How come it took until the early-2000s for this idea to really take off? Machine guns have been around for a long time, and scopes even longer. What was keeping enterprising spirits from marrying the two together so long?
I'm a neverserved gay and all of the guns I've ever used have been basic bitch hunting rifles so my practical experience with machine guns is basically non-existent.
The FG42 had a fixed power optic. It's mostly a matter of cost and weight efficiency. The service LMG of the United States prior to the M249 was the M60, and that bitch weighed 23 pounds. The M249 weighs 17 pounds which frees up weight for extra shit.
They also tended to be rather fragile and expensive to manufacture. For a machine gun, the optic would have to be extremely well built to withstand the recoil of the weapon firing.
ACOGs weren't issued for rifles until 1995, so hardly surprising it took a few more years for it to catch on for a weapon primarily used for suppression.
>ACOGs weren't issued for rifles until 1995
For special forces. Normal infantryman didn't get ACOGs in the 90s.
Machine guns are area weapons, fired in bursts and often heavier. Extra weight isn't needed and they will often shoot at an enemy position designated to them, not at actual troops.
This is nonsense, they come in various weight categories, and at those weights it really makes no signifant difference to have a scope. Plus a gun team carries a couple k worth of rounds anyway.
It's fucking heavy already, bro, I was light infantry assistant gunner.
My question is how does the vision blur work with a scope. Anyone else experience that with an mg?
The same reasons rifles didn’t get widespread optics until the 2000s, cost and durability.
God I hope that Filipino looking motherfucker got some sandmoron kills. God bless the USA.
My first shooting instructor has served in the east german NVA as a machine gunner, and he had a scope on his MG.
It's less about technical feasability than about "do I really want to give some bumfuck conscript or enlisted more to fuck up, on something as critical as the sqad's heavy weapon?"
Here's a question - how do barrel changes work once you've layered it in mounting rails?
Same as they ever did. Only gun I can think of where the barrel was enclosed by the rail is the mk46/48, honestly no idea how you were meant to get the barrel off of that thing. For everything else with railed handguards, SAWs, M240s, MG3s, modernized PKMs, etc; the rails don't obstruct the barrel change at all. The heat shield on a SAW is attached by a hinge at the gas block, it comes off with the barrel.
Fair enough, gents, thanks for elaborating. I've got a spot of dark black hair that grows on my right where I grilled myself on a red hot barrel, as such I now always think "but is the barrel change an issue", seeing as difficulties cost time & cause grilled meat smell.
They are two separate assemblies. The rails are not slaved to the barrel/gas plug. Look up a disassembly vid you'll see.
Holy shit I HATE phoneposting.
So you mean the part on the barrel does not mess with the quick-change part of it? I mean, makes sense, I was wondering if Yanks maybe have given up on the concept of changing barrels due to more precision fire or something.
Every 300 rounds is how they drilled me, and I served on a naked M240 Euro copy, so I know the gun, and therefore have questions - basically all maintenance seems like a massive chore with stuff mounted, but hell do I know.
Just like you said, the handguards are mounted to the receiver and is independent of the barrel. I dunno about barrel changes. We trained on it but I'm not a gunner and my truck was a .50 truck.
t. Motorized Medic
Once you fully kit out a LMG, how are they any different form a DMR? Both have bipods, suppressors, scopes, long-range barrels and match-grade ammo.
I mean the only difference is that DMRs are a bit more accurate and weight a few pounds lighter because of the 100-round belt pouch of the LMG.
machine guns are made of looser tolerance parts that wiggle
DMRs are designed to be less wiggly :3
What about the HK21 ? It's supposedly rather accurate for a MG and even has select fire. That being said Idk if it's a good machine gun all around.
LMGs can attack and suppress area targets, can shoot further effectively due to the ability to walk your fire on target and the beaten zone size and they're a lot heavier due to the greater ammo consumption. For LMGs specifically the range is mostly limited by the round they're shooting so a GPMG with a bigger round can easily go further while 5.56 with its effective range around 500-600 yards ends up with similar range to DMRs.
The LMG has looser tolerances to handle material expansion under continuous heat;
May have something like cooling ribs or jackets incorporated into the design which might add bulk and mass;
Has the bulky feed system necessary to handle belts.
It may also be an open-bolt action which is good for cooling but a disadvantage for single-shot accuracy.