The Gun Thread

Plus C-Mags are only just starting to get reliable.

So it's the 250 round thing that's keeping belt feds around?

I'm not an expert by any means but it sort seems like weapons like the RPK and stuff of a similar concept seem like a better idea than a separate big machine gun.

Except for the limitations of a converted assault rifle.

Although the Corps apparently agrees with you, or it wouldn't have put in for the IAR.

Random question, exactly how similar do gunshots sound to fireworks?

Not all that different. It's still a small explosion.

Sort of depends on the distance. And firework. And gun.

Yeah, a twelve-bore shotgun blast from a mile or so away does sound a bit different to a firework three streets over.

EDIT: In fact it sounds a bit more like a door banging.

edited 3rd Apr '14 2:55:16 PM by Deadbeatloser22

@ Deadbeat: I'm not sure how different the IAR is, because all it seems to be is a modified HK416.

Like how the RPK is a modified AK-47 / AK-74.

Sort of what it is, just a really big HK416. New RPK-12 is just a really big AK-12.

Think the English had a really big version of the L85 and the Germans had a really big version of the G36.

Easier on production, easier to teach people how to use, easier to share ammunition. Russians really hit the mark with this idea and their original RPK.

Idea is that these will replace big general purpose machine guns or something. Or supplement them at least

edited 3rd Apr '14 3:10:29 PM by LeGarcon

You just have to do without things like swappable barrels or high ammo capacities in sustained fire.

I wanna say some of the bigger whatever the proper name for these things are had swappable barrels. I wanna say it was that Singaporean Ultimax thing. Dunno though.

And there are newer machine guns without swappable barrels, look at the Russian's new PKP.

Say 200 meters distance? Pretty much I just heard what sounded like two fireworks going off but at ground level, and in the direction of the police station, thus I'm curious as to what exactly it is I just heard.

The 250 round belt feeds a lot more reliably especially considering the weapon was designed to use a belt. It also gives a lot longer sustained rate of fire. The Beta C mags still suck and jam frequently and fixing a misfeeding Beta C is a huge pain in the ass. Fixing a bad link of ammo is as easy breaking the belt segments. Automatic rifles in the same role are grossly inadequate.

The Marines are not ditching the M249. We have covered this already several times actually. The Companies are keeping them "in reserve for use at the commanders discretion" which pretty much means the Marines are still using them along side the IAR. The IAR may as well be noted as the less then stealthy replacement for M4 the Marines wanted to begin with. The big clue is the Marines are still waiting for the lighter weight LMG program to finish up to decide on what they are gong to do next. The Corps was pushing for the full caseless tech where as the army wanted the lightweight telescoped polymer cased ammo.

So if the Marines want the caseless LMG as the replacement for the M249 tell me what on earth is the IAR for? Here is the hint. It isn't to replace the M249 which the Marines are still widely using. It was to sidestep the cluster fuck that is military procurement and get their hands on the HK 416 under a different program. This sort of hat trick is nothing new for military procurement in the US especially when it comes to new infantry rifles to slip by the Colt Monopoly and highly paid lobbyists.

edited 4th Apr '14 12:29:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Ah, that's pretty damn clever then. Good for the Marines.

Speaking of that caseless LMG thing, how's it doing? Haven't heard much about it.

The caseless model is lagging behind but the Army went forward with active testing of the Polymer Telescoped Ammo version. Early tests were promising. Generally lighter weight and if the reports are to be believed it was more accurate then the SAW at range.

Here you go Ammo contract was hammered out don't know much else.

Interesting. The polymer stuff looks really neat. I'd like to know more about it.

The caseless stuff I'm not as excited about, I'm not an expert but it sort of seems more like a niche kind of thing doesn't it?

Why on earth would it be a niche thing? It makes ammo lighter by eliminating casings all together.

Well yeah but does it really work for small arms and so on? Every time I heard something about caseless ammo it's about how Metal Storm went under or the G11 was crap.

Only thing I ever hear that works are those Russian 40mm grenades they have for the Gp-25/30/34

Yeah, what actually happened to MetalStorm? If the keyboard warriors were to be believed it was supposed to be the future of warfare, but it seems they were as wrong as usual.

just looked up what that is, and it seems to me it reinvents the wheel, but makes it a polygon.

People saw that "1,000,000 RPM" You Tube video and immediately went nuts for it.

...really? you don't even NEED that kind of ROF. what are you going to do, bring a tractor trailer full of bullets to every fight?

Metal storm was impractical because it relied on superimposed caseless ammo loads. When rapidly fired it creates uneven chamber pressures and even lead to some of the barrels and systems rupturing. It also gives comparatively uneven performance on a per shot basis. The first round has the shortest amount of barrel to fire through and the last round has the most. If the propellant charges for each round are not very carefully balanced you get uneven performance.

The systems they did get working are poorly suited to small arms but would work fine for say saturation fire type weapons like smart attack mines or large volume dispersal systems to say spray out a rapid deployable mine field or similar tech.

The G11 wasn't crap it was a new weapon program that got cut because the primary client, Germany in this case, shut down the program and shifted the money into integrating the East German military after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was around at the wrong time basically. The technology itself worked just fine. The initial problem during its first tests was the original powder mix used traditional powders in the binder mix. This led to cook offs because the weapon tended to get hot in the chamber and barrel. They tweaked the design that and changed the propellant mix and it solved the problem of overheating and cook offs.

My only problem with the G11 is it using a ultra lightweight round with light 4mm round even lighter then the 5mm family of rounds which makes me wonder just how far out they intended to use this weapon.Austria makes a caseless hunting rifle and it chambers 5.7mm and 6mm and it fires the rounds in speeds in excess over 3,000 fps. It would be very likely they could have chambered the G11 in larger calibers.

G11 is not the only caseless fire arm. There is the caseless ammo hunting rifle that apparently works rather well and even a early Daisy Made caseless ammo rifle. There were even early caseless ammo rifles developed around the time of the American Civil War.

There is nothing wrong with the caseless ammo tech itself and several of the fire arms designs for it work just fine. There is nothing to make caseless ammo weapons a niche weapon. The caseless ammo part isn't what puts a fire arm into a niche it is specific designs like hand gun, rifle, machine gun, carbine etc that puts a gun into a niche.

edited 4th Apr '14 4:36:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV