Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by tomo pauk, Mar 14, 2019.
The PKM was 7.62x54R, and M60 replaced by M240, in 7.62
Both of which are MEDIUM machine guns (or general purpose machine guns, however you want to call them) not LIGHT machine guns/automatic rifles.
The PKM is basically a LMG version of the PK series, as the PKs are a general purpose MG. They are also used at the squad level like a much more mobile, light weight, one man operated MG42.
M240 is lighter than a Lewis Gun or MG34, both Light Machine guns.
Automatic Rifles aren't Light Machine Guns.
The lines are somewhat blurred due to some LMGs like the Bren being magazine fed and about the same weight as the BAR. Functionally there wasn't much difference there beyond magazine placement and the potential for field replacement of the Bren's barrel.
But the Bren is 23 pounds, not much different from the M240.
BAR was 10+ pounds lighter
And an actual medium machine from the era we are talking about weighed 103lbs.
What? A water cooled Vickers was around 50 pounds, with tripod
Which models are we talking about? The BAR was not >10 lbs lighter than the Bren. Will look up specs later, I'm at work and can't look at gun stuff.
Bren is 21-25 lbs loaded depending on Mark. BAR is around 16 lbs. The BREN is a LMG on the other hand the BAR as used by the US is a automatic rifle pressed into service as a LMG. As a LMG the Bren is a much better weapon than the BAR simply due to the changeable barrel and being a generation newer in design than the BAR. The BAR has much worse sights and bipod than the Bren and is less useable in a sustained fire role.
I have never been a fan of very high velocity, light weight projectiles. No staying power without extreme length.
The BAR needed QC barrels to be even mentioned as a Machine Gun. A decent belt feed system would also help, but others LMGs like the BREN got by with replaceable magazines. One of the best features of the smaller caliber cartridge for the Garand is its ability to replace the BAR.
IIRC light weight projectiles were not suggested so far here.
See post #40 by wiking. http://www.ammo-one.com/6-35x48mmFA59.html
I should have specified the post in my response, sorry.
Okay, got it now.
Looks like 120-130 grain is in favor for militarized .250-3000 here; granted, 3000 fps will not be generated with that heavy a bullet.
Yes, I like the 117-125 grain bullets best as a compromise. The need for velocities in excess of 2800 feet per second are not necessary. Ballistic coefficient and sectional density will ensure good downrange performance.
Depends. Besides, the issue isn't how effective it is out to distance, as 300m is the max an infantry rifle is going to be used at without a scope in combat conditions. It most likely is going to be used within 200m and likely won't achieve a hit unless within 150m without a light, low recoil cartridge. So something relatively stubby and light is probably going to be just as, if not more effective than the larger calibers.
Indeed. Assuming they both to develop a magazine feed, select fire battle rifle. I think that may have been a few steps too far for where the US army was at the time. As of course was having a smaller caliber cartridge. But if they did, then they'd effectively have an early M16 (if they adopted the light weight bullet version).
I'm thinking the .250 Savage round, being somewhat smaller & lighter, means the average dogface will end up carrying more of it, & it'll be a bit less of a beast to shoot. Would it impact the design of the M1? Probably not a lot. (Enough for 10 rounds in the stripper clips?) It does seem likely to obviate the need for the M1 Carbine.
I don't see the Army adopting it as an MG round, but...
I do wonder how you overcome the "legacy" issue of the large stocks of .30-'06.
Since none were used in the M1 IOTL for a variety of reasons, ultimately it means little to nothing. The bigger issue is that if they don't adopt a select fire, magazine fed M1 then they need a new LMG/Auto rifle to replace the BAR, which means additional expense beyond the investment in the M1. There are savings of course from the lack of an M1 Carbine, but is that enough to say totally offset the cost of say dump the stocks of BARs and invest in a Johnson LMG in .250 Savage? TTL's Johnson LMG would probably be considerably lighter and might do away with the short recoil system due to how low recoil the cartridge is and might avoid the side mounted magazine (at least I hope he would).
Would be there for the M1903 that would be issued to less important areas, and LL to Allies.
No change for Machine Guns for the rest.
As it was, in the '60s there was a lot of milsurp 45 and 30-06 with pre 1939 headstamps available for mailorder, cheap. It was only the stuff with pre1920 datestamps that was kind of iffy for it being totally reliable.
Had a more duds and squibs even with those, but oddly, the 30-40 Krag was always good, no matter how old
WW2 BAR (M1918A2) was 19.8 pounds (lighter if the Bipod and flash hider where ditched but then its no longer pretending to be an LMG)
BREN MK1 and 2 was 25 pounds with a loaded mag (22.8 without)
BREN MK3 and 4 was even lighter at 21.6 pounds with a loaded mag (19.15 pounds without)
M240B (slightly heavier than the FN MAG for some reason?) is 26.6 pounds and obviously that does not include the weight of the belt
Separate names with a comma.