Japan’s new rifle.

[Gravelbelly]

Bugger - I was going to ask how he was going to carry 800rds of 7.62mm plus a GPMG along with all the rest of his kit and body armour.

By carrying it.

My service GPMG was the M60E3... I generally humped it with the light barrel fitted and a single heavy barrel (and glove) stowed in my barrel bag.

I think we already know the answer to this one is "yes", but dare I ask whether you were carrying your M60E3 before the days of plate body armour on general issue? And if not, what was the weight of your body armour, helmet, and water?

What's your opinion of the statement from the official training pamphlets (presumably USMC)? "The M60E3 (light weight version of the parent M60) was fielded with the intention to reduce the load carried by the gunner. However, the reduction in weight resulted in firing limitations and a loss of reliability that severely restricts the use of the weapon in the Fleet Marine Force. Consequently, troop acceptance of the E3 has been very poor. This gun will be replaced by the M240G."

Being required to change the barrel every 100rds makes that light barrel look like a false economy... "However, the light weight barrel is not safe for overhead fire and is not capable of sustaining a rapid rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute without catastrophic failure of the barrel".

I'm just curious as to why you think that carrying an 8.5kg gun, a 3.5kg spare barrel, and 21kg of 7.62 is a Really Good Idea when your personal equipment already weighs a minimum of 15kg. Because 50kg isn't exactly something you're going to be doing fire & manoeuvre with, unless you either a) wear bright red underwear outside of your blue uniform, or b) are prone to exaggeration...

 

[Anonymous Yank]

I think we already know the answer to this one is "yes", but dare I ask whether you were carrying your M60E3 before the days of plate body armour on general issue? And if not, what was the weight of your body armour, helmet, and water?

Of course the answer is yes. Current issue when I entered training was the steel pot and flak vest which was about 7kg total, and I carried one of the company M60s most road marches. Standard issue was shifting by the end of that year to the kevlar PASGT system, which weighed about 8kg total with the xl k-pot. Around the time I gained OR-6 the Regiment was switching to RBA with a plate in the front, which weighed about a ton (10-11kg by itself) but it did help balance out the ruck sack (bergan) a bit.

As to water... when I started training we were still using the hard, old 1qt canteen and cup, so about 1kg. Not too long after we switched to 2L soft canteens, so I was usually carrying a couple of 2L soft canteens, which would be about 4kg.

What's your opinion of the statement from the official training pamphlets (presumably USMC)? "The M60E3 (light weight version of the parent M60) was fielded with the intention to reduce the load carried by the gunner. However, the reduction in weight resulted in firing limitations and a loss of reliability that severely restricts the use of the weapon in the Fleet Marine Force. Consequently, troop acceptance of the E3 has been very poor. This gun will be replaced by the M240G."

Jarhead's need things to be a bit extra-idiot-proof, and they whine more about everything while trying to make it sound like bragging. The E3 was lighter than the pig I got to hump in initial entry training, and I never had issues with melting down a barrel, other than some of my personal stellite barrels being "shot out" renting it out to civvies for range events. That one is now in a sort of E4/Mk 43 Mod 0 config, basically the best, modern version of the past 60 years, with shorter barrels, and without all the ridiculous ******* attachment rails all over the receiver cover and hand guards.

Being required to change the barrel every 100rds makes that light barrel look like a false economy... "However, the light weight barrel is not safe for overhead fire and is not capable of sustaining a rapid rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute without catastrophic failure of the barrel".

Eh... jumping and humping for training a grunt is usually going to cut weight where they can get away with it. But I was a hard case and insisted on carrying most of what the two or three man team, that we didn't have, would have carried. For a real deployment, the packing list is gonna change somewhat. I am still not taking any underwear in any case, but I would be using heavy barrels, probably a closer to normal teams 2x spare (the rest of my plt would also have 1 spare each), and there will be a couple pairs of knee highs and a roll of moleskin tucked in amongst my socks.

I'm just curious as to why you think that carrying an 8.5kg gun, a 3.5kg spare barrel, and 21kg of 7.62 is a Really Good Idea when your personal equipment already weighs a minimum of 15kg. Because 50kg isn't exactly something you're going to be doing fire & manoeuvre with, unless you either a) wear bright red underwear outside of your blue uniform, or b) are prone to exaggeration...

,
The minimum standard to complete a 12 mile road march with personal weapon and at least a 50lb ruck sack was under 3 hours just to get though the first week of our school house, exiting perfectly good aircraft with 100lb+ ruck was common for MASS TAC training events, and that was usually getting closer to 150lb when shit was for real. When I was a fresh faced fng, my company had less than 35 men after the new Regimental HQ was stood up, and it took a while to get new bodies through our rather strenuous pipeline, because no corners were cut.

Adapt, improvise, and overcome.

 

[Goldbricker]

Of course the answer is yes. Current issue when I entered training was the steel pot and flak vest which was about 7kg total, and I carried one of the company M60s most road marches. Standard issue was shifting by the end of that year to the kevlar PASGT system, which weighed about 8kg total with the xl k-pot. Around the time I gained OR-6 the Regiment was switching to RBA with a plate in the front, which weighed about a ton (10-11kg by itself) but it did help balance out the ruck sack (bergan) a bit.

As to water... when I started training we were still using the hard, old 1qt canteen and cup, so about 1kg. Not too long after we switched to 2L soft canteens, so I was usually carrying a couple of 2L soft canteens, which would be about 4kg.



Jarhead's need things to be a bit extra-idiot-proof, and they whine more about everything while trying to make it sound like bragging. The E3 was lighter than the pig I got to hump in initial entry training, and I never had issues with melting down a barrel, other than some of my personal stellite barrels being "shot out" renting it out to civvies for range events. That one is now in a sort of E4/Mk 43 Mod 0 config, basically the best, modern version of the past 60 years, with shorter barrels, and without all the ridiculous ******* attachment rails all over the receiver cover and hand guards.



Eh... jumping and humping for training a grunt is usually going to cut weight where they can get away with it. But I was a hard case and insisted on carrying most of what the two or three man team, that we didn't have, would have carried. For a real deployment, the packing list is gonna change somewhat. I am still not taking any underwear in any case, but I would be using heavy barrels, probably the normal team 2x spare, and there will be a couple pairs of knee highs and a roll of moleskin tucked in amongst my socks.


,
The minimum standard to complete a 12 mile road march with personal weapon and at least a 50lb ruck sack was under 3 hours just to get though the first week of our school house, exiting perfectly good aircraft with 100lb+ ruck was common for MASS TAC training events, and that was usually getting closer to 150lb when shit was for real. When I was a fresh faced fng, my company had less than 35 men after the new Regimental HQ was stood up, and it took a while to get new bodies through our rather strenuous pipeline, because no corners were cut.

Adapt, improvise, and overcome.

When I started as a 60 gunner in 83 we had 3 man crews to divide the load, then around 86 it became a 2 man crew. In 85 at Campbell due to shortages of manpower I wound up a 1 man crew, I carried minimal personal items (maybe 2 pair of socks, 2 tees, a poncho and wubbie, pocket hammock and shaving gear, shit paper in ziplock) then had to hump the gun, spare barrel and tripod and ammo myself. Spare uniforms? LOL wore my jungles to they literally were torn to hell. I carried 800 rds on FTX mostly all inside my ruck with maybe 1 belt in the feedway. I carried 4 x1 qts at first until I went to the DX warehouse and bought for 10 cents each some 1968, 1970 2 qts being surplused because no NBC caps (which was so easy to get from the NBC guy). My then Captain tried to ream me out for not having his prescribed packing list but ignored me when I gave it right back about having to hump it all myself (He retired a Colonel in 09) total schmuck schoolhouse ranger. He had the Nerve to say one of our PSG wasnt a real ranger. Meanwhile the guy was on the cover of books about LRRP's in Vietnam and most of the NVA weapons at the Pratt Museum were captured by his team. SFC Basil Leussis "Swampfox"

 

[Anonymous Yank]

When I started as a 60 gunner in 83 we had 3 man crews to divide the load, then around 86 it became a 2 man crew. In 85 at Campbell due to shortages of manpower I wound up a 1 man crew, I carried minimal personal items (maybe 2 pair of socks, 2 tees, a poncho and wubbie, pocket hammock and shaving gear, shit paper in ziplock) then had to hump the gun, spare barrel and tripod and ammo myself. Spare uniforms? LOL wore my jungles to they literally were torn to hell. I carried 800 rds on FTX mostly all inside my ruck with maybe 1 belt in the feedway. I carried 4 x1 qts at first until I went to the DX warehouse and bought for 10 cents each some 1968, 1970 2 qts being surplused because no NBC caps (which was so easy to get from the NBC guy). My then Captain tried to ream me out for not having his prescribed packing list but ignored me when I gave it right back about having to hump it all myself (He retired a Colonel in 09) total schmuck schoolhouse ranger. He had the Nerve to say one of our PSG wasnt a real ranger. Meanwhile the guy was on the cover of books about LRRP's in Vietnam and most of the NVA weapons at the Pratt Museum were captured by his team. SFC Basil Leussis "Swampfox"

Then you know, very well, most of what I speak of...

Our experience as 1 man 60 teams seems rather similar, except that part about you being stuck in dirty nasty leg land.

 

[Goldbricker]

Then you know, very well, most of what I speak of...

Our experience as 1 man 60 teams seems rather similar, except that part about you being stuck in dirty nasty leg land.

Cisterna....

 

[Anonymous Yank]

Cisterna....

That was 4th Batt, with parts of the 509th, and a little 36th Combat Engineers thrown in.

 

[riksavage]

Being pedantic, PoW didn't sink Bismarck, she hit her and damaged her whilst in company with the Hood, but the Bismarck was destroyed by KGV and and one of our 16in ships... PoW had returned to harbour to have her minor battle damage seen too whilst bismarck was being sunk.
But I echo your sentiment, I hope the latest PoW has a very long and very successful career.

HMS Rodney turned Bismarck into scrap metal. KGV was given the credit because she was a newer design. Rodney’s 16inch guns took a terrible toll, 100+ hits. She also launched a torpedo (only ever battleship vs. battleship torpedo strike) Japanese copied the torpedo design (Long lance) and used it to sink 23 allied ships in WWII.

 

[CptDanjou]

Better sights and more electronics are the future.

Electronic scopes with range finding / auto adjusting elevation are available but I think it will be a while before they are Squaddie proof.

 

[terminal]

This is a video from a presentation given by Colt Canada on what they see as the future of military small arms. It's about 50 minutes long. The first 15 minutes are on how things got to where they are today, and following that he discusses the future. This is a very good talk on the future from the guy running one of the companies involved in creating it.

 

[Mufulira]

.280?

Though the early British tests indicated that the .280/30 could and did perform well and rifles already made but Col Studler (US Army Ordnance) was dead set against anything "foreign" and the 280/30 was scrapped in favour of a unified NATO round. However, facts are a real bitch and can crop again in embarrassing times -- all the re-calibration moon dance over of 6mm, 6.5mm, Creedmore etc the 'as designed 280 British round' is still remarkably worthwhile IMHO.

 

[Anonymous Yank]

Glad to see everyone is still so very on topic in this most serious of endeavours.

 

[Anonymous Yank]

In other news... I built a couple of new guns whilst enjoying my vacation... one of them I am going to call my FAMARSA80 pistol, because it's been from the usual AR design with a charging handle bodged to the front of the lightly modified bolt carrier group, will probably beat it's self to bits whilst cycling, will be annoyingly awkward to use off-hand (except for charging), and has a short sight radius, thanks to a very short 7.5" barrel, with a woefully inadequate twist ratio to really get it's 5.56 projectiles stabilized for accuracy over any real distance. And you can't call it an AR if you move the charging handle now, can you?

Notice it has a nicely large knurled tube for the charging handle, for good grip, and positive forward assist usage. I suppose I could always machine a little curved one later if I want even more SA80-like inconvenience and style points.

Bonus is, it is a right bitch to disassemble for cleaning.

 

[par avion]

In other news... I built a couple of new guns whilst enjoying my vacation... one of them I am going to call my FAMARSA80 pistol, because it's been from the usual AR design with a charging handle bodged to the front of the lightly modified bolt carrier group, will probably beat it's self to bits whilst cycling, will be annoyingly awkward to use off-hand (except for charging), and has a short sight radius, thanks to a very short 7.5" barrel, with a woefully inadequate twist ratio to really get it's 5.56 projectiles stabilized for accuracy over any real distance. And you can't call it an AR if you move the charging handle now, can you?

View attachment 489278

View attachment 489279

View attachment 489280

Notice it has a nicely large knurled tube for the charging handle, for good grip, and positive forward assist usage. I suppose I could always machine a little curved one later if I want even more SA80-like inconvenience and style points.

Bonus is, it is a right bitch to disassemble for cleaning.

Yes but is it being adopted by the Japanese Armed Forces?

 

[Anonymous Yank]

Yes but is it being adopted by the Japanese Armed Forces?

I probably won't offer it to them, but it is based "vaguely" on the same design of which the SA80 and the new Japanese rifle are both "vaguely" based on, and I only built it in response to this thread.

 

[W21A]

A bitch to strip and clean you say? We'll take 100 000.

 

[Goldbricker]

That was 4th Batt, with parts of the 509th, and a little 36th Combat Engineers thrown in.

1st and 3rd, survivors folded into 4th, and long time men sent home, rest folded into FSSF as replacements

 

[Anonymous Yank]

A bitch to strip and clean you say? We'll take 100 000.

Awesome! I could possibly even adapt it to some obsolete caliber that I could re-invent, and test obsessively for a few years before it's ready to be ignored in favor of the NATO standard, if that would help pad the contract.

 

[Anonymous Yank]

1st and 3rd, survivors folded into 4th, and long time men sent home, rest folded into FSSF as replacements

Do you recognize these?

Do you even 80s Bro?

 

[Himmler74]

All that extra weight must have come from somewhere...

Alternatively, your "batteries will run out" from carrying that heavier load, then how are you going to aim?

You have zero idea!

 

[Anonymous Yank]

You have zero idea!

I see what you did there...

I bet you think it was divine.