Guns On Guns - Grenade Launcher And Shotgun Attachments On Rifles

[Maverick]

The issue with the Bren being too accurate was just that.  It didn't spread enough to lay down a beaten zone to be effective as a support weapon.  And, as I said, a 30rd mag is useless for any sort of sustained fire.  If that were the case, the ordinary infantryman of today wouldn't need an LMG as most rifles have 30rd mags anyway.  The simple fact is, for an LMG to be an effective tool it needs to have good field of fire, a belt feed and a quick-change barrel.  That already assumes an appropriate calibre and reliability of course, but that's a given.

Admittedly the L2A1 wasn't any better (if not worse).  The attempts and using heavy-barrelled rifles as support weapons is a bit of a joke.  About the only instance where there has been any success in that field has been the RPK.

And let's not get started on the M60.  It wasn't called 'the Pig' for nothing.  How the ADF every got saddled with that one is just criminal.  I mean even the US ditched the thing finally and have adopted what we should have in the first place (ie: the L7A2, FN-MAG, GPMG, M240 or whatever else they're calling it).

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

Of course we can go to R. Lee Ermey for his opinion (vs Browning BAR)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-CfuvCHq4I

All I know is that my father's crew preferred the Bren because it was easier to use & better for controlled directed fire, & they needed less ammo.
They used the MG-42 because they could get them & their ammo (somewhat) more readily but in every engagement it used several times more ammo than the Bren.


Anyway, I think we've dragged the topic far enough away from grenade launcher & shotgun attachments, don't you?

[Maverick]

Fair call OW, but these topics tend to meander sometimes.

Given that the Resistance were more an insurgency sort of thing, the Bren would be good for that role.  As you say, controlled, directed fire.  For a normal infantry engagement, however, the MG42 is the better weapon, sustained, widespread fire served by a crew with a plentiful ammo supply (hopefully), the ability to change the barrel when it became too hot and belt-fed (ie: not having to change every 30rds).

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Maverick, I think we shall have to differ.  The Bren was and remains an excellent LMG IMHO.  What is forgotten all too often is the role of the LMG.   Its interesting that the US Marine Corps has just finished a competition to find a weapon which has ended up very similar to the Bren.

As to why we ended up with the M60 that was completely a political decision.  The Army held a competition to replace the Bren, looking for a new GPMG which used 7.62x51mm ammunition, the new NATO standard round.   There were only two entrants - the FN-MAG58 and the M60.  The clear winner was the FN-MAG58.  The Army however was still entranced with the Pentropic divisional structure which it had adapted from the US form - instead of the usual triad of subordinate units, it had five.  Part of that organisation had called for the replacement of the Vickers and the Bren with a single common weapon.  Anyway, they decided that in order to be able to "interoperate" with the US Army they not only needed weapons that used the same ammunition but the same weapons.  So the M60 was chosen.  Much to our regret.   Its interesting that it was replaced first by the weapon it was supposed to replace (the Vickers which was reintroduced for a short period as an SFMG in 1984-87) and then fully by the very weapon which had beaten it in competition 30 years earlier,the FN-MAG58.

[saintkatanalegacy]

hmmm...
oicw


aicw


a-91

[rickshaw]

If you're really interested in a "grenade" launcher then you really can't go past this beast:




Its the French Lacroix Samourai Urban Warfare Weapon.  Described by Jane's thusly:

Lacroix Samourai Urban Warfare (SUW) 76.2 mm weapon (France), Light support weapons

Development
The Lacroix Samouraï Urban Warfare (SUW) 76.2 mm weapon is the result of a five-year development DGA contract to produce a multipurpose assault weapon capable of being fired from within fully enclosed areas. A partnership was formed between Lacroix Defense & Security and Serat to develop the weapon, with Lacroix as prime contractor. The system development programme for the weapon and cargo round was completed in June 2000. Further development, including customer qualification by DGE and EMAT, was completed by the end of 2001.In 2002, it was announced that an agreement had been made between Lacroix Defense and FNH USA Inc for the latter to market the SUW as the High-Impulse Weapon System 76 mm (HIWS-76). Planned future variants are the HIWS-60, capable of acting as a line thrower in addition to launching 60 mm grenades, and the HIWS-40, firing high-velocity 40 mm grenades. Models firing 66 mm or 84 mm grenades are also planned.

Description
Complete details of the Samouraï Urban Warfare (SUW) 76.2 mm weapon are not available, but the main technical attribute of this weapon is that it can be fired from within completely enclosed areas, as it does not rely on the usual recoilless-gun techniques. Instead, the normal recoil forces produced on firing are absorbed by a system of shock absorbers over an extended time period lasting, typically, 100 milliseconds. This prolonged period, combined with a generous shoulder-firing interface area, allows the recoil forces to be readily withstood by the firer's shoulder without excessive discomfort. Rounds are fired from a smoothbore barrel that partially recoils within the main receiver by a length of about 600 mm. At the full extent of the barrel recoil, the spent propellant case is ejected using only the propellant energy for this purpose. At the instant of case ejection, the breech pressure almost exactly matches the ambient atmospheric pressure. The total weight of propellant employed is approximately five grams. Firing the SUW requires 600 mm of free space above and behind the weapon. It is claimed that no ear protection is needed.The finned projectiles fired by the SUW weigh approximately 1 kg, of which 650 g is available for the payload. A complete round weighs approximately 1.5 kg. The usual type of operational projectile is expected to be a so-called cargo round, within which the filling may vary from explosive demolition to smoke or flash-bang compounds. Shaped-charge and tandem-charge warheads are to be used against bunkers

Got to love it.  A shoulder fired 76.2mm gun!   

[Maverick]

Brian, I don't think the Bren is a bad weapon, I just think the role it was used in didn't suit its design.

As for the M60 being chosen for interoperability with the US, whilst I agree that it was indeed the case, I'm surprised that we adopted the L1A1 and not the M14 or even M16.  I realise that the SLR came into service before the M16, but you see where I'm coming from.  Equally so, it was surprising that we took on the AUG instead of the M16A2, given the pollies habit of having us toe the US line.

Anyhoo, I'm glad that we got rid of the weapon and replaced it with a design as old but far superior.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Brian, I don't think the Bren is a bad weapon, I just think the role it was used in didn't suit its design.

As for the M60 being chosen for interoperability with the US, whilst I agree that it was indeed the case, I'm surprised that we adopted the L1A1 and not the M14 or even M16.  I realise that the SLR came into service before the M16, but you see where I'm coming from.  Equally so, it was surprising that we took on the AUG instead of the M16A2, given the pollies habit of having us toe the US line.

Anyhoo, I'm glad that we got rid of the weapon and replaced it with a design as old but far superior.

Regards,

Mav

The F88 was a damn good pick out of a very poor bunch.  The Army had acquired a real dislike of the M16, Vietnam and after.  The SA80 had made a very poor showing during the Arid/Desert trials they'd carried out around Woomera in the late 1970s (I read the report on that one and it was surprisingly bad).  The AR18 might have been another contender but Sterling was going under, so it was a non-runner.  There were a raft of other assault rifles just becoming available but Steyr's was the most advanced and the cheapest and offered the best licensing deal. 

Coming from non-US sources definitely helped as well.  Remember, this was the ALP which was seeking more independent/alternative sources of supply.   I was actually surprised we'd chosen the F/A-18 but the RAAF was adamant that it would be the F/A-18 if it couldn't have what it wanted, which was the F-15.  The F-15 was deemed too expensive, so it was the F/A-18.  The RAAF didn't like the other two contenders, the Mirage 2000 or the F-16.

If we'd had a coalition government we'd definitely have bought all American.

As to the L1a1 versus the M14, well the L1a1 was the better weapon, simple as that.  The M14 was bad choice when it first appeared.  You also have to remember the L1a1 was chosen as the last gasp of Imperial interoperability. 

As for the Bren, there are many good things about it and it does suit what it was designed to be a Light Machine Gun, which is designed to provide support to the Infantry Section.  As I've noted, its a role that the USMC has woken up to that there is a need for and have just finished their own competition, ending up with a weapon which functionally is very similar to the Bren in concept. 

Problem people want a death-dealing bullet carpet producing weapon and that is not what the Bren is or was.  It was designed to be a light, automatic weapon which could provide fully automatic fire to a rifle section which in turn was employing disciplined, controlled, aimed fire to attack and suppress the enemy.   The primary weapon of the section was a bolt-action rifle, directed by the section commander to fire on specific targets.  The Bren fitted into that scheme well, particularly in Imperial Policing which was the British Army's primary role at the time and so ammunition consumption, logistics and limits on fire were very important considerations.  Similar considerations interesting have resurfaced today, in the same place (NW Frontier/Afghanistan) and so the Bren sort of LMG is seeing a resurgence in interest.

[Maverick]

Brian,

I heartily agree with the points re: the F88 & L1A1.  I loved the SLR & always thought it was a well put together weapon.  The M14 was quite simply a throwback.  I guess you're right re: the Imperial connection and the issues with the M16.  Mind you, I quite like the Colt provided it's maintained properly. 

I think the Bren is potentially workable as you say with a counter-insurgency/policing idea in mind but with reservations.  But as a 'conventional war' LMG, I have to disagree.  Bullet carpets are what the LMG is about from a 'normal' point of view.  The idea that an LMG could be routinely used in a conventional war with such a limited magazine and without the area of effect of a regular LMG isn't quite workable.  When I was serving in the RAAF and later in the ARES, the gun group was the domain of the section 2IC, leaving the section OIC to do what he needed to do, ie: run the section as a whole.  Admittedly, these weren't infantry taskings, my ARES time being with a mech recon unit, but I believe that we were being taught the same tactics as the regular infantry using the LMG as the section's offensive base of fire with the other section troops supporting that.  To think that the Bren could be used in a that role would turn the concept rather on its head.

Whether the concept is workable in the counter-insurgency of today is quite possible, although I'm betting that the general view would be that a 30rd magazine simply wouldn't be adequate, regardless of the weapon's implementation.  If it is a true LMG (ie: using the same ammunition as the section), then given that everyone has a 30rd magazine, in most cases optics, and can put down bursts of aimed fire at a given target with the calibre's range, I can't see the sense of employing a heavier weapon to do exactly the same job.  Surely there's a reason for the LMG's existence within that context?  I'd suggest those reasons would be sustainable automatic fire (not 3rd bursts), a magazine to suit that role (ie: considerably larger than 30rds) and a weapon tailored to those capabilities (ie a heaveir barrel and bipod).

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Brian,

I heartily agree with the points re: the F88 & L1A1.  I loved the SLR & always thought it was a well put together weapon.  The M14 was quite simply a throwback.  I guess you're right re: the Imperial connection and the issues with the M16.  Mind you, I quite like the Colt provided it's maintained properly. 

I've always hated the M16.  It was dirty, prone to stoppages as a consequence, magazines fell out of it and its controls were completely arse-about, compared to the standard rifle which made it clumsy and counter-intuitive to use.  I've used XM16s, M16s & M16a1s.  All had their problems.

I think the Bren is potentially workable as you say with a counter-insurgency/policing idea in mind but with reservations.  But as a 'conventional war' LMG, I have to disagree.  Bullet carpets are what the LMG is about from a 'normal' point of view.  The idea that an LMG could be routinely used in a conventional war with such a limited magazine and without the area of effect of a regular LMG isn't quite workable.  When I was serving in the RAAF and later in the ARES, the gun group was the domain of the section 2IC, leaving the section OIC to do what he needed to do, ie: run the section as a whole.  Admittedly, these weren't infantry taskings, my ARES time being with a mech recon unit, but I believe that we were being taught the same tactics as the regular infantry using the LMG as the section's offensive base of fire with the other section troops supporting that.  To think that the Bren could be used in a that role would turn the concept rather on its head.

Bullet carpets are only needed when you're facing a massed assault.  The last time we got them was in Korea and Korea was a very, very, very strange war, more reminiscent of WWI than WWII.   Even in WWII, the Japanese tended to attack by section and platoon, rather than as one long wave (and despite Hollywood's portrayal of them, "wave assaults" were always described to me as more akin to extended line than people standing shoulder-to-shoulder by people who had suffered them).  In Afghanistan today, you're lucky if you get a platoon of Taliban who can coordinate their movements.  More often than not its groups of 3-5-10 moving around, from what I've heard/read.

If we ever went back to Korea and fought there again, I'd say we needed a high-volume fire LMG, like the Minimi and that is the section LMG now.  I wouldn't argue that the Bren should come back as the section LMG but rather that it would still be a useful weapon for 2nd echelon units which don't need a belt-fed weapon but still need something more capable than a standard assault rifle - which is how the L4a4 was employed before it was finally phased out.

The USMC is facing the situation where they are trying to get around the use of the crappy M4 carbine which they've adopted after the US Army forced them to and so are seeking something which is more accurate at longer ranges, so they've ended up with a magazine fed AR with a longer, heavier barrel. There has been some suggestions that this is really a precursor to the USMC ditching the M4.  Either way, what they have now is going to be similar to the Bren or the BAR as to how its employed.

Whether the concept is workable in the counter-insurgency of today is quite possible, although I'm betting that the general view would be that a 30rd magazine simply wouldn't be adequate, regardless of the weapon's implementation.  If it is a true LMG (ie: using the same ammunition as the section), then given that everyone has a 30rd magazine, in most cases optics, and can put down bursts of aimed fire at a given target with the calibre's range, I can't see the sense of employing a heavier weapon to do exactly the same job.  Surely there's a reason for the LMG's existence within that context?  I'd suggest those reasons would be sustainable automatic fire (not 3rd bursts), a magazine to suit that role (ie: considerably larger than 30rds) and a weapon tailored to those capabilities (ie a heaveir barrel and bipod).

Mmmm, 3-5 round bursts are still the norm with a belt-fed LMG, Mav, be they 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.  Fire more than that and soon you'll get a hot chamber and have cook-offs.  Which is another thing Hollywood doesn't show very well.   No one pulls the tit and fires a whole belt.  You need to allow the barrel and chamber to cool (or at least keep the temperature steady and below cook-off point).  Magazines also ensure that ammunition is expended at a lower rate than belt fed weapons get used at.  When you're at the end of a tenuous supply line that's something that needs to be considered.

[Mossie]

"I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher."

[sotoolslinger]

I really have to build another one of those
On the actual subject. Combo guns suck arse. I have not carried a rifle/shotgun combo but I have carried both at the same time. I would personally perfer to carry the extra weight and bulk to have the full usefulness of each individual weapon. The M 203 is a bulky ,awkward POS. I always perferred the M-79 but just did not have access to one most of the time.

[Maverick]

Brian,

We'll agree to disagree on the Colt weapon.  I always found them easy to use and enjoyable to shoot, but then I have always been fussy with weapon maintenance and familiarising myself with an individual weapon's quirks and foibles.

I certainly agree on the usefulness of the Bren as a 2nd line weapon.  The UK were routinely issuing them to RMCdos and Paras where weight was an issue also.  I also realise that the bursts assosciated with MGs are certainly less than Hollywood would have us believe, that is, of course, unless the weapons are water-cooled like the Vickers and Maxim.  Whether magazines are necessary to ensure fire discipline is another matter entirely.  I always thought gunners in the ADF were taught to fire in that way, not just blow it all in one hit.  It shouldn't matter whether it's a belt or box or magazine, the simple fact is fire discipline should be taught, if a magazine is necessary to enforce that, then the basic training has failed miserably in my opinion.

I don't think the M4 is that bad.  After all, it's not just 'grunts' that use it.  Special forces in the US, UK and Australia use the weapon which must say something for its worth, especially considering SAS and SASR troops have leeway with their personal issue.  I wasn't aware of the USMC going full tilt over to the M4 as the photos I've seen show them employing M16A4 weapons, although I haven't seen much recently.

Sotool, I agree wholeheartedly on the concept of combo weapons.  If it's that important to have a combo weapon, one could argue that a second weapon is a better choice hands down, not some evil lovechild of the two.

Regards,

Mav

[Jschmus]

Movie armorers are known for doing creative things for the films they work on, but sometimes this works to one's advantage, especially if you're looking for reference photos.  The Terminator series has been a smorgasbord of firearms, and the last installment, Terminator Salvation, is no exception.  It even features a couple of the weapons talked about here.

The M203, oddly enough, only shows up as a standalone weapon.


Early in the film, John Connor (Christian Bale) is seen carrying an M4A1 with the M26 MASS.


Later in the film, he detaches it from the rifle, forcing him to use it with neither a stock nor a pistol grip.


If you ever need photo reference for any gun that has appeared on film, this website is excellent, and unlike other wikis, you don't have to worry too much about the pedigree of the information.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Main_Page

[rickshaw]

Brian,

We'll agree to disagree on the Colt weapon.  I always found them easy to use and enjoyable to shoot, but then I have always been fussy with weapon maintenance and familiarising myself with an individual weapon's quirks and foibles.

Each to their own.  My experience wasn't good.  Hard to clean, easy to malfunction and prone to defects.  I agree they are easy and enjoyable to shoot but as a service weapon I was never happy with them.  After seeing several thousand rounds a day go through them on range shoots and the number of stoppages they suffered I wasn't impressed.

I certainly agree on the usefulness of the Bren as a 2nd line weapon.  The UK were routinely issuing them to RMCdos and Paras where weight was an issue also.  I also realise that the bursts assosciated with MGs are certainly less than Hollywood would have us believe, that is, of course, unless the weapons are water-cooled like the Vickers and Maxim.  Whether magazines are necessary to ensure fire discipline is another matter entirely.  I always thought gunners in the ADF were taught to fire in that way, not just blow it all in one hit.  It shouldn't matter whether it's a belt or box or magazine, the simple fact is fire discipline should be taught, if a magazine is necessary to enforce that, then the basic training has failed miserably in my opinion.

You don't even fire water-cooled MGs in long bursts.  Even with water-cooling, you need to allow the barrel to cool.  Officially, the bursts should be about 10-15 rounds.  If you ever get a chance, watch the movie "The Way Ahead".  Made in 1942-3 as a propaganda movie it has towards the end some fantastic battle scenes which were filmed on one of the battle-ranges in England.  There is a scene where Stanley Holloway is firing a Vickers.  He does it properly.  Fire burst, two taps left, fire burst, three taps right (literally when traversing you tap the spade-grip and force the gun across the traverse), and so on.  Its the only movie I know of where its done properly.   I used to know one of the WOs who was responsible for rewriting the Vickers Pam when it was reintroduced into service in the late 1980s and he used to let me read his drafts.  He was only five or six who were still serving who'd used it in the 1950s.  

ADF gunners are taught to fire in bursts but there is always one who forgets.  I used to be fairly draconian on my MG gunners and No.2s.  In fact, the first lesson I used to give the No.2s was that they were there to support the gun, not fire their own weapon.  The result was that the gunners used to be surprised when they didn't get stoppages from the belt running out (I had the No.2 linking belts).  Normal SOP was for the No.2 to fire their own weapons in preference to supporting the gun.  I was "old school" in that way.    Speaking of belts, were you aware that the Australian Army is unique in how it loads its belt fed GPMGs/LMGs?  Everybody else opens the cover plate, which tells the enemy you're reloading and exposes you to their fire.  We just hold the belt up and force the first few rounds in through the feed slot until the pulls engage.  

I don't think the M4 is that bad.  After all, it's not just 'grunts' that use it.  Special forces in the US, UK and Australia use the weapon which must say something for its worth, especially considering SAS and SASR troops have leeway with their personal issue.  I wasn't aware of the USMC going full tilt over to the M4 as the photos I've seen show them employing M16A4 weapons, although I haven't seen much recently.

The M4 was originally designed as a PDW - Personal Defence Weapon.  It has a much shortened barrel and a much shortened gas tube.  Unfortunately, the Special Forces mob got hold of it and decided it would be a handy weapon to use in close spaces and replaced their M16s with it.  The cache and "coolness factor" because Special Forces were now using it, meant it became the standard longarm for the rest of the Army and has now supplanted a good slice of the M16s in the USMC as well.   Because of the shortened barrel, its inaccurate beyond about 150 metres.  Because of the shortened gas tube, it suffers from heavy fouling and hence a greater likelihood of stoppages.  The USMC hasn't been particularly happy with it ever since it was forced on them by the cessation of procuring standard M16s by the US Army and have been looking for a way out of it.  The US Army won't admit its bought a pup and so they keep trying to shift the blame away from the weapon and the way its being used to the round.  The new USMC AR has as one of its specifications that it must be accurate out to 600 metres with iron sights.  Now, if the problem was the round, then it wouldn't be capable of that, now would it?

Its the "coolness factor" and that you can heavily "Guccify" your M4 which has made it popular amongst many soldiers, rather than anything else.  The Commando Battalion, 4 RAR when converting to the Commando role,  specifically asked for M4s - not because it was better than the F88 but because you could accessorise the M4 more easily than the F88.  This caused a _lot_ resentment as Ian Kuring, ex-RSM Inf. Centre related to me at the time.  Their pretensions to elitism didn't go down well.  I had to agree with him.  Most of the "accessories" are just crap which no one in their right mind really needs and are used by wankers because they appear "cool".  They usually seriously unbalance the weapon and make it harder to aim.