Light machinegun use in small teams?
 

I will keep OPSEC in mind but if I state somthing violating that please tell me to adjust fire. I like to build firearms and I have several designs based on my experiences in LRSD units. I felt the need for small teams to have light machineguns some do use them some don't. Things might have changed with the current conflicts we have.
My question is, is there a need for sustained fire compact and light 7.62x51 machineguns amongst small teams?
My thinking was that when I carried the M60 which some may disagree but I think it was a good system, it was nice to have that kind of power in the team. Except for the heat factor and the one I carried was full length.
Second question is, would a bullpup type design, that was blowback instead of gas assisted be preferred?
Would the chamber/breech beung under your check weld be disliked and why?
If you could have a custom system what would you like it to have keep it to the (Light Machinegun system only)?
I have already designed this I would just like to see if there is a need for such a system and what mods I could build into it. Im a one man Corporation I have a day job this is just a hobby but I have been thinking of submitting my designs for contracts.
Unfortunately FN already made a system very close to one of my designs in the SCAR-H, but I still plan on building mine it is a little different and would be cheaper but heavier then thiers. Anyway feel free to comment I would like to have BTDT soldiers replys the most. My goal is to make the best system geared towards your needs that is practical and reliable. You guys deserve the best. If this post is out of line please correct me.
Ryan

M60E4 is out with alot of enhancments you would be compeating with them

http://www.defensereview.com/article356.html

build a 40mm grenade launcher using this design no one has made one yet that I know of....
http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/m4.tpl

4 shots would be prefered, 1 in the chamber and 3 in the tube.

This is mission specific and most teams with exotic requirements can get what weapon systems they need when they need them. There is an overabunance of systems and dealers out there to more than meet the need. If there is a need for a particular system someone will define the requirement. I don't want to sound harsh, but I have had my fill of folks during portions of my career looking to provide the military with another good idea without fully understanding all the ramifications that go along with what happens when some "technological advance" has been found so it must be important to "develop a mission" to enable the use of this "great advance". So to answer your question, yes, no, maybe.

Jack Moroney, you are not being harsh Im looking for honest imput. I don't find what you say to be harsh but helpful. I'm sure you guys have had many people like me and companies looking to shop thier wares. I started my company so I could get the proper FFLs and such. I tinker with ideas and like making designs in AutoCAD many designs on paper just don't work in the real world, or are just unusable. Im aware of the other companies and people like myself but I have to start somewhere. For me it is the challenge of designing something and then making it into a working machine. I just wanted to set up some practical goals with your needs in mind to work towards.
Keep in mind in the process another company could already have my ideas in place and they may be way ahead of me. I would still finish mine and keep it as a one off design.
One pivitol question I have for you is, are you untrusting of weapons that have the breech area just under your face?
In other words the thought of firing a weapons system where the 50psi expantion/explosion is just under your cheek, would this make you not want to use the system? And if so, if this area was well reinforced structurely would you be more inclined to use it?

7624U, I like your user name Im a big fan of 7.62x51 myself. The benelli system is good and one in 40mm would be great but something similar has allready been made. I have seen it and operated it but not fired. I would need a DD license for that kind of system and I don't need the exspense of that yet. My machines have have cost me enough, keep in mind I have a day job, where I support troops on the ground. This is what I do when I get home. The m60e4 is a good system but it is gas assisted not blowback, a blowback design should decrease cleaning time and fauling in the system where it counts. making the system operate more reliable. Think Maxim machinegun. I appreciate your imput keep it coming.

are your asking if we would want a type 95 blowback design not gas.
http://sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type95rifle.asp
machine gun in 7.62 belt feed.

I would say no I wouldent because the linked ammo is to close to your face.
bullpups are fine with 30rd magazines but when you throw belts into the mix
I think they would get hung up on stuff. that and with a feed tray so far back it would have to be highly reenforced in turn adds more pounds to the weapon
now if you had some idea of maybe holding it diffrent lets say on your shoulder and the feedtray and belt was behind your shoulder feeding out of a backpack or something that might work but then you would have the problem of going to the prone and the belt getting pinched.

Yes, That is what I was getting at. Im trying to work the belt feed in another way. My thoughts where the same when I came up with the idea that having the belt under your nose would be a problem. You have confirmed that for me. I was looking at making the feed mechanism different, where the belt would feed infront of your face but forward and down. This setup I have keeps the belt contained internally (50-100 rnds) but gives the option to load outside for more sustained fire needs.
I kind of look at things in a very different way, but the package would similar to the to those you had in your link, except belt fed. I don't like the bullpups for the most part but it is the only way to make a system shorter and more compact with existing tectnology. This would be needed for Urban environments. Thanks again for your input, I know this is difficult without something to look at but I don't want to put anything on the net. I have allready had some of my ideas stolen while working for other companies, and they didn't even the gumption to give me credit.

I do not think that you are going to be able to make the weapon very portable with 7.62 in a blowback design.

The blowback depends on the weight of the bolt to counter the pressure of the round . It needs to keep the bolt closed by inertia till the pressure drops, at which point the inertia is overcome and the round begins the extraction process.

Early experimenters found that while blowback is a good system with pistol rounds and SMGs, it temds to be ammo sensitive and requires far too heavy a bolt to counter rifle cartridges pressure and timing. IIRC, the bolt itself was several pounds.

Even intermediate rounds like the 7.92 Kurz, 7.62x39, and the 5.56x45 require too much bolt mass to make them practical.

No issues with a bullpup, as long as it is safe and reliable.

TR

TR, I know what you mean by having a heavy bolt the M3 grease gun comes to mind. I had the oportunity to speak with a person that was designing SMGs and he gave me some insight on the timing issues involved with blow back designs. My plan is to incorporate existing parts from certain designs and modify or make what I need to fill in the gaps. Bolt weight is an issue unless you use a roller system in conjustion with a pnuematic rate reducing setup. This lets reduce bolt weight and maintain your timing. Keeping the out of battery operation from happening. Doing this setup allows you to also shorten bolt travel and shorten the firearm. I don't have a nice animation system to check my idea simulated. Your insight is helpful thanks.

I also have another idea in using a hopper as the feed mechanism rather then belts, but the problem with that is getting the rnds situated correctly and that would be hard on the run and gun.

The HK 21 already does exactly what you're suggesting. IIRC it wasn't great but it did the job (I worked with units that used them for recon/raid missions in El Salvador during their "unpleasantness"). Although they were easier to carry than the M-60s, they weren't much fun to shoot (too lightweight) and didn't seem to hold up to 3rd world abuse. In my AO (2nd Bde.) they were retired as quickly as teams got new/refurbished M-60s. (And we all have opinions about the M-60.) YMMV. Peregrino

The whole trick is scale down a browning 1919 with modern parts and make it the size of a M60E4 or smaller. Move the trigger forward with some type of linkage to the fireing pin and it would be a safe also,
and in place of the trigger plate have a buttstock assembly with a good recoil reducing spring.
I dont know if aircraft alluminum would take the pressure if you used that as the main body, might work on 5.56mm and you could deffently lighten up the barrel now days, compared to the heavy 1919 barrel, you could also have a forward pistol grip on it . best thing is the 1919 is a recoil operated system no gas fouling.

here is your hopper

http://science.howstuffworks.com/machine-gun1.htm:D

And on this page if anyone wants to know how the diffrent systems work click the triggers on the machineguns in the flash players recoil, blowback, and gas

http://science.howstuffworks.com/machine-gun1.htm

MK46/48
 

We got one (the 7.62 MK 48) from the SFAUC comittee last trip to "R&D". Didn't use it much, but it is a hell of a gun if you have to hump or jump it compared to the 240. I aint no bravo, but basicaly it is a .308 SAW. The only thing that I would add is a box for ammo that hooks to it. Advantages are 1) light weight fire-power, 2) ability to be shoulder fired, 3) built in rail(s). Disadvantages 1) not a common weapon for parts 2) incompatable ammo with the rest of the team, 3) no good way to carry a useable "mag" of ammo. We used it for house defense, and selected missions for a little extra firepower. We shot the hell outa it, and I really liked it. But that's just my .02 take it fer what it's worth, have a good un'

You try the 100rd cloth bags Bubba it has the same bag hanger as the M60
here is what MK-48 looks like for anyone that hasent seen it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_48_Mod_0

I think rynich is trying to make something that isent gas operated so it gets less dirty. MK-48 still better then the M-60