Firepower in hand. What to be a modern machine gun

75

Danish soldier with M/62 machine gun

The Bundeswehr adopted the MG5 machine gun, which should replace the honored veteran MG3. Being basically good weapons, MG5 does not have the quality that is primarily expected from a new generation model - it has practically no advantages over its predecessor - MG3. In this article, we will present our vision of a modern infantry machine gun.

Introduction


In World War II, the Americans and the British used heavy machine guns that differed little from those used in World War I, and at the squad level they had BREN and BAR light machine guns, which would be more correctly called automatic rifles. The Germans, back in the days of the Weimar Republic, began the development of a light universal machine gun with belt feed. The result of this work was the appearance of MG34 and MG42. Due to their "rifle" layout and low weight, they could also be used at the level of infantry squads as manual ones: they were only 2-3 kilograms heavier than their "opponents", while being full-fledged machine guns.



This concept paid off after the Second World War, it spread around the world in the form of the FN MAG or M60. The MG42 itself, with minimal changes, continued its service in the Bundeswehr as MG3 or as MG74 in the Austrian army.
Nevertheless, 12 kilograms is not so little. A long barrel is also often more of a hindrance than a benefit. And for infantrymen, mobility is a guarantee of survival. If in the 30s the 12-kilogram machine gun was a revolution in military affairs, then by the end of the war, the 9-kilogram MG45 had already appeared, as well as adapted for ground use aviation MG81 weighing 8,5 kg.

The 1944 terms of reference for a new machine gun that was supposed to replace the MG42 provided for the same rate of fire. The MG45 looks very similar to the MG42, but is technically related to the G3 automatic rifle. Work on it continued in Germany. The mass was reduced to 8,5 kg. Under the designation MG60, it was successfully tested, but for financial reasons it was not accepted into service. In addition, in 1961, the NK3 / G21 machine gun, developed by Heckler and Koch, based on the G8, weighing only 8 kg, appeared.

On the other side of the Iron Curtain, there was also a revolution in the field of reducing the weight of the machine gun: in the 1960s, Kalashnikov developed the PK machine gun (9 kg), which, after modernization (PKM), was able to lighten as much as 7,5 kilograms.
Thus, the “eastern bloc” was armed with a light machine gun already in the 60s. In the west, there were also corresponding developments. Nevertheless, Western armies still use excessively heavy machine guns.

Recently, lightweight models of weapons for a full-fledged rifle and machine gun cartridge have appeared in different countries. First of all, you need to name the IWI Negev NG-7, FN Minimi 7,62 / Mk48, M60E6 and the Pecheneg PKP.


The Mark48 machine gun is a 7,62x51 NATO variant of the FN Minimi. Its mass is 8,2 kg. Used by US Special Operations Forces


The Israeli machine gun IWI Negev NG-7 weighs 7,92 kg.


The Russian machine gun PKP "Pecheneg" has some interesting technical innovations and weighs 8,7 kg

In the lighter weight category, the LMG Knigt Armament Stoner and Ares Strike in 5,56x45 caliber perform.

To the existing samples, you can add the NSGW-AR and FN EVOLIS intended to replace the M249. The newest "Belgian" is presented in calibers 5,56x45 and 7,62x51. The first of the samples weighs 5,5 kg, and the second - 6,2. Both options use gas automatics. Rate of fire - 750 rds / min.

MG5 vs MG3


Based on the foregoing, the adoption of the new brainchild of Heckler and Koch is surprising. Its competitiveness in the international market is also in question. So, for example, Denmark, after conducting comparative tests of MG2014 and M5E60 in 6, gave preference to the latter. Although we repeat, MG5 is a good weapon in itself.

What distinguishes it from its predecessor MG3, if you do not take into account the technical features? And almost nothing! The new machine gun is a little bit lighter, a little bit shorter, besides, it's more "pot-bellied". The reduced rate of fire saves ammunition and reduces recoil, although this did not significantly improve handling. Does the barrel need to be changed less frequently? So the reason for this was just the reduced rate of fire and the increased mass of the barrel itself. The revolution did not happen here either, especially in comparison with the Russian "Pecheneg".

The obvious advantages include only a really very comfortable two-point belt and the ability to install optics. Although the choice of a 4x optical sight as the main one is a more than controversial decision. But more on that later.

What do we have in the end? Convenient carrying strap and the ability to install optics. Both could be achieved with much less money and time by modifying the MG3, as the Austrians did with their MG74. In addition, there is a MG3KWS upgrade kit from Rheinmetall.


The MG3KWS upgrade kit from Rheinmetall makes the honored veteran worthy of the XNUMXst century, but cannot completely fix its shortcomings, especially not the best ergonomics

The question of mass


Even the Prussian General Helmut von Moltke said that mobility is the key to survival and victory in the war. He believed that it was not enough to have separate "light" battalions - the whole army should be "light" and consist of well-trained, well-equipped and armed fighters. And high mobility is the main quality of such troops. This means that the less ballast a soldier is forced to carry, the better he will be able to perform his main tasks.

All military men agree on this - in theory. So, for example, the mass of equipment of a US Army soldier should not exceed 25 kilograms, but in the mountains of Afghanistan they carry much more. Things are no better in the Bundeswehr. Excessive load not only reduces the combat effectiveness of soldiers, but is also the cause of many diseases of the spine and joints, as the practice of the past two decades has shown. The military would be happy to comply with the charters and rules of health protection, but it is impossible to fit everything a fighter needs into the 25 allotted kilograms (and this is also a lot).

A large part of the mass of equipment is ammunition. In some armies, along with machine guns under a full-fledged rifle and machine gun cartridge, lightweight models are also used: under an intermediate cartridge. Soldiers love the MG4 or FN Minimi for their light weight of 7-8 kg, but bullet penetration is the object of sharp criticism. But both penetration and firing range are also important. Although it is possible to create a light machine gun chambered for the 7,62-category cartridge, this problem can be fundamentally solved only by lightening the cartridges themselves.

New generation


In this regard, it is impossible not to mention the Next Generation Squad Weapon program of the American army. Within its framework, a replacement is being developed for both the M4 / M16 assault rifles and the M249 SAW machine gun. This weapon should also use a new cartridge of 6,8 mm caliber with parameters close to 7,62x51. At the same time, the Marine Corps is experimenting with the 6,5 Creedmoor cartridge. And the Belgian concern FN Herstal presented in 2019 a prototype of the Mk48 machine gun in this caliber.

Thus, it is supposed to maintain the firing range and penetration ability and at the same time reduce the mass of the ammunition. The use of a closed-type muzzle brake-compensator will facilitate control over the weapon. The MG6,8 prototype presented by SIG Sauer has a mass of 6,8 kg and is equipped with a recoil dampening system. The cover with the tape receiver does not fold up, but to the side, which should facilitate the installation of optics and other additional devices.

The cartridges presented for the competition are very different from each other. While SIG Sauer uses 6,8 HYBRID/ .277 FURY with a brass case with a steel base, others prefer plastic cased cartridges. If it is possible to ensure sufficient strength of plastic sleeves, then this option seems very interesting. Plastic is lighter than metal and also has a lower thermal conductivity. Thus, it will be possible to reduce the heating of the weapon during intensive shooting and increase the wearable ammunition.


Sig Sauer NGSW AR MG 6,8 machine gun. Pay attention to the shutter handle located on the left

Infantry machine gun


Now let's ask ourselves: what should be the "ideal" infantry machine gun? The authors are now talking only about this category of weapons.

The first two points (small, up to 7-8 kg weight and powerful, but light cartridge) - we have already considered. If these requirements are met, it is possible to carry a box attached to the weapon with a belt with a capacity of at least 150 rounds instead of the current 50 (MG3) or 80 (MG5). This will provide the shooter with more firepower in case of an unexpected encounter with the enemy. Those who have dealt with the MG4 and its 200-round belt will understand us well.

The 6,8 HYBRID/.277 FURY cartridge retains its ballistic performance even when fired from a short barrel. It also allows the weapon to be made smaller and lighter. The cartridge was reportedly tested with a 404 mm (16 in) barrel. In order to be able to control such a light machine gun, avoid excessive consumption of cartridges and at the same time provide sufficient firepower, the rate of fire should be 700-900 rounds / min. You can not do without muzzle nozzles.

The closed-type DTK presented at NGSW-MG seems like a very good idea. It reduces the visual and acoustic visibility of the shooter, makes the weapon more manageable and less traumatic to the hearing of the shooter and his comrades. Thanks to technological progress, such DTKs have already appeared, suitable for use on machine guns. But the usual muzzle brake with a flash hider, like the GAU-5 / A, familiar from the Vietnam War, will also be useful.

The most important quality of a machine gun is its ability to conduct intense barrage fire for a long time. To achieve this, on the Russian PKP Pecheneg machine gun, which is a modernized version of the tested PKM, an interesting solution was used, known since the First World War - forced ejection air cooling of the barrel, like on a Lewis machine gun. The Pecheneg's barrel has a specially designed outer finning and is enclosed in a metal casing.

When firing, powder gases leaving the muzzle of the barrel at high speed create the effect of an ejection pump in the front of the casing, pulling cold air along the barrel. The air is taken from the atmosphere through the openings in the casing, made under the carrying handle, at the rear of the casing. Thanks to this and more advanced materials, the Pecheneg can fire 600 shots in a continuous burst.

Thanks to this technical solution, the replacement of the barrel becomes almost redundant, which means that the 2nd calculation number does not need to carry a two-kilogram spare barrel, but you can take additional cartridges. But it's still not worth it to refuse this function.

To carry a combat-ready machine gun, for example, in the head patrol, one cannot do without a comfortable, wide, two-point belt adjustable in length. However, in combat, sometimes you have to do without it. For a quick change of position, a carrying handle will be useful. It must be rigidly attached to the body of the machine gun. The way some soldiers carry the MG4 or MG5 by the quick-change grip is hardly advisable.

One of the authors of these lines had to stay in the middle of the forest with one trunk in his hands! A good solution seems to be a carrying handle, which also serves as a bracket for optics, like the MG4 and G36. It is convenient to grab onto this even in a stressful situation. Also, the “assault” handle of the MG3KWS makes a good impression.

Firepower in hand. What to be a modern machine gun
Machine gun MG4. The carrying handle, which also serves as a bracket for the optics, is very convenient for quick position changes. A collimator sight is installed on top. Under the handle - low magnification optical sight

If we have already mentioned the MG4, then it is worth dwelling on the sights. The main task of machine guns is to defeat areal targets, conducting barrage fire. The need to hit point targets, such as vehicles or enemy machine-gun nests, can still arise. At typical distances for small arms, a collimator sight is enough for this. The advantage of the collimator, although not increasing and not adjustable depending on the distance of the sight, is that it makes it easier to keep the aiming mark on the target when the machine gun "beats" in the hands when firing bursts.

Also, it pairs well with night vision goggles. The ability to adjust the aiming by visible hits and along the tracks when firing bursts seems to be more preferable than accurate aiming using magnifying optics. In the conditions of modern conflicts, infantry often fights in forests or in settlements, and the firing distances there are appropriate. Under these conditions, a magnifying optical sight as the main one will rather interfere. If the need arises for aimed shooting at a distance of more than 300 meters, the best configuration of MG4 sights seems to be - the main red dot sight above the carrying handle and an additional low magnification optical sight below it.


The Austrian machine gun MG74 is equipped with a collimator sight with a folding magnifying nozzle. This provides the shooter with a good view at close range and at the same time allows them to conduct aimed fire at long distances, as is often the case in the mountains.

It is also worth mentioning the ways of using machine guns. For example, during a sudden fire raid from an ambush, the machine gun is usually silent and remains in reserve until the last. With the ability to conduct a single fire, he could, in cases like the MG34, "disguise himself as a rifle." In addition, bringing to a normal battle is best done with single shots. Of the modern machine guns, the IWI Negew has this capability.

Often there is a need to fire a machine gun, standing from the hip or from the shoulder. This requires a full forearm. It should be comfortable, "grasping". This cannot be said about MG4 or MG5. The fore-end with Picatinny rails on all sides is also inconvenient to hold. Here, rather, a U-shaped aluminum profile suggests itself with the possibility of installing a tactical handle and a laser designator using an M-LOK type mount.

The bipod is best done in the style of the MG3 - simple, strong, stamped parts without height adjustment, which fold into the bosom of the forearm from below. Height-adjustable bipods are unreliable, heavy and uncomfortable, and the need for adjustment is infrequent.

The same can be said about the example. It should be as simple as possible, and for use by motorized infantry, it must be folding or telescopic. The authors can argue from their own experience that there is no need to adjust the length and height, and this only makes the weapon more complicated and more expensive. The telescopic buttstock of the landing version of the FN Minimi seems to be successful.

The reloading handle of the machine gun is on the right - this is not the best solution. On the one hand, modern soldiers, unlike during the Second World War, are used to manipulating the shutter with their left hand - this is how they were taught at the initial training with a machine gun. On the other hand, it is better if the shooting hand remains on the handle while manipulating the bolt. Machine gun recoil springs are usually quite tight. Therefore, on newer designs such as the ARES Shrike or the Sig Sauer NGSW AR MG 6, the bolt handle is on the left.

When developing weapons, great attention must be paid to ease of handling and maintenance. This is often forgotten. Particularly incomplete disassembly and cleaning should be as simple as possible. According to the authors, this aspect of all machine guns in service with the Bundeswehr - both MG3, and MG4, and MG5 - can be assessed at best as "satisfactory". MG4 is perhaps a little better. As is the case with other machine guns available on the world market, the authors cannot say due to lack of experience.

Our “ideal machine gun” should have a gas engine system with a long piston stroke, it is the most convenient for assembly / disassembly. Anyone who has dealt with the G3 and MG3 is unlikely to be a fan of roller shutters. With intensive shooting, a large amount of soot and unburned gunpowder is formed. Therefore, the inside of the body of the weapon must, firstly, have a minimum of bottlenecks and sinuses and, secondly, be easily accessible for cleaning after incomplete disassembly.

Conclusions


A modern infantry machine gun should have the smallest possible mass. If at the beginning of the Second World War the 12-kilogram machine gun was a novelty that provided the crew with unprecedented mobility, then by the time it ended, even lighter models appeared. The infantryman was at all times very loaded, and with the introduction of bulletproof vests, he received, in addition to the previously usual load, another 10-15 kilograms. Technically, the creation of a truly "light" machine gun is quite possible, and should be done.

Translation of the Handliche Fruerkraft article. Gedanken zu Maschienengewehren, published in the German gun magazine Deutsche Waffenjournal No. 12-2021. It echoes the material previously published in this magazine (and in the Military Review) “Machine gun MG5 arrives at the German troops". Authors: Franz Keck and Sigfried Trost. Translation: Slug_BDM
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    75 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +21
      27 August 2022 03: 37
      Often there is a need to fire a machine gun, standing from the hip or from the shoulder.

      A bullet in the forehead from a sniper quickly cures this habit ... how many times have you seen it.
      And so I consider the MG-42 as the standard of a machine gun ... a lot of stamping, which means it can be produced in large quantities with satisfactory characteristics ... in a war this is very important.
      Too high-quality weapons are usually very expensive and you can’t make a lot of them ... and war requires a large number of weapons and you have to sacrifice something to meet the requirements of the military.
      1. +5
        27 August 2022 05: 30
        RPK is also netupe laughing , 7,62 probably remained only in deep conservation, it was not possible to work from it .. 5,45 is good, only because of the regular store the skull has to be raised too high. Again, an assistant is not needed, loaded the taxiway and is his own boss.
      2. +4
        27 August 2022 06: 04
        a lot of stamping, which means it can be produced in large quantities with satisfactory characteristics ... in a war this is very important.
        Too high-quality weapons are usually very expensive and you can’t make a lot of them ...

        Good day, I decided to express my opinion

        It is now 2022, how much has labor productivity increased over the past half century? Technology and machines have changed. Automation and 3D printers. The most complex machine components, working tools for every taste are produced in hundreds of thousands and millions of pieces.

        Where in our time can there be a problem with the production of high-quality small arms in any volume (there is no talk of ultra-precise sniper rifles for champions with a diamond-encrusted stock)

        Regarding the increase in cost - the cost of weapons weakly correlates with the quality of military products when contracts are signed. It initially laid down an exceptionally high share of kickbacks and profits, both here and abroad.
      3. Eug
        +2
        27 August 2022 06: 21
        I saw a photo dated 1943, where the German
        the machine gunner fires from the MG-42 "from the back" of the 2nd number, with the bipod folded. Surprised, though. probably, the 2nd number was not very hot from the trunk, but this couple was an excellent target. Although if from the thickets ...
        1. +6
          27 August 2022 07: 11
          Quote: Eug
          Number 2 was not very hot from the trunk

          And number 2 must have been deaf. And due to his disability, without representing great value, he covered the machine gunner himself. wassat And yes, there is such a newsreel.
          1. Eug
            +2
            27 August 2022 08: 42
            Perhaps, and deaf, I did not hear the shooting of MG-34,42 "live". From the RP-27, the impression remained that the sound from its firing was mainly the clanging of machine gun parts.
            1. 0
              27 August 2022 19: 58
              In a closed range, it jams decently ...
            2. +1
              30 August 2022 11: 16
              Quote: Eug
              Perhaps, and deaf, I did not hear the shooting of MG-34,42 "live".

              "Hitler's saw" is a continuous howl, horror is different
          2. -5
            27 August 2022 18: 58
            Setting for suckers.
        2. +4
          27 August 2022 20: 00
          Quote: Eug
          I saw a photo dated 1943, where the German
          the machine gunner fires from the MG-42 "from the back" of the 2nd number, with the bipod folded.

          This is their tradition since the "thirty-fourth".
          Here is November 1941:

          Moreover, they wrote in Hanse that shooting from the shoulder of the second number was prescribed in German instructions as recommended.
          1. +3
            27 August 2022 21: 53
            The Germans love this business. This was also practiced in the GDR


            Skill, as they say, you can’t drink away.
        3. +2
          27 August 2022 20: 02
          Perhaps they fired in this way at extreme ranges ... on the "other" side there might not have been a "long barrel" ...
          And they carried the MG with the help of an O-shaped belt passed under the receiver ... such is the ergonomics.
      4. +1
        27 August 2022 19: 48
        Machine gun recoil springs are usually quite tight. Therefore, on newer designs such as the ARES Shrike or the Sig Sauer NGSW AR MG 6, the bolt handle is on the left.

        Sorry, I did not understand.
        Is the spring softer on the left and tighter on the right?
        1. +1
          4 September 2022 22: 32
          On the left, reloading is carried out with the free hand while the worker holds the machine gun.
          When reloading with the right (that is, working) hand, nothing really holds it, which, with a tight spring, can lead to its displacement, including the loss of support points by the bipods.
    2. +10
      27 August 2022 05: 04
      The conclusion that I understood is that the best machine gun is the Pecheneg. But he is Russian and therefore should not be considered the best. The machine gun should have obvious qualities, but how to achieve this is not very clear.
      In general, the article is very suitable for the definition of "uncontrolled stream of consciousness"
      1. +2
        27 August 2022 06: 02
        Yes, these Western trash do not consider us to be people at all, but you are talking about a machine gun .... laughing
    3. Eug
      +6
      27 August 2022 06: 16
      Once in "Soldier of Fortune" I read about a continuous burst of 1000 rounds from the HK-21, polygonal rifling and chrome plating of the chamber and bore were mentioned.
      As for me, for evaluation
      perfection of the machine gun as an element of the weapon system, it is worth introducing (most likely, it already exists, I just don’t know about it) an indicator indicator that takes into account the mass of the machine gun with a certain number of cartridges in tapes or in a box (if a second barrel is needed to shoot this number of cartridges , then its mass), the total energy of the fired bullets, and the number of failures (delays) when firing, perhaps the cost of all of the above. In general, as for me, the number of RMBs on frames from war zones around the world is more than eloquent...
    4. -1
      27 August 2022 06: 51
      The machine gunner is a priority target for the sniper, especially since it is very easy to identify him using a machine gun with more powerful cartridges. Such machine guns lived themselves as part of infantry units. These machine guns are good on vehicles, and the unification of ammunition is important in the unit. RPK-16 chambered for 5,45x39, an initiative design development, represents, I believe, a new type of infantry weapon, a weapon with which you can arm everyone in the squad, depending on physiological characteristics. The RPK-16 can function as a light machine gun when equipped with a 95-round drum magazine using a 580 mm long barrel. It can replace an assault rifle using a shorter barrel of 410 mm and an appropriate magazine, or it can also be used as a sniper rifle, while using optics and a single firing mode from a closed bolt with the semi-automatic mode turned off, and the accuracy of fire up to 600 meters is better than that of the SVD, thanks to a low-pulse cartridge and a thicker machine-gun barrel. "With a flick of the wrist" RPK-16 turns into the right weapon, based on the combat situation. The weight of 4-plus kilograms does not particularly affect the mobility of the shooter, especially since the ability to use the sniper mode will save ammunition. It is much more effective to use 3-4 fighters with sniper firing mode and 30 or 45 round magazines when creating barrage fire than one highly visible machine gun, which is the primary target for an enemy sniper.
      1. 0
        28 August 2022 00: 04
        Quote: Konnick
        this is a weapon with which you can equip everyone in the department, and depending on the physiological characteristics. RPK-16 can function as a light machine gun when using a 95-round drum magazine,

        They didn't get into the drum shop.
      2. Eug
        0
        28 August 2022 06: 19
        It is necessary to look at the lines of opening fire with the weapons of the squad, if the PKK can start "work" without losing the effectiveness of the fire
        practically from the same milestone as PKM - then yes, he will be able to replace. I often wonder - is it not worth using the capabilities of the 5.45x39 cartridge to the maximum, slightly lengthening the barrel of a "typical" machine gun to achieve a higher initial bullet speed (by analogy with the SCS and RPK), while creating a massive PP and, accordingly, arming the crews of military vehicles with it, gunners, signalmen, etc. In my opinion, everything is heading towards this ...
        1. -2
          28 August 2022 07: 28
          Lengthen the stem? He flutters anyway, and making it thicker is the PKK.

          start "work"
          almost from the same milestone as PKM -

          The Americans opened fire from the line of 2 km on the Iraqis from the PC, only not from machine guns, but from the AGS. They spent an order of magnitude more shots for automatic grenade launchers than cartridges for small arms, the Americans simply did not allow the Iraqis to approach the distance of small arms combat. Everything is relative, in Iraq there was visibility, in the same place there were deserts. AGS were installed on vehicles, they don’t carry heavy ones. In the department, the weight of the weapon should be almost the same, and not throw on matches who will be the machine gunner, and this is in peacetime, during the fighting, who will be the first victim of the sniper. It's like during World War II, the Americans at first used the joint use of short-barreled and long-barreled Shermans, such as reinforcement. German tankers began to knock out, first of all, long-barreled, dangerous for their Tigers and Panthers. Watch the video from the CBO, you will not see the fighters from the PC, "no one wanted to die." Even during the Second World War, the commander of a platoon or company dressed for an attack as ordinary soldiers and picked up a rifle, not a pistol, so that he would not be identified as a commander, the Germans did the same. It is only in the cinema that our and German officers in caps ...
    5. +1
      27 August 2022 08: 20
      I think the concept of a new machine gun needs to be thought out not because of global trends (the popularity of something in the world does not guarantee correctness in quality). And based on the doctrine of what the machine gunner should do and what goals on the battlefield are priorities for him. And the second thing to consider is modern methods of production. Stamping was needed in the twentieth century due to the fact that it was simple for them to mass. An experienced stamping worker will make from several hundred to several thousand parts in an hour. But milling parts, then only a worker could perform and only with his own hands and skills. Not only that, the same worker in an hour on a milling cutter will make at best a dozen parts in an hour, instead of hundreds and thousands on stamping. Also, some parts require only experienced workers of high ranks, and this reduces the number of production points.
      But the idea is already in the yard for the third decade of the 3st century. There are already automatic and semi-automatic digital milling machines. There are models of machines that can be integrated into the conveyor line. There is XNUMXD printing which is getting better and better every year. There are robotic manipulators. It is already possible to automate the creation of complex milling parts to the point that, if necessary, several dozen machines at the plant would make parts for several days without interruption. Unlike a human, a machine does not speed up, does not slow down, makes fewer mistakes, spends less time manipulating or changing the position of the blades, does not require sleep breaks and write. Just keep an eye on the power supply and the receipt of blanks on the tape.

      By designing a machine gun under these conditions and starting to produce them in large batches over a long period of time, it is possible to achieve mass production of weapons with milling parts close to weapons with stamping.

      And do not forget that the complexity of creating weapons with milling parts can be greatly compensated for by long production in peacetime.
      1. +1
        27 August 2022 15: 21
        In the event of a full-fledged war with the use of nuclear weapons and other delights, your CNC, 3D and other delights will quickly run out, because you need electricity, consumables, tools, qualified personnel, a warm and bright place for installation and work. The main thing is energy costs. For the operation of a lathe, a press , welding is enough for a small generator of 10 kW / h, but sophisticated high-tech equipment consumes many times, or even tens of times more. Which, in the case of hostilities and limited resources, leads to the unprofitability of piece production. Plus, the needs of the army are daily, and very rather big .It is expensive to make a million barrels in reserve, and to produce more is slow.
        In general, when all the high-tech is over, we will return to the Dektyars from storage, PCs and trophies. It is not for nothing that warehouses of captured and obsolete weapons and ammunition have been created since the time of the tsar father.
        1. 0
          14 November 2022 13: 22
          No, CNC machines consume no more. Some are even noticeably smaller. They are just bigger and softer. Yes, and demanding on spare parts, i.e. if for a lathe a detail can be machined even with a file, such a trick will no longer work with a CNC machine.
      2. Eug
        0
        28 August 2022 06: 03
        The manufacturing time and, accordingly, the cost of a milling and stamped part are incommensurable, even taking into account the time and cost of manufacturing a stamp or mold when manufacturing these on expensive milling machines,
        sometimes on EDM machines by highly skilled workers. So far, no one has been able to cancel the wartime economy, although the nature of the war has changed radically - the mass character has "disappeared", at least for today.
      3. 0
        14 November 2022 13: 20
        It sounds cool, but the cutter has more metal consumption than crushing the record. And yes, the cutter makes the detail longer, even on the coolest CNC machine.
    6. 0
      27 August 2022 10: 35
      But is a modern machine gun even needed as a weapon for an infantry squad? what does the experience of NWO say about this? something I don’t really see machine gunners in positions firing to suppress or mowing down infantry chains, maybe they just don’t show it, everything can be, it just seems to me that in modern wars a person is a creature running from cover to cover and it’s better to use snipers against him rifles or conventional machine guns and not a group weapon for which you also need to find a position ...
      1. +1
        27 August 2022 11: 21
        In assault groups in urban conditions, the machine gunner covers the advance of the head group. And in which case, and her departure.
        1. 0
          27 August 2022 12: 19
          in theory, it may be so, but what I saw from the chronicle of the NWO does not fit into this paradigm in any way, groups (both on one side and the other) go so that there is as little observable space around as possible, that is, they go by nooks and crannies where visibility in all directions is tens of meters, I don’t understand what kind of support and cover under such conditions a machine gunner can provide them, the main advantage of a machine gun over an assault rifle is effective shooting from a stable position and a large ammunition load, all this remains unclaimed in modern conditions, and the disadvantages are in the form of a fair amount of masses of both weapons and ammunition do not go anywhere ...
          1. +1
            27 August 2022 14: 17
            The same thing I have noticed, probably in urban combat, which seems to be more and more frequent, there are not so many differences between a machine gun and an assault rifle. Perhaps, in these conditions, a magazine submachine gun is more useful than a tape
            1. 0
              27 August 2022 20: 07
              But this is how to look .... the Germans on their machine guns abandoned the "cupcakes" - they dragged the tape ... and what's in the store at 1200 rounds per minute ...
              1. 0
                28 August 2022 12: 56
                But this is how to look .... the Germans on their machine guns abandoned the "cupcakes" - they dragged the tape ... and what's in the store at 1200 rounds per minute ...
                Reply

                Yes, because they went on the defensive. And then they began to use squads without machine guns, armed only with stormtroopers and panzerfausts. Since the machine-gun crew was quickly extinguished from our tank.
          2. +1
            27 August 2022 20: 52
            Well, the cleansing of Mariupol and Azovstal was conducted a little differently. Arta punched holes in the walls of houses, buildings and structures, groups of 3-4 people advanced there, they were covered by the next group and a machine gunner. As all groups except the last one enter the building, a machine gunner moves towards them for further advancement.
      2. -2
        27 August 2022 19: 04
        And where can you find so many hiding places on the battlefield, free ones, so what else can you run across? Man is a dawning being.
      3. 0
        28 August 2022 20: 26
        Are you so busy that you don't have time to read the War Chronicle?
      4. 0
        27 September 2022 01: 07
        How without a company machine gun? A defense is built around him, he covers the point of attack - this is the largest caliber after all!
    7. +2
      27 August 2022 11: 38
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Too high-quality weapons are usually very expensive and you can’t make a lot of them ... and war requires a large number of weapons and you have to sacrifice something to meet the requirements of the military.

      In peacetime, you need to make high-quality weapons, in wartime - mass. Those. for any type of weapon, it is desirable to have two versions, one is simpler. So I understand.
      1. +1
        27 August 2022 14: 06
        Quote: wlkw
        In peacetime, you need to make high-quality weapons, in wartime - mass.
        Basically, it's logical. Here, only, in wartime it will be too late to rebuild quality for mass. I would say otherwise, to my understanding - you need to have two versions, and not necessarily in wartime refusing quality, if such a weapon is not for mass use, but for elite specialists (for example, high-class snipers).

        Snipers can already initially be divided into directly high-class shooters, and those who are in infantry combat formations, or, as the Yankees call them, "marksmen." Accordingly, initially the requirement for weapons will be different, for one an expensive rifle like ORSIS T - 5000, for others a reliable and inexpensive SVD.

        It seems that such a division may apply not only to small arms, but also to military equipment, where for individual specialists there may be a tank with improved characteristics, or for a squadron of aces fighters with forced capabilities.
      2. 0
        27 August 2022 15: 24
        Ak-74, AKM, AK-12 and AEK, although PPSh from storage is still a surprise for the enemy
      3. 0
        4 September 2022 22: 58
        No. At any time, you need to have two classes of weapons of similar purpose - "basic", but cheap and technologically advanced; and "advanced" at the cost of reducing manufacturability and rising costs.
        The first is used for "extras", the second - by professionals. In the context of protracted hostilities, the equipment involved in advanced weapons is transferred to the production of more complex products, and the production of basic weapons is doubled (or even tripled) due to the transfer of production to multi-shift operation.
    8. +1
      27 August 2022 14: 09
      "" "" "" When developing weapons, great attention must be paid to ease of handling and maintenance. This is often forgotten. """""""
      The same concept should be explained to those who design cars.
    9. -3
      27 August 2022 14: 50
      in general, it seems to me that modern armies are stuck somewhere in the middle of the 20th century in terms of infantry weapons of the squad and the tactics of their use, and what our army really lacks is not a new machine gun, but weapons for firing from around the corner, you look at all these reports from the NWO zone and see how a fighter hits into the white light like a pretty penny, then quickly runs back to his place, another one comes up and the carousel continues, such suppression fire where the enemy sides don’t even see each other, but instead a person should calmly expose the weapon without exposing oneself to the danger of being hit by a bullet, find the target and make an effective shot or burst and calmly move to another place ....
      1. 0
        28 August 2022 12: 59
        look at all these reports from the NWO zone and see how a fighter hits into the white light like a pretty penny, then quickly runs back in his place, another one comes up and the carousel continues

        And these are staged shootings for military correspondents. Especially such shootings were often filmed by Pegov and Severyanov from Izvestia, until he himself received an accidental bullet in the ass. For example, you will not see such shooting at Sladkov.
        1. 0
          14 November 2022 13: 39
          This does not negate the need for shooting from cover. I even wrote how, using a penny device with Ali.
    10. -3
      27 August 2022 15: 49
      Still, the best weapon is the sling. It can throw not only ball bearings, but also bearings of any size with homing. Something similar happened already during the Great Patriotic War. There was even a song - a dark night, one bullet got stuck in the wires, and the second chased the soldier all night until the morning. Surprisingly, all the fronts of the Red Army knew about this miracle, about these bullets.
    11. -2
      27 August 2022 19: 10
      "For example, during a sudden fire raid from an ambush, the machine gun is usually silent and remains in reserve until the last."

      Truth !?? And after the "last", who needs it? The author did not fight, apparently. At least I read the combat charter ....
    12. +3
      27 August 2022 23: 07
      At the moment, small arms have come up against the limitation set by modern chemistry and physics. I'll give you an example. Let's say we have a caliber of 7.62x51. Whatever you do, you will not be able to give more power from it than it is capable of giving. You can put a 24 inch barrel on the machine gun, and yes, this will give a small improvement in ballistics, due to the increase in dimensions. But when we switch to another ammunition, problems of a completely different kind begin. Let's consider a few of them.
      a) 6.5 Creedmoor (aka 6.5x51). They just took a shell from 7.62 NATO and shoved a 6.5mm bullet into it. Did this improve ballistics - what else. Huge, but here we run into chemistry and physics. The Creedmoor cartridge has a high muzzle velocity, flatness and ... burns barrels on average twice as fast as 7,62 NATO. And on automatic fire - even faster. But the return is 25% LESS than 7.62x51. That is, the machine gun will be more controllable.
      b) 6.8NATO (aka 6.8x51). The Americans did not choose anything here either. They took a shell case from NATO 7.62 and put a 6.8 bullet in it. And again we run into chemistry and physics. It turned out already TWO cartridges. 277 Fury (civilian version). There's nothing new here. The same powder charge as in 7.62 NATO, the same pressure, improved flatness, but the speed is less than on Creedmoor, and burns barrels more slowly than Creedmoor, but faster than 7.62x51 NATO. But the ARMY cartridge is a completely different matter. The pressure is increased, the initial speed is increased. And... and we hit chemistry and physics again. The sleeve is made so that the lower part is steel - brass does not withstand pressure. And ... we burn the barrels again, and the recoil is such that we need a sickly muzzle brake. And the barrels are burned at such a speed that the army said that it would buy BOTH cartridges. Civilian - for training, and Army - for combat operations.

      If to use 6.5 Creedmoor, and 277 Fury (Civilian) it is enough to rebarrel a rifle or machine gun, then this cannot be done using 6.8x51 (Military). Due to the high power, the load on the mechanisms is such that neither the G3, nor the M14 nor the FAL can withstand. AP10 - even more so.

      That is to say, to improve ballistics, we burn barrels twice as fast (6.5 Creedmoor). or even faster (6.8x51 ARM). Are there any other options? There is
      For example caliber 338 Winchester Magnum. It develops a pressure of only 2000 psi more than 7.62x51 NATO. (64000 psi versus 62000 psi, by the way, 6.8x51 has a pressure of 80000 psi, for comparison, 408 Chey Tek gives a pressure of 64000 psi) Trunks ruin about the same as 7.62 NATO. Powerful, long-range, but ... now we run into an increase in the weight of the ammunition load and, of course, a SMALL increase in recoil. Physics cannot be fooled. If we have a more powerful cartridge, then there will be more recoil. The weighting of the ammunition, and, as a result of a more powerful cartridge, the weighting of the weapon.
      There are many calibers in the USA with excellent ballistics: 300 VIN MAG, 300 VIN MAG SHORT, 270 VIN MAG, 7mm-08 heavy bullet), and faster barrel wear, especially with automatic fire.

      We, at the moment, rested against the limitations of chemistry and physics. We can accelerate bullets to 1000 or more meters per second. Only now the trunks do not withstand for a long time, and the return naturally grows. And if recoil can be dealt with by screwing on the muzzle brake (as the Americans did on the Spear rifle), then increased barrel wear can only be dealt with by advances in metallurgy, or else you can start making barrels from polymer materials, with all the consequences.

      It seems to me that a machine gun in caliber 338 Winchester Magnum, or in caliber 270 Vin Mag, or in caliber 7mm-08 Remington in a bullpup layout would be ideal in order to have the longest possible barrel (for dispersing a bullet), with ejection of shells either down (as in a kel Tekovsky RDB), or forward as on the FN F2000. The minimum increase in cartridge pressure will not entail an increase in the mass of the weapon, nor an increase in recoil. Moreover, in the USA the 270 Vin Mag is very popular for hunting deer and elk. And the difference in recoil with 7.62x51 NATO is minimal, moreover, in all respects, the recoil is 270 winmag LESS.

      Of course, none of the cartridges I named (338 Vin Magnum, 270 Vin Mag, 7mm-08 Rem). can not be compared in power with 6.8x51, which has a higher pressure than even 338 Lapua and 408 Chey Tek. But all these cartridges, approaching the ballistics of 6.8 NATO, are much cheaper, do not wear out the barrels, and much less in recoil, and 270 VIN magician and 7mm-08 Rem are even less in recoil than 7.62x51 With much better ballistics.
      1. 0
        29 August 2022 14: 46
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        The Creedmoor cartridge has a high muzzle velocity, flatness and ... burns barrels on average twice as fast as 7,62 NATO. And on automatic fire - even faster.

        Actually, EMNIP, the same reason at one time ruined the domestic (Soviet, that is to say) project of the 6x49mm cartridge, which was supposed to replace the "old man" 7,62x54R. Huge pressure when fired, quickly "burning" the barrels of weapons. And if for a sniper rifle it was still relatively acceptable, then for machine guns ....
        Quote: Baron Pardus
        That is to say, to improve ballistics, we burn barrels twice as fast (6.5 Creedmoor). or even faster (6.8x51 ARM).

        Yes, that's not even quite to improve the ballistics. Key to Voor command. US forces here is the moment, as I understand it, the armor-piercing action of the bullet.
        Just infantry bulletproof vests in the period from 1980, when the Belgian 5,56x45mm SS109 submachine gun cartridge, created on the basis of the earlier American 5,56x45mm M193 submachine gun cartridge, was adopted by the armies of the countries of the NATO military-political bloc, they took a very strong step forward in in terms of the degree of protection provided.
        1. +2
          29 August 2022 18: 03
          I'm sorry, I don't want to offend you, but one follows from the other. You WILL NOT have good armor penetration without high muzzle velocity. The 6.5 Creedmoor Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet has more penetrating power than the equivalent 7.62x51 NATO bullet. Armor-piercing is provided by SPEED. Give the head of cheese sufficient initial velocity and it will pierce through a brick wall.
          As for the tasks of the 6.8x51 cartridge, as always, the US Army told the truth, but not the whole truth.
          The 6.8x51 cartridge was developed based on the results of our actions in Iraq. In Iraq, we DID NOT EXPERIENCE with super bulletproof vests and helmets. What are we facing? And with the fact that our rifles and machine guns (M4A1 and M249) corny DO NOT PUNCH barriers behind which terrorists are hiding - for example, an adobe wall from a distance of 500 yards. Naturally, the Army will never say "Oops, a mistake came out, we have been arming our army for so many years with weapons that in battle, in many situations, turned out to be less effective than the weapons that we abandoned (m14). When they began to return the M14 to the Army in Iraq, sometimes converted into DMR rifles, and sometimes - just as they were in the warehouse, they were given out, then VERY many old-timers began to say "But once they said that it was not necessary to remove the M14 and adopt the M16." And why did they start returning the M14. But because 10 a person with K98 Mausers or Lee Enfields there can create a lot of problems at a distance of 500 yards 10 people with M4A1... And although the M4a1 can do things at this distance, and hit a target the size of a person without problems, armor penetration and overcoming obstacles (brick wall , masonry, adobe wall, duval), is extremely doubtful. But 7.92x57, or there 30-06 or 303 British at a distance of 500 yards can do things - wow. The fact that you have a 7.92 helmet on your head 57x303 at this distance will not even notice. I personally saw what 500 British does from a distance of about XNUMX meters with a human tibia ...


          What else have we discovered? And the fact that, thanks to the high equipment of our Army with optics and night vision devices, we detect the enemy earlier, at long distances, but to defeat we must enter the zone of destruction of THEIR weapons. Tritely, our generals quite logically wanted our soldiers to be able to spread the enemy with impunity from distances at which they either don’t see us yet, or, even if they see us, they can’t break through OUR bulletproof vests. That is, to put it very simply, our generals quite reasonably want our infantry to be able to do what our tanks did to the Iraqi tanks: detect early, fire first, hit first, and hit first. And if everything is in order with detection, everything is also in order with the "first shot", especially with hits, when the troops are so saturated with optics, there are problems with hitting targets. Therefore, the army said: We want a cartridge that would have better ballistics and penetration than 7.62x51 NATO, while having LESS weight. The Army required the ballistics of the 300 Winchester Short Magnum cartridge (300 WSM) but from a 16 inch barrel (not a 24 inch). Miracles do not happen, and in order to get the ballistics of 300 WSM from a barrel one and a half times shorter, fast-burning, almost pistol types of gunpowder were used. And the army also expressed the desire that existing types of weapons could be re-barreled under 277 Fury. Especially machine guns. So it turned out that you need to work with a cartridge with approximately the dimensions (and the volume of the sleeve) 7.62x51, but the ballistics were required at the level of 300 WSM. A what. Any whim for the client's loot. The army paid the money for development. Smart people sit in the SIG, they didn’t invent a new, completely new, incompatible caliber (unlike their competitors), they didn’t invent new ergonomics, they took their civilian rifle as the basis for the Spiar rifle.

          I repeat, the Pentagon does not recognize that all these years the stake on the 5.56 NATO cartridge turned out to be unjustified in some situations, and the cartridge and weapons for it, on which so much money was spent, turned out to be not as perfect as it was thought. And if so, then this is where the rhetoric about "super duper body armor" comes from. Of course 6.8x51 can penetrate flak vests MUCH better than 5.56x45, and 7.61x51, but this is a secondary effect of the requirement that the effective range of our weapons be higher than that of the enemy's weapons. So that our guys can shoot the enemy with impunity from such distances at which neither 5.45x39 nor Chinese 5.8x42 could do anything to us. Approximately the same as the effective distance of a bullet hit 5.56x45 is higher than that of 7.62x39. And if it is not difficult to hit a growth target from M500 from 16 yards, at this distance from AKM it is rather difficult to hit a growth target. By and large, the adoption of the 6.8x51 cartridge is a recognition that the concept of an intermediate cartridge, as well as a small-caliber cartridge with a high muzzle velocity, is NOT correct, and this is a return to the Battle Rifle concept, to rifles such as G3, M14, FAL, Garand, G43 and SVT-40. In the American army, they are already taught to shoot mainly in single and short bursts.

          By the way, the civilian version 6.8x51 (277 Fury) is already on sale. It turned out something at the level of 7mm-08. But, I repeat, the civilian version has a weakened charge of gunpowder, at the level of 7.62x51. Another reason why the 6.8x51 cartridge is declared "armor-piercing" is because armor-piercing ammunition is FORBIDDEN for civilian possession, and, most likely, full-fledged 6.8x51 cartridges will be declared armor-piercing, and prohibited for civilians, and this will ensure the fire superiority of the Army and the National Guard over civilians, for the case of Boogaloo 2.0.
          1. 0
            30 August 2022 10: 21
            Quote: Baron Pardus
            I'm sorry, I don't want to offend you, but one follows from the other. You WILL NOT have good armor penetration without high muzzle velocity.

            plus - everything is correct, without equivalence and fawning towards the "generals"
            expand by range of application, penetration of the shelter, and then by weight
        2. -1
          30 August 2022 10: 25
          Quote: Terran Ghost
          Huge pressure when fired, quickly "burning" the barrels of weapons.

          even in the days of the Degtyarev machine gun - the Nazis already had interchangeable barrels ... by the way, their machine gun crews were found with more than one interchangeable barrel! And that's 80 years ago...
          today they have them again
          1. 0
            30 August 2022 11: 29
            Uh, I don’t know how to tell you this so as not to shock you .... But not only the Germans had interchangeable barrels. They were on British and Czech light machine guns. Perhaps this will be an even greater discovery for you, but the DP-27 also had a quick-change barrel. Perhaps I will now reveal to you something that you did not know, but the barrels on machine guns in battle are changed not because they are "burned" but because they overheat. Which has a bad effect on accuracy and accuracy, and when the barrel cools down, it is put back. And if the barrel is not changed, then it will be "burned" (burned out). And the burnt trunk - do not change it, there are no more rifling. High velocity cartridges do just that - the rifling wears out VERY quickly. In English it is called "burned barrel" or "worn out barrel". Such a barrel can be safely thrown away, the only way it can be used is as a club. High temperature loads, high bore pressure loads of 80000 psi, that's more than awesome. For comparison, the 7.62 NATO has 60000 psi. Moreover, huge lateral loads, due to the interaction of the bullet and rifling under very high pressure (tensile tension). So interchangeable barrels will not help. They will still have wear many times higher when using either 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.8x51. Creedmoor burns barrels only with temperature and lateral loads, and 6.8x51 also with increased pressure inside the barrel. I will repeat again. THERE it happens with the barrels that the Army said that it would purchase BOTH ammunition, both civilian, weakened, and army. The civilian one will be used in training, and the army one, with a sleeve with a steel lower part, will only be used in battle in order to INCREASE THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE BARREL ... A textbook of physics and strength of materials to help you, and at the same time read the materiel. Interchangeable barrels were not only among the Germans. Almost everyone had them. Even the Japanese had their Type 96. But the Americans didn’t have a BAR.
            1. 0
              30 August 2022 14: 26
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              Perhaps this will be an even greater discovery for you, but the DP-27 also had a quick-change barrel.

              never met...
              and for MG - quite often
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              Perhaps I will now reveal to you something that you did not know, but the barrels on machine guns in battle are changed not because they are "burned" but because they overheat.

              and overheating - leads to rapid wear of the barrel surface, i.e. the reason for the replacement is that she is not the only one; there are several
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              The textbook of physics and strength of materials will help you, and at the same time read the materiel.

              I have not held the materiel in my hands for a long time, the years are not the same, and the materiel has already rotted - almost everywhere, and strength of materials and physics have been studied and applied in full: the barrel manufacturing technology also implies its "walkability", resistance to emerging loads, and here - already materials science, not sopromat ...
            2. 0
              14 November 2022 14: 12
              Yes, it’s not about rifling, it’s just that if you overheat the barrel, processes similar to “letting go” during forging occur, the metal becomes softer, more plastic and then it licks the rifling in a few shots, eventually catching a warp in the barrel. And even if he managed to stop shooting to the wedge and even licking the rifling, the barrel is still in the trash, because it becomes a curve due to uneven compensation of internal stress. I even saw such a barrel, a beautiful color, the rifling is intact, but the barrel became "flamberg" laughing
      2. 0
        31 August 2022 10: 21
        The obvious way out for a machine gun cartridge is sub-caliber arrows. The smooth machine-gun barrel chambered for 10/4,5mm cartridge had a resource of 32000 rounds at DPV 650m (EMNIP).
        1. 0
          14 November 2022 15: 55
          It is difficult to imagine what it will be like to equip and lay the tape with these arrows. I am already silent about the fact that under the increased size it will be necessary to make a machine gun. Although the idea is sober, most likely we will come to shooters on rifle ammunition.
      3. 0
        4 November 2022 19: 32
        How to provide tape power (tape box) in a bullpup layout? Are there good examples? Or use only high-capacity magazines?
        1. 0
          14 November 2022 15: 58
          Here it will be a pleasure, a bunch of hot cartridge cases by the scruff of the neck laughing I can hardly imagine how to equip the tape from the side of the body, because there is at least unloading in the area of ​​ammunition. So only the ejection of shells on the left - behind the collar. laughing
          1. 0
            14 November 2022 18: 18
            Thank you for your very intelligent and valuable comment.
            1. 0
              15 November 2022 13: 30
              I don’t understand your sarcasm, or do you suggest loading the tape from the bottom up? It is usually served either from left to right, or vice versa. How do you even imagine a bullpup tape, where is the breech at the shooter's cheek? Or do you propose that there be some kind of shutter that took the ammunition out of the belt backwards, then went above / below the belt into the barrel? Or was it even better to take it out and carry it into the barrel in front of the tape? In the first case, a very complex design, in the second case, a very long stroke and in both cases a low rate of fire. I’m already silent about the fact that at the shooter either links and shells will be poured into unloading, or the tape will be fed at unloading and interfere with aiming and firing. The only exception is easel machine guns, in which there is no butt at all, but only a trigger.
              1. +1
                15 November 2022 16: 47
                And read my comment carefully.
                This is a question for a comment at the beginning, where the author says that he sees a solution for a modern machine gun in a bullpup layout, and gives arguments.
                I asked the question, "are there any examples of such machine guns", I did not come across, it would be interesting to see. Unfortunately, the author did not answer, but I received a portion of selected ironic humor.
                1. 0
                  16 November 2022 09: 38
                  I confess, I'm guilty, I answered irony with irony, without reading the context. In the battle with swords of irony, I propose to declare a draw :) hi

                  PS although if you hang a dumper in front for unloading, then you can immediately assemble the links laughing
                  1. +1
                    22 November 2022 01: 25
                    And if you still put a dwarf in it, with a spare zinc cartridge, then he can immediately collect a new tape, and attach it to the one that is used: the fire is fired until the zinc (or dwarf) runs out.
    13. 0
      28 August 2022 10: 58
      Purely for me very informative material good authors respect drinks
    14. +2
      28 August 2022 12: 58
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The sleeve is made so that the lower part is steel - brass does not withstand pressure.

      You will be surprised, but a brass sleeve can withstand more pressure than a steel one. And steel for sleeves is used because of its cheapness compared to brass. After all, the sleeve at the time of the shot is inside the chamber and more ductile brass makes it possible to exclude the breakthrough of gases, unlike brittle steel. And high pressures in this miracle of 6,8 are needed in order to get high speeds on a short barrel with the help of “fast” gunpowder.
      Threat And the article left a feeling of some understatement. Nothing is said, for example, about the power supply system (store / tape). And also about shooting from an open / closed shutter.
    15. 0
      28 August 2022 14: 52
      in general, that "universal" weapon is for the "poor" army ...
      for normal weapons should be under the task ...
      it is not clear why the RPK was not considered under 7.62 * 39, RPK-74 and RPK-16 under 5.45 * 39 (which was never seen in the troops) ...
      quite worthy examples of a light machine gun ...
      especially considering the weight that the author is so pressing on ...
      releasing 600 rounds of ammunition in one burst, this is certainly cool, but for such pranks you need to beat the arrow in the face ...
      we will assume that this is just an indicator of quality and no one indulges in such ...
      to provide the necessary fire support, the above machine guns may well be, especially in those conditions when you need to "shove" somewhere far and uphill on yourself ...
      in general, in this section - to shove on oneself - they could have taken care of some kind of "rigging" for a long time, given that exoskeletons are only in projects and in the army they will not be seen for more than one natsat years ...
      well, at least some kind of a la "fox-peddler cart" was invented to carry the main load on it, and only an "assault backpack" on the hump ...
      there are also special bags - adapt to military needs
      judging by the way cyclists are racing now, you can carry it with your hands both in the mountains and in the forests ...

      1. 0
        28 August 2022 20: 37
        And where did you meet the shooters with a tape 600 rounds long?
        1. 0
          28 August 2022 22: 05
          Ammunition supply system "Scorpion", for example. 475 rounds 7,62x54R
        2. 0
          29 August 2022 14: 27
          this is to the author of the article -
          "Pecheneg" can make 600 shots in a continuous burst.

          where did he see it...
        3. 0
          14 November 2022 16: 05
          Manually 1080 pieces 5.45 to equip the tape and fold in the empty zinc. laughing
    16. 0
      29 August 2022 16: 29
      in general, it’s strange to compare MG and RPK somehow: they are different in application
      Both should be in divisions.
    17. 0
      14 November 2022 16: 20
      The RPK is just a machine gun close to modern ones, as it allows you to shoot from a position different from the “lying, legs apart” position. You can also shoot from the hip from the Cookie if there is a lot of dope (in the head, or hands, or both), but there will be very little sense from such fire.
      However, the author is close in his reflections to the realization of the fact that a modern machine gun is the second part of the equipment of a modern squad. Pulmmets for suppressing fire and "Marksmans" for shooting those who leaned out.
      Moreover, "Marksmans" do not necessarily have to be close to the NE in terms of performance characteristics, even this is harmful to them, since it increases their dimensions. In my vision, this is a kind of rifle, one variation of which has increased resistance to automatic fire, the second variation has increased accuracy, incl. thanks to the equipment with aiming devices for quick target acquisition and guidance.
      The RPK-16 fits in well with this concept as a highly mobile fire suppression tool. And he does not need any drums for 95 rounds, firstly it will overheat, and secondly it is inconvenient. Much better shells for 50-60 rounds, and equip several people with this machine gun.
      It is difficult to say what fits into the concept of a "Marksman" rifle, I would not call SVD, since the dimensions of SVD can hardly be called comfortable. It is more likely in terms of the dimensions of the VSS "Vintorez", or something similar, but chambered for a machine gun from Ch1 (or vice versa). And it would also be nice for them to have a grenade launcher, or a single-shot grenade launcher.
      Those. While the machine guns are suppressing the enemy with bursts, the "Marksmen" shoot those who are gaping with impunity, and also advance from the flanks, or occupy a height to defeat the enemy behind shelters. Well, either they loosely throw grenades behind shelters.
    18. 0
      22 November 2022 01: 19
      I wonder what's up with our machine guns? Cord 5,45, RPK-16, RPL-20.


    19. 0
      14 January 2023 17: 34
      You need to clearly understand that a machine gun is two qualities: the density of fire + the duration of fire. To remove at least one of the qualities, then there is an alternative. The density of fire sets mainly the rate of fire + accuracy. The duration of the fire is again affected by the rate of fire + ammunition and the survivability of the system (barrel, automation). The main task of the machine gun in the attack is to suppress the position (conditional trench) while the comrades reduce the distance to throw grenades or make a detour. And so more than once in a fight.
      In defense, the main goal is to pin down and suppress the enemy in a given sector for as long as possible.
      As you can see, a large amount of ammunition is required, so an increase in caliber (and hence an increase in the mass of ammunition) in an infantry machine gun will reduce ammunition. So I'm skeptical about games with calibers.
      It is also impossible to increase the rate of fire, this will reduce the time of continuous fire and the consumption of ammunition, which is already limited. So it should be slightly higher than that of a regular machine.
      In general, in my opinion: the infantry machine gun of the future is essentially the same machine gun as today with belt feed, it is distinguished only by the ability to install and, most importantly, the availability for installing additional equipment, the main of which is a smart sight. According to the type and likeness of that American VORTEX XM-157
      https://youtu.be/SeKnPP6DM7A

      This will allow you to shoot faster and more accurately,
    20. 0
      5 February 2023 01: 54
      Quote: Mustachioed Kok
      But the idea is already in the yard for the third decade of the 3st century. There are already automatic and semi-automatic digital milling machines. There are models of machines that can be integrated into the conveyor line. There is XNUMXD printing which is getting better and better every year. There are robotic manipulators. It is already possible to automate the creation of complex milling parts to the point that, if necessary, several dozen machines at the plant would make parts for several days without interruption. Unlike a human, a machine does not speed up, does not slow down, makes fewer mistakes, spends less time manipulating or changing the position of the blades, does not require sleep breaks and write. Just keep an eye on the power supply and the receipt of blanks on the tape.


      You seem to live in another universe.
      You write that it's all there! But where??? We don't have that!!
      Our machine tool industry was screwed up!!! Therefore, for mass character, it remains for us, and not only for us, for the bourgeoisie too - stamping without options.
      Everything else is current for R&D for experimental batches for small-scale production .. as an example, LOBAYEV.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"