated marksman rifles all using 6.5mm and longer range sniper rifles and medium to heavy mgs would be replaced by the XM307 and Barrett's 25mm Payload Rifle. One less ammo type to worry about.

I never shot either .338LM or 6.5mm Grendel, but from the perspective of an infantry soldier I don't see a significant need to upgrade the range of the squad's mg that would justify much additional weight. I could be wrong, of course.

[Durandal]

Because the XM307 isn't working yet. They cannot get the fusing to work correctly...or at least hadn't four months ago...

Chances are this will go the route of the OICW...

[Tony Williams]

What would be the effective range of a 6.5mm Grendel SAW ?
It depends on the loading, but the Grendel has the edge on the 7.62x51 NATO.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[dobrodan]

What would be the effective range of a 6.5mm Grendel SAW ? If it really is 800 meters or above, why use a .338LM mg when you can have the two-man portable XM307? Or do you want to equip a individual squad with both 6.5mm SAWs and a .338LM mg?
You could have assault rifles, SAWs, designated marksman rifles all using 6.5mm and longer range sniper rifles and medium to heavy mgs would be replaced by the XM307 and Barrett's 25mm Payload Rifle. One less ammo type to worry about.

I never shot either .338LM or 6.5mm Grendel, but from the perspective of an infantry soldier I don't see a significant need to upgrade the range of the squad's mg that would justify much additional weight. I could be wrong, of course.

The effective range of 6.5 Grendel is equal to or greater than that of 7.62 NATO, because of flatter trajectory, and more retained energy in long ranges (800m+)

The reason you would want a .338 LM MG is that both the MG and the ammo would be significantly lighter than any .50cal MG. Sometimes you may need a bit more range and penetration than 6.5 Grendel or 7.62 may offer, and the only thing available today is .50cal MGs. Sure, it works great, as long as you dont have to carry it around... However, it should not be a squad-MG, and it should mainly be used from a tripod, but should be possible to fire from a bipod.

.338 has about twice the energy of 7.62 out of the muzzle, which round for round basically gives it twice as much recoil.

However, by lowering the ROF in a .338LM machinegun to half of that in for instance the M240 should make them about equal in terms of recoil-energy.

Felt recoil is another issue. On most machineguns, the bolt strikes the buffer, creating a harsh recoil-impulse.
By using the constant-recoil principle, as used in the Ultimax, the bolt never strikes the buffer, and the recoil is felt only as a push on your shoulder. I also believe a quite similar principle is used in the PKM and the Kord.

This way, the gun would not need to be heavier than the M240... It could even be lighter, because when fired from a tripod, the cartridge pushes the bullet one way, and the gun another way, with equal force each way.

[Tony Williams]

However, by lowering the ROF in a .338LM machinegun to half of that in for instance the M240 should make them about equal in terms of recoil-energy.

Felt recoil is another issue. On most machineguns, the bolt strikes the buffer, creating a harsh recoil-impulse.
By using the constant-recoil principle, as used in the Ultimax, the bolt never strikes the buffer, and the recoil is felt only as a push on your shoulder. I also believe a quite similar principle is used in the PKM and the Kord.

This way, the gun would not need to be heavier than the M240... It could even be lighter, because when fired from a tripod, the cartridge pushes the bullet one way, and the gun another way, with equal force each way.
Agreed. In fact, the 25mm OCSW (XM307) and the .50 cal version of this (which used to be called XM312) seem to use an even better system - the differential recoil type. With this, the barrel/breech assembly is held to the rear of the mounting, then when the trigger is pulled it moves forwards and only fires when it is travelling forwards at high speed. The recoil then has to stop the barrel-breech assembly before it can start to push it back again. This system was first invented around WW1 but still delivers the goods!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[wiking]

For the grunt, lighter ammo wont matter much, cause some bastard in an office will look at the papers and say "oh, this ammo weighs half of our previous, then they can carry twice as much at the same weight"

[akmarksman]

There are probably two different answers to that question depending on whiether you are taking existing equipment into account, or looking at an ideal 'clean sheet' solution.

The existing 5.56/5.45mm SAWs obviously don't have the range or punch needed to replace the 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R MGs, as the latter remain in service. A .338 would be significantly heavier than a 7.62mm, and so would the ammo, so the infantry would not thank you for having to lug it around. The .50s are much heavier still, of course, but they are generally mounted on vehicles these days. And there certainly isn't room for a .338 MG in between the 7.62 and .50 MGs

In an ideal world the standard infantry rifle calibre would be something like the 6.5mm Grendel. In a SAW, this would provide sufficient reach that the 7.62mm MGs would not be necessary. So the question would then be whether or not there was a need for a long-range portable anti-personnel MG in between the 6.5mm and the vehicle-mounted HMG (which could be the 25mm XM307 rather than the .50). In those circumstances, I think you could make a case out for it.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Grendy doesn't do work in a SAW application....however the 6.8SPC will perform SAW work.

[dobrodan]

Grendy doesn't do work in a SAW application....however the 6.8SPC will perform SAW work.

Sure... But must a SAW necessarily be beltfed? Is there a law for that?

Anyway, to get a Grendel beltfed running is only a question of engineering...

[Michael RVR]

With a .338LM, you've got a MG that might be too heavy for dismounts, maybe company support, would be good in the mountains IF it was light. Then again can't light mortars (lower than 120mm's) do the same kinda job with a little less weight?

Personally i think you've hit the nail on the head with that one.

If you need longer reach than 7.62, then i'd say you use a mortar. If its individual troops you may be able to use a 50 / .338 rifle out to a point, but if you're going after an area target why not use a mortar, or Artillery?

What sort of targets would you think that you'd be engaging with your MHMG*? I can't really see targets that you'd want to hit with MG's out that far that it wouldn't be preferable to use indirect fire.

I can only assume you mean this weapon to be man portable, as if not you may as well use something already available than reinventing the wheel :)

*Medium-Heavy Machine Gun p-)

[Tony Williams]

Grendy doesn't do work in a SAW application....however the 6.8SPC will perform SAW work.
That's why I said 'something like the 6.5mm Grendel'. The performance is great, but if starting with a clean sheet (rather than having to fit into 5.56mm actions) then a longer and slimmer case would be preferable.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[vodin]

The new 6.8 mm Remington SPC will do nicely, have almost the same cartridge like .22 Cal.! Ideal for assault rifles and for SAWs, has better stopping power, better accuarcy and weight is only slightly higher than .22 Cal. The .30 Cal. won't be needed any more. To overpower the enemy with .30 Cal. MG a .338 LM can be used in a new MG M60 like design.

[Claymore]

.338 LM burns barrel really fast. 5000 rds and the rifling finished. Not really a good thing in MG use.

[Arctic1]

Of course there is no law that states that a SAW has to be belt fed. However, both the LMG and the SAW are intended for sustained fire. That is the strength those weaponsystems bring to the battlefield. With a 200 rd box you will have fewer reloads, and that is the whole point. If your squad gunner has poor fire disciplin that is a training issue.

Now, the norwegian military doesn't have 50/60mm mortars in the infantry TOE, but I would rather have that capacity than a solution that requires us to rechamber weapons or develop a weapon around a specific caliber. The 50/60mm mortar tube will actually provide me with a capacity that I don't have.

And what role are you suggesting that the .338 LM/6.5mm LMG/SAW will fill? If your company has M2's and 7.62mm machine guns, and 5.56 SAW's at the squad level, I would say you are pretty much covered. Add to that 40mm GMG's/Mk 19's and you have got plenty of firepower.

But this discussion will probably go on and on.....the 5.56 isn't suited for an assault rifle, the 7.62 is now obviously not suited for an MG. Why don't we just put all our soldiers into MBT's and be done with it...? Nothing beats the 120mm.....

[dobrodan]

Of course there is no law that states that a SAW has to be belt fed. However, both the LMG and the SAW are intended for sustained fire. That is the strength those weaponsystems bring to the battlefield. With a 200 rd box you will have fewer reloads, and that is the whole point. If your squad gunner has poor fire disciplin that is a training issue.

Now, the norwegian military doesn't have 50/60mm mortars in the infantry TOE, but I would rather have that capacity than a solution that requires us to rechamber weapons or develop a weapon around a specific caliber. The 50/60mm mortar tube will actually provide me with a capacity that I don't have.

And what role are you suggesting that the .338 LM/6.5mm LMG/SAW will fill? If your company has M2's and 7.62mm machine guns, and 5.56 SAW's at the squad level, I would say you are pretty much covered. Add to that 40mm GMG's/Mk 19's and you have got plenty of firepower.

But this discussion will probably go on and on.....the 5.56 isn't suited for an assault rifle, the 7.62 is now obviously not suited for an MG. Why don't we just put all our soldiers into MBT's and be done with it...? Nothing beats the 120mm.....

Now, this thread is a few years old, and peoples ideas may have changed a little bit, based on experience, thinking, and available weapon systems and ammunition.

[Arctic1]

My bad, just saw a recent posting when I browsed the Equipment section...

[Ought Six]

I agree the idea of adding another caliber to the mix does not deliver any meaningful benefit that would balance out the tremendous logistical and financial burden it would impose. However, if we were not locked into historical calibers and were starting from a blank slate, I could see a 6.5mm/8mm/15mm light-medium-heavy mix. Something with the ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel for the infantry rifle and SAW; something in the range of the 8mm Remington Magnum in a short magnum-style case for GPMGs and sniping; and a 15mm HMG like the FN concept. Booyah!

Well, nice dreams, but back to reality....

[wildcat]

There is not a need to add another caliber, or replace any of the current, the net gains are pointless 6.8 6.5 are for people who want to rant over something they really know nothing about. There is not a need to replace the 7.62mm, or the 12.7mm machine guns (or the 5.56mm), they both have there place and serve the purpose very well. the 12.7 BMG has been in operation since 1933, it is an awesome weapon, with lots of power. For guys on the ground, the 7.62 is good enough to do the job, there is not a need to waste large amounts of money over small gains in weight or performance to replace the weapons. The only thing I can see would issue a new replacement is for a new technology to come about, be invent that supersedes todays powered cartridge fire projectiles. We are talking about machine guns, so put this into prospective, the purpose of a machine gun is to lay down lots of rounds in an area of interest, to suppress, or to engage multiple targets in a smaller area. They are not designed to be sniper rifles.

[Ought Six]

c:
"6.8 6.5 are for people who want to rant over something they really know nothing about."Sorry, I did not realize that you are the Master Class ballistics expert trumping all those soldiers and other ballistic experts that discuss that very thing. My embarrassed and groveling apologies for not immediately recognizing your unquestionable, infallible awesomeness and falling onto my face and prostrating myself before your Awful Majesty.
----------
"We are talking about machine guns, so put this into prospective, the purpose of a machine gun is to lay down lots of rounds in an area of interest, to suppress, or to engage multiple targets in a smaller area. They are not designed to be sniper rifles."Thank you, Captain Obvious, for once again saving the day! Of course, nobody here said that machine guns were designed to be sniper rifles, but hey; making up and knocking down strawmen is great fun!

[LineDoggie]

c:Sorry, I did not realize that you are the Master Class ballistics expert trumping all those soldiers and other ballistic experts that discuss that very thing. My embarrassed and groveling apologies for not immediately recognizing your unquestionable, infallible awesomeness and falling onto my face and prostrating myself before your Awful Majesty.
----------Thank you, Captain Obvious, for once again saving the day! Of course, nobody here said that machine guns were designed to be sniper rifles, but hey; making up and knocking down strawmen is great fun!Logistics alone preclude dropping 7.62 for 6mm systems. If there is a Fault with 7.62 Machineguns in US use, it's weight. The Current M240 Series is really too heavy for dismounted Infantry use in Afghanistan. It was designed in the 1950's using the same technology that gave us the M1919A6. A ighter version is coming into service and we have the Mk 48 Series as well.

6.8, 6.5 will never be adopted, pipe dream like SPIW was, but it gives the Gun World readers an erection with their fantasies of using it.

[Hollis]

A four year old thread, and people are getting all worked up over it? If a person come across as Captain Obvious, keep in mind other people read these threads, some have no clue what is the difference between 5.56 and 7.62.

If this thread can not be discussed in a civil tone, it will be closed.

Weight is a issue for grunts, a very big issue.

For mechanized, not a issue

For fixed positions same a mechanized.

For Tanks etc, hey pile it on.

Until the military can come with a battle rifle that has the RPM as a vulcan mini gun, the impact of a 8 in HE round and with 10,000 rounds of ammo including the rifle weighing under 2 pounds.. topics like this will go on and on.

[Snapdad]

It would be nice if the infantry squad could get a one-caliber solution that performs equivalently to the 6.5 Grendel but it isn't a priority and isn't happening.

[Ought Six]

ld:
"Logistics alone preclude dropping 7.62 for 6mm systems."Since no one suggested that, what is your point?
----------
"If there is a Fault with 7.62 Machineguns in US use, it's weight."When something that offers that kind of range and penetration is going to obviously exact a weight penalty.
----------
"The Current M240 Series is really too heavy for dismounted Infantry use in Afghanistan. It was designed in the 1950's using the same technology that gave us the M1919A6. A ighter version is coming into service and we have the Mk 48 Series as well."Both the Mag 58 variants and the old M-60 'pig' are being revised in lighter versions . Neither is a great choice for the SAW role they were originally used in, but as a dismounted medium support weapon, they have performed extremely well. A lighter system that will do the same thing is obviously highly desirable, but to claim these systems are just 'unsuitable' is soundly refuted by their history. They have been carried over mountain ranges, through steaming jungles, slogged through warm swamps and cold bogs, in snow, mud, and sand, and still done the job admirably. But you know this.
----------
"6.8, 6.5 will never be adopted, pipe dream like SPIW was...."This is the same opinion I have posted on this board many times. We will likely be using the 5.56mm NATO as our primary infantry rifle and SAW caliber until we finally get a caseless round.


========================================================

H:
"A four year old thread, and people are getting all worked up over it?"I have not gotten into the habit of checking the dates on threads when doing searches. I admit that I am bit mystified about the bad reaction to a member resurrecting an older thread here. If a topic is still current, and someone wants to discuss it, what exactly is the problem with posting to an older thread and picking up where the discussion left off? Some people freak out here when one does that; even mods. I can understand that if it an old flame thread being resurrected, but an equipment or tactics discussion thread? It makes no sense to me at all.
----------
"If a person come across as Captain Obvious, keep in mind other people read these threads, some have no clue what is the difference between 5.56 and 7.62."Fair enough. I will keep that in mind.
----------
"If this thread can not be discussed in a civil tone, it will be closed."My apologies. I tend to react badly to people who use putdowns in a particularly condescending manner. I hate being talked down to. It is one of my 'buttons'. I will reign it in.
----------
"Weight is a issue for grunts, a very big issue."There will always be the inherent conflict between 'built like a tank' and 'heavy as a tank' when speaking of weapons moved around the battlefield by pure manpower. Ruggedness versus lightweight. Hard to find the best balance.

[Hollis]

Hard to find the best balance.


That is a good definition of the problem. Then when it gets issued by the tens of thousands it makes change even more difficult to come about.

[LineDoggie]

ld:Since no one suggested that, what is your point?


Logistics, have ANY idea how many 7.62 Machineguns we have or would need to be replaced? I had 27 alone in my company in 2005. Spare Parts? How many Tens of Millions of rounds of ammo would need to be made and shipped in a ridiculously short period of time? Thats what I mean. Not Economical






When something that offers that kind of range and penetration is going to obviously exact a weight penalty.
Ergo why I mentioned the Mk 48 series, a 7.62mmNATO SAW which weighs in at 18-1/2"lbs to the M240's 27 lbs
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF055&gid=FNG008&mid=FNM0042

Already supposing to be issued for dismounted use in Afghanistan to infantry companies. I'm sure you would agree a almost 9lb weight savings in a Proven Caliber and System is a good thing?

[Laworkerbee]

Well, the most common Machingun calibers today are 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 12.7mm(.50 cal).
Between the 7.62 and 12.7 there is a comparably large gap, wouldnt it make sense to build a Machinegun that is in .338 Lapua Magnum for all these cases where a 12.7 is to heavy and a 7.62 has just not the range and power that is needed?

Discuss!

Why reinvent the wheel? When you can just dust off this bad boy.
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k141/laworkerbee/mpnet/bar10.jpg

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Why reinvent the wheel? When you can just dust off this bad boy.
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k141/laworkerbee/mpnet/bar10.jpg

I like it, but it seems I've heard or read that it is too heavy for a battle rifle, but too light for a machine gun.

Maybe use lighter materials.

What about the Ultimax? :)

[Laworkerbee]

I like it, but it seems I've heard or read that it is too heavy for a battle rifle, but too light for a machine gun.



It's all part of my plan to bring back the A1 Sky Raider, the HU-16 Albatross, 106mm recoiless rifles, etc,.

[Ought Six]

lb:
"Logistics, have ANY idea how many 7.62 Machineguns we have or would need to be replaced?"Did you even read what I said at all? NOBODY SUGGESTED REPLACING 7.62mm MACHINEGUNS WITH 6.5 or 6.8mm MACHINEGUNS. The 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm SPC are suggested replacements for 5.56mm weapons, not 7.62mm weapons. I already agreed that is not going to happen, anyways, for the reasons you just repeated.
----------
"Ergo why I mentioned the Mk 48 series, a 7.62mmNATO SAW which weighs in at 18-1/2"lbs to the M240's 27 lbs."I am quite familiar with both weapons, thanks.
----------
"Already supposing to be issued for dismounted use in Afghanistan to infantry companies. I'm sure you would agree a almost 9lb weight savings in a Proven Caliber and System is a good thing?"Confirmed: you do not read other people's posts before responding to them.