Do you think modularity in guns is a good thing, especially for military use?
Posted by StrangerOutrageous68@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 88 comments
FrozenIceman@reddit
As OP isn't capable of explaining the differences.
Stoner 63 is an expensive, troubled, and unreliable machine gun that promised modularity at the cost of mission effectiveness. It went through almost two decades of upgrade programs where each time it failed trials and some general somewhere purchased them anyway to equip elite forces.
We know that by late 80's its terrible performance ultimately lead in the superior m249 weapon system completely replacing the un satisfactory and troubled design.
It appears to be a classic example of Stoner convincing a single powerful stakeholder to fund his pet project and bypass nearly all of the military acquisition process to make sure it actually is a decent gun.
So in summary, an AR15/M16/4 is a far superior weapon system. More modular, cheaper, more reliable, and actually passes military trials.
Accurate_Reporter252@reddit
The challenges for modular designs are two:
1) What compromises do you accept from the beginning?
2) If you upgrade or change anything, you're having to accept changes or upgrade all the components.
Some designs end up "ad hoc modular designs" because of things like construction--AR15's anyone?--but you're still having to fight in width and depth for each change over time.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
The main issue is weight and added points of failure. And when it comes to using elements of the AR-15. Especially the lower receiver. Is obviously a cost saving measure, not necessarily in the name of modularity.
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
You still gotta name ur alternative an ar lower is a shell with an ar trigger group inside it, what makes the ar trigger group worse than any other? And does your argument still stand looking at a 416 trigger group?
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
What exactly is the point of using, specifically an AR-15 lower on anything or whatever lower receiver on any gun. Other than cost saving?
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
Ok please tell me a better trigger group than an ar and then how it couldn‘t fit in it, not only is the ar trigger group by itself a pretty nice design and upgradable but its also pretty large most percision rifle trigger groups focus on short ways to make the trigger crisper, but how does a smaller trigger group or a larger one have and advantage over an ar group? And if its smaller why nit put it into an ar lower and cut it shorter? If its bigger …. Why? I can‘t see a single a reason why a larger trigger group would be to any extent helpful. I think you are blaming the wrong part here bro, there is so much about the ar system that is objectivly overcome by today but the lower as simple piece to hold the mag anf the trigger group with midnd you modular grips really isn‘t it. Look at the scar, a ar lower with a clip in rear instead of a fixed link to the buffer tube, they adapted it but aparently didn‘t change these parts but rather the housing 😂.
mp8815@reddit
I think what we've seen in real life examples is that for regular infantry no it really isn't. Even the best trained infantry aren't experts with firearms because they don't have to be. They just need a solid, general purpose carbine.
On the special operations side though modularity seems to be well received. Things like the sopmod program and the "deployment kit" with multiple uppers is the norm on that side of the house.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Changing uppers is not really the kind of modularity I meant here.
EmperorVitamen@reddit
I mean it can be though, with an AR/M4 you can switch between a standard carbine, PDW, DMR, or belt fed automatic rifle with the swap of an upper and potentially magazines if you’re switching calibers. I know that’s not how easy it was with the Stoner 63 but the effect is the same is it not?
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
In theory people can do a lot with guns that have lower receivers. In this case the AR-15 lower receiver. However, you are going to run into limitations, necessitating modification if not, abandoning the idea of 'As a cost saving measure, I can make everything work with an AR lower.'
EmperorVitamen@reddit
I’m not really sure what kind of modularity you mean then, what can you do with a stoner 63 that can’t be done with an AR platform
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
It is about modularity on a broader scale, not just simply swapping on lower to a completely different gun because that is just the lower.
This topic is not exclusively about the Stoner 63 but in my opinion there's no better gun to illustrate that than the Stoner 63. It encorporates everything in one package with different modules because it was designed that way. If you really want to compare it with the AR, just realise how different the two guns are from the ground up. It will never be just as good and that fact has been long understood.
EmperorVitamen@reddit
Okay you’re just spewing nonsense with no reasoning, tell me what the stoner does the AR doesn’t. You are absolutely right that stoner is way cooler but I don’t know of anything it actually just does better
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Can you tell what is so nonsensical about that?
EmperorVitamen@reddit
You’ve provided zero reasoning as to what one system is capable of that the other is not. I completely understand that they are operate differently but both systems perform the same function and given the advancements between introduction and today the current iteration the AR/M4 platform is infinitely more modular than the stoner 63.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
I'm frankly astonished by reading that. Whoa. I thought it should be clear as daylight to everyone what the Stoner 63 is capable of. A topic people wanted to disscuss here vs the modularity of the AR platform.
And the issue still lies in your refusals to research a tiny a bit more...Maybe swallow a little bit of your fanboydom. Maybe.....Perhaps.....But most probably most of you won't....And that is fine. But then if you really want to compare the two guns , then tell me, Which AR platforms are HALF as modular as the Stoner 63 and not just say: OH JUST SWAP ON AN UPPER.
And if you know so much about guns and modularity especially when it comes to the AR platform that you are saying that the so advanced modern advancements very advanced modern and advanced advancements enable the AR platform to be, INFINITELY more modular than te Stoner 63. Again limitless potential with AR lowers......
I'm going to be very basic here and just add that the Stoner 63's modularity comes from its infinitely configurable design sharing ONE receiver with tons DEDICATED modules. I hope you and the other. 'AR MODULARITY BEST' fanboys will understand that. And we can all get back to appreciating different designs for what they are and not for what they aren't.
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
I‘m an ak fanboy still i couldn‘t guess in a gameshow what you are on about, don‘t go ad hominem you talking to a crowd more diverse than you as a single person can ever be.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
If there's a method to read the comments I made then please do. You would understand the context here.(because they were downvoted to oblivion because reddit?). I DO NOT claim to be all knowing and will never claim to be so. It is necessary to understand the limitations of all guns.
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
I read the downvoted stuff but nothing of it went further than „see the obvious“ which may fly in church but not if you wanna make a point, you made a post to make a point so please do actually make that point. Further more its just bad practice to assume the person sitting opposite of you listening to you is biased from the start this is forgotten weapons not the ar sub
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Thanks for reading my comments. Read your own comments and others comments as well.
Again, one SHOULD research If they can. And more importantly if there's interest. And interest of discussion. Research is great if it is not evident or if unaware of those very differences between those guns. As well as researching each gun's history at least a little bit. And not only that but, the design intent. Learning about those things you like is great, isnt it?
Of course I could go into every single point very in depth. And explain the differences of each design if it wasn't evident from the get go.
As well as point out the limitations of each platform that I know of. And if I don't do that perhaps that would mean that I really can't beause in many redditors minds, I'm too stupid or it is me who doesn't care about both the Stoner 63 and AR platform and I'm here to 'spew nonsense' about how in fact no matter what you do with the AR platform is never going to be as modular of a platform as a Stoner 63 and that their design intents are very different as well.
And also that swapping uppers is just swapping uppers.
Congratulations you swapped your upper! What comes next?
If you the AR modularity fanboys , you think thats BS or at least parts of it are. And trying to sell ideas like: The same thing can be achieved by ARs. Or the AR platform infinitely more modular than the Stoner 63.
Then let's say money is no obejct and one has all the necessary legal paperwork. And tries to replicate what the Stoner 63 offered with as many uppers as stars on the sky. And then looks back at the Stoner 63, and judges their own creation(s).
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
Ok so in all that paragraph you did 2 things reitterate your argument that its better than an ar platform while not explaining how. Then you go on to reiterate your statment about fanboys. Lets come back to where we at i‘m talking to you i‘m unbiased to the regard that i don‘t like both of em, tell me why i should like the stoner 63 without making a single argument that could be applied to ar‘s because remember i don‘t like both of em meaning i won‘t like something about the stone if it is also on the ar platform. Also fyi i‘m an ergo guy i look at how stuff moves with the body and diffrent bodys as well, just an inch more of forearm can help alot when opening a jar (hence why smaller women struggle with it) so evidently the stoner must have brilliant ergo if its the best of modularity cuz modularity is not exclusive to ergo.
Also please define modularity modularity can mean alot in theory an iphone is modular when in practice it really isn‘t.
Also please define ar are we talking about the strict ar15 system as it is or does an ar 180 count as well cuz i think those are more of what you‘d call modular altho i‘m not sure
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
It should be absolutely clear to everyone that includes fanboys of either gun. How different those two guns are, if you can't that's too bad. You really should look into what exactly enabled the Stoner 63 to be the solution and not the already tested in many roles AR platform. And if you think that the AR platform can achieve same, then you really should keep in mind the distinction between what's great for civilians and what's good for military work.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
I like how you created a post to have a bitch at peoples opinions, and refuse to elaborate on your own.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
If you still want to compare the Stoner 63 to the AR platform, yet refuse to research why the Stoner 63 had to be developed and why was the AR not well setup for such a program that is on you and is absolutely fine.
There's absolutely nothing you can do if you don't have that knowledge or even recognise the limitations of the AR platform. Perhaps in your mind there's no such thing as the limitations of the AR platform? Because swapping uppers is peak everything? And you just have to scale everything up until you reach 50 cal limit, end of discussion? Only you know that. But I definitely recognise those limitations, you can disagree and try to convince me otherwise. Or call me old-fashioned, because I happen think the AR system is best used for what it excells in and not trying to make everything based off it for the sake of it can be 'done'.
Of course there's the AR lower adaptor thing too.
'Hey I can swap a belt fed upper to a lower that uses a completely different gas system and I need another buffer too then call it a day ' Again that's not a cohesive rifle system...........................
Cool, trying to replicate the Stoner 63 since that's your goal here sounds like a fun project. But then again it will never turn out to be a cohesive rifle system no matter how you try. And then some people would probably insist that it's just as good if not better than something that was designed for this purpose and was amazing at it.
Gr33nJ0k3r13@reddit
Bro you sound like a reptiloid conspiracy dude „Ich you can‘t see it do your own research its a progress not a switch i‘m just further along than you“ Completly seperate from any educated discussion, this is just a form no go. You are required to write out what you mean other people are not required to guess.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Please elaborate.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Downvote paradise. Good job!
SkyeAuroline@reddit
Specific, concrete examples please.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Just that. Everything and anything that's more than swapping a lower.
martellus@reddit
folding stocks )))
But in all honestly most AR-ified ideas are much less... refined? Than starting with those in mind for the base design. The belt feed system of the S63 is much better implemented than AR uppers for example.
ChoochieReturns@reddit
Just about every gun ever has been AR lowerified or at the very least, converted to an AR trigger group at this point. Us 3d printer owners are a simple bunch. Buy random parts kit, buy AR trigger. Make chooch.
duga404@reddit
Wait there’s a belt fed AR variant?
callmedoc214@reddit
Fightlite MCR, raptor, and various other offerings are the modern options.... but beltfed ARs have been around about as long as armalite.
Used to market a rifle for regular troops and a similar automatic rifle/lmg for squad use as well
Walker_Hale@reddit
That’s far easier than the stoner lol
TheAsianTroll@reddit
Believe it or not, the Stoner 63 system is more complex than just changing uppers but accomplishes the same goal.
Barrel length. Feed system. Overall platform form factor. You can make a 7 inch barrel SBR, a full 20 inch barrel rifle, or a belt fed system that'll all mount on the same lower receiver, with modern AR upper systems.
p8ntslinger@reddit
I think it has a lot of utility at the armorer level for weapons repair in theater. Instead of having to have gunsmith level skills to handfit every part to repair a weapon, simply slapping a new upper or stock or whatever onto a battle-damaged rifle and sending it back to the field, then sending the damaged parts back to the home country for detailed diagnosis and repair or replacement has a ton of value. High skill armorers do not have to be exposed to field conditions or combat, downtime is minimized, and more time is available to actually fix problems instead of trashing whole weapons at home
ninjast4r@reddit
The Stoner was a failure because every configuration but the LMG variant was pointless. Then it was unceremoniously dumped in the 80s by the M249 SAW.
The whole one size fits all weapons platform has been something the US military has been chasing for a long time. They thought the M14 was going to do that despite not being modular but it basically sucked at everything except as a DMR. 50 years later the XM8 was going to be this modular system that could swap out barrels and whatnot but it fell through. Now, the Marine Corps said "fuck it everyone gets the same weapon" from riflemen to machine gunners to designated marksmen and that seems to be more successful model. Sure you're losing volume of fire but you're gaining accuracy.
So in summation, it's possibly a good idea if it could ever be executed well, but history shows that's easier said than done and it's not ultimately that important.
StevenMcStevensen@reddit
Hopefully somebody with actual military experience can chip in here, but I always figured these systems seemed like a really cool idea that doesn’t really solve any problem the military has.
You’d only be doing these conversions back at some kind of base before going out. I imagine if there is a need for a machinegun any proper military can just have machineguns there to issue without needing the rifles to convert back and forth.
CWM_99@reddit
Yes. This is why the army fields dedicated guns for dedicated roles. It would be dope if the federal government figured out a better option than the fight lite for a belt fed drop in option to make any infantryman an automatic rifleman, but we already have the saw, and it does fine. Besides already having dedicated options, soldiers are the dumbest people I’ve ever worked with. They’d break shit if we gave them something more complex than what they have
Leprikahn2@reddit
Your average private will fuck up a crowbar. Simple is better.
CWM_99@reddit
I’ve pulled door handles clean off of doors. I also put it back so the next guy would think he broke it. Soldiers he soldiering
Stoney3K@reddit
Or Soldering, in this case.
zx12045c@reddit
can confirm, but I was already a SPC when I did that.
EmperorVitamen@reddit
Soldiers like to use knives as pry bars and then they’re confused when they break
Stoney3K@reddit
Modularity is only useful for the logistics side of the military (which is a huge concern in the army) so you can mix and match components to repair or reconfigure existing guns using spares from anywhere.
From a soldier's POV it doesn't add much as each soldier already has a specific role with a task-specific weapon. A jack of all trades isn't really that useful in infantry units.
DukeOfBattleRifles@reddit
Modularity in guns for military use is a cool solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Some countries limit the number of guns civilians can own so modularity makes sense but militaries are not regulated by civilian gun ownership laws so there is no point to them as standard service weapon.
Modular military guns only make sense for special forces.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
It is very interesting to see how many of you think that the AR platform is just as good as the Stoner 63 when it comes to modularity. And when you disagree with them, and tell them to recognize the obvious differences between the designs and that they should research more they downvote your comment to oblivion. And no the topic here is not necessarily about the Stoner 63 I frankly thought it was the best example of a truly modular rifle platform.
And sorry, that's in my definition is not an AR lower that fits on everything that is designed for it to fit on. It is not a cohesive platform. It was never designed to be and that's why guns like the Stoner 63 exists. Like it or hate it.
PandorasFlame1@reddit
In theory it's awesome, in practice it just introduces too many points of failure.
BlueGlassDrink@reddit
One of my favorite videos from Ian is where he gets to shoot the Stoner 63 in LMG configuration and he can't stop gushing over how flat shooting and controllable the gun is.
The 100 rd belt/box seemed very handy as well.
Snowdeo720@reddit
The stoner 63 in the carbine configuration is so nice.
ld987@reddit
I don't think it's particularly useful for the Joe in the field but it potentially simplifies logistics pretty substantially.
njharman@reddit
No, especially not for military use. [The hint is number of militaries fielding modular guns]
Good thing for what? Unless you need to have only one gun that can do different things worse than several purpose built guns.
Thick_Acanthisitta31@reddit
I would commit so many felonies to own obtain a real Stoner 63.
Feel free to use this against me in court.
DerringerOfficial@reddit
I’m particularly obsessed with the modernized variant, the KAC LAMG
_Zoring_@reddit
Not advantage for the military except in maybe some extreme niche cases, just get the best rifle, best lmg etc and buy them by the million, it's not worth time money or storage spent mucking around swapping and keeping storing parts for one system.
WynnEnby@reddit
If whatever design you've come up with isn't absurd in one way or another, it'll probably already be a little modular. Easy removal and addition of parts is good for both maintainability and modularity.
Spocks_Goatee@reddit
It works for NERF!
Popular_Mushroom_349@reddit
In terms of logistics. I think so
Parts would be easier (and cheaper) to replace. Not to mention, the ability to change calibers as well.
Not_an_alt_69_420@reddit
How often are gun parts replaced in a warzone, and what benefit does changing calibers have for an average soldier?
Modularity is useful for civilians and secret squirrels, but less so for guys who abuse the shit out of their guns (which have been abused by at least a couple of generations of guys before them). It's more important for a gun to work, and for it to work without fail in the average combat situation, than it is for soldiers to be able to tinker with their tools. There's a reason why most militaries don't let their standard infantry guys modify their kits.
Popular_Mushroom_349@reddit
Because the availably of ammunition is also a factor when fighting a war.
We don't see Martini-Henry rifles being used in Ukraine. But we have seen them use 5.45 ARs.
Not_an_alt_69_420@reddit
The list of countries that can afford to buy enough multi-caliber rifles to supply their ground forces and the list of countries that are worried about running out of ammunition are pretty much opposites with the sole exception of the Great Nation of Prepperistan.
Ukraine can't afford to purchase rifles that can easily be converted from one caliber to another for the same reason Afghanistan and Iraq couldn't a decade ago. They're being gifted military surplus from NATO countries and their logistics are an absolute mess.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Yes. And even more from a manufacturing standpoint. Cheaper to replace? Doubt. But there are several downsides with the concept of modular firearms, especially with those with the ability to change calibers. For example weight and more complex construction.
Q-Ball7@reddit
By the time you've purchased all the modular pieces you could have just bought two guns that do the modular gun's job better- for the infantry rifle, you can have something that's lighter, and for the machine gun, you can have something potentially in a heavier caliber that can do final suppressing fire (in a defensive context, not just an offensive one like the Stoner and the RPD before it are ultimately designed for).
There aren't a lot of countries that need to modernize their small arms but can't afford dedicated arms for each role- if they're that poor, they're probably just buying surplus AKs or FALs (or receiving them for free, if we're thinking about Cold War times) with a very small amount of very modern equipment for their special forces.
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Personally, I think super modular guns excell only on the civilian market.
ChevTecGroup@reddit
I think parts compatibility is more important than modularity. So I kinda agree. But parts compatibility doesn't necessarily mean modularity.
It also can help with training. If both a rifle and SAW have the same controls, then they take less training to be proficient with both
emansalinas@reddit
In the field? I don’t think so. On the manufacturing line? I think it would be amazing. I’m a keyboard warrior so don’t listen to me.
alexlongfur@reddit
Similarly,
Mikeburnfire the YouTuber explained something similar/tangential about it in one of his Campfire Stories episodes.
Basically they had access to accesories,
BUT.
Brass wouldn’t let them remove their carry handle irons from their rifles. Or other “essential” accessories. They basically wound up with mall ninja-looking, heavy service rifles.
Some of his unit members would follow the letter of that edict by attaching their carry handle irons to the underside of their handguard to make room for their red dot / ACOG.
T90tank@reddit
Maybe if you need to change roles in the field.
But not really in most use cases, just bring the right tool you need.
SuppliceVI@reddit
At scale absolutely.
When your gunner's recoil spring breaks and your medic is busy with wounded so instead of downgrading him a regular rifle you just steal the buffer spring
SubstantialFly3316@reddit
The Stoner 63 system as a general issue concept had little benefit beyond simplifying logistics and manufacturing. Regular units will not be chopping and changing configurations for every operation and mission. Unifying spare parts and components is a valid argument for the supply chain, but holds little water for a company commander allowing Private Fuckwit to change his rifle into an LMG.
ReactionAble7945@reddit
Yes, and No.
The AR/M16 controls have become one of, if not the best controls. User interface And we want to keep the User interface the same. From rifle to, dmr, to smg, to pdw, to... . And we will all agree that in an all out war the armorer will have a much easier time, if all the rifles can have parts swapped to get a gun back into the field. . And the professionals with logistics will tell you it is much easier to supply everyone with the same ammo. Same parts, same.... (So much so that, stupid configs are easier to support, helicopter pilots with 12 inch barreled g3, because if they are downed the ground pounders have g3 rifles. Those pilots shouldn't be shooting much any way.... ) . . But at the same time, the US GOV. Has not accepted a belt fed upper to slap on an M16 lower. There have been 3 which have been proposed, and none of them accepted. They were not as good as a dedicated belt fed.
The Portuguese had the G3, and got the G21. They look alike, but beyond the controls.. they are not the same.
The German made the G3, G21, but they use the G3 and MG44 which is now a MG3. They also adopted the MP5 for when the 308 is too much. . And then we know that the 5.56 is great, but 5.56 sidearm is dumb. The 5.56 is great until you need a 308 or 50BMG.
Adding a 6.5 which appears to be specifically designed so civilians can not get it.... seems dumb. More issues for logistics, and doesn't gain much.
ODA564@reddit
No. The extra bits stay locked up.
mlin1911@reddit
Yes and No. Theoretically modularity is where US military always wanted since 1950s. M14 failed miserably. Stoner 63 series supposed to be cheaper stamping receivers and with configuration for multi-role. USMC and Navy Seals field tested, but only the light machine gun saw popularity with Seals in Vietnam. That's all. After 80s, stoner 63 family of weapons were faded in history.
M16 is the closest to that goal, but still fall short to what they envisioned. US adopted rifle/carbine/PDW. Colt made LMG version, but never adopted by US, and only saw limited success internationally. Most military today still prefer dedicated squad weapons.
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
The NFA and other shitty laws stifled the Stoner 63, where improvements could've been made on the open market.
ShotgunEd1897@reddit
Yes, because the battlefield isn't always static. Certain attachments are needed, depending on the action.
taucco@reddit
No. Wait for the war to go in full kriegsmodell mode and see useless things like rails, adjustable stocks, adjustable sights, Heat shields, upper handguards etc... go away
I would Say even compatibility with commercial accessories Is redundant.
Kilahti@reddit
The main issue with stuff like Stoner 63 is this:
Even if the gun can be used in 57 different forms, you now have to get all those parts. Does the soldier carry all those parts with them? Do you store them in their gear rack/armsroom and try to make sure none get lost? How many of the modes does the soldier really need and are the rest of the parts just more costly things that need to be kept on the books? If the soldier takes the kit with them into the field, we open a whole nother can of worms because every extra bit that they bring along is extra weight and things to lose.
Oh and if you break one piece of the gun does it mean that you are now without a functional gun until you get a replacement bit because none of the other modes can replace that one?
On the other hand... What if you just give the soldier one gun that they need and that's it? Cheaper, less weight, easier to train and supply.
The main uses for modular guns:
a) Legality makes it easier than buying multiple firearms. Depends on the country. If you are in USA for example, one registered select fire weapon with a bunch of additional parts that do not require separate registrations is certainly easier on the bureaucratic side. This is also one of the reasons why combination guns (one barrel shoots 12g shotgun, another shoots .222 remington, the third one is .22lr for example) have a niche in Europe.
b) Hunters and whatnot who want to go hiking with a weapon and instead of bringing multiple long guns, they bring a single long gun and modify it based on what they plan to do. Granted that this is usually done with drillings and other combination guns (this being the other reason for them) to save weight and still have a gun that can be used to shoot no matter what prey you find. Also, you want different modularity than "machine gun, carbine, assault rifle" in that scenario.
The way it is, even for special forces who get access to weapons that others can't get, usually there are better options than modular guns. The army can afford to get 5 guns (that each do one niche better than the modular gun can do all of them) for the special forces soldier instead of one finicky modular one.
Sweet-Tomatillo-9010@reddit
From experience the GWOT in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems like having a collection of tools throughout the squad is better than having 8 machine guns. We also never needed more machine guns at any point. Not to mention that feeding all those extra machinenguns would require more ammo bearers as well as a change out of load-bearing gear.
On the other hand, if one needs more firepower in a situation, then SOP is to call for fire support or reinforcement. I would argue that the vehicle moujted machine gun in these instances would be better than being able to swap rifles in the field to MGs.
Just my 2 cents
bigtedkfan21@reddit
Problem is that militaries need to prepare for any kind of conflict. The firepower needs of counter insurgency are different than a big war with China or Russia. I also don't think there would be as much air on station per jtac if we had huge wartime armies such as in wwii.
Sweet-Tomatillo-9010@reddit
Fire support isn't just air support. It's everything from vehicle mounted weapons to artillery fires and air and naval support.
Judging by the sort of near peer combat between Russia and Ukraine, I would expect some sort of hybrid trench warfare with maneuver. In that case, you're going to want carbine armed assault troops supported by machine guns along with grenade launchers to clear out fixed enemies behind cover. Once again, having the squad being a swiss army knife of weaponry would be more useful than a whole shitload of machine guns.
jrhan762@reddit
I absolutely do not care, I just want Lego guns.
theoryOfAconspiracy@reddit
No, better to have weapons that do specific things well rather than just being okay at a bunch of things.
Proudjew1991@reddit
Wait a minute you put up one of the most flat firing automatic machine guns. I mean come on you just gave a reason why it is amazing hence why the sig spear went the same direction
StrangerOutrageous68@reddit (OP)
Nobody doubts that the Stoner 63 was an excellent gun for specialist use. But not as a standard issue system.
Proudjew1991@reddit
If it was implemented there would be a lot more ammo and a lot more lives saved. As effective fire will be king in that arena. I would however like to see failures if you have any in mind?
Humanmale80@reddit
It probably can help with logistics, when done well. Fewer spares required, more likely to have what you need on hand.
Good logistics > good guns.
MunkSWE94@reddit
Depends.
The stoner 63 is cool and interesting that you could make a LMG out of a rifle, but it's a bit complicated with a lot of small parts and you can't really modulate it in the field. So anything like that probably isn't.
Something like the Masada (I think) where you could change it to use different calibers, magazines and barrel lengths is probably better for military use than converting a rifle into a machine gun.
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.