This is what the SAW is for. If the SAW/M249 gets replaced by the IAR, then why not use a 100-round C-mag drum.
The 60-round looks too large for my taste; can't use bipods, and looks like a giant hook that will just snag stuff.
Note how he's firing in the prone position with his weapon canted. The more compact 60-round Hi-Capacity looks better.
So what happened with accuracy? Everyone just dumping rounds down-range means more ammo to carry.
Btw, I would smack that corporal on the head for firing his weapon with the stock collapsed. With his weapon likely kicking like a mule in the field it's a recipe for (eye) injuries.
i got these links from wikipedia and the last one is from the companies site so i wonder if the 2003 issues were analyzed by the company and changed? i also wonder if the army will limit use of high capacity magazines in front units so the infantry dont get into a habit of using too much ammo than needed. i dunno just asking and people here are far more knowledgeable than me on these issues.
not slightly annoying that they use a serviceman...very annoying!
i'm not sure about the usage of these mags by conventional forces though.
but the Army and Marines appear to be heading in separate directions as far as small arms. the Army wants full auto fire back, the Marines like the 3 round burst.
Probably because every Marine is a Rifleman from the bottom line therefore they place more attention on accuracy which is where you need a three-round burst, whereas a Army soldier due to the size and number of the Army, may not be as well-trained and accurate with the weapon.
i wouldnt dismiss the army's rifle capability of their infantry units, i think its more about tactical considerations and style of fighting than their skills with a rifle. i have no doubts that marines are good, they have proven it time and again, but so has the army. i wonder what SOCOM will think of these hi-capacity mags, not only seals/rangers/delta but also marine recon.
The initial test was just toilet - in anything but a sales pitch blatting off 100 rounds like that is a criminal waste of ammunition for anything but an area weapon such as a GPMG/M240 or SAW and then once you're laying fire down you belt up. For everyone else - while less frequent magazine changes would be marvellous, you need more accurate fire so the size of the magazine is slightly less of an issue. However what is more of an issue is the complete inability to lie prone and hold the weapon properly unless you're as flexible as a gymnast and even then you're going to be higher up and therefore going to stick out more - convenient rocks, ditches or firing platforms that negate this simply aren't where you need them to be, the 30 round mag is long enough. The only times this may prove of use is in urban environments, the final close-in phase of a section/squad assault or when manning prepared positions and in vehicles - but then there's the fact that more frequent maagzine changes arguably contribute towards better ammunition conservation which can be as vital as laying down sufficient weight of fire when in contact - after all it is possbible to have this with reasonably well-trained soldiers without having them empty whole magazines in a general direction that might possibly be the enemy's location.
This is what the SAW is for. If the SAW/M249 gets replaced by the IAR, then why not use a 100-round C-mag drum.
ReplyDeleteThe 60-round looks too large for my taste; can't use bipods, and looks like a giant hook that will just snag stuff.
Note how he's firing in the prone position with his weapon canted.
The more compact 60-round Hi-Capacity looks better.
So what happened with accuracy? Everyone just dumping rounds down-range means more ammo to carry.
Btw, I would smack that corporal on the head for firing his weapon with the stock collapsed. With his weapon likely kicking like a mule in the field it's a recipe for (eye) injuries.
At that rate barrel overhead is imminent.
ReplyDeleteIt's slightly annoying how they use a serviceman for such an advertisement's purpose.
the cmag has had some reliability issues if i am not mistaken, have these been corrected?
ReplyDeleteNot that I know of; the S-Mags are still deemed "illegal" in the Dutch armed forces because of jams.
ReplyDeleteedit: S-Mag = C-Mag
ReplyDeletewell there was this report from DOD in 2003
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2003/a072803b.html
but further testing in 2008 seems to not had these issues.
http://www.betaco.com/documents/Dept_of_Army_memo_08-11-28.pdf
i got these links from wikipedia and the last one is from the companies site so i wonder if the 2003 issues were analyzed by the company and changed? i also wonder if the army will limit use of high capacity magazines in front units so the infantry dont get into a habit of using too much ammo than needed. i dunno just asking and people here are far more knowledgeable than me on these issues.
not slightly annoying that they use a serviceman...very annoying!
ReplyDeletei'm not sure about the usage of these mags by conventional forces though.
but the Army and Marines appear to be heading in separate directions as far as small arms. the Army wants full auto fire back, the Marines like the 3 round burst.
Probably because every Marine is a Rifleman from the bottom line therefore they place more attention on accuracy which is where you need a three-round burst, whereas a Army soldier due to the size and number of the Army, may not be as well-trained and accurate with the weapon.
ReplyDeletei wouldnt dismiss the army's rifle capability of their infantry units, i think its more about tactical considerations and style of fighting than their skills with a rifle. i have no doubts that marines are good, they have proven it time and again, but so has the army. i wonder what SOCOM will think of these hi-capacity mags, not only seals/rangers/delta but also marine recon.
ReplyDeleteThe initial test was just toilet - in anything but a sales pitch blatting off 100 rounds like that is a criminal waste of ammunition for anything but an area weapon such as a GPMG/M240 or SAW and then once you're laying fire down you belt up. For everyone else - while less frequent magazine changes would be marvellous, you need more accurate fire so the size of the magazine is slightly less of an issue. However what is more of an issue is the complete inability to lie prone and hold the weapon properly unless you're as flexible as a gymnast and even then you're going to be higher up and therefore going to stick out more - convenient rocks, ditches or firing platforms that negate this simply aren't where you need them to be, the 30 round mag is long enough. The only times this may prove of use is in urban environments, the final close-in phase of a section/squad assault or when manning prepared positions and in vehicles - but then there's the fact that more frequent maagzine changes arguably contribute towards better ammunition conservation which can be as vital as laying down sufficient weight of fire when in contact - after all it is possbible to have this with reasonably well-trained soldiers without having them empty whole magazines in a general direction that might possibly be the enemy's location.
ReplyDelete