Photo by Pvt. Kelly Welch, 1st BCT, 1st Cav. Div. Public Affairs August 19, 2008 Command Sgt. Maj. Dennis Carey, command sergeant major for United StatesArmedArmy Forces Command, tested out the newly designed Lightweight .50 Caliber Machine Gun July 29. Carey and several others from FORSCOM took a look at new weapons designed by Program Executive Office -Soldier.
If you need to catch up on the discussion by reading the orginal post - click here.
I sent a note to Debi Dawson, at PEO-Soldier, with a link to the post, and she arranged for Major Mike Pottratz to respond for PM Soldier Weapon, the office responsible for weapons development.
For me - the money graf, if the weapon holds up in terms of reliability:
"What does the XM-312 bring me as a capability? I fired the XM-312 at a National Guard range in Vermont. There were two things that amazed me about the machine gun. First, I picked the whole machine gun, tripod, and T&E up with one hand. The machine gun, at 40 pounds was simply amazing. The XM-312 had such little recoil, I could easily walk my rounds into the targets through the M145 optic. Third, the XM-312 was so stable and such little recoil I could easily and quickly engage targets at 1,600 meters through the optic. Finally.no need for head space and timing.ever."
Emphasis mine. Now I'll have to find a way to talk them into letting me go shoot one. And have someone else pay the bill to get there.
So, here's Major Pottratz-
So, Ladies, Gentlemen, and Others, fire away!John-
I would like to thank everyone for your questions and comments related to the Light Weight 50 Cal Machine Gun. At PM Soldier Weapon we want to have an open discussion about the XM312. I went through each of your blog messages and pulled out some specific questions.
Is the XM-312 barrel weaker than the M-2? A great many of you mentioned worry about the durability of the XM312 as compared to the M-2, specifically the very thin walled barrel. The XM315 barrel has the exact same wear life (10,000 rounds) as the M-2. This is due to the slower maximum rate of fire than the M-2. With a slower rate of fire (265 rounds/minute) we can achieve increased accuracy over the M-2. Also, the XM-312 uses a new technology than the M-2 called "implulse averaging weapon system". This is the attribute which extends the life of the XM-312 and permits us to lighten the
design. The machine gun recoil system softens the force on the internal gun parts. The result, the machine gun doesn't have to be thick walled steel like the M-2. PM Soldier Weapons, in conjunction with General Dynamics, completed life cycle testing on the XM-312 barrel and the life span of the barrel is the same as the M-2. We definitely would not put out the weapon unless we were sure it met the rigorous requirements of combat.
Where does the XM312 fit in the Military? The XM-312 IS NOT a replacement for the M-2 but augments. Each gun has a specific purpose. We have a definite requirement for the XM-312. The blogger "GRIMMY" hit the nail on the head. The XM-312 will be used in specific locations through out the military. One location is the Weapons Company. Using an Arms Room Concept, a weapons squad could encounter a mission requiring a 50 cal machine gun. This would give the weapons squad a dismounted 50 cal capability. The weight of the ammunition is an issue we are looking at but the answer would rely upon distributed weight. The same concept we use with a dismounted 60mm mortar system.
In another application, the XM312, with the low recoil, (300 lb vs. the M-2 at 1000 lbs) can be mounted on a wide variety of light vehicles such as Land Rovers. With the XM-312 we are not relegated to the M-66 ring mount, but increase the possibility of locations such as rotary aircraft.
What does the XM-312 bring me as a capability? I fired the XM-312 at a National Guard range in Vermont. There were two things that amazed me about the machine gun. First, I picked the whole machine gun, tripod, and T&E up with one hand. The machine gun, at 40 pounds was simply amazing. The XM-312 had such little recoil, I could easily walk my rounds into the targets through the M145 optic. Third, the XM-312 was so stable and such little recoil I could easily and quickly engage targets at 1,600 meters through the optic. Finally.no need for head space and timing.ever.
If you have any other questions or comments about the XM-312, fire away!
I don't know... maybe it's just me, but I think the person that has to clean the weapon after it's fired should be the person who gets to be in the photograph. Maybe I'm 'still' a tad bit pissed at having a Platoon Sergeant and Platoon Leader that used to fire their pistols and rifles at the range or (worse yet, blanks) during an ARTEP. Then, as soon as we get downtime, just hand those weapons to the first available private and to be cleaned.
That always stuck in my craw.
Anyway, as a weapon system it looks and sounds pretty good.
Paul
aka V5
And they would have garnered a *lot* of weapons cleaning time.
Pissed me off enough, I might well have let troops turn in dirty weapons and had a weekend cleaning party - officers only.
No one is so important that they can't make the time to clean their own personal weapon.
Why did I get that very impression of you when we met at the 2007 Mil-Blog Conference? *GRIN*
And, to qualify my statement, not every Plt. Sgt. and Plt. Ldr was like that. Just one pair. Mostly, I had great NCOs and Officers. MEN like SSG. Michael Voce, Sgt. Dan Cunningham, Lt. Patrick, and Cpt. Capral. Men I'd gladly follow into combat today, wheelchair or not.
Paul
aka V5
BTW, I'm stealing this post.
It's 'armed forces' level counterpart is Joint Forces Command (JFCOM.)
It's always been my impression that one will never know how useful a weapon is, until you let the grunts beat it up for a year or more in the real world.
I don't think they really care...
Casey - they aren't at that phase of development yet. Still a ways to go.
That gun system dang well better have iron sights to back up those optics when they WILL be broken.
Case in point, the recent deployment of 24 MEU. The MEU went into the field and stayed there. No easy access to the armory for quick gear replacement and/or repair.
Iraq and it's FOB structure will not be the only battle ground concept in the near nor distant future. Battalion level units operating for long periods with very limited access to rear area support components will be much the norm for the Marines as issues develop.
The sight unit has been in US service since 2003 minimum.
Cheers
Yeah, I know. But the weapon in the pic above does not appear to have any iron sight backup for when the optic will fail.
Optics are all well and good for such times as when service and support are co-located with the operational units. But in the Distributed Ops model that the USMC is migrating to, and the logistics limites required by extended field ops, if this system is an optics only sighting platform, then that will become a problem.
Somewhat off topic, but pertaining to a good friend up at Ethan Allen. Please send my regards to Sgt. Hance, & tell him that I appreciate his good work down at The Putumayo.
Guess that they are already retooling at Saco.
P.S. Has he run over Porky yet?
As for the weight/recoil compensation, in a soldier's hands, things tend to break nobody thought in the engineering and scientific testing departments would ever be in danger of breaking. I remember one guy who broke the drivetrain of a Humvee-an act that was allegedly nearly impossible to achieve, back in the early nineties, and I am forced to recall the AR-15's "Self Cleaning" feature. Considering that even in the early nineties we were wrapping our M-16's in pantyhose to keep 'm functioning in the desert...
And then, there's the reliance on optics. Optics work great if they don't get muddy, or dirty, or stepped on, don't have things dropped on them, don't end up optic-down when the gear lands off the back of a truck/parachute drop/mistreated in the C-130 etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Iron sights can be made "Kinda useful" with a pair of pliers if they get bent, a scope? not so much. These aren't going to be put in use by college-educated adults who will care for them like the gold they are, they're going to be issued to or used by eighteen year olds with too much adrenaline and testosterone and not enough patience and care. (this is why Privates and Specialists need NCO leadership). They're also not going to be present exclusively in locations where spare parts and repair time are in abundance, along with arms rooms and trained armorers.
The question, therefore, remains: How hard is it to keep in a running condition when it isn't going into a nice, clean, arms-room every night for babying?
But then what expression will we use for a user induced error?
And 265 rounds per minute? Hell, a hand cranked 1861 Gatling Gun has a higher rate of fire! Has the Army higher ups forgotten that the purpose of a machine gun is to crank out the maximum amout of rounds in the shortest period of time? 265 RPM might be fine if you want precision shootin but how about in defensive fields of fire? You want mass fire then, not precision.
I'm a former Mech Trooper who used the M-2 a lot and I aint impressed with the XM-312.
From a Mech Inf point of view, more rpm the better. From a Light Inf point of view, lower rpm better.
MMG and LMG to do the high volume work. Rounds are lighter, easier to carry larger loads of em. HMG for light vehicles, that extra range when required, and hard targets in buildings or bunkers. High volume rpm in a HMG that is humped in means the gun simply runs out of ammo that much faster.
From what the man replied above with, I tend to assume that the M2 it going to stay around anyway. If you've got a truck to carry the ammo, the higher rpm is doable. But if you're carrying it all on your back, lower rpm is good.