Minimi LMG to go?

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
You can't dismiss experienced user opinion as being valid. Not everything is easily quantifiable... ;)
Sure. And if they can come up with a coherent opinion about why they're better off wearing something solely designed to carry kit that they aren't issued, in an environment in which they don't fight, then I'm all ears.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Sure. And if they can come up with a coherent opinion about why they're better off wearing something solely designed to carry kit that they aren't issued, in an environment in which they don't fight, then I'm all ears.
Because they want it, and someone was willing to pay for it, and nobody challenged with "yes, but why?" firmly enough.
 
Because they want it, and someone was willing to pay for it, and nobody challenged with "yes, but why?" firmly enough.
The Irish Guards sniper OC decided they just had to have G3A3 for the spotters then decided they needed picatinny rails. Nobody could quite explain why they needed them but they needed them. Then for some reason I had to travel to bloody hereford to pick the damned things up, imagine the surprise when I pointed out to them that I did not happen to have the correct gauges in my workshop to inspect them.

As for the picatinny rails, they expected me to weld rails onto the rifles. I put him in touch with an ASM from the brigade to point out why that was not going to happen. His solution was to buy rails online that would fit onto the rifles and fit them in theatre. Nobody managed a reasonable answer as to why they needed them, the claim was because they needed them in the green zone where visibility was limited, yeah so you want a longer rifle?
 
There are many circumstances in which the C8 is the better weapon and I think serious consideration should be given to making it our main infantry weapon,
But then you are lowering the effective range even further.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Because they want it, and someone was willing to pay for it, and nobody challenged with "yes, but why?" firmly enough.
But that one is particularly weird, as you need 2* risk sign off to permit a change in armour or helmet for ranges/ops and I'd be amazed if they convinced a General to take personal risk to allow them to fire with climbing helmets.
 
Exactly my point about allyness and waltism. Those are non-ballistic bump helmets designed for parachuting and climbing, neither of which are routinely in-role for HAC. What possible operational logic was there for buying those?
Are they maybe using the non-frag-letter-inny ones for a demo? Can't see it flying otherwise. Unless they're playing dress up for the demo and for ops use guuci non-holey kevlar versions or, whispers, Virtus. I can't imagine Mk7s let alone the horrifyingly pedestrian 6As are part of their get up.
 
Seems the yanks have gone for a LRIP on an update of the stoner design LMG made by knights armaments looks pretty good for the role proposed ie assault, next to nothing in recoil

Very light (4.5kg) and they have a preproduction 7.62mm going through testing at the moment as well
 
Last edited:
Seems the yanks have gone for a LRIP on an update of the stoner design LMG made by knights armaments looks pretty good for the role proposed ie assault, next to nothing in recoil

Very light (4.5kg) and they have a preproduction 7.62mm going through testing at the moment as well
That LMG from Knight's shows up in the Ubisoft PC game, "Ghost Recon: Wildlands". It's fairly decent.
 
What's its range and sustainability of fire? It looks like a belt fed assault rifle in all honesty.


M4 with 100rd mag.
In-game it's got a decent range, and hits pretty hard for a 5.56mm, but it's still a 5.56mm weapon, so it's not really good for twatting helicopters, which is my favourite sport in-game. It's the only LMG that you can stick a suppressor on, and it also accepts various red-dotty type scopes.
 
What's its range and sustainability of fire? It looks like a belt fed assault rifle in all honesty.


M4 with 100rd mag.
That it's exactly how they describe it! However in the first vid note how the guy states there is no recoil so it can be faired accurately on the fly. It has a 15 inch barrel on the5 56mm and 18 inch on the 7 62mm. I see this more of a replacement for the LSW than a fire support but this seemed a good thread to drop it into
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That it's exactly how they describe it! However in the first vid note how the guy states there is no recoil so it can be faired accurately on the fly. It has a 15 inch barrel on the5 56mm and 18 inch on the 7 62mm. I see this more of a replacement for the LSW than a fire support but this seemed a good thread to drop it into
15in barrel, that's not going to address the issues discussed earlier in the thread, regarding suppression and effectiveness at range though.
 
I don't get this the debate around suppressive vs precision fire. We need a belt fed weapon that does both. The GPMG does both so we need a 5.56 version that can do the same. How hard can it be?

The accuracy of the GPMG was never fully exploited so why start moaning about precision now?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
so a barrel as long as the m4 but shorter than the lmg?
Half inch longer than the M4, 1.3inches longer than the Para version of the LMG, but 3.3inches shorter than a bog standard LMG (18.3), 5ins shorter than L85A2.
 
The Yanks have a fascination with wanting machine guns to be rifles and rifles to be machine guns. The Knights LAMG is just an up date and simplified version of the Stoner 63 for Vietnam fame. They have dropped the QC barrel and designed it for assaulting troops. Apparently it has little to no recoil. Given the lack of time they put into establishing and maintaining marksmanship, I guess this is their answer. The US Army have just ok'd looking at adopting a version of H&K 417 as their section level marksman weapon.

Instead of trying to get 7.62 results out of a 5.56 LMG, maybe they should just get a 7.62 LMG.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top