-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Marines don't *Need* Machine Guns
- Thread starter MaverickNH
- Start date
A lot of the MG hate comes from the M249. And a lot of the M249 problems come from people who are either using it incorrectly or are using one thats been damaged by misuse.
Then the Marines a decade ago went off the deep end with the M27 which at the time was supposed to nearly fully replace the SAW as an automatic rifle. While they both are automatic rifles, one of them holds 200 rounds and has changeable barrels and the other doesnt. So their role in suppression is going to be drastically different.
Light machine guns, automatic rifles and general purpose machine guns need to be able to sustain automatic fire. 1,200 RPM is to much as we saw. 600-800 rpm with a belt and barrel swapperroonies, yes please. The writer doesn't understand infantry doctrine if he disagrees.
Then the Marines a decade ago went off the deep end with the M27 which at the time was supposed to nearly fully replace the SAW as an automatic rifle. While they both are automatic rifles, one of them holds 200 rounds and has changeable barrels and the other doesnt. So their role in suppression is going to be drastically different.
Light machine guns, automatic rifles and general purpose machine guns need to be able to sustain automatic fire. 1,200 RPM is to much as we saw. 600-800 rpm with a belt and barrel swapperroonies, yes please. The writer doesn't understand infantry doctrine if he disagrees.
NHKevin
NES Member
I guess you missed the Full Metal Jacket reference?
mibro
NES Member
I think you nailed it. Here's the logic.
1. The military does not really need automatic infantry weapons, semi-auto weapons are just fine, automatic weapons are frivolous and unnecessary.
2. Semi-auto weapons are MILITARY weapons.
3. Civilians do not need/should not be allowed to have MILITARY weapons.
4. Bolt guns and revolvers are all you need and you still have your 2A, see?
mibro
NES Member
+1. When I saw the writer write "a troop," singular, I knew he was LARPing.
f*** him, the heart of an infantry section IS the machine gun and crew, the riflemen are there to support the machine gun and to fire and maneuver onto the objective.
Last edited:
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
A rifle like the M4 has semi, burst and full. What's not to like about that? Jack.
Yeah I don't get it. Someone linked that he was a medic. So I'm sure he was around some mega retarded lower enlisted marines who have put this in his head. The amount of weird information that was going around when I was in was overwhelming, and the lack of correct teaching from leaders was a huge problem. I couldn't imagine being in an infantry squad, or supporting one without knowing the 10 minute version of how the squad works and each persons role. But here we are.
The 249 does one thing, and thats throw a shit ton of bullets. Rifles and carbines cant do it. I mean they can, but its going to be a nightmare by comparison. I don't have a ton of personal experience with SAWs but Ive been around them enough to know what the issues are (lack of training and lack of preventative maintenance).
When I was with a Nordic infantry unit overseas they had the FN Minimi Para which is basically a M249 para, which I had never even seen one until I was with these guys. It's a great weapon for people in and out of vehicles and who need to have a really small light machine gun for X reason, such as long patrols, low expectation of long range shootouts, etc. The only people who wouldn't shit their pants having that thing being shot at them are well trained enemies, and luckily for us there isnt an abundance of it. Locals would flat out say to us how much they loved the look of our SAWs, and how it demanded respect, which it did. People don't f*** around when they see a belt. These forgein soldiers liked their minimis. Probably becuase their military is significantly smaller, better trained in general and has much better tender lovin' care towards maintenance of firearms.
I should know all about that. My FN M16A4 had a f***ing lose barrel when I went to qual with it for deployment. How thats even a thing is a mystery. I guess the index lug on the top was damaged under the barrel ring. Brand new also.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
It depends on the M4.
The M4 is safe-single- 3 burst
The M4A1 is safe-single-full
The problem is the barrel is 14.5 inches and it's made with weight in mind.
The M27 is the solution to the problem that may or may not be a thing, which is apparently people want the M4 platform to be an automatic rifle. The M27's barrel is 16.5 inches. The M27 is also over a pound and a half heavier so it can actually run as an automatic rifle without the thing turning into a black hole.
AHM
NES Member
The article is about machine guns, but the actual title is,
and I quote,
Which you'd think applied to all infantry weapons.
It's well-known that editors write article titles - not authors.
But see below.
seem to lack Reader Comment capabilities.
So by definition, it's Clickbait from Crapweasels™.
What are the odds this stupid hot mess was written this way,
to be yet another seed planted for gun-grabbers?
("Not even the military can handle weapons with 'auto' in the name.
So civilians shouldn't be allowed to own 'semi-auto' firearms; because 'auto'").
(*)
Q2: Does burst mode generate more muzzle rise than semi-auto?
The following commentary ought to apply mainly to rifles,
and be largely irrelevant to machine guns.
Ought to.
we are told that the M16A2's requirements
were derived from combat experience in Vietnam.
In particular, M16 rifle: M16A2 says,
The only two things I recall from reading about M16 evolution decades ago (Guns and Ammo? American Rifleman?) were:
Ought to.
(Like how high schoolers "learn" not to speed in Drivers Ed?)
Or are they only "taught" that in training?
and I quote,
4 reasons why infantrymen don't need full auto weapons
Which you'd think applied to all infantry weapons.
It's well-known that editors write article titles - not authors.
But see below.
Both the original article on We Are The Mighty, and the copy on Business Insider
seem to lack Reader Comment capabilities.
So by definition, it's Clickbait from Crapweasels™.
What are the odds this stupid hot mess was written this way,
to be yet another seed planted for gun-grabbers?
("Not even the military can handle weapons with 'auto' in the name.
So civilians shouldn't be allowed to own 'semi-auto' firearms; because 'auto'").
Like an M16, only smaller.(*)
(*)
Q1: Do rounds landing off target due to muzzle rise not constitute negligence?
Q2: Does burst mode generate more muzzle rise than semi-auto?
The following commentary ought to apply mainly to rifles,
and be largely irrelevant to machine guns.
Ought to.
(As @Dench hinted),
we are told that the M16A2's requirements
were derived from combat experience in Vietnam.
In particular, M16 rifle: M16A2 says,
The action was also modified, replacing the fully automatic setting with a three-round burst setting. When using a fully automatic weapon, inexperienced troops often hold down the trigger and "spray" when under fire. The U.S. Army concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy, and firepower.
The only two things I recall from reading about M16 evolution decades ago (Guns and Ammo? American Rifleman?) were:
- (Replacement of three-prong flash suppressors with birdcages, to reduce the muzzle's tendency to fill with dirt like an apple corer; and...)
- Substitution of 3-round burst for full-auto. The article stated that many troops did mag dumps when under fire and quickly exhausted their ammo supply. They also rationalized it by quoting a veteran to the effect that, "you'd be surprised how quickly you can move your trigger finger (in semi-auto or burst mode) when under fire".
Ought to.
Do soldiers "learn" not to do that in training?
(Like how high schoolers "learn" not to speed in Drivers Ed?)
Or are they only "taught" that in training?
Burst can throw off peoples aim. I was just looking at some old data when they were moving to the A2's and it looks like burst can double or triple MOA depending on the shooter. Most of the test subjects were green with weapons (i believe all or most had zero experience other than verbal instruction and simulators). It doesn't turn into a shit show on a body sized target till 200m.
fencer
NES Member
Obviously, this young corpsman saw more than a few injuries that were nasty and preventable, and that sucks. But you know what doesn't suck? Hearing the chug chug of an M60 or a Ma Duece behind you, tearing chunks out of buildings or anything else, and knowing no lead will be headed your way from that general area. That doesn't suck.
Belt fed throws a frigging wall of lead. They call them "area" weapons for a reason.
Belt fed throws a frigging wall of lead. They call them "area" weapons for a reason.
M60
NES Member
Didn't think I'd ever say this, but that's one pin head Corpsman. If he'd ever faced full auto, enemy fire and 10 to 1 odds, at the same time, he'd sing a different tune damn quick. You TET Offensive, nam vets, know what I'm talking about.
AHM
NES Member
That is,
you're not the kind of guy they quoted,
because you're not the kind of guy
who had to be given a burst-fire weapon
to keep from doing a mag dump.
AHM
NES Member
(And sincere thanks for going in harm's way for my sake).
A modest search doesn't reveal some deep history of the 3-round burst mod.
Come to think of it, all the popular histories that pop right up
explain some reasons for the mod.
(Although none refer to the actual requirements document
or any study that wrote it).
And none of them went on to explain how it was implemented.
Now I've seen animations on the internals' operation.
But if you don't ask for the implementation,
it doesn't pop up unbidden.
(Sometimes Google will deluge you with what you don't want to know
when it can't find what you are interested in. Sometimes but not this time).
I also didn't go looking for Vet forums where people would react to the change.
I'm sure it's controversial.
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
Thanks for the correction on the M4. Jack.Yeah I don't get it. Someone linked that he was a medic. So I'm sure he was around some mega retarded lower enlisted marines who have put this in his head. The amount of weird information that was going around when I was in was overwhelming, and the lack of correct teaching from leaders was a huge problem. I couldn't imagine being in an infantry squad, or supporting one without knowing the 10 minute version of how the squad works and each persons role. But here we are.
The 249 does one thing, and thats throw a shit ton of bullets. Rifles and carbines cant do it. I mean they can, but its going to be a nightmare by comparison. I don't have a ton of personal experience with SAWs but Ive been around them enough to know what the issues are (lack of training and lack of preventative maintenance).
When I was with a Nordic infantry unit overseas they had the FN Minimi Para which is basically a M249 para, which I had never even seen one until I was with these guys. It's a great weapon for people in and out of vehicles and who need to have a really small light machine gun for X reason, such as long patrols, low expectation of long range shootouts, etc. The only people who wouldn't shit their pants having that thing being shot at them are well trained enemies, and luckily for us there isnt an abundance of it. Locals would flat out say to us how much they loved the look of our SAWs, and how it demanded respect, which it did. People don't f*** around when they see a belt. These forgein soldiers liked their minimis. Probably becuase their military is significantly smaller, better trained in general and has much better tender lovin' care towards maintenance of firearms.
I should know all about that. My FN M16A4 had a f***ing lose barrel when I went to qual with it for deployment. How thats even a thing is a mystery. I guess the index lug on the top was damaged under the barrel ring. Brand new also.
It depends on the M4.
The M4 is safe-single- 3 burst
The M4A1 is safe-single-full
The problem is the barrel is 14.5 inches and it's made with weight in mind.
The M27 is the solution to the problem that may or may not be a thing, which is apparently people want the M4 platform to be an automatic rifle. The M27's barrel is 16.5 inches. The M27 is also over a pound and a half heavier so it can actually run as an automatic rifle without the thing turning into a black hole.
SFC13557
NES Member
*****
M249 is a great light machine gun, Army light Infantry squads had one per fire team w/9 man squads. Much lighter than the Pig(M60) and fires M16 ammo. I carried one as an E4.
![[flame]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/032.gif "Flame [flame]")
namedpipes
NES Member
Sticks worked for us as kids, why not now?
AHM
NES Member
Cars don't NEED power steering
People don't NEED TVs bigger that 27 inches
People don't NEED to turn the heat up in their home higher than 55 degrees
People don't NEED to have sex other than for pro-creation
But every single one of those things I listed is either very helpful, or just plain fun as hell.
Machine guns are both
People don't NEED TVs bigger that 27 inches
People don't NEED to turn the heat up in their home higher than 55 degrees
People don't NEED to have sex other than for pro-creation
But every single one of those things I listed is either very helpful, or just plain fun as hell.
Machine guns are both
Always mistrustful of a site copying another site.
Here is the original article: 4 reasons why infantrymen don't need full auto weapons
The author was a Navy Corpsman. Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick entered the Navy in 2007 as a Hospital Corpsman and deployed to Sangin, Afghanistan with 3rd Battalion 5th Marines in the fall of 2010. Tim now has degrees in both Film Production and Screenwriting. [email protected]
Here is the original article: 4 reasons why infantrymen don't need full auto weapons
The author was a Navy Corpsman. Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick
Tim Kirkpatrick entered the Navy in 2007 as a Hospital Corpsman and deployed to Sangin, Afghanistan with 3rd Battalion 5th Marines in the fall of 2010. Tim now has degrees in both Film Production and Screenwriting. [email protected]
Similar threads
