[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now being accepted. Click here to apply.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 303s.jpg (44 KB, 800x450)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
*does nothing*
>>
Imagine using 8 to 12 MemeGuns instead of a single rotary cannon shooting through the engine shaft.
>>
The amount of bullshit that has been written by bongs to try and justify this is incredible.
>>
>>64275895
I'm guessing the justification is "we have lots of 303"
>>
>>64275891
imagine a gun malfunction ruining your only engine while in flight
>>
It would have been effective in strafing the glasshouse-like cockpits of German bombers.
>>
>btfos lolwaffe in the air
>stops sauerkraut D-day
>Used in best bolt action rifle of both worlds wars
>Used in best lmg of both worlds wars
>Copied by the Japs and commies

.303 generates copious amounts of wehraboo seethe as they've been on the receiving end of it twice
>>
>>64275891
>>64276004
Imagine needing to pull a rotary cannon out to do basic engine maintenance.
>>
>>64276157
imagine spending 2 months to grease 300 guns
>>
Manual deflection shooting and convergence were bullshit
>>
>>64276151
>Used in best bolt action rifle of both worlds wars
>Used in best lmg of both worlds wars
And I thought the Russians were on high-dose copium.
>>
>>64275884
should of at least used 13.2x99
>>64275891
imagine not using 6 ShKAS machine guns
>higher rate of fire
>weighs less / can carry more ammo for the same weight
>>64275986
and lots of Browning Machine Gun Mk II*
>>
i think they should have used bigger bullet
10mm or since it is olden times maybe .45 acp
>>
>>64276284
The USAF tested using 45 ACP on aircraft, but found the explosion caused from hitting enemy aircraft was so powerful that it would kill the shooter as well.
>>
>>64276205
The BREN was the best WWII light machine gun bar its relatives (including the Type 96/99 in here) and maybe, just maybe, the FN BARs. The No.4 was the best bolt action rifle of WWII bar none. The Type 99 and MAS 36 are its most probably closest matches (the later M1903s were plagued with small issues despite having sights on par with the No.4 so they're out of consideration).
>>
File: 1758040962024380.jpg (157 KB, 1024x1020)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>64276432
and this is why the mg42 is still in use, the m60 and most other later mg designs are based on it and 90% of all modern bolt actions are mauser 98 derivates.
oh and in addition it is the reason h&k fixed the british bulpub joke of an assault rifle.
>>
>>64276506
The MG42 isn't a light machine gun.
Mauser is popular as well.
SA80 is irrelevant here
>>
>>64276545
>The MG42 isn't a light machine gun.
Unless mounted on a (stationary) tripod, yes, it fucking is.
>>
>>64276432
Type 96/99 are not related to the Bren.
>>
>>64276506
What's good for a modern bolt action, where they're relegated to the precision shooting and hunting niches, and what's good for an infantry main arm are different. Good mechanical accuracy and durability are legit good, but for your main arm as grunt, shooting more and faster is extremely important as well.
>>
File: gaylord.gif (138 KB, 500x333)
138 KB
138 KB GIF
>>64276506
>b-but the MG42
A GPMG is not an LMG, in doctrine or actual employment. It's more akin to a modern MMG
>inb4 liechtes maschinengewehr
And the British called submachineguns "machine carbines", but that doesn't mean the STEN is an Assault Rifle by proxy
>m-muh mauser 98k
Worse ergonomics, longer bolt throw, greater unlocking angle, worse sights, no useable cocking piece. These things make it an objectively worse combat rifle
>H&K fixed the SA80
As a subsidiary of BAE Systems, a British Military and Aerospace industrial conglomerate, who acquired them when buying out Royal Ordnance, under whom H&K had already been working in British Military interest
>>64276640
Hence why I specified that I was including them. They're roughly equivalent and I'm not read enough to determine whether one was notably better than the other. The bayonet mounting lug gets them extra points though, I love bayonets
>>
>>64276151
>rimmed cartridge
No. At least the Japs started transitioning to semi-rimmed and rimless 7.7mm. The only worse thing would be if you dragged your rimmed cartridge into the 21st Century like a certain other country.
Also regardless of the Lee Enfield's merits, the British didn't even think it was the best bolt action in their own inventory during WWI and it certainly would've been better off in a rimless cartridge.
>>64276432
>The Type 99 and MAS 36 are its most probably closest matches
Fuck no, owning each of them I'd take an 03A3 over either of them into combat ten times of ten.
>(the later M1903s were plagued with small issues despite having sights on par with the No.4 so they're out of consideration).
Not saying that isn't true, but I've never heard of this once in my life and every M1903A3 or A4 I have ever handled has had zero problems. I would seriously consider taking it over the No.4 if I were choosing my army's infantry rifle or had to use it personally.
>>
>>64276737
>every M1903A3 or A4 I have ever handled has had zero problems
I assume we're talking contemporary for the period, so I bring up contemporary issues. I imagine that you probably wouldn't own your 03A3 if it hadn't passed the Darwinian test of not being a piece of shit, otherwise some boomer would have cut it up to make a modern deer gun or you'd have passed on it for one that didn't have a floppy rear sight or didn't feed well. As for overall service, the individual difference in boltguns isn't going to matter all that much as long as it's within spec of what's modern, so that's a different discussion altogether.
>>
Thing is it wasn't limited to RAF Fighter Command either, Bomber Command too operated on the same line of "more boolit better big boolit bad". A good example being the Lancaster with a quad .303 turret. They tried out some experimental planes with a twin .50 BMG turret but it didn't really catch on, the justification being the gunner preferred to load tracer heavy belts and use the volume of fire to make night fighter pilots shit their pants and break off an attack.
>>
>>64275884
It can cause 1,200 butthurt Wehraboos per minute.
>>
>>64276815
>otherwise some boomer would have cut it up to make a modern deer gun
NTA but my 03A3 was some boomer retards attempt to make a durr gun that I returned to its intended configuration. Prior to that it was a drill rifle getting spun, tossed, and dropped. The rear sight wings show that well enough.
>floppy rear sight
If my former drill rifle that bubba went and fucked with has no issues with holding zero, the rear sight is fine.
>didn't feed well
Lmao, and you're saying this in comparison to the No.4 of all things?
>gets rimlock in your path
If the Enfield was so damn amazing, the Brits wouldn't have been in the active process of trying to replace it with a Mauser based action before WW1. The No.4 was by no means a terrible rifle and I like mine, but it is in no way shape or form the best bolt action of WW2
>>
File: 1556480699090.gif (801 KB, 250x195)
801 KB
801 KB GIF
>>64276545
> mg42 11.6 kg
> BREN 11.3 kg
>>
>>64276665
>And the British called submachineguns "machine carbines", but that doesn't mean the STEN is an Assault Rifle by proxy
>my terminology autism is correct and everyone else is wrong!
>>
>>64276545
The Bren Gun isn't a light machine gun, it's an automatic rifle.
>>
>>64276895
>Bren
>11.3kg
Why must you turn this thread into a house of lies?
>>
>>64276611
no, retard
it's a GPMG
>>
The amount of bullshit that has been written by warriortard to try and denigrate this is incredible.
>>
>>64276894
>the rear sight is fine
I don't think bubbaing is typically cause for rear sights not holding zero, but sure.
>didn't feed well
Yeah, you got me there.
>If the Enfield was so damn amazing...
They sought to replace the Enfield series because it wasn't suited to precision shooting across long distances in the South African Transvaal (eight full years before they adopted a Spitzer bullet, by the way) owing to the design of the action compared to the Boer Mausers. It also just so happens that the design of the action gives it characteristics a lot of shooters really love. Personally, I think better handling is generally more important in an infantry rifle than tighter groups at ranges you are less likely to spot, ID, or even engage at as an infantryman. Especially in the WWII period, which is what I'm considering this in regards to. And I love the P14 to death, I just don't think it's as objectively good a weapon the No.4 on the minute scale we're talking. A lot of what makes the P14 worse, in my view, than the No.4 also applies to the M1903A3. This is the degree to which we're splitting hairs, anon.
>>64276897
Bravo! You can comprehend half of what my point was!
>>64276962
Forgive me, faggot-sama, I was only engaging in genuine discussion... I'll go back to single sentence bait posts immediately once this thread dies... let me go all out... just this once...
>>
>>64276950
>it's a GPMG
Retard-Kun, a GPMG is a heavy/medium/light machinegun all at the same time, that's the whole fucking point of the 'general purpose' phrase.
With a bipod it is used as a light machinegun, on a tripod it becomes a medium machinegun.
>>
>>64277063
the MG34 and 42 were literally the first widely adopted GPMGs anon

and there is no "medium" machine gun
there's light, usually intermediate caliber by modern definition, general purpose, which is almost always a belt-fed rifle caliber MG, and heavy, which is anything bigger than your average rifle round

it's that shrimple
>>
File: 1736327869441381.jpg (136 KB, 1200x848)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>64276665
>A GPMG is not an LMG, in doctrine or actual employment. It's more akin to a modern MMG
By this argument, the Bren gun is a GPMG as well, because the Brits built their sections around it similarly to the Germans, and used the gun also in vehicular and HMG configurations.
A GPMG is an LMG when it's being used as an LMG. It's a HMG when it's being used as a HMG, and an MMG when it's being used as an MMG.

An LMG is a machine gun being used as an LMG, a machine gun being used for LMG stuff, regardless of its construction or the specifics. Doctrinal terms are derived from their use, not from some nebulous details of construction that change with the times. The details of their construction are defined by the demands of fulfilling the purpose.
>>
File: 1736112414109632.jpg (19 KB, 243x200)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>64277082
>and there is no "medium" machine gun
Retard.
>>
>>64276377
Checked and keked
>>
>>64277063
Lmao no, GPMGs are not heavy MGs. It's like the one thing they can't be. By definition they're man portable, also used in fix positions or on vehicles, but not in an intermediate caliber. That's why they're "general purpose". Intermediates are LMGs regardless of how they're used, HMGs generally speaking aren't readily man portable, at least not by a single man(ex M2).
>>
>Calling the MG42 an MG42
I'll think you'll find its called a spandau!
>>
File: Lord Irrelevant.jpg (44 KB, 338x496)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>
>>64277082
>the MG34 and 42 were literally the first widely adopted GPMGs anon
Yes, and a GPMG by definition HAS to be able to be used as a LMG or it's not general purpose.
>and there is no "medium" machine gun
"Medium" Machineguns are what WW1 would call heavy machineguns, but obviously a Browning .50cal is fucking huge in comparison even to a Maxim gun, hence calling them both 'heavy' would be nonsensical.
>>64277100
>GPMGs are not heavy MGs
By definition a GPMG has to be usable in the heavy machinegun role with a tripod. You retarded nigger.
>>
>>64277159
You're a retarded gorilla nigger, putting an MG on a tripod does not make it a heavy MG. Otherwise literally anything fully automatic is an HMG. Taking a fucking arca AR-15, slapping a 3 position lower on it, and putting it on a light tripod would make it an HMG. I have no idea where you came up with such an intellectually braindead idea. The defining characteristics of HMGs is an inability to readily have a single man move and operate it. Good day saar.
>Inb4 tries to bring up gunners assistants in a fit of extra retardation.
>>
File: A medium machine gun.jpg (632 KB, 1920x1080)
632 KB
632 KB JPG
>>64277159
>"Medium" Machineguns are what WW1 would call heavy machineguns,
Medium machine guns are what everyone calls machine guns best used as stationary fire support weapons, but ones that are still capable of being used by one man, even as a part of a maneuver element, even if it's not optimal.
>>
File: 1738928580189023.jpg (196 KB, 1250x905)
196 KB
196 KB JPG
>>64277180
>You're a retarded gorilla nigger, putting an MG on a tripod does not make it a heavy MG.
Counterargument: this is a heavy machine gun.

t. different anon
>>
All this to say that the Bren is the best lmg of WW2, once you use pedantic wordplay and nitpicking to eliminate all the superior competition.
>>
>>64277180
>putting an MG on a tripod does not make it a heavy MG
Doctrinally and by definition yes it absolutely does. Germany used the MG42 where it would otherwise use MG08's and such, in addition to the LMG role.
>>64277182
No you're describing a GPMG or a light machinegun. A medium machinegun is something you don't carry around, but is too small to compete with .50's.
>>
File: HMG.jpg (283 KB, 765x900)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
>Tripod mount makes an HMG
>>
>>64277197
Not a full-size rifle caliber, also not fully automatic. Or ya know. Huge and watercooled or with a quick change barrel.
>>
File: HMG for kids.jpg (503 KB, 1488x1120)
503 KB
503 KB JPG
I always love Bren vs Spandau discussions
They always turn into a memorable clusterfuck!
>>
>>64277215
Bren isn't a HMG for the reasons the British had the Vickers in the HMG role. Being able to be put on a tripod isn't the only factor when it comes to doctrine and shit.
The Germans outright replaced the MG08/15 in the HMG role.
German soldiers were lugging around MG42's on tripods in defensive locations, not watercooled weapons.
>>
>>64277222
Can't argue with those digits but I'm going to see if I can find a tripod mount for a bayonet and see if that suddenly turns it into an HMG!
>>
>>64277055
>I don't think bubbaing is typically cause for rear sights not holding zero
You're talking about the sights being floppy. My point that on top of bubba getting to it, it was a drill rifle before. The rear sight wings have been beaten to shit with how often it was dropped by cadets in its life. The rear sight holds zero fine.
>I think better handling is generally more important in an infantry rifle than tighter groups at ranges
They handle about the same, but the 03A3 is lighter if only by a bit. Cock on close vs cock on open comes down to personal preference. Mauser style stripper clips are also far, far more pleasant and easy to use then the Enfield chargers. And as far as end user experiences can go, I vastly prefer doing work on 1903's. They are much simpler with fewer parts and needing fewer tools. The No4 in comparison has something like 5 different screw head sizes, is way more involved to detail strip, and requires a special tool just for getting the firing pin out of the bolt. I'd fucking hate to be an armorer dealing with the things in the hundreds.
>>
File: 1745874769765387.jpg (950 KB, 3000x2318)
950 KB
950 KB JPG
>>64277194
You have never served and fail to understand that military terms are defined in a military context. The definitions of the terms are NOT structural, but are doctrinal instead.
A GPMG is simply an umbrella term that refers to the fact that this weapon system in different configurations can and is used for different roles, including LMG, MMG and HMG.
LMG, MMG and HMG are doctrinal terms that inform an individual of the purpose and place of these weapon systems (including tripods and crew); give a commander the needed information to employ them even if he lacks a specific understanding of the weapon system's design and qualities.
>No you're describing a GPMG or a light machinegun. A medium machinegun is something you don't carry around, but is too small to compete with .50's.
The M240 is a medium machine gun. Its replacement is the Future Medium Machine Gun, being sought out in the program named as such.

>>64277215
>stationary weapon system designed for sustained fire that can't be effectively used by a maneuver element or by a single man
Yep, it's an HMG. You don't have to like it, but that weapon system fulfills the role of a heavy machine gun.
>>
>>64277180
>single man move
ok
>and operate it
in that case all machine guns are heavy
>>
the bren was bad
the BAR was worse
the type 96 and 99 were bad
the MG34 was good
the MG42 was better

there's a reason infantry machine guns post-WW2 were no longer top-feeding magazine-fed glorified squad automatic weapons
although we DID start to go back to that with shit like the RPK and again with the M27 IAR though but those were still retarded
>>
File: 1730999280828983.jpg (51 KB, 458x566)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>64277236
>69 kg
Operating and moving it includes marches, downtime and all other functions.
If you genuinely believe a single man can carry their own equipment and this 69kg load, including all the ammunition for it, on a daily basis, you are insane.
>>
>>64277232
>You have never served
You're a 1940's British or German soldier?
>>
>>64277242
We used to call the BAR/Bren/Type96/Degtyarevs automatic rifles, but then corruption of language worked its way through and everything was ruined. A fusil-mitrailleur is not a mitrailleuse.
The Anglo despises his own language and shows it no respect.
>>
>>64277245
It's almost like the terminology is still in use today.
>>
>>64277257
The heavy machinegun turned into a niche vehicle-only weapon with .50 cals
Medium machineguns died out in WW2 because as it turned out GPMG's did the same job and more.
We use GPMG's nowadays.
>>
File: 1752579336880750.jpg (691 KB, 1920x1920)
691 KB
691 KB JPG
>>64277261
>The heavy machinegun turned into a niche vehicle-only weapon with .50 cals
lol
>Medium machineguns died out in WW2 because as it turned out GPMG's did the same job and more.
The M240 is a medium machine gun.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/07/22/army-eyeing-replacement-m240b-machine-gun.html
>>
>>64277261
>We use GPMG's nowadays.
GPMG is an umbrella term. It's like saying we don't eat apples anymore, we eat fruit these days.
>Will continue to test and evaluate technologies and improvements, to include required testing for medium
machine gun and remote weapon station enhancements. Continue testing to evaluate suitability of the XM250
for the current M240-series medium machine gun role. Conduct testing of 6.8mm M240 barrel assembly, as well
as evaluate other 6.8mm M240 solutions available in the marketplace
https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2026/Discretionary%20Budget/rdte/RDTE%20-%20Vol%203%20-%20Budget%20Activity%205A.pdf
>>
>>64277253
they're really just SAWs honestly
which is ironic because the M249 is an LMG
>>
>>64277192
No, it's a GPMG being used in an HMG role, which makes it an MMG if anything.
>>64277194
No, the mg42 is not a GPMG and no amount of tripods will change that. If removed from the tripod it is now readily portable by a single man even with some ammo. YWNBARHMG.
>>64277236
No, and thanks for biting right in to my inb4. GPMGs can be operated by a single individual, although they are almost always used with a gunners assistant who can carry ammo or a tripod if looking to emplace the GPMG and use it as an MMG.
>>
>>64277293
>the mg42 is not a GPMG
Jej
>>
>>64277085
>regardless of its construction or the specifics
I would argue that technical design details do indeed matter in defining a weapon because how a weapon is designed and what it is designed for can significantly inhibit a weapons usefulness in certain areas, and if it's poor enough in one area, then still labelling it as is doesn't accurately reflect its actual capabilities as a weapon regardless of if you do actually use it in that role. And to my knowledge, the BREN wasn't good for sustained fire or longer ranged targets as it was not designed with that in mind, but it excelled in actively supporting (and even partaking in) the assault (which iirc the Brits were shopping around for something suitable for this) while the MGs could support the assault but not be taken into one without its shortcomings becoming apparent. This is why I think that despite the BREN being used in static, tripod-mounted, crew-served positions applying the term GPMG to it isn't quite apt.
>>64277230
>You're talking about the sights being floppy
I mean literally, the sight settings of the 1903A3 would reportedly begin to walk with time until it was fixed at an armourer and production level. Not about banging up the wings, which if that would affect Zero in any noticeable way, I'd be worried.
>The No4 in comparison has something like 5 different screw head sizes
This isn't something I was taking into consideration, as I wouldn't expect to take it down to detail if I were serving with one which is the metric I'm using for the purposes of this conversation. In terms of handling, I was thinking more in terms of cycling the bolt and needing to shift the hand or head position less, which cock-on-open/close absolutely plays into. And then in comes a self-loader like the Garand and blows the entire argument by being actually measurably better in most regards.
>>
>>64275891
It boils down to two philosophies. Since pilots have barely a few seconds to fire with the enemy plane in sight, you can either:
(A) have high volume but smaller caliber of fire spread wide along your wing to increase % of hits, or
(B) fire heavier caliber cannons that will very likely kill if it hits but with lower rate of fire and at certain larger calibers, worse balistics

Philosophy (A) assumes you will be mass producing pilots with average skills. Philosophy (B) assumes you will have highly skilled pilots who can make that shot count. Unfortunately for Germans and Japs as the war prolonged, they lost many skilled pilots while the remaining Experten were increasingly used as a crutch, denying fresh pilots the opportunity to gain experience and kills. The Brits and Americans rotated their experienced pilots to ensure new pilots gain enough experience.
>>
File: 1752269345884942.gif (321 KB, 1965x1670)
321 KB
321 KB GIF
>>64277320
>I would argue that technical design details do indeed matter in defining a weapon because how a weapon is designed and what it is designed for can significantly inhibit a weapons usefulness in certain areas, and if it's poor enough in one area, then still labelling it as is doesn't accurately reflect its actual capabilities as a weapon regardless of if you do actually use it in that role.
The structural capabilities of it are not as significant as the intended role, its doctrinal use. The structural details always follow the intended role and are entirely secondary to the fulfillment of the role. It's always the role that matters the most and which defines the weapon system.
If you label a weapon system by its structural qualities, then that definition will itself be deprecated and useless the moment an advancement in technology happens. It just doesn't function and isn't genuinely useful at all. It's an autistic-pedantic method that fails to communicate the weapon system's nature in a military setting: A heavy machine gun does heavy machine gun stuff, and that's what the naming convention has to reflect. If you give me a heavy machine gun platoon, the naming tells me everything I need to know about the platoon's use and how I should deploy them. I know their limitations and how they should NOT be employed.

>And to my knowledge, the BREN wasn't good for sustained fire
That may be so, but the tripod was called the Sustained Fire Tripod. Being bad at fulfilling your role does not mean you aren't still identified as that role. The Bren itself was originally sought out as a GPMG to replace the other MGs like the Vickers, but it simply wasn't very useful for that purpose (or very useful in the first place). The British rifle battalions did not have any other machine gun in them except for the Bren. Machine gun battalions were a divisional asset. The Bren was used for general purposes by the British.
>>
File: 1736688439979031.png (35 KB, 751x701)
35 KB
35 KB PNG
>>64277293
>No, it's a GPMG being used in an HMG role, which makes it an MMG if anything.
A GPMG is a weapon that fulfills all three roles upon demand.

A GPMG is an LMG AND an MMG AND an HMG, when used as such.
>>
>>64277416
the concept of the MMG hasn't existed in almost a century, anon
>>
>>64277457
The concept is used this year in budget estimates: https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2026/Discretionary%20Budget/rdte/RDTE%20-%20Vol%203%20-%20Budget%20Activity%205A.pdf
>>
>>64277236
Has that man become the machine gun?
If so is this the true MMG?
>>
>>64277401
>It's always the role that matters the most and which defines the weapon system.
And I can hold onto injured persons and then gyrate my cock fast enough to generate lift, but that doesn't make me an airmobile ambulance, does it? If it works, then technically I may well be, but that doesn't reflect that I am actually a man flapping my foreskin about like a madman, which puts significant limitations on what I am actually useful for, despite being labelled as such. Perhaps then, designating me as an airmobile publicly exposed paramedic would be more apt and efficient in communicating this. Much like how the BREN may indeed by employed as more than simply a section machinegun, but noting that it is a LIGHT Machinegun gives you a better idea of how it can be effectively used. I wish I had the time and energy to engage you on all of the points to which I object, but I'm about to go to bed, so fuck you, fuck everybody in this thread, I'm the one who's totally correct and OP is a nut sucking, taint licking, man-kissing flaming homosexual. Good-night all.
>>
The Americans really should've just adopted the Bren rather than keep using the BAR. Then again, I'm sure they would've found a way to fuck it up with the 30-06 conversion, as always.
>>
>>64277320
>Not about banging up the wings
Have you ever looked at the rear sight of a 1903A3? Are you even reading what I'm posting? Because if you are doing or have done either of these things, you'd know why I'm harping on it being a drill rifle that has been dropped and banged up repeatedly. On that matter, do you even own either of these rifles?
>This isn't something I was taking into consideration
You should be taking it into consideration when you call the No4 the "best bolt action of the war bar none". Cheapness and ease of manufacturing and maintenance are massive considerations to make when adopting and issuing out a standard infantry rifle in the millions.
>In terms of handling, I was thinking more in terms of cycling the bolt and needing to shift the hand or head position less, which cock-on-open/close absolutely plays into
Again, for a lot of people, that can come down to personal preference. At least on rifles with bent bolt handles, I usually wind up liking cock on open more.
>>
File: 1757650439461020.jpg (177 KB, 1600x1600)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>64277651
>And I can hold onto injured persons and then gyrate my cock fast enough to generate lift, but that doesn't make me an airmobile ambulance, does it?
If everyone calls you an airmobile ambulance, then by the way language functions you are an "airmobile ambulance."
Platonic forms are not real, language is subjective and dependent on the context in which it is used to functionally pass on information to others.
>limitations on what I am actually useful for, despite being labelled as such.
Just like an M48 Patton is a main battle tank regardless of it being useless for us in that role. It is a main battle tank because of its use as a main battle tank, not because it has specific structural qualities that somehow define it as one. A tank is what a tank does.
If we are insane and choose to flap our foreskins about to function as an airmobile ambulance, we recognize that as airmobile ambulance, we call that an airmobile ambulance, then that is in fact an "airmobile ambulance". All meaning is inherently context dependent.
>Much like how the BREN may indeed by employed as more than simply a section machinegun, but noting that it is a LIGHT Machinegun gives you a better idea of how it can be effectively used.
It ceases being a light machine gun the moment you drop it on a sustained fire tripod and employ it as a heavy machine gun. Much as its opposing contemporary, the s.MG42.
>>
>>64277724
>replace your automatic rifle that has been produced for decades with a marginally better but also substantially heavier foreign design that you would need to purchase licensing, retool your factories, redesign your LBE, and retrain your troops for
The M1918A2 being retarded does not make the BAR an ineffective base design, and both the BAR and Bren would become obsolete in short order anyway. If anything, the Colt Monitor should have been adopted and the development of the BAR into a belt-fed proto-MAG should have been expedited rather than canned like it ended up irl.
>>
>>64277359
Which is bigger, 1x9 or 9x1? Same principle, you can equally argue that it takes more skill to down a plane with the smaller caliber, since a small smattering of small hits isn't going to do anything.
>>
>>64277215
Nobody except one hilariously retarded Brit has ever called a German MG a spandau
>>
>>64276157
>>64276004
Propeller hub guns are offset from the engine shaft. The cannon doesn't go through the engine, it is above or below. Sometimes in the V above a V engine.
>>
>>64275986
To be fair, that's a good justification.
>>
>>64277724
you're retarded
>>
>>64277401
>If you give me a heavy machine gun platoon, the naming tells me everything I need to know about the platoon's use and how I should deploy them. I know their limitations and how they should NOT be employed.

This is only true if they have a weapon that can, outside of doctrine, be classified as a heavy machine gun. Imagine if your HMG platoon carried a BAR on a tripod instead of say, a .50 cal. You'd use it as a HMG platoon and it would fail.
>>
>>64277787
But the entire discussion is a result of people not agreeing with the definitions, so you cant use the royal "we" to argue your point
>>
>>64275986
>In 1963 in Yorkshire, a class of British Army armorers put one Vickers gun through probably the most strenuous test ever given to an individual gun. The base had a stockpile of approximately 5 million rounds of Mk VII .303 ammunition which was no longer approved for military use. They took a newly rebuilt Vickers gun, and proceeded to fire the entire stock of ammo through it over the course of seven days. They worked in pairs, switching off at 30 minute intervals, with a third man shovelling away spent brass. The gun was fired in 250-round solid bursts, and the worn out barrels were changed every hour and a half. At the end of the five million rounds, the gun was taken back into the shop for inspection. It was found to be within service spec in every dimension.
>>
>>64275884
I mean, they wouldn't do Nothing. They'd just fail to penetrate all the important bits like the pilot's char or engine block. You'd basically need to saw the wings off with bullets. Which happened but not as much as one 20mm Mine Shell blowing off entire tails.
>>
>>64276737
>M1903A3 or A4
With the peep sights? M1917 was hated for the peep sights that became standard in later M1903 and rifles after.
>>
File: 1727622785974901.png (1.48 MB, 1334x750)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB PNG
>>64277869
Even if I use the BARs as heavy machine guns completely failing at my task, I have used them as heavy machine guns, regardless of the outcome. Even if I use a soft piece of bread as a hammer, completely failing at my task, I have still hammered away at a nail, regardless of the outcome. If I have a platoon of T-55s being used as MBTs, they are still MBTs regardless of them being all blown up going up against modern AT and M1A2s.

It is the doctrinal act of using the weapons as HMGs that renders them into HMGs. Just as if I use a rock to hammer in a nail, that rock *is* a hammer. It might be a poor hammer. I might fail at hammering the nail in straight and have to start over, but by God it is still a hammer.
The tool's meaning to us is defined by its use; a tool is what a tool does.
>>
>>64278040
Show me the heavy machine gun atom
>>
>>64277063
a GPMG is something chambered in a non-intermediate caliber so... yeah the MG42 is a GPMG just like the M240 is a GPMG and the SAW is NOT a GPMG

germany is phasing the 34 for its squad level machinegun it literally uses a german M249 looking SAW.. because the modernized 34/42's are heavy as fuck to carry around with their belts of ammo in full sized cartridges
>>
>>64277089
there literally is not a "medium" machinegun, it's either light, in an intermediate cartridge like 5.56, or it's a General Purpose MG chambered in a larger full sized cartridge like 7.62x51 NATO

the fuck would a "medium" machinegun be? everything .50 and above is either a heavy machinegun, antimaterial rifle, or an autocannon
>>
>>64277293
>it's a GENERAL PURPOSE machine gun being used in a GENERAL PURPOSE (stationary tripod)

you can do anything with it retard, they put them on literally everything, planes, tanks, APCs, infantry platoons, a fucking train, a car, a bunker
>>
There's something fishy about this thread
>>
>>64278040
MG 15nA too light over heat after 300 rounds, grug need heavy machine gun.
>>
>>64276432
>The BREN was the best WWII light machine gun
You're off your fucking rocker. Unless you want to engage in the olympic-level mental gymnastics that "The MG 34/42 weren't REAL light machine guns", it's clear as day either one blows the BREN out of the water.

>The No.4 was the best bolt action rifle of WWII bar none.
Sure, that's why so many companies are making Mauser action rifles to this day and the only one still making Enfields is in India.
>>
File: 1737636137992165.jpg (1.15 MB, 2560x1714)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>64278099
The M240 is literally a medium machine gun. Its replacement the Future Medium Machine Gun is a medium machine gun.
https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/W3I0003XQ%20M240B%20Medium%20Machinegun.pdf
It is always and consistently referred to as a medium machine gun.

A medium machine gun is an optimally crew served weapon that can be used as part of a maneuver element and even by a single person if required, even if this is not optimal. It provides sustained firepower at ranges greater than a light machine gun and with greater sustainability, yet still retains greater mobility than a true heavy machine gun. It is the staple direct fire support weapon of the infantry company. It's a weapon that can keep up with the infantry and provide significant direct fire support at the same time.
>>
>>64276650
>and what's good for an infantry main arm are different.
Because there were so many nations clamoring for Enfields post-war? Mausers were sold all over the world. Enfields only went to nations that were current, recently former, or bordering British territory. Nobody who had any other realistic choice wanted them.
>>
>>64277918
you just know the guys there probably had the best day of their service that day.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.