What roles do larger small arms cartridges fill for infantry?

[Sturgeon]

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.

[Beer]

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

 

[BarnOwlLover]

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.

[Sturgeon]

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?