Originally Posted by Cutaway

Originally Posted by DPM_Sheep

To go back to the LSW for a moment. FN have just developed a 100rd NATO mag for the USMC's IAR competition, (which HK look to have won.)

It might weight a bit, but could make the LSW a bit more useful too....

You sure about this ?
It might well be the C-Mag from The Beta Company, and if so I've a couple of questions:
1. How would you bring the LSW to the aim ?
2. How would you remove the mag once the rds were expended ?

Sorry Cutaway, I can only offer lame half answers as this is pretty fresh gen. I haven't seen it for myself. I'm told by someone pretty trustworthy(If you can trust a Rock Ape...) - who has, that it might well be the dog's danglies if it lives up to expectations.

AFAIK, it's a different design to the C-Mag. How different? I dunno. Though I did get the impression its some form of center box mag rather than a dual drum mag design.

Originally Posted by shimna01

Surely firing 5 rd bursts into a beaten zone that is 142m long/4.2m wide- an experienced ene will very quickly write that off as ineffective fire and start getting up to all sorts?

The beaten zone will not be that large with a 5rnd burst and beaten zones were worked out from a firing point on flat ground firing onto flat ground of the same height (such as a beach). A good MG firebase should be on elevated ground to achieve good fields of fire and (in my personal opinion for theatre) to create plunging fire which negates much of the beaten zone as I prefer a shorter cone of fire for my guns. It is a rarity in Afghanistan to have massed enemy ranks. Fire will not be ineffective with 2 to 3 guns engaging a 5rnd burst every 6 seconds. That's 5 rounds every 2 to 3 seconds going into that position (guns should always work in at least paired groupings). Would you prefer to waste 60 rounds? I'd like to see anyone stick their head up and take a shot back!

Originally Posted by Cutaway

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

But it doesn't.

The 'designers' rightfully realised that a bipod's place is not on a barrel, but on a support.
That however is as intelligent as they managed to get.
The girder on which the bipod is mounted is supported by the bbl itself, not the other way around.

It is pinned at the receiver and near the muzzle, thereby putting the barrel in tension before it even begins to be heated by rds, hence the split groups.
If the attachment at the business end is removed one ends up with a wobbly piece of 1mm junk swinging beneath the wpn.

I think that is heated agreement, isn't it?

all this talk about a marksmans LSW is all well and good but is there really a requirement for it?

sure the LSW could be made into a 5.56 marksmans piece, i cant really see it being much cop!

the IW can still engage accurately to 400+ so whats the point having some thing have might be able to get to 600 but isn't going to have any stopping power. if you want accurate fire at ranges l96 or l115 can do this. if you want rapid fire use the GPMG

Originally Posted by misterp

the IW can still engage accurately to 400+ so whats the point

I'd be very surprised if 40% of soldiers could accurately engage individuals at 400m+ with the IW.

i've use the iw at ranges of 400+ plus in afghan it seem to be effective, we didn't do it regularly it was far more effective for the IW to spot for the GPMG

Originally Posted by Stonker

Originally Posted by Cutaway

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

But it doesn't.

The 'designers' rightfully realised that a bipod's place is not on a barrel, but on a support.
That however is as intelligent as they managed to get.
The girder on which the bipod is mounted is supported by the bbl itself, not the other way around.

It is pinned at the receiver and near the muzzle, thereby putting the barrel in tension before it even begins to be heated by rds, hence the split groups.
If the attachment at the business end is removed one ends up with a wobbly piece of 1mm junk swinging beneath the wpn.

I think that is heated agreement, isn't it?

No.

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

Originally Posted by Cutaway

The girder on which the bipod is mounted is supported by the bbl itself, not the other way around.

Let me put it in easy words:

The pipe does not need a splint to make it work.

Originally Posted by Cutaway

Let me put it in easy words:

The pipe does not need a splint to make it work.

Let me be clearer about my understanding of your splint-related response.

You were (I thought) giving the LSW marks as low as I do - p'r'aps for different reasons. Bottom line - LSW is too loaded with design compromises to be able to give good tactical value:

If you took it off ops, who would moan about the loss of capability?

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I'd be very surprised if 40% of soldiers could accurately engage individuals at 400m+ with the IW.

Well, here's the answer - the Americans have been working on this weapon for a while now, and it's been "troubled".

The idea is that if the average Jock can't hit with a bullet at 400m (because he can only group to 4" to 6" at 100m, before you start worrying about range and wind and excitement), then you give him a weapon where a miss is as good as a direct hit - namely, a grenade launcher.



Originally, as the OICW or XM-29, it looked like the designer had watched "Aliens" once too often (it came with a chopped-down H&K G36 as an under-barrel fitting) - but it was too heavy, so they took away the 5.56 weapon. Then the grenades didn't pack enough oomph, so they made them slightly bigger, but it was still too heavy, etc, etc.

They aren't very big grenades - so you have to get them quite close to have an effect. However, if said Jock can get the round to within a meter or two, then that's good enough for this thing.

Add to this the fact that it's designed to defeat cover by flying over it and going boom right over the target's head (or through the window and going boom just inside the room) then Robert's your relative. I haven't got a clue whether the thing works or not, or whether it's a complete waste of effort. But you never know, there might be a place for it.

They were also planning a belt-fed version as a support weapon, but they cancelled it a couple of years ago. However, Barrett have built a sniper rifle that uses the round...



Meanwhile, the French are developing their own version of the idea, but with a bigger grenade (the PAPOP)

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

I'd be very surprised if 40% of soldiers could accurately engage individuals at 400m+ with the IW.

Well, here's the answer - the Americans have been working on this weapon for a while now, and it's been "troubled".

"Troubled"? As in "the requirement demands performance that defies the laws of physics?" . That is one ground for skepticism.

Then I wonder if, in testing these things, the techie designers have even begun to think about the kind of low-tech counter-measures that the intended targets might use to defeat them: Fig 11s don't run, hide, dig or employ human shields.

A small number of things have not changed since before the battle of Hastings.

Prime among them are (1) the all-up weight of the basic infantryman's combat load, and (2) the need for that same PBI to close with the enemy in order to kill him.

I don't see much possibility of this bit of kit reducing either one.

What he needs are weapons which - used with a modicum of expertise, and in combination - will enable him to do task (2)

I'm more than happy that commercial companies should invest their R+D budget in fairyland projects pursuing a "breakthorough technology" (on which - idf it worked - they would surely make a mint) - but I'd want to see a bloody good argument before I'd be prepared to authorise the spending of MoD dosh on same.