Bring GPMG back to fireteam level!

Interesting, shame they'll never be imported into the US thanks to Zognald. We might get straight pull versions here though, I've seen 5.56 straight pull Kalashnikovs imported here before.
The closest you can get is a Yugo M77 with a butchered slant-cut reviver or a Galil ACE.

Its fallout from Indian request I guess.
indiandefencenews.info/7-62x51mm-assault-rifles-for-indian-army/

US already makes M240L a long time ago, just no one adopts it.

It's the exact same problems as M60.

I doubt it jams as much as the M60.

The what? It is M240 with some some weight trimming, no change in mechanism.

That or the HK gun.

No, the Gimpy doesn't have the issue of the entire trigger mechanism just snapping off under normal use and having a runaway of 200 rounds downrange.
It also doesn't have the issue of the front trunnion being made of whatever the Americans could find, so it doesn't crack every few hundred rounds.
It also doesn't take a PhD in mechanical engineering to change the barrel.

The M60 is literally American trying to make their buzzsaw and fucking suck at it.

It is one of the reasons I doubt the quality of American guns over yurop guns, imagine instead if the murican just adopt an MG3 with shorter barrel.

First of all the US aren't making M240 all M240 variants are developed by FN MAG, FNH is a Belgian company.
The US doesn't make weapons. They spend billions in R&D programs that aren't meant to be adopted and are simply there to generate tremendous profit for the US MIC. Which is why everything they adopt and works is either of a US made/foreign designed or is simply an early cold war variant (or end up being a total failure).
Second the reason why no one buys that gun is… because everyone is already using FN MAGs.
No sane military on the planet is gonna drop at least 10k to 15k per gun (we're talking titanium receivers here…) to replace the model they already have and work for a more complex, harder to maintain and a bit lighter identical gun.
Third is, FN MAG were always meant to be a "multipuprose" machine-gun, IE the one clamp mounted on vehicles, that can be used by infantry as a support weapon when needed. FN do make a 7.62 light-machine gun specifically for infantry use, the Minimi, and the Minimi was always intended to shoot 7.62 a LOT of it's reliability issues came from the stupid insistence by NATO of the "all 5.56" mainly the addition of a STANAG magazine port and the 5.56 cartridge themselves that don't run the action as reliably as 7.62 NATO does.
So the idea to buy FN MAG super costly modded specifically to be used by the infantry, when you can buy a cheaper, lighter, gun that was actually designed for it from the same company is just pure insanity.

Back in the days, the FN conception of small arms for a section would have meant FALs for everyone less one guy that has a MAG and double as the gunner of his APC (G3/MG3 for HK).
The soviets introduced light machine guns to the mix with the RPD, then took a step backward with the RPK, but competent gun designer obviously wanted to go full LMG rather than "a bit bigger assault rifle", which they just found retarded (because it is). FNH response was the Minimi (in 7.62 as they considered it a mistake to make them in 5.56 as 5.56 is a terrible round when it comes to penetration and chewing through cover is one of the jobs of a machine-gun). In case you're wondering HK response was the HK21… Which are light weight, full power, belt-felt machine-gun specifically meant for infantry (one guy can carry the gun and a reasonable amount of ammo alone).

The M240L is one of those corrupt scheme the US MIC came up with, whoever is making the parts for the M240L kits is bribing the right officials.

The US has always had good gun designers, they run into problems by repeatedly handing that good design to the lowest bidder.

M240L is experimental shit made by a private corp to prove a point, it is not funded by govt.

My bad, should have said M240LW.
gunsandammo.com/first-look/barrett-introduces-new-m240lw-machine-gun/

M240L(ima) is already being used by muhreen, made by FNH themselves.

No it's not, you're talking about the Barrett 240 LWS. Which isn't getting picked. For the same reason no one else but FNH actually competed when the US army issued a tender to lighten the M240 (despite the fact that dozen of companies make them, including some company that already made them considerably lighter… Bofors for example).
It's an unwinnable contract that is just a pork barrel for FN USA and it's subcontractors.

Attached: ksp58d_white.jpg (900x394, 89.1K)

True, US bidders are fucking shit, we can agree there.

Those are manufacturing issues, I'm talking basic engineering, size, shape, operation. M240 is an improvement, yes, but it still lags behind.

Attached: Joojoobs-Handmade-Wallets.jpg (563x271, 42.76K)

If so, why not just adopt the polish 7.62 NATO firing PKM?

Exactly, why the fuck NOT?! It's made of wood, I bet weight could be reduced even more.

Stupid ass american bidder I guess.

1. For the purpose of long range fire support, the 6.5 Grendel is superior in every single fucking way.
2. The M60 was dogshit. Pure fucking dogshit.

How about the E4? The Danish Army also adopted an M60 variant over the HK121.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (650x318 1.57 MB, 166.56K)

Does an LMG honestly need all those fucking rails?

Batteries 12, laser 3, grip 6 snickers 9. Maybe add a cupholder on the 7, or 8, but at that point you would be pushing it.

what if i want to put a payload into my projectile. 7.62 incendiary is objectively better than 6.5 incendiary what if my goal from my support weapon is barrier penetration. what if first round hits are a non issue in a support weapon and what if the more pronounced trajectory is overcome with tracers and observing impact.

The thing is, it's not as if Americans have brain damage. There is a manufacturer in illinois or vermont or arizona or SOMEWHERE who could copy the PKP and pass it off as "merika ngyneerin".

It wouldn't even be difficult, Pooland already makes 7.62 NATO PKPs

Or just, like, I don't know, import shit from allied countries.
H&K has a really nice "new": the MG5, which is everything all you niggers say a good GPMG should have.
Used it a couple times. It's neat.

It all comes down to contract kikery, dumbass/greedy senators who get votes for "creating new jobs" in their states by taking these contracts, and kiked companies that can get away with selling shitty equipment for max profit.
Military-industrial complex is kiked to shit.

I'm still pissed HK didn't enter it in the contest to change french GPMG, they entered the 221 instead (which is just a German built FN MAG and if you're gonna buy an FN MAG might as well just buy it from Belgium. Guess what happened…)

...

The SUVs of the firearm world.

Attached: d0cb5de89056861009d24112251f66d79fa8115791e0e2925191574dc171cb37.jpg (726x271, 33.76K)

...

>M1 Garand

The Belgians are making most of our guns for us these days, FN even has the M4 contract at the moment.

Nice cherry picking the numbers, faggot.
The universal version with a longer barrel and a heavier bipod weighs 11,2 kg. The standard infantry version is at 9,9kg.
RPM is adjustable by the shooter using an adjusting lever. You just picked the lowest setting. It has three settings: 600, 720, 800 rpm.
Muzzle velocity depends on barrel configuration. In the standard infantry version with a 460mm barrel it has a v0 of 785 m/s.
That's just wrong. The MG5 can be fed from any container with standard NATO attachment or just a plain belt. That includes sacks. The sacks provided with the standard infantry version hang below the weapon and also serve as a brass deflector.
Saying that it is "insulated by plastic" is false. The gun is passively air-cooled, like 99% of all machine guns. Cooling the barrel isn't the way the gun is meant to be used. It has quick change barrels for this reason.
There is also no point in the entire design where plastic touches hot metal. The handguard is attached to the part where the gas system connects with the receiver, which is cool by design. The barrel shroud you see on some versions is made from sheet metal.

Don't make me get my rake, faggot. At least make fun of real issues, like the fact that the standard infantry version comes with a grip-pod, and has a 460mm barrel instead of making shit up.

I sure hate longer periods of sustained fire and lessened barrel wear, allowing me to not only hit the enemy with more accuracy but also provide more consistent and effective suppression. All machine guns need at least 900 rpm, 1200 is preferable! Shooting pinned down soldiers is just like dogfighting in supersonic jets! Hitler's buzzsaw!

Also, are we supposed to believe a 10m/s difference in muzzle velocity matters at all, at any range? That can literally be a measuring error between two cartridges from a single lot of ammo. Powder burns inconsistently, especially in military ammo which isn't made to the quality standards a lot of civilian shooters hold to. The army wants what's cheap, not what's best most of the time. That's akin to if I said that my Sako 85 is a bad rifle because it shoots 1.5-2 MOA with 7.62 NATO M80 Ball… instead of acknowledging that I'm using low-quality ammo with a lower standard pressure and different headspacing, I'd be blaming the gun despite the fact that it can easily shoot .5 MOA with .308 Winchester Federal soft points. Performance varies, especially with ammo never designed for high performance in the first place.

I am just angry at the leaf for being retarded.

Very understandable. I don't know what mental device Canadians have in their brains that made most of them completely internalise the 'hurr fuggen leafs' shitpost, because a couple years ago none of them were like this. Now at least half are retards who profess to talk big shit about things they lack any education about. It's to the point where an actually intelligent leaf is a refreshing surprise. What happened? Did they get progesterone-nuked by Current Year Man?

Dunno. Maybe it is essentially RPK with belt feed mechanism and receiver where barrel assembly is fixed to upper part to keep sights fixed to barrel. Basically pistol grip, trigger assembly and feed system are the removable part instead of having dust cover. That stock looks pretty interesting as it doubles as carrying handle when folded, but can it eject if fired when stock is folded. In pattern 1946 prototype version of AK pistol grip, trigger group and stock were the part of gun that was removed for cleaning and maintenance.

Current M60 versions are pretty good guns, they have replaced bunch of parts like feed arm to titanium one that can't bend. M60 was fine, but weapons got worn up as hell over the years. US machine gun procurement policy is fucked up. They usually re-equip all forces quickly and end production before they have actual data how the weapons will wear over the years, what kind of spare parts they need to stock in what quantities. Same shit happened with M249. Almost all guns were made in 80's. For some reason people that have been issued brand new paratrooper versions newer had major reliability issues. For M60's, Marines bought some new guns in late 80's, they didn't have major issues with M60 in Gulf War.

For one thing, M60 was lighter and more maneuverable than M240. Heavier than M249, but packs more punch.

7.62NATO was gargantuan mistake made by a one guy. Same guy that forced US Army select M14 over the FAL. Picture related, if this one pilot USAF forgot to take with them when they left the army didn't exist NATO would have most likely standardized .280 British and FAL would have become actual standard rifle for entire NATO. He was a pilot, never served in infantry and simply couldn't understand that almost all infantry combat happens at ranges where full power rifle is less effective as it limits rate of fire and is uncontrollable on full auto rifle for huge majority of soldiers.

Attached: Col_Studeler.jpg (684x384 33.63 KB, 18.62K)

Yeah, but it's the "American" version, so burgers claim that it's American. They couldn't just adopt the FN MAG like everyone else, they made their own version to maintain their national pride, same with the M249 SAW instead of just adopting the FN Minimi.

Based frogs fucking everything up for everyone.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (799x412 387.67 KB, 126.39K)

As long as it works for them

It wasn't invented in US. Just like FAL, this I'll get back to FAL part in a bit. US selected M60 over MAG in 1958. M240 was standardized for US army in 70's as M60 wasn't reliable enough its current configuration for tank coax gun, until then they had used m1919 variants chambered in 7.62NATO as tank machine guns. They needed something more reliable, so they selected MAG as tank coax mg. Infantry versions of M240 have letters in their designations, as the normal version is the tank mg. In general biggest flaw of M60 is going cheap on some components. Another flaw was idiotic placement of bipod. Reliability went down hill when guns got worn down over the years. New versions like the one Danes adopted few years ago replaces some parts that tend to bend with titanium ones, generally uses better materials and they set up bipod away from the barrel. Some parts of M60 were originally made of way too thin steel stampings and could be easily bent, mostly parts that fix grip and trigger assembly to the receiver and rocker arm that moves the belt feed mechanism.

M249 is just US designation for FN Minimi. Most of the early production guns were made in Belgium, part of offset trade deal for Belgium, Denmark, Dutch and Norway buying F-16's. All of involved countries got license manufacturing for some F-16 components, new US squad automatic weapon was part of offsets to Belgium.

He was American. Volunteered for Canadian Army in WWI before US entered to war, became pilot and left Royal Flying Corps to join US army once US joined the war. Flew recon planes for Cancucks. Served as flight instructor in US army air corps. After the war he was in charge of bomber squadron for while, he was promoted to level where his incompetence became apparent, got assigned to desk job at army ordnance corps and was mostly involved in aircraft machine gun development. Never got any command during WWII. Somehow after WWII he was put in charge of all infantry weapons development for US army. He buried a fuck ton reports saying that intermediate calibers were superior than full power rifle calibers in infantry rifles. Rest of NATO agreed to 7.62NATO as service rifle caliber with US agreeing to standardize to FAL. Americans made a small batch of FAL's with prototype designation T48. It was superior to T47 prototype, one that would eventually become M14, those reports were buried as well. Then Rene and his butt buddies at ordnance corps changed the requirement for next US rifle so that it should be made with at least 70% of same tooling as M1 Garand. That way they adopting FAL is impossible… as side note they had to do far bigger tooling conversion for M14. So M14 failed the tooling requirement, but that didn't matter.

When it comes shit going on with FAL in Europe. Brits changed the design to meet their existing tooling so at that point FAL's diverged into metric and imperial unit measured versions. Because new drillbits and shieet are too damn expensive. FN licensed FAL without compensation or at extremely cheap to UK, US, Canada, Australia, France and pretty much everyone involved in liberation of Belgium. In mid 50's West Germany started to rearm. They selected FAL as their service rifle, designated as G1, bought couple batches from FN. When it comes to licensing FAL to Germans, things got bit iffy as lot of folks at FN had made Browning Hi-Powers at reduced salary and benefits for SS. For Germans they offered license manufacturing at terms that made German made rifles more expensive than buying from FN. For that reason they went on and developed G3. While Austria isn't in NATO, they adopted FAL as Stg58 and got production license at acceptable cost. I don't know anything about why Italy went with Beretta BM59 instead of FAL, but that might involve some FN butthurt for being on Axis side in WWII. French are French, they don't need a reason to deviate from already made agreements.

When it comes to GPMG's, in my opinion PKM > MAG > MG3. All three are in use in Finland. PKM as infantry mg. MG3 in Leopard 2A4's and NH90's. MAG in ex-Dutch Leo2A6's. MAG is too heavy for infantry. PKM is just as reliable and way lighter. MG3 just has shittier ergonomics and eats ammo way too fast, fine for vehicle mounted mg, but in infantry use humpping couple extra belts may suck a bit. MG3 was almost immediately removed from NH90 in favor of minigun.

Final note here is that Rene and his cronies at US army ordnance corps are largely responsible for teething issues AR-15 had in Vietnam, because if M16 fails, it would prove that they are right. They ensured that M16's were issued with ammo that was fundamentally incompatible with the rifle. They also removed features like chromed barrels and bolt carriers in favor of cheaper materials.

Attached: 5b184c4de150c_M60bipodassy2.jpg.ebec1e29b04dccaaa33e1b118a25db67.jpg (660x440 226.61 KB, 101.92K)

You forgot the best part: the All American M60 was developed from an FG-42 that had the feeding device of an MG42 added by the burgers. The M60 even had the spring around the firing pin that was completely unnecessary, as the FG-42 only needs that for semi-auto fire from a closed bolt. In other words, they managed to completey ruin the FG-42. Around that time they also made a copy of the MG42 in 30-06.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T24_machine_gun

Attached: T24mg6.jpg (800x343 295.76 KB, 35.13K)

Bipod position is trade-off.
Barrel end position reduces full auto dispersion what is very good. But it also reduces field of fire and if mounted directly on the barrel increases POI shift under barrel load.
Gas tube position is opposite.

POS cartridge like slav 7.62x39.

Attached: 544.jpg (1024x766, 85.98K)

Another funny fuckup with M60 is the version USAF got in mid 80's, basically same as what 'muhreens and Navy SEAL's got. Marines and SEAL's opted for lighter version M60 with shorter barrel, vertical fore grip and repositioned bipod. USAF wanted even lighter barrel. So light that barrel change came up earlier than new belt if they got into shitty situation.

Bipod that makes spare barrel more bulky and expensive is also a trade off. Just like things like chromed bore, bolt, bolt carrier and possible just chroming chamber without entire bore, as happened with early variants of M16.

With both rifles and machine guns there few things that needs to be balanced and prioritized correctly. Generally it is about three things. Reliability, accuracy and weight, but when it comes to armies fourth inevitable thing will be price. I generally consider durability as part of reliability. Are you willing to sacrifice accuracy for more reliable gun. Do you want lighter but less reliable rifle? If caliber is still open recoil, penetration, stopping power and range also becomes factors.

It was far more suitable cartridge than 7.62mm real fucking NATO in early 50's when NATO was formed, last iterations .280 bongoloid and .270bongoloid were bit too hot. With lots modern day hindsight they should have gone with six point something by about 40 millimeter caliber. Some good midway point between 5.56mmNATO and 7.62x39mm. The fact that ideal intermediate round is smaller than .30 or 8mm was well known in 30's. The fact that Soviets could go with less tooling changes led to 7.62x39mm becoming first iteration of Commie intermediate round. Same thing Germans and 7.92×33mm Kurz, they already had tooling for 7.92mm barrels.

The reason why current calibers are what they are is largely because changing it calibers costs a lot for military, not worth it if performance gain is minimal. When some special forces units get some new caliber for a random optimized task, .300 blackout is a good example of that, it doesn't affect army at large at all. Purchases are some hundreds of rifles and relatively few rounds new ammunition.

Not just that, the case is literally a shortened 7.92 Mauser case. I guess they also used the same bullets, but I'm not sure. It's funny that 7.92 Mauser, 30-06 and 7.62 NATO all share the same base diameter, so you can manufacture 7.92 Kurz from any of them.
It only really worths the effort if it's part of a complete rearmament program for the infantry based on a new doctrine that requires different weapons. I doubt anything would have changed if NATO kept 30-06 instead of adopting its slightly shorter version. 30-06 becamse so cheap after the war that lots of small(ish) countries switched to it simply to buy American surplus.

Pls. Its piss weak to replace GMG round so something like .30-06 have to stay so it can't work as unitary 7.62x51.
And its to heavy big and rainbow trajectory for assault rifle in the two cartridge system.

Replaced as not delivered promised performance, outdated and outclassed by 5.56x45.

Fun fact: after WWII USSR made 4 military calibers and replaced 2 of them as outdated. BASED.

No an argument for US. All these US failure attempts to cheap out wuth M14 and so on were so laughable. US guns in WWII were so luxurious. Semi-autos rifles. PDWs with locked breaches for non combat troops, not straight blow-back SMG. Ammo issued in bandoliers and pre-loaded single use belts. 4 types of small arms ammo (.45, 7.62x33, .30-06 clips in bandoliers, .30-06 belts in cans ). Unthinkable staff for everyone else. But after WWII they suddenly decided to spare couple cents. So much lol.

You can't pick the best variables between ten different versions, and present it as if its from one gun.

Why don't you put your ipod earbuds in your pocket for a day, pull them out, and try to run them through a hole exactly their size.

Being able to SELECT lower rate of fire is fine, but you need a high rate of fire for most of the missions a GPMG is sent on.

Don't let me stop you from dripping. When you want to talk to me feel free to link one of my posts.

You're talking out of your ass and you don't know anything, which is made obvious by your post style. The only one here who's passive-aggressive is you, dude. Why would you ever "need" a higher rate of fire? How are fewer bursts per belt, more downtime between bursts to counteract heating, lower accuracy, more frequent barrel changes and maintenance, and higher chance of failure on a gun better? Can you name one situation where a mounted machine gun shooting 100 rpm faster outweighs all the downsides in its service life and effectiveness, except for 'oh you might hit a guy seven times instead of four'? Idiot.

Attached: Untitled 1_3.png (640x480, 86.24K)

I didn't cherry pick anything, faggot. I consistently gave only the numbers for the standard infantry version. Can you not read?

OK buddy, why would you ever need full automatic fire then? Semi auto can fire up to 100 rounds per minute, surely that's enough for suppression.

You have no concept of what a machine gun is used for.

Even that variant has 400fps slower bullet which translates to hundreds of yards lower effective range and penetration for the retard who questions muzzle velocity and uses the same obsolete cooling method. The only way in which it is an improvement over M240 is that it has a higher rate of fire and 0.2kg lighter weight. It is not an improvement over PKP which is what you originally claimed.
I'm sorry no one is buying the Apple of firearms, I even see it needs a special adapter to be mounted on vehicles for fucks sake…

Well your mother loves me so it balances out.

the american may be confusing a SAW with a GPMG…. a SAW actually benefits from lower rate of fire.

No, you dumb nigger. 600 rpm is perfectly adequate for an infantry machine gun, in fact, it's more than enough. Care to explain how exactly you profess that if someone was shooting at you at 600 rpm you could run around and skip and do cartwheels without a care in the world, but at 650 you'd suddenly need to keep your head pinned down? Is the slightly faster fire more scary? If it was 550, could you charge the emplacement head on, or would it still be effective? The fact that you need to go straight to "automatic fire is useless" and "whats a machine gun lol" to even pretend you have a ghost of a point says enough about how little understanding you have about combat.

You've still failed to provide anything of substance to back up your assertions, and have made no effort to counter the points made against your autistic vidya-born beliefs. Stop shitposting.

Attached: Untitled 2.png (800x600, 32.67K)

And if you would, do show your work and mathematically prove that 33 ft/s and 400 ft/s are the same thing. I'd love to hear that one. The point was about how individual round-to-round velocities can vary as much as +/-50 ft/s even with half-decent ammo, so your nebulous and not even proven claim about a whole 33 fucking ft/s doesn't mean a lick of shit. Evidently, you lack the reading comprehension to understand that.

this
morons here think muh mg42 wasn't just German autism.

good to see Britain is still assmad

Attached: 514.png (1112x990, 71.09K)

The Maori are pretty white tbh. Every one I've met listened to progressive metal, the whitest of all genres.

*laughs*
That shit doesnt matter.

What that butthurt retard was mad about, and what butthurt trolls are mad about, is that .276 , .280 and currently 6.5 Grendel are actually BETTER for long range shooting. As in, they deliver MORE FORCE at those ranges and HIT HARDER.

7.62 and 7.92 IS SHIT at those longer ranges.

The high burst rate is advantageous when you have a limited window of engagement Nd need to throw a handful of bullets down range quickly, flooding an area the size of a few men.

600rpm is shit.

that depends on what bullet you're using.
a 180 grain 7.62 will have more energy downrange.

Is there any nato shit 7.62 with enough muzzle velocity to use a 180 gr bullet at long range that isn't a dedicated sniper system?
Didn't the 6.5 line up defeated the 175 gr (11 g) M118 Long Range BTHP at longer range in term of wind resistance and energy transfer?

I know, but both of his names are extremely French, indicating that he was probably ethnically French.

Yeah, they just issued ammo with re-used .30-06 ball powder that had a completely different pressure curve because it was cheaper than buying new IMR powder, based saving a few cents by getting thousands of men killed

It was too hot because that's the meme appeasement .280/30 round you're thinking about, not the original .280 loading. The original loading was a 130gr bullet at 2400fps, about the same energy and recoil as 7.62x39, but with better velocity, lighter weight and a better ogive. The issue is that there's barely any data on the original loading, so people just use the .280/30 data and go "reeeee, look, it's too powerful and heavy"..

Nice projection you've got there, Pedro.
And putting an American flag on a drawing of a white guy doesn't actually alter your demographics, you realise that, right?

This isn't reddit, go do your cringe-inducing roleplay shit elsewhere. >>>/reddit/

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (680x429, 206.31K)

Where did I claim that? Would you please provide a quote with your claim, faggot.
I remember writing:
It's light weight, it's 7.62, it's sturdy and it can be adopted to be used in tripods, in vehicles, or by hand. The rate of fire can be adjusted to make it work for anti air and anti infantry roles as you see fit. That's what makes a good GPMG.
Don't use Burgerunits. v0 is measured in meters per second.
The infantry version of the MG5 has a v0 of 785m/s, compared to the M240s 850 or the PKPs 900m/s. I never disputed the fact that it has a lower v0. Nobody ever denied that. I even pointed it out in:

and said that
That is debatable. Replacing barrels is the quickest and most reliable way to cool the barrel of your gun down to a reasonable level in less than ten seconds. All it takes is another barrel, and a few seconds of time. While I agree that it's not optimal, I wouldn't like to carry around a canister of water, or have to cease shooting as soon as the forced air cooling barrel overheats.
Where is the problem with using an adapter to make it compatible with old MG3 tripods and mounts? It's better than buying a bunch of new proprietary hardware, you know?
If you have any valid criticisms, please bring them forward.

You need to stop drinking that's clearly an Alemannic name (so south Germany, Swiss. The only french with that name are gonna be Alsatians…)

This isn't round to round, it's already averaged, and they're using the same cartridge and brand (military supply). CLEARLY the difference is due to inches of barrel being chopped off.

So you call me a nigger, act all aggressive, only to admit you're wrong? I'm fucking done. What was your master plan? To look ridiculous?

Attached: thumb_2.png (223x250, 39.86K)

...

Attached: cuck island.jpg (800x1200 119.79 KB, 545.86K)

The image YOU CITED said 840 m/s, you autistic fucking disingenuous lying subhuman nigger.

Your arguments are automatically invalid because you are american.
Remember that all US posts are subject to invalidation at will, even if they are technically correct.

Don't make me get my fucking rake out.

nod an argumend :-DDD

I will repeat myself:
It has everything all you niggers say a good GPMG shouldhave
It's:
You are still not presenting any criticism of the gun

What do you expect of a time-traveling mind jew addled syrupmutt from 2150?

Its not light, certain models are even heavier…. and the lightest variant you quote compromises 7.62 effectiveness with a shorter barrel to save a few grams.

With a special adapter which exists for no reason but money.

Then why so mad?

Im sorry but I want more from a GPMG.

GPMGs are outdated. "One fits all?" Something something about F-35.
Modern rifle calibers MGs should be:
1. Minigun for real AFVs and aircrafts.
2. Tripod/pintle mounted MG for defensive positions and shit tiers AFVs (MRAP etc). MG5 fits here.
3. Lightweight infantry MG.

Honestly, 7.62x51 is really an outdated round.

They really should adopt 6.5 grendel for both standard line rifle and machine guns.

Leave the bigger bullets ONLY for dedicated sniper rifles.

Are you kidding me? Why do pick cuck 6.5 when you can pick Chad Creedmore? Go higher not stand in place. Only reason Grendel exists is limitations of AR-15 platform. Why ever tie performance of the new RIFLE caliber and MGs performance to the old ASSAULT rifle?

And yes all calibers are terribly outdated (except 5.45x39) and with modern achievements new round can posses much higher bang in the same package.

SOCOM does it adopting 2 of 3 essential advancements:
1. Low drag bullets with adopting of 6.5 creedmore.
2. Lightweight cases for said caliber.

Third is completely changing bullets technology. Going away from jacket rifled bullets and using plastic driving bands like auto cannons already do. But no one has guts to go there yet.

Debatable. Just because there are other guns that are lighter than it (PKP or SAWS) doesn't mean that 10kg isn't light weight for a reliable 7.62 general purpose machine gun. Remember: this gun isn't meant to be an LMG. It is a GPMP. It is meant to bridge the gap between a LMG and a HMG.
If you want faggots to run around with it like it's a normal rifle you go with LMGs. For it's purposes, it's weight is pretty damned light weight.
Yes, it saves money. Instead of having to buy thousands of new tripods (two per platoon), vehicle gun mounts (two per vehicle), and AA tripods (one per platoon), you get a cheap adapter with every gun that can make the new gun (which is entirely differently shaped than the old MG3) work in all the old mounts. Getting new tripods, mounts and AA tripods would be a massive waste of money. The old ones still work fine.
Like what? Do you want it to suck your dick and butter your toast as well? It does it's job well. It spits 7.62 at your desired rate of fire, can be mounted in different versions, doesn't weigh a ton, and can be customized for your needs. That is literally what a good GPMG should do. It does those things.

Only problem - there is no LMG.

LMGs were replaced by the F switch on assault rifles.

Too bad main AR fire doctrine of NATO countries is semi-automatic fire.

F switch is by default on is soviet/Russian doctrine.

You don't know German doctrine then.
No movement without fire on the enemy. When the MG has to relocate all soldiers open fire in semi on the enemy. If the number of rifle-men available to suppress the enemy is too low, you switch to Frieden and make the enemy keep their heads down.
They teach this shit in basic.

You are answer has nothing to do with my post. NATO mostly doesn't use automatic fire from assault rifles. So rifles can't replace LMG. LMG is automatic gun and fires automatically not semi-automatically. That bring us back to the point

6.5 Grendel is still not powerful enough, it's slightly less powerful than 6.5 Arisaka, a round replaced for not having enough stopping power. Still better than 5.56 though.

LMG in 5.56 are honestly kinda bad, it is better to just lighten the GPMG and make it a LMG, like the MG5A2 or PKP.

I understand what you are trying to say. Other NATO countries don't use the same tactics as Germany, and thus need an LMG, but there isn't one on the market (besides maybe the MG36 or the M27IAR, among which the M27 is far better suited for the role).

Japanese replaced 6.5 in MGs because of lack of good special bullets in such caliber (AP and incendiary ammo). Though this pre WWII craziness of 7.62 ammo killing tanks and aircraft's ended as complete failure.

6.5 remained as rifle round and Americans been on receiving end praised its unhuman bullet and stopping power.

They replaced it in rifles too…

The F-35 is a plane, it has aerodynamics and shit. Yet you can use the same train to pull wagons of ore, fuel, people, grain, cattle, ammunition and spare parts, because a train doen't have the same limitations as an aircraft. So developing different trains to pull fuel and ore would be extremely retarded.
I'd do this:
You could put a remote-controlled weapon station on every vehicle that comes with the chaingun as standard, but can be equipped with the grenade launcher or a pair of ATGMs as additional weapons. As for the infantry, a machine gun on a tripod is too heavy for what it does. An automatic grenade launcher can suppress a greater area for the weight of two of them, and do it either with direct or indirect fire.

They never managed to phase out the 6.5mm weapons, therefore they were used side-by-side. And they wanted to replace the rifles too because it makes no sense to use different ammunition in the rifles and machine guns.

Why throw away a rifle if it still works and you are in an army where even the fabric for rank badges and such is being rationed? Of course they would be used side by side. But the later into the war the rarer they became. The reason they themselves gave was stopping power, the Japanese claimed the 6.5 was not dropping Chinamen like it should.