We always read about the latest gee-whizz assault rifle or sniper rifle. However, while these have gone through several generations since the immediate post-0war period (not counting the numberless failed attempts), most modern armies in the west use derivatives of thee MAG 58 and MG42 that the original designers would have easily recognized and known how to use.

Has medium machine-gun technology peaked? Or are there advances on the way?

My (extremely) limited exposure to what we called (in Italy) the MG42/59 (known as MG3 in Deutschland, I think) was that it was everything I'd read about it. A really murderous brute of a gun (but then I've never had to lug it about the countryside, let alone take it into combat).

About the only things one can really complain about the MG3 is the weight (which seems to be of biggest concern to light, unmotorized infantry, and still it's acceptable at 12.7kg) and that the barrel needs frequent changes in heavy shooting. Then again, barrel changes are a matter of few seconds, so it's only a dramatic disadvantage in remote weapon stations should they ever be confronted with a situation where you need to shoot more than 300 rounds within a minute or two without a chance to break contact for a short moment.

Well, the MAG58/M240 doesn't seem to have that problem, thanks to the reduced cyclic speed. To which extent that makes it an overall better design, I don't know.

The even bigger problem with both MGs is the weight and volume of the ammunition, but none of these issues have stopped successful employment of these medium machine guns in the past decades, so it seems like the technology has reached a plateau of maturity beyond which only marginal improvements can be achieved. Until, of course, pulsed plasma rifle technology will arrive in the stores. Has the Cyberdyne Corp. been founded already?

only new thing in the West I know of is the FN Minimi in 7,62 x 51 mm weighing only 8 kg instead of the ~12 of the MAG or MG3, only supposed to be used by dismounted troops and special forces who want 7,62mm firepower without the weight of a MAG

I thought the FN Minimi did the 5.56 caliber and not 7.62.

Funny thing was an article in Small Arms Review inquiring on the utility of belt fed water cooled guns in places like Iraq for their longer sustained fire capability.

RE the MG3. Is there not a heavy barrel for them for use on vehicle mounts where humping the bastard isn't an issue?

Whoops! FACT CHECK!!

Are you sure about the caliber? The only "Minimi" I know of is 5.56x45.

Until there is a MAJOR breakthrough in ammo tech., these guns are likely about as good as it's going to get.

EDIT: RATS! rmgill beat me to it!

I think both for MGs and for rifles in general that technology matured in WWII. Outside of making weapons lighter, and the more prolific state of automatics vice semi and bolt action, little has changed. And keeping bolt actions and semi auto rifles in WWII seems to have more to do with demand and doctrine than their being a lack of technology to produce automatic weapons. I think firearms are largely as good as they are going to get short of perhaps getting lighter, and even on that end recoil puts practical limits on how far that can be pushed regardless of materials or engineering.

I believe he means the beefed-up Mk 48 variant that indeed fires the 7.62 mm.

The MG 3 is no longer supported by spare parts produced in Germany. The Bundeswehr is basically using up its stock, but with the gun's ruggedness, it may well take quite a while for it to go away. There are diffuse plans for a follow-up that is meant to replace both the MG 3 and the HK 40 mm AGL, so will probably be something along the lines of the XM307 ACSW. No date has been set for it to manifest yet, though.

OTOH, rumors persist that HK is also scaling up the MG 4 from 5.56 to 7.62 mm á la the Mk 48. Though I'd hesistate to call either a true GPMG (FN sure doesn't advertise the Mk 48 as such, and they'd logically quit the MAG otherwise).

sort of, it's a real standard Minimi in 7,62mm just take a look at FN Herstal
and they defenitely don't intend the 7,62mm Minimi to replace the MAG on vehicles or tripods, but more as a LMG with more serious firepower without as much of a weight penalty as a GPMG.

Well the LSAT program might provide some new developments in the area of medium machine guns.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/LSAT.htm

MINIMI weight firing full auto 7.62. How controllable is that?

"I believe he means the beefed-up Mk 48 variant that indeed fires the 7.62 mm.

The MG 3 is no longer supported by spare parts produced in Germany. The Bundeswehr is basically using up its stock, but with the gun's ruggedness, it may well take quite a while for it to go away"

So is replacing the MG-3 with the MK 48 because its better, or doesn't have the Nazis look? Germany seems to go out its way to look PC.

What an ignorant insinuation. The Bundeswehr has been using "Nazi look" machine guns from the 1950s til today. The MG3 is not on its way out, to the best of my knowledge -- but production of the gun ceased in 1979. All the MG3s in use now are old, even after refurbishment and fitting with new H&K barrels. At some point in the future, there will be no more guns to be pulled out of storage. Then they'll need to find a new weapon -- and it is by no means clear what that will look like or even what calibre it will have. After all, they decided for some reason to put the 5.56x45mm MG4 on the new Puma infantry fighting vehicle.

Cheers

HANS

You can buy new production MG3s from Pakistan and Turkey or get parts to assemble them. Not a real issue at all. The only reason for changing would be to underwrite a new HK product.

MAGs set to Adverse sound and act like MG42s. They also fall apart faster.....but hey.......

Mk48s are LMGs first and last. They're not built to take the hammering that MAGs can.

There's a little part on M240s that is proprietary and makes a shedload of difference in performance of the weapon. Feel free to speculate.

Simon

Yeah, that about sums it up. I don't see the MG 3 going away before 2020 or so (as that is the point until which current equipment planning appears to go), and maybe soldiering on well beyond that.

I had registered some time back that FN was offering the 7.62 mm Minimi, but somehow kept it filed under "Mk 48" when they're really slightly different guns. Obviously controllabilty won't be the same as for the MAG, but there have been 7.62 mm MGs of that weight before (original HK 11/21, PKM, etc.).

The Norwegians tried that. After they couldn't get any new guns from Germany (as I said, production ceased already in 1979, that's almost 30 years ago), they went to MKE. They bought more than 4,000 MG3s from them in 1992. All I heard of that deal was negative, they are apparently not very happy with the Turkish product.

Also, why SHOULD the Bundeswehr stick with the MG3? You can't mount any of the modern accessories on it, at least not on the basic gun, and the mods (such as used by the Danes) are pretty awkward. Anyway, there is NO talk of replacing it yet . . .

Cheers

HANS

just accept FN's superiority and buy the MAG when the last batch of MG3 is clapped out

Naw, just stick with solid German engineering and wait for a 7.62x51mm variant of the brand-new MG4.

PKM also for forever....

Not seen quality on MKE MG3s but their G3s and MP5s were the worst I have ever seen. And these were guns taken to a defence show! Nasty........

Pak MG3s, G3s and MP5s are now excellent. They really improved quality from 20 years ago.

pdoktar...surely you mean 7.62x54mm forever! The oldest cartridge still in general service. Gotta dig that Semi-rimmed coolness.

HANS.....The Swedes went retrograde by ditching the 6.5x55 as the standard round.

You would think the Turks would have the edge on QC?

Turkish guns can be excellent, as evidenced by their shotguns and some pistols I have come accross but the MKE stuff was shit.

Unadulterated faeces. I don't know about function but I have never seen nastier welds on an HK clone. Even the Iranian stuff was nicer.

Simon

Well why reinvent the wheel time and again. The russians had the 7,62x51 NATO already in 1900. Not too powerful, not too weak, just right for what´s it supposed to do (the FAL already existed in 1930s with the tokarev and simonov semiautos.. broadly speaking).

I have no experience of 5,56cal weapons, only 7,62x39 and x54. To me they work just fine (as seem to work for some other people in a shooting war too). I also prefer having a bit heavier caliber for a SAW somehow, even without squad ammo interchangeability.

so did a lot of countries until Uncle Sam decided that the NATO round would be a 7,62 mm which brought no improvement whatsoever except a slightly smaller case over most European military rounds instead of the more controllable Anglo-Belgian .280

So very true. All guns received needed to be sent back to MKE to get new barrels...

There is that South African SS77, the PKM in 7.62 NATO.

Judging by the new[url-http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/LipsitWed.pdf]Project Manager Soldier Weapons
Overview[/url] there isn't really a replacement. It looks like they intend to replace tripod mounted M240s with XM3O7/XM312
and bipod mounted with LSAT LMGs. That might not be so bad, if they scale up to a 6-7mm round.

SGM actualy.

I do like PKM more than I do MG3. IHMO is mostly due the simplicity and handling of PKM when compared to over heavy and complecated MG3... just my 0.02 AFA's

I certainly wouldn't want to use MG3 on foot. It's decent for a mounted MG but I can only feel sorry for anyone who has to use it as an infantry MG.

I will have to agree on that...

My only experience with the PKM left me stunned because of the lightness and build-quality compared to the MG3... It handled almost like a G3 w/ UGL

pump up some more muscle, you rice-sticks!

The MG3... separating men from the boys.

HEY!! I resemble that remark.

Luckily we have up to 8 SAWs in a platoon.

The platoon MG team might just die from tiredness lugging the FN MAG around.

That kinda reminds me of spell as reservist in 1993. Obviously, powers to be thought that I'd be good to give me some refreshment training in wartime outfit. Ended up with unit of me, NCO and 2 privates as TOE... Our weaponry was impressive, tho. It consisted of personal RKs(assault rifles) and assorted shite (of course), but to that we were given half-dozen LAWs (66mm kind), 3 carry boxes of AT mines (a 10 kg per mine..several mines in one) and LMG/SAW (KvKK 62). I was quite impressed with allocation of firepower... I guess we were designed to imitate Custer's Last Stand among the HQ we belonged to if shit hit the fan... But good part is, when you belong to REMF outfit, there is always vehicles to carry the stuff .

Well, our 4-man squads had 1 BILL-system with 6 missiles and thermal sight,
1 CG ATR, an FN-MAG, 4 AT-4's and...10 AT-mines if I remember it correctly.
Thats about 80-85kg of weapons and munition per man,
AR's with munitions and hand grenades not included.

On a more serious note, as much as love the FN-MAG I think it's to heavy for a squad weapon.
A squad MG should be light enough, for the gunner to be able to fire it from the shoulder
while standing or in the prone.
As it was, while advancing our MG-gunners fired the thing from the hip, barely being abble to hit the ground
(well sooner or later the bullets will hit the ground, but not necessarely in the right grid-square)

But why would you want your MG gunners to advance while shooting?
Wouldn't it be a bit smarter to keep them in the fire team, while the other half advances. Once the new position is secured, pull up the MG. I mean, it usually is the most important gun that the squad leader has, so if there is some fighting going on the MG should not necessarily being the weapon on the move.

Of course, I acknowledge that there can be occasions where you are being surprised, so you have to improvise. And Yes, weight reduction is always desirable, let there be no doubt. But should those two points, one rather special, the other rather unspecific, be the supreme guidelines for the selection of the proper M/GPMG? If the MAG and MG3 suck so badly, why are they still in service (all conspiracy theories aside)?

But what if you're always fighting in closed terrain, jungles or urban? In such terrain, it doesn't take much for the fight to advance past the coverage of a fire base/team.

In such situations, perhaps there is utility in a light weight SAW that can be reloaded and fired on the move as the "fire team" struggles to keep in contact.




Are we confusing the role of a section MG (or SAW) as compared to a platoon MG.

Myself, being light of build, I'd hate to lug a M3 around in the role of SAW, struggling to keep up with a section. I'd definately prefer something lighter here, even if I understand that I'd be giving something up in terms of firepower. OTOH, I can appreciate a M3 as a platoon MG, with a 3-4 man team and less demands to be mobile.

Usually in urban or jungle terrain in the assault role, MG teams have to move a lot as there is seldom one great vantage point for you to stay put. And you have to move to different positions to cover different areas as the platoon moves.

Unless you just position the MG somewhere else to cover your own withdrawal or cut off enemy reinforcement/withdrawal. Or completely leave it behind.

I saw a SEAL video and the operator was able use a M60A4 as a SAW firing off great volume on the move in high kneeling position. But for most people, that weapon still too heavy.

Well, CLEARLY a medium MG is afire-support weapon, not an assault weapon. It arguably belongs to the platoon/half-platoon’s fire support sub-unit with the assault infantry advancing under its overwatch.

In terms of very close terrain which ash been mentioned, (Jungle, etc.)…once you are close enough that your MG cannot see you, then you are not crossing the sort of open ground/interval that requires the fire support in the first place. At that point, your squad/team-level LMGs take over, surely?

Anyone have any experience with the South African MMG (l77 or something like that??). How does it compare to MAG 58 / MG3??




And what about LMGs?? Is it going to be ‘MiniMI forever’?

No arguments there.


Hence my distinction between SAWs/LMGs and GPMG/MMG. I may be the only getting confused, but in the last page, it seemed that the discussion was gradually moving to LMGs and weight ... and 98 pound weaklings.

I know that there are some armies out there using MAG-58 in a SAW/LMG role. To me, that is just mind boggling ...




Noooooo ... it is time for the decidely un-sexy Ultimax 100 to step to the fore

??? At least in AFG Swedish are using FN Minimi as a SAW in fact I don't remember seeing any FN-MAG's at all...

Well, I was in the army in the previous millenium,
when the armed forces of Sweden was still organized in brigades and composite divisions
and was supposed to defend Sweden using things like anti-personel mines
and being trained how to survive chemical weapons and nukes.

Unlike the current colonial police, organized in battalions,
and apperently being trained in using shields and sticks.

So things might have changed since my days.

I don't know what the usage of FN-MAG's looks like today, but as early as during the 1990's
swedish troops abroad used the Minimi (and the M2HB as well), weapons that was otherwise
not used by the army at all in those days.

Swedish troops abroad also used wheeled APC's,
when the army back home used
tracked APC's, BV's, trucks and bikes.

A Bit Bitter?

Well, I wouldn't mind having the defence of Finland, but you now the saying:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3e64sosEg

OLOF. I'm not quite sure whom to accuse of plagiarism here. I'd always heard the local version here. "England is ready to fight to the last Australian". WB

there's also France defending to the last Belgian...

Sparky is Swedish?

That's a rather narrow view of things.

What if you have a series of objectives?

We might have the worlds highest taxes
and plenty of idiots to go around, but we're not that unfortunate.

I was simply noting that our troops abroad have often used different equipment then the army.
Sometimes equipment only used by the navy and/or coastal artillery and/or airforce
and sometimes equipment unique to the troops abroad.

They were the only users of of the XA-series of APC's*
and they used the M2HB and Minimi before the army started to use them.

(*) The armoured brigades used tracked APC's
(the PBV 302 was AFAIK used abroad from Bosnia and forward as well)
and to a lesser extent the 1940's wheeled KP-APC's,
while the infantry used BV's and/or trucks or bikes.

Don't forget the civilian tractors and Volvo 240s, both important parts of Swedish cold war army mobility.