Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Curly_

What roles do larger small arms cartridges fill for infantry?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

A little off topic, and something I've tried to bring up in another thread, but before we go about haraming all belt-fed SAWs, I think there is at least one part of the belt-fed design space that could use a little more exploration, i.e., something inspired by the HK21/23, OTS-128, or Czech URZ with quick change "belt-mags."  Maybe throw in a little XM248 DNA too.

 

Yes if you somehow manage to mitigate literally all of the disadvantages of the belt fed, then it does not have any of those disadvantages. Actually doing that, though, is really something else.

 

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

The HK21/23 proves that belt-fed levels of suppressive fire and a useful semi-automatic capability are not mutually exclusive if firing from a closed bolt.  The HK21 also easily integrates variable-power optics (and potentially clip-on night sights with an extended rail/mount).  Secret squirrel types value the HK21E for these reasons. 

 

Holy shit is it 1993 again? I haven't heard of anyone using the HK21E in well over a decade.

 

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

If I were Sheikh for a day, I'd declare spare barrels haram within the rifle squad since the squad can't carry enough ammo to the point that they're required anyway.  I would however retain one or two belt-fed SAWs, chambered in the standard rifle caliber, within the rifle squad.  If chambered in 5.56 or 5.45, the SAW gunner probably gets two 200 round "belt-mags" for when close ambushes are likely and for covering the guys trying to throw grenades into a defensive position, but otherwise, the SAW gunner mostly fires on semi-auto from 60-100 round "belt-mags."

 

Great, if such a hypothetical SAW exists, why not arm everyone with it?
 

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

The old "belt-mag" would retain that pesky empty link from the expended belt, and the new "belt-mag" would present the first round in feed position, so the SAW gunner can just extract the old one, retain it (or not), and insert a new one, including at night and while moving.  Conceptually, the "belt-mag" is like attaching the HK21 feed mechanism and feed tray cover to each ammo box/drum and rocking the whole thing in like an AK drum. 

 

what

 

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

I've always been intrigued by these inverted belt feed systems, but I've never been able to find much information on the OTS-128 or URZ.

 

Almost like they were conceptual failures.
 

2 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

There doesn't seem to be much out there on the XM248 either, apart from the Weaponsman series, a few patents, and the technical manual.  Any idea why these inverted belt feed systems haven't received more attention? 

 

Because it's really really difficult to make a belt fed weapon work just like a mag fed one. For one thing, belts are flexible. For another, the ammunition is connected to each other, so if you have a problem with one round, you have a problem with all the rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gripen287 said:

 

A little off topic, and something I've tried to bring up in another thread, but before we go about haraming all belt-fed SAWs, I think there is at least one part of the belt-fed design space that could use a little more exploration, i.e., something inspired by the HK21/23, OTS-128, or Czech URZ with quick change "belt-mags."  Maybe throw in a little XM248 DNA too.  The HK21/23 proves that belt-fed levels of suppressive fire and a useful semi-automatic capability are not mutually exclusive if firing from a closed bolt.  The HK21 also easily integrates variable-power optics (and potentially clip-on night sights with an extended rail/mount).  Secret squirrel types value the HK21E for these reasons. 

 

If I were Sheikh for a day, I'd declare spare barrels haram within the rifle squad since the squad can't carry enough ammo to the point that they're required anyway.  I would however retain one or two belt-fed SAWs, chambered in the standard rifle caliber, within the rifle squad.  If chambered in 5.56 or 5.45, the SAW gunner probably gets two 200 round "belt-mags" for when close ambushes are likely and for covering the guys trying to throw grenades into a defensive position, but otherwise, the SAW gunner mostly fires on semi-auto from 60-100 round "belt-mags."  The old "belt-mag" would retain that pesky empty link from the expended belt, and the new "belt-mag" would present the first round in feed position, so the SAW gunner can just extract the old one, retain it (or not), and insert a new one, including at night and while moving.  Conceptually, the "belt-mag" is like attaching the HK21 feed mechanism and feed tray cover to each ammo box/drum and rocking the whole thing in like an AK drum. 

 

I've always been intrigued by these inverted belt feed systems, but I've never been able to find much information on the OTS-128 or URZ.  There doesn't seem to be much out there on the XM248 either, apart from the Weaponsman series, a few patents, and the technical manual.  Any idea why these inverted belt feed systems haven't received more attention? 

 

A little info about URZ with some drawings and photos. It's in Czech but maybe you can get something out of it. The weapon was never intended for domestic use. All the development was done with some export intentions because there was no requirement for such weapon from our army at that time. Hence why it was designed for NATO ammunition. I think the prototype was in Prague Žižkov muzeum but that is closed now due to a reconstruction. 

http://www.vhu.cz/utocna-puska-urz-univerzalni-rucni-zbran/

https://www.valka.cz/CZK-URZ-t38624

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to rubbish the Minimi/M249 and stuff like it as weapons designed for a purpose, since they suit that purpose well.  What I'm questioning is does an infantry rifle squad need a belt fed MG that actually doesn't weigh a ton less than a light weight 7.62mm/.30 cal belt fed like say a Mk48 or a PKM?  It has to be remembered that the M249 and the MG4 and the like are belt fed in part to provide some sustained fire capability. 

 

I agree that at the squad level a SAW should fired the same rounds as the infantry rifle does, but I do think that a mag fed weapon, sort of a heavy barreled assault rifle, would be better for squad tactics.  Especially if you're trying to do hit and run.  Something like the Ultimax or similar in concept would be excellent for such tactics.  I might revise this thought if there was a belt fed SAW that weighs less than like 11-12 lbs that is in common use.  I know of Knight's Armament LAMG, but so far it's being looked at by the same type of people who took the Stoner 63 LMGs seriously in Vietnam.  IE, spec ops.

 

In deference to that, I do think that the platoon or company level weapons should be a heavier caliber for squad support.  Basically what I envision a GPMG should be able to do.  That's where I see both heavy caliber and sustained firepower being insanely useful.  But for the squad, I don't think that in most instances .30 caliber rounds are needed, nor the weight of the GPMG--5.56mm belt fed SAWs are already being criticized by some for being too heavy for their caliber. 

 

Hell, even during the original US Army SAW trials in the 1970s the USMC favored the XM106, which was a heavy barreled M16 with a QCB facility.  And that basic concept was revived with the Marine's IAR program.  Either way, both concepts have their strengths and weaknesses, but what is prized more by an infantry squad:  mobility or sustained fire?  I guess that depends on who you ask for right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BarnOwlLover said:

I'm not going to rubbish the Minimi/M249 and stuff like it as weapons designed for a purpose, since they suit that purpose well.  What I'm questioning is does an infantry rifle squad need a belt fed MG that actually doesn't weigh a ton less than a light weight 7.62mm/.30 cal belt fed like say a Mk48 or a PKM?  It has to be remembered that the M249 and the MG4 and the like are belt fed in part to provide some sustained fire capability. 

 

I agree that at the squad level a SAW should fired the same rounds as the infantry rifle does, but I do think that a mag fed weapon, sort of a heavy barreled assault rifle, would be better for squad tactics.  Especially if you're trying to do hit and run.  Something like the Ultimax or similar in concept would be excellent for such tactics.  I might revise this thought if there was a belt fed SAW that weighs less than like 11-12 lbs that is in common use.  I know of Knight's Armament LAMG, but so far it's being looked at by the same type of people who took the Stoner 63 LMGs seriously in Vietnam.  IE, spec ops.

 

In deference to that, I do think that the platoon or company level weapons should be a heavier caliber for squad support.  Basically what I envision a GPMG should be able to do.  That's where I see both heavy caliber and sustained firepower being insanely useful.  But for the squad, I don't think that in most instances .30 caliber rounds are needed, nor the weight of the GPMG--5.56mm belt fed SAWs are already being criticized by some for being too heavy for their caliber. 

 

Hell, even during the original US Army SAW trials in the 1970s the USMC favored the XM106, which was a heavy barreled M16 with a QCB facility.  And that basic concept was revived with the Marine's IAR program.  Either way, both concepts have their strengths and weaknesses, but what is prized more by an infantry squad:  mobility or sustained fire?  I guess that depends on who you ask for right now.

 

Why won't you contribute anything to this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      Let's start this thread off with a an interview with Justin Johnson, the Federal centerfire product manager, coming from Ultimate Reloader:
       
       
       
      This interview covers the first year of the Valkyrie, and addresses things like the 90gr SMK's problems, twist rates, barrel life, etc.
    • By Wiedzmin
      have question about 12.7x99 AP M2 cartridge  WWII time books gives muzzle velocity for AP M2 - 895 m/s for 45in barrel, modern days firing tables and manuals gives 856 m/s for 45in barrel, which is correct, or both correct but 1st for WWII and 2nd for modern dayes cartridges ?
    • By SirFlamenco
      Hi everyone, first post here 
       
      I stumbled across this video : 
       
       
       
      It’s super dense polyethylene with a neutral buoyancy core for impact resistance. It weights only 4 pounds, so for weight effiency it’s around 3 times better than ar550 and 4 times better than other ceramics ballistic plates, AND that’s while including the water, which I doubt add any bulletproof capabilities. 
       
      Is it just me or does it sound a bit fishy?
    • By Collimatrix
      Here at Sturgeon's House, we do not shy from the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows.  That is, of course, provided that they deserve to be slaughtered.
       
      The discipline of Military Science has, perhaps unavoidably, created a number of "paper tigers," weapons that are theoretically attractive, but really fail to work in reality.  War is a dangerous sort of activity, so most of the discussion of it must, perforce, remain theoretical.  Theory and reality will at some point inevitably diverge, and this creates some heartaches for some people.  Terminal, in some cases, such as all those American bomber crews who could never complete a tour of duty over Fortress Europe because the pre-war planners had been completely convinced that the defensive armament of the bombers would be sufficient to see them through.
       
      In other cases though, the paper tiger is created post-facto, through the repetition of sloppy research without consulting the primary documents.  One of the best examples of a paper tiger is the Tiger tank, a design which you would think was nearly invincible in combat from reading the modern hype of it, but in fact could be fairly easily seen off by 75mm armed Shermans, and occasionally killed by scout vehicles.  Add to this chronic, never-solved reliability problems, outrageous production costs, and absurd maintenance demands (ten hours to change a single road wheel?), and you have a tank that really just wasn't very good.
       
      And so it is time to set the record straight on another historical design whose legend has outgrown its actual merit, the British EM-2:
       

       
      EM-2ology is a sadly under-developed field of study for gun nerds.  There is no authoritative book on the history and design of this rifle.  Yes, I am aware of the Collector's Grade book on the subject.  I've actually read it and it isn't very good.  It isn't very long, and it is quite poorly edited, among other sins devoting several pages to reproducing J.B.S. Haldane's essay On Being the Right Size in full.  Why?!!?!!
       
      On top of that, there's quite a bit of misinformation that gets repeated as gospel.  Hopefully, this thread can serve as a collection point for proper scholarship on this interesting, but bad design.
       
      Question One:  Why do you say that the EM-2 was bad?  Is it because you're an American, and you love trashing everything that comes out of Airstrip One?  Why won't America love us?  We gave you your language!  PLEASE LOVE ME!  I AM SO LONELY NOW THAT I TOLD THE ENTIRE REST OF EUROPE TO FUCK OFF.
       
       
      Answer:  I'm saying the EM-2 was a bad design because it was a bad design.  Same as British tanks, really.  You lot design decent airplanes, but please leave the tanks, rifles and dentistry to the global superpower across the pond that owns you body and soul.  Oh, and leave cars to the Japanese.  To be honest, Americans can't do those right either.
       
      No, I'm not going to launch into some stupid tirade about how all bullpup assault rifle designs are inherently a poor idea.  I would agree with the statement that all such designs have so far been poorly executed, but frankly, very few assault rifles that aren't the AR-15 or AK are worth a damn, so that's hardly surprising.  In fact, the length savings that a bullpup design provides are very attractive provided that the designer takes the ergonomic challenges into consideration (and this the EM-2 designers did, with some unique solutions).
       
      Actually, there were two problems with the EM-2, and neither had anything to do with being a bullpup.  The first problem is that it didn't fucking work, and the second problem is that there was absolutely no way the EM-2 could have been mass-produced without completely re-thinking the design.
       
      See this test record for exhaustive documentation of the fact that the EM-2 did not work.  Points of note:
       
      -In less than ten thousand rounds the headspace of two of the EM-2s increased by .009 and .012 inches.  That is an order of magnitude larger than what is usually considered safe tolerances for headspace.
       
      -The EM-2 was less reliable than an M1 Garand.  Note that, contrary to popular assertion, the EM-2 was not particularly reliable in dust.  It was just less unreliable in dust than the other two designs, and that all three were less reliable than an M1 Garand.
       
      -The EM-2 was shockingly inaccurate with the ammunition provided and shot 14 MOA at 100 yards.  Seriously, look it up, that's what the test says.  There are clapped-out AKs buried for years in the Laotian jungle that shoot better than that.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts breakages than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The fact that the EM-2 had a high bolt carrier velocity and problems with light primer strikes in full auto suggests it was suffering from bolt carrier bounce.
       
       
      As for the gun being completely un-suited to mass production, watch this video:
       
       
       
      Question Two:  But the EM-2 could have been developed into a good weapon system if the meanie-head Yanks hadn't insisted on the 7.62x51mm cartridge, which was too large and powerful for the EM-2 to handle!
       
      Anyone who repeats this one is ignorant of how bolt thrust works, and has done zero research on the EM-2.  In other words, anyone who says this is stupid and should feel bad for being stupid.  The maximum force exerted on the bolt of a firearm is the peak pressure multiplied by the interior area of the cartridge case.  You know, like you'd expect given the dimensional identities of force, area and pressure, if you were the sort of person who could do basic dimensional analysis, i.e. not a stupid one.
       
      Later version of the British 7mm cartridge had the same case head diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO, so converting the design to fire the larger ammunition was not only possible but was actually done.  In fact, most the EM-2s made were in 7.62x51mm.  It was even possible to chamber the EM-2 in .30-06.
       
      I'm not going to say that this was because the basic action was strong enough to handle the 7x43mm, and therefore also strong enough to handle the 7.62x51mm NATO, because the headspace problems encountered in the 1950 test show that it really wasn't up to snuff with the weaker ammunition.  But I think it's fair to say that the EM-2 was roughly equally as capable of bashing itself to pieces in 7mm, 7.62 NATO or .30-06 flavor.
       
       
      Question Three:  You're being mean and intentionally provocative.  Didn't you say that there were some good things about the design?
       
      I did imply that there were some good aspects of the design, but I was lying.  Actually, there's only one good idea in the entire design.  But it's a really good idea, and I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      If you look at the patent, you can see that the magazine catch is extremely complicated.  However, per the US Army test report the magazine and magazine catch design were robust and reliable.
       
      What makes the EM-2 special is how the bolt behaves during a reload.  Like many rifles, the EM-2 has a tab on the magazine follower that pushes up the bolt catch in the receiver.  This locks the bolt open after the last shot, which helps to inform the soldier that the rifle is empty.  This part is nothing special; AR-15s, SKSs, FALs and many other rifles do this.
       
      What is special is what happens when a fresh magazine is inserted.  There is an additional lever in each magazine that is pushed by the magazine follower when the follower is in the top position of the magazine.  This lever will trip the bolt catch of the rifle provided that the follower is not in the top position; i.e. if the magazine has any ammunition in it.
       
      This means that the reload drill for an EM-2 is to fire the rifle until it is empty and the bolt locks back, then pull out the empty magazine, and put in a fresh one.  That's it; no fussing with the charging handle, no hitting a bolt release.  When the first magazine runs empty the bolt gets locked open, and as soon as a loaded one is inserted the bolt closes itself again.  This is a very good solution to the problem of fast reloads in a bullpup (or any other firearm).  It's so clever that I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      Question Four:  But what about the intermediate cartridge the EM-2 fired?  Doesn't that represent a lost opportunity vis a vis the too powerful 7.62 NATO?
       
      Sort of, but not really.  The 7mm ammunition the EM-2 fired went through several iterations, becoming increasingly powerful.  The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm, while the last versions were only a hair less powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO.
       
      As for the 7mm ammunition having some optimum balance between weight, recoil and trajectory, I'm skeptical.  The bullets the 7mm cartridges used were not particularly aerodynamic, so while they enjoyed good sectional density and (in the earlier stages) moderate recoil, it's not like they were getting everything they could have out of the design.
       

      note the flat base
       
      In addition, the .280 ammunition was miserably inaccurate.  Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.
×
×
  • Create New...