The Best Light Machine Gun.

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#181

This is where the classification is vague. If the BAR was on the left as a LMG and the M2 .50 was on the right as a HMG the rest would be some place in between.

If we move towards the centre we get the Bren and the top end of the LMG and the Vickers at the bottom end of the HMG. Between them are the MMGs, on the left would be the MG34 and on the right the MG42.

(This is not an exhaustive list only an example to show my thinking)

The 34 is more medium than light and the 42 can cross between medium and heavy depending on method of deployment.

#182

Agree absolutely.

Btw i hawe read somewhere - australian versoin of BREN got problem - in full auto mode it workin well, but in semiauto after first shot australian BREN will jam by misloading.
I don’t know it for sure, offcourse, just noted it for myself when have read it… can you say something about it ?
In that text was noted also that original BREN never expirienced that kind of problem.

#183

No never heard that. But I will add another. My grandfather was a soldier in WW1 and a sergeant major weapons instructor in WW2. One of his comments on the Bren. The but strap and grip were removed following France 1940 because the soldier got it caught under the arm when coming into action. He also said that a general order was issued that US ammo was not to be used in automatic weapons because of charge irregularities and this caused stoppages.

Following the Falklands we captured vast amounts of 7.62. To save money it was issued for training. At this time we had bren 7.62s and tried to use it but the gun stopped every 2 or 3 round. That day was the first time I had ever seen a split case. This is when the round is fired, the bullet has gone down range, the extractor has ejected the empty case. The case has split in the chamber and left the front half stuck. I had five that day in my platoon.

#184

Yes. I hear they are known for quality.

No. They are never used at that distance. They are carbines. You can’t even make out the shape of a human body without a scope at 600m. It’s a dot at best at that range. Humans are not Eagles. You’re lost, again.

Oh? Well you just said that assult rifles need a range of 600m, and then you say that you would not be required to hit anything, which you almost assuredly would not. Dude, you are totally absofreakinglutely lost. Like I said once before, you don’t know what to think.

The 7,000 members of the 7th and 1st Marines Divisions at Chosin Reservoir Korea say you are lost, again. They killed Chinese by the many hundreds, and a great many of those soldiers on the front line, and in foxholes, were using an M1 Carbines, including my father caugh at up to 200-250 yards. And the Chinese were wearing the heaviest winter coats of any army in the world. That’s not a theory, it’s a fact. Did I not teach you this at least twice already? Bring a pencil to class.

My dad told me when I was about 12 of how he killed his first one in that battle, with his M1 Carbine…

“They were running over a hill about 200 to 300 yards away, and they were zig-zagging so they’d be harder to hit. There were hundreds of them. I was in a foxhole and laid the gun on the edge of it. I took a bead on him (his first kill) and when he moved back into my line of sight, I fired. He dropped face first into the snow. He didn’t move again.”

That story made quite an impression on me when I was a boy. Then I started looking into the horrible battle that he had lived through. What I learned was astounding.

Preatorian,

I had been hearing about Czech guns being good quality, but I never knew anything about them. Nice information.

#185

Sure he did. The British went to war without ammo. Uh huh. shaking head Boy, you need pills. You are so hung up on nationalistic hate that it is effecting your life.

#186

Individual fire is effective up until 300 metres, Section fire is effective to 600 Metres, no single Weapon can be expected to be entirely accurate at the latter range, a mass produced weapon cannot be entirely balanced etc. however when eight men fire in concert at one target the amount of lead travelling down range is increased and with it the opportunity of a fatal shot.

The Individual Tom in the field cannot be expected to be accurate using his weapon at 600 metres, however when the round reaches 600 metres it still carries enough force to neutralise the enemy. its the accuracy not the killing power of the round that diminishes over range. Hence in numbers when eight or more rounds are all sent down simoultaneously the weapon is still lethal and effective.

The stories about Inchon are indeed interesting but do not lend authenticity to your claims regarding weaponry, please avoid them.
At 600 Metres even on Iron sights you can define the legs torso and head of an opponent, well I can! (the legs are at the bottom of the blob and move alot, the blob is where you aim and hope to hit - the head is off the top)

I didnt spot any nationalism in 2nd of Foots post, Unless you are attaching the integrity of your nation etc to the quality of the rounds produced by a firm operating withing your national borders. He merely stated that the rounds had been deffective that is not a slight on your nation, thats an observation, for Gods sake the Finnish make Nokia phones but to claim the phone is poorly made isnt becasue I hate Finland.

Disregarding the graphics of Inchon:- coat references etc, please continue because this is educational.

#187

Absolutely right my friend. At least not without a good boltie and a powerful scope.

  • Don’t forget - if you drop a bullet from a cartridge, the bullet will hit the ground at virtually the same instant that the one fired from a leveled weapon will because the effect of gravity is the same for both. The only difference might be a slight time difference because the bullet will rise slightly before falling.

I dissagree with most of what you said because you are implying that an assult rifle can be effective at 600m simply because someone holds the trigger down for a second. If the weapon in question were only .22 cal super high velocity and automatic and fired for a burst, accuracy would be worthless at that range because the barrel is going to move all over the place during sustained fire. When the barell moves so much as 1 millimeter in the hands of the shooter, the bullet may land as much as several meters off target at 600 meters! You’d have to have an all-steel weapon bolted to a 1,000 lb concrete block to get accuracy from sustained fire at 600 meters with any kind of firearm. If you’re shooting an MG at a building or 500 men in a field at 600m, that’s one thing - you might have a chance to hit someone, but if you’re shooting an assult weapon for a burst of fire at a man at that range, you might as well be pointing the barrel into the air.

Thanks. It was Chosin, not Inchon that I was speaking of. You can make out the leg of a man at 600m without a scope? A man in a camoflauge uniform as well? WOW. You must have telescopic eyes. It’s hard enough to hit a deer at 300 yards, much less a man at 600m. I’d like to see that. Really I would. Have you any idea how small things appear at 600m? Obviously not. If you could hit a man with an assult rifle at 600 meters with open sights, you need to take up match rifles. You’d be the world champion, guarenteed. You’d have single-hole accuracy at match ranges!

That one was pretty obvious. How did you miss it? It’s called “putting a slant” on things. You know, the stuff the media loves to do - slip one in when you can. It’s just a cheap shot. Cheap people make cheap shots.

See? Just like that cheezy one right there. That’s another one.

As you grow older, your ability to read between the lines improves.

I gave you one reference - the word of a vet who faught at Chosin with an M1 Carbine at 10 to 200-250+ yards range. Going into that in subject in depth would be off topic, but you can find some info on it on the Net. However, there is not nearly as much really in-depth info about the Korean War (the forgotten war) on the net as there is about WWII.

Got a tricky question for anyone, just for fun. I have a rifle that at it’s perspective ranges is more accurate than the most accurate military rifle in the world. Can anyone guess what it is?

#188

Ironman wrote:

It’s hard enough to hit a deer at 300 yards, much less a man at 600m. I’d like to see that.
It may well be hard enough to hit a deer at 300 yards, however that didn’t prevent Rifleman Plunkett killing French General Auguste de Colbert with an aimed head shot at over 300 yards during the retreat from Corruna in 1808/9. He then reloaded and killed the General’s aide with a second head shot.
Both kills were made with a black powder Baker rifle, at a range of over 300 yards.
Sometimes the man matters more than the weapon.

#189

Thanks for nfomation.
At my look (and i’m not trieng teach somebody piss in test tube, just my toughts) this case splts was caused by few reasons:

    • cartridge dimensions. Especialy in peg-shaped part of cartridge or in back part. It may cause i bit biger gap between chamber and bolt - not big enought to cause bolt non-locking, about 0.15 mm will enough to cause case spliting.
      *- gun powder. Another sort of powder or very old cartridges. Old cartridge have one effect - powder with time getting packed. It abridgement time, while powder burning and increase pressure in barrel (and increase recoil as well). Also it make ugly ballistics too. In case with another gun powder - it may increase impulse over projected for this weapon.
      *in this cause old cartridges will work in FN-FAL or L1A1 well (because FN-FAL gas systems have few mllimetres of “safe free stroke”, before lock start opening and bolt start moving back) and in BREN it cause another effects ('cos BREN got another bolt-locking mechansm).
      I have seen few time such case split in SVD firing non standart, very old or self-loaded cartridge - each time it was bigger impulse, sometimes - miss dimesed case.

Why cases splitting sometimes ? During shot case draw backward a bit in by whole case shape and chamber construction conical shape can’t move ('cos t take most part of pressure during shot, it naccessary for obturaton), but back shape move a bit. If locking mechanism have gap - that back side can split from another part of case.
In complex when cartridge a bit shorter and lock-mechanism have gap - it will cause case spliting.
I guess if we can measured usual well working in BREN brittish cartridges and some cartridge from that captured lot - i sure, we will fund difference in dimencions about 0.1-0.05 mm. It enough to cause jams and case breaks. Or n this captured lot cases was made from another material, maybe from brass, and brass with time during storage getting fragile… soft planket by tompac steel - better material for cases…

If chamber got a bit bigger diametr - it will cause ejector beak and longitudinal cracks of case.

For soviet machinegun in tool kit included something like cartridge with hook instead bullet - when case sptlits guneer should pur this tool in chamber then close and openg bolt… and that hook catching parts of case and remove it…

#190

Sure he did. The British went to war without ammo. Uh huh. shaking head Boy, you need pills. You are so hung up on nationalistic hate that it is effecting your life.[/quote]
Missfire. Nor 2nd of foot sayd it, but he’s grandfather.

That Brittish - American fight for World become boring… someday it will make me a commy, red as only baboon’s ass can be, and i’ll start there flame-war, with substantiation that all soviet-made things are better than other and soviet invented all things, from light-bulb to toilet-paper… right in old soviet tradition and way to lead discussion… :twisted: :lol:

Sometimes IRONMAN, with all my respect and brotherhood kind of love to you, you fighting in discuss such like as old commy leaders - same way…

Americans and Brttish - can you make a break in this war or is it matter of life or death for you ? :?

#191

Sure he did. The British went to war without ammo. Uh huh. shaking head Boy, you need pills. You are so hung up on nationalistic hate that it is effecting your life.[/quote]
Missfire. Nor 2nd of foot sayd it, but he’s grandfather.

That Brittish - American fight for World become boring… someday it will make me a commy, red as only baboon’s ass can be, and i’ll start there flame-war, with substantiation that all soviet-made things are better than other and soviet invented all things, from light-bulb to toilet-paper… right in old soviet tradition and way to lead discussion… :twisted: :lol:

Sometimes IRONMAN, with all my respect and brotherhood kind of love to you, you fighting in discuss such like as old commy leaders - same way…

Americans and Brttish - can you make a break in this war or is it matter of life or death for you ? :?[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more Praetorian.
How does this:
He also said that a general order was issued that US ammo was not to be used in automatic weapons because of charge irregularities and this caused stoppages.
Translate into Sure he did. The British went to war without ammo. Uh huh
this?

#192

I agree. My mistake. Take my apologies !

#193

[quote=“Preatorian”]

I agree. My mistake. Take my apologies ![/quote]

Not a problem Praetorian, it wasn’t your comment I was referring to.

#194

You have taken section fire to mean sustained fire. and drawn the conclsuion that hte weapon will lose accuracy.

In a sustained fire role the beaten area will increase, 2nf of foot has given you the schematics for waht this area is, the large beaten area will suppress an enemy and despite lackng accuracy encourage an enemy to stay down. An Light machine gun or assault rifle is not a sniper rifle and has a role to suppress as much to neutralise.

(on re-reading your post (I hope) you have assumed 8 rounds fired simoultaneously means a “burst” of fire - it does not - that would be 8 rounds fired “sequentially”)

I did not however make reference to sustained fire I referred to section fire. This is where eight men each take aim and fire a shot or shots, Depending clearly on the “type of fire” requested by the Section commander or 2ic. Section fire is more effective than individual fire. The accuracy of the individual weapon does not increase merely by being fired on concert, but the fact that 8 bullets each travel toward one target implies a higher chance of a hit.

Consider zeroing your rifle. you fire 8 shots at the centre of a target, none hit the bull, but with any luck the median of the strikes will be the centre of the target. The individual discrepancies of the individual weapons are minimised by the fact that 8 weapons fire rather than one.

I am running out of ways to explain this, if I have to throw one stone at a target fifty feet away I might miss. if I pick up a handful of stoness at a target fifty feet away, Ill probably hit it with at least one. Section fire - not sustained fire.

Bullet drop etc - yes we all know this, I can suck eggs thanks, but nevertheless a useful story to demonstrate you have knowledge of firearms. however, Bullets do not rise when fired from the barrel, the bullet will continue straight and level until gravity and the planet earth result in the bullet hitting the ground.

The Bullet cannot rise! no article of physics allows for this. For a bullet to travel upwards their would have to be a force pushing it skyward. The only force acting on the bullet is directly from the rear (if we remove recoil for the sake of clarity) the only way in which a bullet will rise from the horizontal plane is through canting the scope, but still the bullet flies level (do not read level as horizontal) until it loses momentum and gravity brings it back earthward.

Bullets to not travel in curves from muzzle to target! After leaving the muzzle, the trajectory is straight - in continuation of the barrel, followed by a point where they lose momentum and gravity pulls them earthward again.
Consider artillery, barrels of which are pointing well above horizontal in order to give them range your range increases by giving the projectile more time in the air by aiming it away from the floor, if bullets “rose” and you did say they “rise” I have been lied to by all my physics books!

Finally
The question was whether one could “see” a target at 600, the skill with shooting is not to see the target its to control your breathing, pulse rate, fine motor skills, large motor skills, shakes and nerves and hold the firing point long enough to pull the trigger before you lose control of one of those listed aspects. Yes I have competed in target shooting, but thats beside the point.

#195

Morning Gentlemen; a couple of points:

1)Ironman, I don’t think that the suggestion was that the British didn’t use ammunition in WWII, it was said that they were told not to use American manufactured .303British (as opposed to .303 savage:wink:) ammunition in automatic weapons; namely the bren and vickers machine guns. Automatic weapons tend to be more ammo fussy than bolt action rifles, as the ammunition has to cycle the action. A bolt action rifle is less fussy as you have a lot of leverage to eject stuck cases, and if you get an underpowered round it will not fail to cycle the action, (as the action is not cycled by the round.). To my reading, the post suggested that British troops were ordered not to use American ammo in their automatic weapons, but in their bolt action weapons instead, and to save their British (and canadian?) ammo for the automatic weapons.

2)As Bluffcove tried to explain above, bullets do not actually rise after they leave the barrel, they start to descend immediately, but as their initial speed is high they travel more horizontal distance compared to vertical drop. As their horizontal speed reduces, they drop more compared to distance travelled horizontally.

The reason that bullets APPEAR to rise after they leave the barrel is because your line of sight (through the sights/scope)is not horizontal to the ground, instead it is slanted downwards, so it intersects the path of the bullet. In order to intersect the path of the bullet at a sensible range, say 100m, it must also cross the bullets path at a closer distance too. This results in the phenomenom of your primary and secondary zero, where the gun may be zero’d at 100yds, but also shoot spot on at, say 27yds too. In between these two distances the point of impact is above the line of sight, giving the impression that the bullet is rising as it leaves the barrel. It is not, it is just that the line of sight is dropping faster.

This is a bugger to explain without a diagram/blackboard, but I hope that that does it. FWIW, this seems to be one of the accepted truths in shooting which is incorrect, although for all practical purposes it probably doesn’t make a difference when you’re actually firing!

Anyway, yours in pedantry

Alex

#196

Oh, man why you kidding me… really bullets do not travel in curves ? Sure ? You sayd - trajectory is straight ?
According your ballistical theory i have maked a lot of mistakes… i suspected whole time during shoting - something wrong with ballistical theory - barrel is straight and is it meand bullet travel should be stright too… what a hell i need that corrections :lol:

Do you have heard words “range of direct shot” ?
You never have seen iron sights of any rifle ? And if seen - never doubt - “What a hell that thing have range corrections ?” and “Why back sight rise with correction then more range then more rise, but front sight never ?”

Right, bullet never never rises above the axis of the barrel… but straight trajectory… is it best joke for present week !

Have you shot at least once ? And you sure that angle of aiming equal to angle of barrel ? It was a laser blaster from Star Wars ?
You sure that highest point of trajectory can’t be higher than point of bullet impact ?

I’m not like insulting you, but you make a lot of mistakes in your ballistical theory…
For start you need to read this, i tought:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

#197

Cracking article praetorian, that was what I was driving at… :oops:

#198

Granted, Ive explained badly, Had meant to say… What you said, but didnt have the words. Sorry about that, Stepping away, the bullet will NOT rise in relation to the level at which it was fired, but does interecept and go above the line of sight to the target, The bullet does not rise above the point from which it was fired.

Not entirely sure that is correct but nearer to what I had meant to say, Granted, your version makes alot more coherent sense

#199

Sorry, if i hurt your senses, Buffcove.
I few times look in several dictioaries in searchig for all righ translatons of “straight” word…

#200

Dont worry about it, I dont mind being corrected!