The longest extension of the bipod seems practical if the person firing the gun is in a shallow trench, or maybe even sitting (obviously behind some form of cover, depending on the situation). edit: I forgot to mention the obvious chance of firing it level from a downward slope.
You’d be surprised how useful those long bipod legs are. Sometimes you don’t get to decide on the slope or gradient of the the terrain you go prone in. So they are useful to have such a range on them.
It also allows you to take a modified sitting position if you really want to. Not that useful, but it's nice to have the option to do it if it's warranted.
A couple of minor points, the 30 round magazine did exist in 1965, it is mentioned and pictured in the US Army Test and Evaluation Command's December 1965 Small Arms Weapons Systems (SAWS) Final Report, and the round handguard is pictures in the US Army's September 1966 Weapons No. 2 Fact Sheet for the Launcher, Grenade, 40mm (XM148), so it dates back to at least 1966.
I remember in the late 70's firing the 203. I really liked the round profile of the 203 and thought that they should have that style on all the M-16s. I guess they read my mind, but I got out prior to the adoption of the A2 with the round handguard. The early handguards were pretty fragile, as well. I think I cracked every handguard I had.
Wasn't it straight sided? Pretty sure those were really unreliable. You need a curve in the magazine for reliability due to the taper of each cartridge case.
Man Colt was really experimenting around with the AR-15 a lot in the 60's and 70's weren't they and some did make it into final production. I find it funny that maybe at the time no one would buy it would be super small countries cause it was cheaper and easier keep one rifle type and modify that for suited purpose than buying 1 rifle and 1 GPMG etc. Nowadays these type of designs are crawling back from the annals of time cause the bigger powers now actually see their use. Things like the CAR (Colt Automatic Rifle) and M27 IAR (Yes i know the operating system is different but the Ar-15 form factor is still there). It seems like the military powers around the world are moving back toward the concept of having an automatic rifleman in squads. (don't type when tired)
I figured it was an early AR-15 pattern since it doesn’t have a forward assist, something added with the M16A1 model. As for the tall bipod that would be very useful for the gunner sitting and shooting out from behind low cover or over a slope.
The fact that every British Special Forces unit all use AR15 platform weapons and wont touch the L85 platform with a barge pole should tell you that the answer is a very big "YES"!
@@calvingreene90 correct...an AK style platform would have been the smart choice but a NATO country wouldn`t have been allowed to do that, so the AR-15 would have been the next best choice...
@@ca9968 No, a bullpup that works well like a Steyr AUG or FAMAS. I like AKs but unless you are going to cast and mill magnesium alloy receivers they are too heavy.
@@calvingreene90 an AK variant like a Valmet, Galil or South African R4/R5 is better than any bullpup, bullpups are handy but every one i`ve ever fired has had an issue with the point of balance..they`re too back heavy..great on a range, but to carry, they`re just awkward... I owned a Norinco built AK and a Vector LM5 when I lived in South Africa and both were superior to the SA80 I carried as a squaddie...the LM5 (A civilian version of the R5, which is a copy of an Israeli Galil SAR) weighs 4.4 kg`s, the SA80 weighs 4.98 kg`s...the Famas and AUG are a tad lighter but a few hours a week in the gym and you really wont notice the difference...
British special forces uses several different weapons platforms, not just AR 15's. And these tests were carried out in the 60's. So they couldnt compare against the L85/L86 and the SAS/SBS couldnt reject a weapon that hadnt even been designed let alone made and brought into service.
Regarding the burst fire mechanism, I understand the idea behind it but the only one I've seen that appears to function correctly is that on the Polish Beryl and Tantal as the burst fire counter mechanism reset on trigger release. With that in mind I can see the use with conscript or reserve troops being better than full auto but they also left that option available for those more experienced.
As far as I know the Poles got the idea for the burst fire mechanism from the FN CAL, and the original reason for it in case of Tantal was to get better controllability in full-auto mode with its then 7.62×39 chambering.
Indeed there are two sides of the whole burst firing thing: the concept and the implementation. The American experiments in the 1960's definitely proved that their implementation was flawed, butt the fundamental question of "does burst fire bring any capability over single shots?" as a concept is something I yet have to see a definitive answer to.
Interesting. I have a particular interest in the Colt LMG, as I managed to get a later (1980s) complete open-bolt LMG kit (minus receiver). One of these days I'm going to put the kit on my legally papered M16A2 lower and give it a run at the range. I wonder how testing on these early "LMG" went? They retained their closed bolt firing, so I am curious if there was problem with cook offs which presumably the change to open bolt firing would address.
I wonder if it might not be such a problem with them restricted to the 20 or 30 round mags. It basically wouldn't be firing at a greater rate than a standard M-16, although presumably more of it on full auto.
it's pretty weird that you guys let other people mess with your property, the only illegal thing about guns is that you're not allowed to kill people that didn't engage in war with you. Legislation is trying really hard to make you feel like a bunch of kids treating you like one. Now this trend is manifesting on cars also: your car that you own is not really yours, same with the driving skill.
No there was no issues with cookoffs with later models. I have a rebuilt closed bolt Colt LMG. Closed bolt machineguns are extremely popular now and the kinks worked out. You wont reach hot enough with its bull barrel and open receiver port in combat to cookoff. Ive fired 200rd at a time in free automatic no issue
Years ago, they sold "Light Machine Gun" retrofit parts on the U.S. market... importantly, these were open bolt systems for improved cooling. Many legally owned select fire AR platforms were converted here in the USA. I'd love to get ahold of one. I do agree that the concept is somewhat lacking relative to a belt fed SAW with a nut sack ammo feed.
Exposed belt feds are dumb anyways, the ammo is literally exposed when a modern drum mag is much more dependable than those examples found decades ago, and it keeps your ammo protected. I’ll stick with a 100rnd Gen 2 KCI drum with an FRT to make a damn good suppressive fire weapon.
With the later open bolt LMG kits, you lost the select fire capability. It was SAFE and AUTO only. There were quite a few heavy uppers that hit the market at the time but they were sold without the open bolt assembly and trigger group. I have one of those, but I also managed to get a complete parts kit minus receiver too. As I recall those LMG guns were made in anticipation of foreign sales to Central America about the time that we were arming the Contras.
@@kurtbjorn3841 Not that I'm aware of. The open bolt conversion was rather clever. They managed to use a standard 3-hole M16 lower receiver and very specialized parts. For example, the hammer both held the bolt open until the trigger was pulled, and then struck the firing pin when the bolt closed. Colt had made an open bolt weapon before, the M231 port firing weapon, but the lower receiver was very different and incompatible with standard M16 parts. The open bolt LMG could have been fielded as an upgrade kit on a standard M16. Semiautomatic perhaps could have been possible, but I've never seen it and it wasn't in the Colt Patent filing on the mechanism.
Thanks Jonathan and team, It was really interesting to learn what you know of the history of that example. I think I can see why those whose duties would have involved carrying ammunition for a GPMG or a Bren, and of course the weapon itself, might well have wished for a smaller calibre replacement system. I guess that was achieved eventually when the FN Minimi became available, but were their any really popular 5.56mm support weapons before that? For instance, would the Stoner 63 range have provided a good enough option?
Well, there were HK11& HK13, and also contemporaneously to the emergence of the Minimi the Steyr came up with the AUG HBAR. RPK variants in 5.56 do exist, and given the adoption of the RPK-74 about the same time it wouldn't be unthinkably difficult to convert it to 5.56 at an earlier date, if the need ever emerged. So yeah, there definitely were some options in the '70s, but not in the '60s. Also, the trouble with the Mininmi is in its lack of reliability, and some of its detractors would also point to it being too cumbersome for one-man operation.
ah the GPMG, aka why you dont want to be the biggest strongest fittest guy in the squad. Mate of mine in the territorials won some competition at his gym, so they decided it would be hilarious to reward him with carrying the machine gun.
So from my limited experience in a 60’s SE Asian spat I wouldn’t want to leave the wire without someone with a belt fed weapon preferably in a rifle caliber.
High bipod - long grass/foliage. When everything is growing/grown you need to elevate the gun above it, the reverse of the concealment vs cover when being shot at.
Looks kinda cool with the old unfenced lower but the A2 style handguard Don't think I've ever seen that combo before outside of mix-matched ones you see from places like Israel
I love the lower without the fence or forward assist, just classic :) I've yet to see one at any of the gun shops where I live, but I'd LOVE to do a first gen build like that and maybe a triangular handguard.
No mention of accuracy with the dipod upsetting the barrel harmonics being it was attached to the barrel even tho its a heavy barrel this would still upset accuracy
The fact you don't really see much of the "bolt a bipod onto the infantry rifle and call it done" LMG seems to suggest they were a cheap but not great option in many cases. I know the Canadian Army used to use a variant of the FN FAL configured like this and it doesn't seem like it was very popular at least with those I talked to. To make it worth the effort they had a huge extended mag which just made them a pain in the ass if you actually had to hit the dirt.
Big thing to try in the 80s but they all failed really. The whole issue is- what's the actual point? They cant keep up auto fire, especially with closed bolts and small magazines anyway
I heard a lot of unspoken "why?" in the video. I can answer that. These were converted to this LMG format as a potential replacement for the Bren, which was quite similar as a magazine fed LMG that was getting long in the tooth at that point. While the conversion from .303 to 7.62 NATO was a relatively simple matter, stepping down to 5.56mm NATO would have probably been more expensive that just buying a new but similarly featured gun in the new caliber.
4:24 Was any attempt made to reintroduce the older pattern 25-round magazines for this variant? Because 20 rounds of 5.56 doesn't sound like a particularly impressive magazine capacity for a wannabe-LMG, especially given the magazine change procedure and AR-15's typical high rate of fire. 5:02 I've always wondered whether these large holes create mirage when the gun is fired. 14:24 It seems to me that this gun would be a rather poor replacement for the BREN that was used in that role at that time. 14:40 It has to be noted, however, that the PRK as a close contemporary can at least boast higher magazine capacity and a better stock, not to mention capacity for night vision optics on the -N variants and the folding stock of the -S variants. 17:43 The problem is more widespread than that, though, as FN threw some effort during the development of CAL into designing the memory-less burst mechanism around the same time, and the Poles later chose to copy it during their rather thorny Tantal project.
The hyper burst in An94 isn't there to prevent the soldier from using excessive number of rounds but rather to give him an ability to shoot multiple bullets (in this case two) before the recoil kicks in. Unless you're talking about some other recent variant of burst fire AK.
So it's a NATO version of the RPK? Generally speaking, I really like the idea of a weapon system that's modular enough that you could turn it from an extra compact, SMG size carbine to a sharpshooter rifle to a squad level machine gun and anything in between. I do understand that it's quite a challenge to make that work in practice, particularly with the sustained-fire roles, but that doesn't make the _idea_ any less appealing.
Its one of those things that looks good on papper. but kind of sucks when it comes to reality. it´s kind of like doing a sportscar, SUV and Mini van combination.
@@exploatores A completely modular vehicle that could be converted into any of those variants _does_ sound like fun! It would also probably be hideously expensive, and require a lot of special maintenance. Funny how that works ;-)
A couple of - probably rather naive - questions, if I may? 1) I've heard it said that armies tend to get interested in burst fire when they're using conscripts or emergency call-ups and thus don't have time for detailed training. Is this the case or just a myth? 2) This almost looks like a marksman's rifle as much as a light support weapon, particularly if you use it in semi-auto and maybe stick a medium-power scope on top. Was there any thought given to that in trials?
It's likely a myth, as the M16A2 has a burst fire setting, but was adopted after the US transitioned to a professional, volunteer military. This is not a marksmen's rifle. The barrel is being dragged down by the heavy bipod. The RPK has a terrible time trying to keep it's point of aim consistent.
1) As mentioned above, it is not true in regards to the M16A2, and at least in two other cases it is also false. The Polish Tantal project used the burst fire mode (in conjunction with higher rate of fire) just to improve hit probability with its original 7.62×39 chambering. As for the AK-12, it is rumored that the requirements for the new rifle trial that resulted in its adoption were written with heavy bias towards AEK-971, which ended up being adopted alongside AK-12. In its turn, AEK-971 is a by-product of the Abakan project, which aimed at improving hit probability with auto-fire from unstable shooting positions and resulted in the design known as AN-94 basically winning over anything else. With both AEK-971 and AN-94 full-auto capability was retained (as is the case with AK-12), and resulting design being, if anything, much less suited for an average conscript. 2) I'm not sure if this rifle could take any optical sight whatsoever, and in any regard there were no sights for AR-15 prior to 1967 or so. Moreover, with barrel of such quality the rifle would likely perform quite poorly in the DMR role. And then there's the issue of bipod putting a lot of undesirable pressure onto the barrel, which certainly doesn't help matters. Take a look at how designs like L86 or M27 deal with bipod placement to see what one should do to give their LMG some semblance of DMR capabilities.
@@TheSundayShooter The hole is indeed there, but before 1967 there were no sights for AR-15 per se. The 3× A.I. scope you mention is for AR-10, and no amount of Colt marketing could change that, which is why they chose to design a new sight of their own later. Besides, as far as I'm aware by the time this rifle assumed its current look, the A.I. stopped producing the sight anyway.
Just to correct you on UKSF. Troopers were allowed their pick of weapons, there was no doctrine as you were telling experts what worked best for them. I don't think that's changed. One of the issues I heard of just a few years after this is that the No4 would kill through the tree. The SLR would kill around the tree. The Armalite would kill by hilarity at the thought it would have a spread of under 2" at 100 yards.
Excellent work as always Jonathan and team! It is sometimes hard to make out some of the finer details and markings. They just sort of muddle into the image and are a tad dark to see. I think a ring light and a 4k camera would really help make those details pop and give you an even finer fidelity. Keep up the good work!
I now (U.S. citizen) wanna make a semi auto clone of that(of course I'd go for pic rail and an add on "carry handle sight"... I've got a really good start on the upper, with an actual heavy Barrel, worth the extra kilos.. Maybe I'll be lazy and go for an a2 lower, as it's so hard to find affordable full stock a1 style lowers... I just need to source that HBAR bipod (And yes I realize I've very much redefined what "clone" means... But you gotta make sacrifices for affordability and usability here and there)
Worth noting is that the RPK-type rifle-based squad/section automatic weapon never made sense in Western doctrine - they never match the belt-feds for a true base of fire needed for fireteam-level maneuvers. Every Western rifle-based SAW eventually lost its role to a belt-fed (L86, MG36, AUG HBAR, and the M27 IAR failed to fully replace a belt-fed).
I want that barrel and bipod :) I wonder if it's Cali legal? I have a bipod on one of DMRs with allowed furniture and the specific rules of 'featureless' vs. 'fixed mag' on AR15s here is complicated, obtuse, and ridiculous. ALSO - Did they actually use the 20 rounders for testing? Or is that just a 'period correct' mag for the video?
No, the A in AR stands for Armalite and the M in M-16 stands for military. Colt owns the rights to the rifle and the AR is the semi auto version at present..They all use the Stoner internal gas piston..The firing pin is heavier and it should also have the edge-water buffer..Funny how it failed the mud test when it is much better in mud then the AK..The early rifles had poor chamber dimensions QC, soft brass being used and poor maintenance in a wet environment that left pits in the chamber that created a mechanical lock of the brass in the chamber, it turned into a disaster in Vietnam..
@@nigelwright1610 No they're not. The early full auto AR-15 rifles used different components such as a heavier firing pin, Edge-water buffer, chambers size, buffer tube length and other items mentioned in the video. Every designation change represents some kind of change.. Original nomenclature name AR-15, XM-16, M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2,etc.. In fact Colt used a different designation when they changed specs and components..The early AR-15 rifles were called the 601 series..
@@TheSundayShooter They also own the TDP which got the military into trouble when they gave it out to other manufacturers and it was leaked to the public..
@@hairydogstail Colt's copyright of the design expired decades ago, which is how there are a myriad of AR-15 manufacturers. There are M16 (Colt 604) units with roll marks that read _AR-15_
And as an idea it predates the rifle in question by quite a bit: I believe it was invented by Michail Kalashnikov sometime around 1950 for improving the stability of the AK during full-auto fire, although at that point it was a monopod that was put into the forward grip rather than a bipod. Sadly, the prototype went nowhere, possibly due to the increased calls for lightening the gun that resulted in the adoption of the AKM in the late '50s. One might debate the merits of this approach, however, when it comes to taller obstacles and longer magazines, but it certainly is a neat idea, and for regular rifles it might very well be enough.
But this time. it will totaly work with a Box magazine and a non-replaceble barrel on the SAW. never mind all the other times it has been tested. this time it will be diffrent.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 really? Was the British army not using the FAL in semi auto only and had already designed and built the EM2 which was the basis for the SA80 in a different calibre adopting the FAL because the US military insisted the 7.62 by the standard military round rather than a smaller intermediate? The British army were still using the Bren gun as their light machine gun right up until the Falklands war in the 80s. The Malayan emergency ended in 1960 before the m16 was adopted, I don't the think the SAS used the AR10.
@@joelbilly1355 yes sorry I meant borneo and those south east asian conflicts of the 60s. They ordered a number of M16s in 1961 and more throughout the decade, actually using them before the US adoption. Since the 80s have used canadian built versions
This is what the M16 would have developed into if the US did like the Soviets with their AKs Just turn them into a thousand variants to suit various purposes
On the subject of the comically long bipod legs you should take a look at Ian's competition stages with his Chauchat. It turned out for him that the long legs on that worked great when using the thing from a trench. ua-cam.com/video/B6EM_OdIoJY/v-deo.html
Thank you as always food for thought. Never a supporter of the LMG theory. Would rather have the heavier Bren/GPMG rate of fire and range as opposed to 5.56. Suppression of enemy ability to fire being far more important imho. Re-inventing the wheel really serves no purpose. Tried and tested being my belief. When comparing the amount of ammunition expended in "modern" recent conflicts? Pretty appalling with a spray and pray philosophy prevalent in modern platoon level engagement. Guess I am of an older school of thought, believing in a mix of weaponry within a platoon level consisting of heavy mg, rifle and a few smg. Still, thought provoking though.
Many are starting to go back to this in some way. The UK got rid of their LSWs and LMGs, as did Denmark and the USMC. NZ replaced the 5.56 Minimi with the 7.62 Minimi. Interesting, the Dutch marines still use a combination of GPMGs and the latest version of this LMG at platoon level, and still seem to like it.
compared to the SA 80 hell yeah they should have gotten it but in reality a slingshot and a pocket knife beats the SA80 and the AR both! but why the brits just didn't take the AR 18 as a starting point (which just needed some fine tuning!!) and develop a rifle is a complete mystery! the truth is the US should have gotten the HK33 that Harrington and Richardson was working up instead of that pile of j8unk!!!
@@lordsimonicus3479 just the action and they FUBAR'D it six ways from sunday by bullpupping it!! in it's original layout it would have made a more than adequate service rifle for britain all they needed to do was switch to a forged receiver from the stamped sheet metal and improve the heat shielding in the forearm! possibly changed the rear sight but other than that she was ready for service! i had a Sterling built 180 and trust me they not only missed the boat there they missed the entire port!! if i could get parts for it i'd still have it!!
Looks like a wet dream for a BAR-Fetishist. I fail to see any benefit of the 20 (or even 30) round magazine-fed squad-automatic weapon. Might as well bring back the BREN (which was vastly superior over the BAR to begin with.). Anyway, this thing does not add anything over the already more readily available superior choices like the FN-MAG, the FN-FALO and the Minimi (to name a few). In fact it would introduce the dysfunctions and drawbacks of the BAR and combine it with those of the AR15/M-16. I'm glad it didn't go anywhere and the British armed services are better off for it.
I'm real interested in those early M16 family of weapons. The Colt LMG, the Colt 9mm. I really wonder why they didn't catch on, especially with how AR-Centric America is. You would have an LMG (Colt LMG), Rifle (M16), Carbine (M4), Commando Rifle (CAR15 and/or CQBR), and SMG (Colt 9mm). And then even further with a 7.62 / DMR / Sniper Variant based on the AR-10 as well. Could have had a full family of weapons.
I imagine it's as simple as, there were other options which proved superior. Minimi derivatives have been used for decades, so I assume the belt-fed, much larger capacity was the big appeal there. Funnily enough, isn't there a move to a HK416 version happening? I've read something about there being a desire to reduce the ability for enemies to be able to spot which is the one in that role.
LMG variants of service rifles have tended to not work well. They generally turn out to be too light to be an actual LMG and just be bulkier, heavier rifles. The heavy FAL, the M15, and L86 being good examples. The RPK, while copying much of the AK, has a lot more differences including a different receiver.
I noticed they dispensed with the forward assist on this one.. also as its in.223 as opposed to 5.56 does this mean its rated for the lower chamber pressure as I was of the understanding never to use 5.56 in a .223 weapon for this reason but its perfectly fine to use the lower powered .223 round in a 5.56 weapon, for the sake of safety I've always stuck to that rule
*>they dispensed with the forward assist* It may not had been developed yet when this unit, Colt 611(?), was exported *>I was of the understanding never to use 5.56 in a .223* A reasonable assumption given a 60-year-old barrel, though keep in mind that the _5.56mm_ adopted with the M16/M16A1 is not the same as the _5.56 NATO_ standard of the 1980s onward
I read that in the second American invasion of Iraq, 35% of soldiers reported experiencing a malfunction with their M-16 during combat which took a lot of time to fix, or completely deactivated the weapon for the duration of the fight. A convoy was ambushed and captured because all rifles malfunctioned, leaving the unit disarmed. It amazes me that this weapon continues to be used despite serving troops so poorly. The worst offender, the M249, had even more frequent stoppages, and clearance of the malfunction required extensive disassembly. Yet it's still in use.
@@jazeenharal6013 FN Minimi (M249 in U.S. service or L109/L110 in British service) can either be fed from a 20 or 30 round box magazine or can be belt fed depending on what’s available, a much more suitable choice even if it is heavier.
@@chemistrykrang8065 True, most users used the belt feed option, but there was always the magazine option to fall back on if that was all that was available, better than nothing I suppose.
The L86 LSW is decidedly not an AR-15 derivative. It, along with the L85, is if anything an AR-18 clone badly converted to a bullpup. I would agree that this would also have suffered from the issue of being too big for a rifle but not up to doling out sustained suppressive fire in a similar way to the LSW, though. I certainly wouldn't have fancied being given this in place of a Bren, even if the Bren is obnoxiously heavy.
The caption at 0:50 coming after Jonathan's explanation of why it's an AR15 not an M16 is brilliant timing
I think they change it, what did it say?
@@NovaAge The card says "M16 A2" which is why it was so amusing :)
@@MrGrimsmith ah
@@MrGrimsmith
The editor has carried on the Colt tradition of playing fast-and-loose with _M16A2_ as a designation c:
Ian McCollum using a Chauchat in a 2 gun competition showed that a long bi-pod is very useful when shooting from behind cover and field entrenchments.
@antoinebrosseau
By the number of people that say the bipod on the Chauchat is too long that is not true.
The longest extension of the bipod seems practical if the person firing the gun is in a shallow trench, or maybe even sitting (obviously behind some form of cover, depending on the situation). edit: I forgot to mention the obvious chance of firing it level from a downward slope.
Great video Jonathan, very interesting - especially the burst mechanism. Video on that 605 sounds in order.
You’d be surprised how useful those long bipod legs are. Sometimes you don’t get to decide on the slope or gradient of the the terrain you go prone in. So they are useful to have such a range on them.
It also allows you to take a modified sitting position if you really want to. Not that useful, but it's nice to have the option to do it if it's warranted.
@@matchesburn Having options is always better then not having options right
My favourite museum to visit in the whole of Britain.
A couple of minor points, the 30 round magazine did exist in 1965, it is mentioned and pictured in the US Army Test and Evaluation Command's December 1965 Small Arms Weapons Systems (SAWS) Final Report, and the round handguard is pictures in the US Army's September 1966 Weapons No. 2 Fact Sheet for the Launcher, Grenade, 40mm (XM148), so it dates back to at least 1966.
Didn't know that, thanks for your great contribution!
the 30's and xm148 were still in development not in full production back then!!!
I remember in the late 70's firing the 203. I really liked the round profile of the 203 and thought that they should have that style on all the M-16s. I guess they read my mind, but I got out prior to the adoption of the A2 with the round handguard. The early handguards were pretty fragile, as well. I think I cracked every handguard I had.
Wasn't it straight sided? Pretty sure those were really unreliable. You need a curve in the magazine for reliability due to the taper of each cartridge case.
@@Treblaine no the 30's back then were pretty much as we have today! they were still in the field test phase though!
Please do a LSW follow up.
Which one? L86? C9? Minimi 7.62?
@@kiwigrunt330 Well we are talking about British magazine fed support weapons so hazard a guess.......... 🙃
Man Colt was really experimenting around with the AR-15 a lot in the 60's and 70's weren't they and some did make it into final production. I find it funny that maybe at the time no one would buy it would be super small countries cause it was cheaper and easier keep one rifle type and modify that for suited purpose than buying 1 rifle and 1 GPMG etc. Nowadays these type of designs are crawling back from the annals of time cause the bigger powers now actually see their use. Things like the CAR (Colt Automatic Rifle) and M27 IAR (Yes i know the operating system is different but the Ar-15 form factor is still there). It seems like the military powers around the world are moving back toward the concept of having an automatic rifleman in squads.
(don't type when tired)
Hello Johnathan! I was curious, is that a Battle of Britain Memorial Flight pin on your lapel I see?
I figured it was an early AR-15 pattern since it doesn’t have a forward assist, something added with the M16A1 model. As for the tall bipod that would be very useful for the gunner sitting and shooting out from behind low cover or over a slope.
I remember seeing the same type with a squared hand guard and fitted with an improved hydraulic buffer to reduce the rate of fire
The fact that every British Special Forces unit all use AR15 platform weapons and wont touch the L85 platform with a barge pole should tell you that the answer is a very big "YES"!
Just because the L85 is a piece of excrement does not mean that the AR-15 was the right choice.
@@calvingreene90 correct...an AK style platform would have been the smart choice but a NATO country wouldn`t have been allowed to do that, so the AR-15 would have been the next best choice...
@@ca9968
No, a bullpup that works well like a Steyr AUG or FAMAS.
I like AKs but unless you are going to cast and mill magnesium alloy receivers they are too heavy.
@@calvingreene90 an AK variant like a Valmet, Galil or South African R4/R5 is better than any bullpup, bullpups are handy but every one i`ve ever fired has had an issue with the point of balance..they`re too back heavy..great on a range, but to carry, they`re just awkward...
I owned a Norinco built AK and a Vector LM5 when I lived in South Africa and both were superior to the SA80 I carried as a squaddie...the LM5 (A civilian version of the R5, which is a copy of an Israeli Galil SAR) weighs 4.4 kg`s, the SA80 weighs 4.98 kg`s...the Famas and AUG are a tad lighter but a few hours a week in the gym and you really wont notice the difference...
British special forces uses several different weapons platforms, not just AR 15's. And these tests were carried out in the 60's. So they couldnt compare against the L85/L86 and the SAS/SBS couldnt reject a weapon that hadnt even been designed let alone made and brought into service.
Regarding the burst fire mechanism, I understand the idea behind it but the only one I've seen that appears to function correctly is that on the Polish Beryl and Tantal as the burst fire counter mechanism reset on trigger release. With that in mind I can see the use with conscript or reserve troops being better than full auto but they also left that option available for those more experienced.
As far as I know the Poles got the idea for the burst fire mechanism from the FN CAL, and the original reason for it in case of Tantal was to get better controllability in full-auto mode with its then 7.62×39 chambering.
Indeed there are two sides of the whole burst firing thing: the concept and the implementation.
The American experiments in the 1960's definitely proved that their implementation was flawed, butt the fundamental question of "does burst fire bring any capability over single shots?" as a concept is something I yet have to see a definitive answer to.
@johanmetreus1268 Accuracy wise probably not. But for a moving target at a close range, it might increase the chances of a hit.
Interesting. I have a particular interest in the Colt LMG, as I managed to get a later (1980s) complete open-bolt LMG kit (minus receiver). One of these days I'm going to put the kit on my legally papered M16A2 lower and give it a run at the range.
I wonder how testing on these early "LMG" went? They retained their closed bolt firing, so I am curious if there was problem with cook offs which presumably the change to open bolt firing would address.
I wonder if it might not be such a problem with them restricted to the 20 or 30 round mags. It basically wouldn't be firing at a greater rate than a standard M-16, although presumably more of it on full auto.
it's pretty weird that you guys let other people mess with your property, the only illegal thing about guns is that you're not allowed to kill people that didn't engage in war with you. Legislation is trying really hard to make you feel like a bunch of kids treating you like one. Now this trend is manifesting on cars also: your car that you own is not really yours, same with the driving skill.
No there was no issues with cookoffs with later models. I have a rebuilt closed bolt Colt LMG. Closed bolt machineguns are extremely popular now and the kinks worked out. You wont reach hot enough with its bull barrel and open receiver port in combat to cookoff. Ive fired 200rd at a time in free automatic no issue
Years ago, they sold "Light Machine Gun" retrofit parts on the U.S. market... importantly, these were open bolt systems for improved cooling. Many legally owned select fire AR platforms were converted here in the USA. I'd love to get ahold of one. I do agree that the concept is somewhat lacking relative to a belt fed SAW with a nut sack ammo feed.
Exposed belt feds are dumb anyways, the ammo is literally exposed when a modern drum mag is much more dependable than those examples found decades ago, and it keeps your ammo protected. I’ll stick with a 100rnd Gen 2 KCI drum with an FRT to make a damn good suppressive fire weapon.
With the later open bolt LMG kits, you lost the select fire capability. It was SAFE and AUTO only. There were quite a few heavy uppers that hit the market at the time but they were sold without the open bolt assembly and trigger group. I have one of those, but I also managed to get a complete parts kit minus receiver too. As I recall those LMG guns were made in anticipation of foreign sales to Central America about the time that we were arming the Contras.
@@MyDailyUpload - Didn't know that, thanks. Without a SEMI option, it is much less appealing. Did some of the kits allow true select fire?
@@kurtbjorn3841 Not that I'm aware of. The open bolt conversion was rather clever. They managed to use a standard 3-hole M16 lower receiver and very specialized parts. For example, the hammer both held the bolt open until the trigger was pulled, and then struck the firing pin when the bolt closed. Colt had made an open bolt weapon before, the M231 port firing weapon, but the lower receiver was very different and incompatible with standard M16 parts. The open bolt LMG could have been fielded as an upgrade kit on a standard M16. Semiautomatic perhaps could have been possible, but I've never seen it and it wasn't in the Colt Patent filing on the mechanism.
Thanks Jonathan and team, It was really interesting to learn what you know of the history of that example. I think I can see why those whose duties would have involved carrying ammunition for a GPMG or a Bren, and of course the weapon itself, might well have wished for a smaller calibre replacement system. I guess that was achieved eventually when the FN Minimi became available, but were their any really popular 5.56mm support weapons before that? For instance, would the Stoner 63 range have provided a good enough option?
Well, there were HK11& HK13, and also contemporaneously to the emergence of the Minimi the Steyr came up with the AUG HBAR. RPK variants in 5.56 do exist, and given the adoption of the RPK-74 about the same time it wouldn't be unthinkably difficult to convert it to 5.56 at an earlier date, if the need ever emerged. So yeah, there definitely were some options in the '70s, but not in the '60s.
Also, the trouble with the Mininmi is in its lack of reliability, and some of its detractors would also point to it being too cumbersome for one-man operation.
ah the GPMG, aka why you dont want to be the biggest strongest fittest guy in the squad. Mate of mine in the territorials won some competition at his gym, so they decided it would be hilarious to reward him with carrying the machine gun.
So from my limited experience in a 60’s SE Asian spat I wouldn’t want to leave the wire without someone with a belt fed weapon preferably in a rifle caliber.
That would be the M60.
Could you guys do a video on the Stoner 63A?
Awesome, thank you. 🙂
High bipod - long grass/foliage. When everything is growing/grown you need to elevate the gun above it, the reverse of the concealment vs cover when being shot at.
Well that’s me educated :) I do love what is this weapon
Looks kinda cool with the old unfenced lower but the A2 style handguard
Don't think I've ever seen that combo before outside of mix-matched ones you see from places like Israel
I love the lower without the fence or forward assist, just classic :) I've yet to see one at any of the gun shops where I live, but I'd LOVE to do a first gen build like that and maybe a triangular handguard.
My left ear really enjoyed this video :p
Very useful and insightful explanation. You have my respect Jonathan🫡.
No mention of accuracy with the dipod upsetting the barrel harmonics being it was attached to the barrel even tho its a heavy barrel this would still upset accuracy
I love the more historical and older stuff you showcase here. Although, I appreciate the more modern stuff :)
AR has been around for 50 years bub
@@mattyallen3396 Over 60 years if you mean the '15, pardner
This man has everyone’s dream job
With maybe a few mounting changes that is a M-14 bipod
The fact you don't really see much of the "bolt a bipod onto the infantry rifle and call it done" LMG seems to suggest they were a cheap but not great option in many cases. I know the Canadian Army used to use a variant of the FN FAL configured like this and it doesn't seem like it was very popular at least with those I talked to. To make it worth the effort they had a huge extended mag which just made them a pain in the ass if you actually had to hit the dirt.
Big thing to try in the 80s but they all failed really. The whole issue is- what's the actual point? They cant keep up auto fire, especially with closed bolts and small magazines anyway
I heard a lot of unspoken "why?" in the video. I can answer that. These were converted to this LMG format as a potential replacement for the Bren, which was quite similar as a magazine fed LMG that was getting long in the tooth at that point. While the conversion from .303 to 7.62 NATO was a relatively simple matter, stepping down to 5.56mm NATO would have probably been more expensive that just buying a new but similarly featured gun in the new caliber.
A pleasure as always, Jonathan! Could you please do a video about AK-47s, Beretta M9s, or tactical shotguns? Thank you!😁
Has done these over on the video game channel.
@@blue2sco , I actually found one that he had just done like 2 days ago! It found it right after I had left this comment.😁 So you're right, thank you!
4:24 Was any attempt made to reintroduce the older pattern 25-round magazines for this variant? Because 20 rounds of 5.56 doesn't sound like a particularly impressive magazine capacity for a wannabe-LMG, especially given the magazine change procedure and AR-15's typical high rate of fire.
5:02 I've always wondered whether these large holes create mirage when the gun is fired.
14:24 It seems to me that this gun would be a rather poor replacement for the BREN that was used in that role at that time.
14:40 It has to be noted, however, that the PRK as a close contemporary can at least boast higher magazine capacity and a better stock, not to mention capacity for night vision optics on the -N variants and the folding stock of the -S variants.
17:43 The problem is more widespread than that, though, as FN threw some effort during the development of CAL into designing the memory-less burst mechanism around the same time, and the Poles later chose to copy it during their rather thorny Tantal project.
Several European countries purchased Colt Canada carbine variations
Have you done a Top 10 Best Bipods Episode?
7:53 - Can't wait until I'm old enough to get my fire selector pierced~
No, closed bolt LMG is a good idea. Not to mention mag fed.
The hyper burst in An94 isn't there to prevent the soldier from using excessive number of rounds but rather to give him an ability to shoot multiple bullets (in this case two) before the recoil kicks in. Unless you're talking about some other recent variant of burst fire AK.
An-94 is different to the AK-12
He even says "AK-12" by name...
So it's a NATO version of the RPK?
Generally speaking, I really like the idea of a weapon system that's modular enough that you could turn it from an extra compact, SMG size carbine to a sharpshooter rifle to a squad level machine gun and anything in between.
I do understand that it's quite a challenge to make that work in practice, particularly with the sustained-fire roles, but that doesn't make the _idea_ any less appealing.
Its one of those things that looks good on papper. but kind of sucks when it comes to reality. it´s kind of like doing a sportscar, SUV and Mini van combination.
@@exploatores A completely modular vehicle that could be converted into any of those variants _does_ sound like fun!
It would also probably be hideously expensive, and require a lot of special maintenance. Funny how that works ;-)
@@patrikhjorth3291 Not forgeting propobly get beaten by budget level of each thing.
A couple of - probably rather naive - questions, if I may?
1) I've heard it said that armies tend to get interested in burst fire when they're using conscripts or emergency call-ups and thus don't have time for detailed training. Is this the case or just a myth?
2) This almost looks like a marksman's rifle as much as a light support weapon, particularly if you use it in semi-auto and maybe stick a medium-power scope on top. Was there any thought given to that in trials?
It's likely a myth, as the M16A2 has a burst fire setting, but was adopted after the US transitioned to a professional, volunteer military.
This is not a marksmen's rifle. The barrel is being dragged down by the heavy bipod. The RPK has a terrible time trying to keep it's point of aim consistent.
1) As mentioned above, it is not true in regards to the M16A2, and at least in two other cases it is also false. The Polish Tantal project used the burst fire mode (in conjunction with higher rate of fire) just to improve hit probability with its original 7.62×39 chambering. As for the AK-12, it is rumored that the requirements for the new rifle trial that resulted in its adoption were written with heavy bias towards AEK-971, which ended up being adopted alongside AK-12. In its turn, AEK-971 is a by-product of the Abakan project, which aimed at improving hit probability with auto-fire from unstable shooting positions and resulted in the design known as AN-94 basically winning over anything else. With both AEK-971 and AN-94 full-auto capability was retained (as is the case with AK-12), and resulting design being, if anything, much less suited for an average conscript.
2) I'm not sure if this rifle could take any optical sight whatsoever, and in any regard there were no sights for AR-15 prior to 1967 or so. Moreover, with barrel of such quality the rifle would likely perform quite poorly in the DMR role. And then there's the issue of bipod putting a lot of undesirable pressure onto the barrel, which certainly doesn't help matters. Take a look at how designs like L86 or M27 deal with bipod placement to see what one should do to give their LMG some semblance of DMR capabilities.
@@F1ghteR41 That hole 4:50 in the "carry handle" is for optics (e.g. Delft scope) and it has been there years before 1967
@@TheSundayShooter The hole is indeed there, but before 1967 there were no sights for AR-15 per se. The 3× A.I. scope you mention is for AR-10, and no amount of Colt marketing could change that, which is why they chose to design a new sight of their own later. Besides, as far as I'm aware by the time this rifle assumed its current look, the A.I. stopped producing the sight anyway.
Just to correct you on UKSF. Troopers were allowed their pick of weapons, there was no doctrine as you were telling experts what worked best for them. I don't think that's changed. One of the issues I heard of just a few years after this is that the No4 would kill through the tree. The SLR would kill around the tree. The Armalite would kill by hilarity at the thought it would have a spread of under 2" at 100 yards.
Excellent work as always Jonathan and team! It is sometimes hard to make out some of the finer details and markings. They just sort of muddle into the image and are a tad dark to see. I think a ring light and a 4k camera would really help make those details pop and give you an even finer fidelity. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the feedback. We've heard this a fair bit so will definitely be using a ring light on all new episodes.
I now (U.S. citizen) wanna make a semi auto clone of that(of course I'd go for pic rail and an add on "carry handle sight"... I've got a really good start on the upper, with an actual heavy Barrel, worth the extra kilos..
Maybe I'll be lazy and go for an a2 lower, as it's so hard to find affordable full stock a1 style lowers...
I just need to source that HBAR bipod
(And yes I realize I've very much redefined what "clone" means... But you gotta make sacrifices for affordability and usability here and there)
Just tell everyone that it's the Elbonian model.
I knew Caddilac Gage made the V150 armored car. I did not know they also made firearm parts.
Un-depressed... Rather than "pressed"
Worth noting is that the RPK-type rifle-based squad/section automatic weapon never made sense in Western doctrine - they never match the belt-feds for a true base of fire needed for fireteam-level maneuvers. Every Western rifle-based SAW eventually lost its role to a belt-fed (L86, MG36, AUG HBAR, and the M27 IAR failed to fully replace a belt-fed).
I want that barrel and bipod :) I wonder if it's Cali legal? I have a bipod on one of DMRs with allowed furniture and the specific rules of 'featureless' vs. 'fixed mag' on AR15s here is complicated, obtuse, and ridiculous.
ALSO - Did they actually use the 20 rounders for testing? Or is that just a 'period correct' mag for the video?
That bipod looks like it was repurposed from the M-14.
No, the A in AR stands for Armalite and the M in M-16 stands for military. Colt owns the rights to the rifle and the AR is the semi auto version at present..They all use the Stoner internal gas piston..The firing pin is heavier and it should also have the edge-water buffer..Funny how it failed the mud test when it is much better in mud then the AK..The early rifles had poor chamber dimensions QC, soft brass being used and poor maintenance in a wet environment that left pits in the chamber that created a mechanical lock of the brass in the chamber, it turned into a disaster in Vietnam..
The _AR-15_ trademark is the extent of Colt's "rights to the rifle" and it amounts to nothing but the roll marks, _afraid_
Not all AR's are M16, but all M16's are AR's.
@@nigelwright1610 No they're not. The early full auto AR-15 rifles used different components such as a heavier firing pin, Edge-water buffer, chambers size, buffer tube length and other items mentioned in the video. Every designation change represents some kind of change.. Original nomenclature name AR-15, XM-16, M-16, M-16A1, M-16A2,etc.. In fact Colt used a different designation when they changed specs and components..The early AR-15 rifles were called the 601 series..
@@TheSundayShooter They also own the TDP which got the military into trouble when they gave it out to other manufacturers and it was leaked to the public..
@@hairydogstail Colt's copyright of the design expired decades ago, which is how there are a myriad of AR-15 manufacturers. There are M16 (Colt 604) units with roll marks that read _AR-15_
Do y'all have any of the Iranian or Chinese AR variants?
Correct me if I’m wrong just after that the government started baby sitting colt placing QC inspectors in the factory?
My bi-pod is in my forward grip. It retracts into it. Very small but works really well.
Gridpods have a serious rep for breaking in two or being fragile.
And as an idea it predates the rifle in question by quite a bit: I believe it was invented by Michail Kalashnikov sometime around 1950 for improving the stability of the AK during full-auto fire, although at that point it was a monopod that was put into the forward grip rather than a bipod. Sadly, the prototype went nowhere, possibly due to the increased calls for lightening the gun that resulted in the adoption of the AKM in the late '50s.
One might debate the merits of this approach, however, when it comes to taller obstacles and longer magazines, but it certainly is a neat idea, and for regular rifles it might very well be enough.
@@Seth9809 It is indeed, but it is a semi-auto, so it really doesn't jump around with 5.56
if they had put an optic on top it would have been a DMR.
Jonathan... Great video. A Ring Light and a 4k camera would make it even better. :)
Having an interesting audio experience is you speak into and away from your mic alternating (not an issue just mildly amusing)
But this time. it will totaly work with a Box magazine and a non-replaceble barrel on the SAW. never mind all the other times it has been tested. this time it will be diffrent.
Still beats the L85A1.
Adopting an AR platform would have lead to dropping the SA80 platform, at least that's how the MOD saw it
They adopted ARs 20 years before the SA80 existed.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 did they? When?
@@joelbilly1355 during the Malaysian emergency
@@Ukraineaissance2014 really? Was the British army not using the FAL in semi auto only and had already designed and built the EM2 which was the basis for the SA80 in a different calibre adopting the FAL because the US military insisted the 7.62 by the standard military round rather than a smaller intermediate? The British army were still using the Bren gun as their light machine gun right up until the Falklands war in the 80s. The Malayan emergency ended in 1960 before the m16 was adopted, I don't the think the SAS used the AR10.
@@joelbilly1355 yes sorry I meant borneo and those south east asian conflicts of the 60s. They ordered a number of M16s in 1961 and more throughout the decade, actually using them before the US adoption. Since the 80s have used canadian built versions
Imagine having a 4k camera and a ring light to better highlight the weapon.....
This is what the M16 would have developed into if the US did like the Soviets with their AKs
Just turn them into a thousand variants to suit various purposes
Without a quick change barrel it would not make a good squad weapon 😮 Just like the FN heavy bbl with bipod wasn’t much good
On the subject of the comically long bipod legs you should take a look at Ian's competition stages with his Chauchat. It turned out for him that the long legs on that worked great when using the thing from a trench.
ua-cam.com/video/B6EM_OdIoJY/v-deo.html
Great videos as always, could we get 4k or something though?
The US military didn't want the Colt LMG.
Thank you as always food for thought. Never a supporter of the LMG theory. Would rather have the heavier Bren/GPMG rate of fire and range as opposed to 5.56. Suppression of enemy ability to fire being far more important imho. Re-inventing the wheel really serves no purpose. Tried and tested being my belief. When comparing the amount of ammunition expended in "modern" recent conflicts? Pretty appalling with a spray and pray philosophy prevalent in modern platoon level engagement. Guess I am of an older school of thought, believing in a mix of weaponry within a platoon level consisting of heavy mg, rifle and a few smg. Still, thought provoking though.
Many are starting to go back to this in some way. The UK got rid of their LSWs and LMGs, as did Denmark and the USMC. NZ replaced the 5.56 Minimi with the 7.62 Minimi. Interesting, the Dutch marines still use a combination of GPMGs and the latest version of this LMG at platoon level, and still seem to like it.
compared to the SA 80 hell yeah they should have gotten it but in reality a slingshot and a pocket knife beats the SA80 and the AR both! but why the brits just didn't take the AR 18 as a starting point (which just needed some fine tuning!!) and develop a rifle is a complete mystery! the truth is the US should have gotten the HK33 that Harrington and Richardson was working up instead of that pile of j8unk!!!
The SA80 is based on the AR18.
@@lordsimonicus3479 just the action and they FUBAR'D it six ways from sunday by bullpupping it!! in it's original layout it would have made a more than adequate service rifle for britain all they needed to do was switch to a forged receiver from the stamped sheet metal and improve the heat shielding in the forearm! possibly changed the rear sight but other than that she was ready for service! i had a Sterling built 180 and trust me they not only missed the boat there they missed the entire port!! if i could get parts for it i'd still have it!!
Can’t be any worse than LSW
Is it possible the bipod had such a high rake in order to allow the M203 integrated handguards a high angle for a light mortar role?
Looks like a wet dream for a BAR-Fetishist. I fail to see any benefit of the 20 (or even 30) round magazine-fed squad-automatic weapon. Might as well bring back the BREN (which was vastly superior over the BAR to begin with.). Anyway, this thing does not add anything over the already more readily available superior choices like the FN-MAG, the FN-FALO and the Minimi (to name a few). In fact it would introduce the dysfunctions and drawbacks of the BAR and combine it with those of the AR15/M-16. I'm glad it didn't go anywhere and the British armed services are better off for it.
so its a colt lmg copy then
no wait thats the m16 hbar
I used an m4 during my time in as a medic, until an raf loadie took it off me.
Silly, IMO, to task an AR-16 as LMG. better to rechamber a Bren and make appropriate mags for it.
I'm real interested in those early M16 family of weapons. The Colt LMG, the Colt 9mm. I really wonder why they didn't catch on, especially with how AR-Centric America is. You would have an LMG (Colt LMG), Rifle (M16), Carbine (M4), Commando Rifle (CAR15 and/or CQBR), and SMG (Colt 9mm). And then even further with a 7.62 / DMR / Sniper Variant based on the AR-10 as well. Could have had a full family of weapons.
I imagine it's as simple as, there were other options which proved superior.
Minimi derivatives have been used for decades, so I assume the belt-fed, much larger capacity was the big appeal there.
Funnily enough, isn't there a move to a HK416 version happening? I've read something about there being a desire to reduce the ability for enemies to be able to spot which is the one in that role.
LMG variants of service rifles have tended to not work well. They generally turn out to be too light to be an actual LMG and just be bulkier, heavier rifles.
The heavy FAL, the M15, and L86 being good examples. The RPK, while copying much of the AK, has a lot more differences including a different receiver.
18:59 oh I know someone else that calls it armalite ...
The audio on this is absolutely terrible. The editor left the echoey cam audio on the left channel.
I noticed they dispensed with the forward assist on this one.. also as its in.223 as opposed to 5.56 does this mean its rated for the lower chamber pressure as I was of the understanding never to use 5.56 in a .223 weapon for this reason but its perfectly fine to use the lower powered .223 round in a 5.56 weapon, for the sake of safety I've always stuck to that rule
*>they dispensed with the forward assist*
It may not had been developed yet when this unit, Colt 611(?), was exported
*>I was of the understanding never to use 5.56 in a .223*
A reasonable assumption given a 60-year-old barrel, though keep in mind that the _5.56mm_ adopted with the M16/M16A1 is not the same as the _5.56 NATO_ standard of the 1980s onward
0:48 loool the M16A2 did not exist in 1965 and was never made by Armalite
Military M16 are fully automatic. An LMG now are belt fed. AR 15 are semi automatic civilian versions
Yes and yes.
Yes.
No, GPMG
I read that in the second American invasion of Iraq, 35% of soldiers reported experiencing a malfunction with their M-16 during combat which took a lot of time to fix, or completely deactivated the weapon for the duration of the fight. A convoy was ambushed and captured because all rifles malfunctioned, leaving the unit disarmed. It amazes me that this weapon continues to be used despite serving troops so poorly. The worst offender, the M249, had even more frequent stoppages, and clearance of the malfunction required extensive disassembly. Yet it's still in use.
The AR 10/15 system makes for a poor fire support system, especially when compared to a purpose built machine gun.
What a job ..👍🤣
It's not the greatest squad automatic ever but it's still better than the LSW
What would you consider the greatest and why?
(Not asking a gotcha question, genuinely curious to hear your take) :)
@@jazeenharal6013 FN Minimi (M249 in U.S. service or L109/L110 in British service) can either be fed from a 20 or 30 round box magazine or can be belt fed depending on what’s available, a much more suitable choice even if it is heavier.
@@mrjockt I was under the impression that they didn't work very well with the magazine and nobody really uses them like that...
@@chemistrykrang8065 True, most users used the belt feed option, but there was always the magazine option to fall back on if that was all that was available, better than nothing I suppose.
@@jazeenharal6013 either the PKM or Minimi
We did, the lsw and it wasnt the best
The L86 LSW is decidedly not an AR-15 derivative. It, along with the L85, is if anything an AR-18 clone badly converted to a bullpup.
I would agree that this would also have suffered from the issue of being too big for a rifle but not up to doling out sustained suppressive fire in a similar way to the LSW, though. I certainly wouldn't have fancied being given this in place of a Bren, even if the Bren is obnoxiously heavy.
can you move the museum to london please
They have a branch in the Tower of London, totally recomend
Knowing with hindsight how the L86 LSW turned out, this LMG might well have been the better option, however marginal.
Epic Ferguson getting political moment
Cringe homebrew bullpup moment
shame side and top magazines went out of fashion
Should have just brought it in the 1st place
Since Maxim when it comes to guns Americans know best
@@whitewittock
I too like pretending that the M14 never happened
@@TheSundayShooter it was better than the SA80
@@whitewittock At what?
@@kiwigrunt330 build quality, reliability
No, the UK shouldn't have adopted pseudo-machine guns. As the L86 proved they're a flawed concept.
:)
The title was should Britain have adopted an AR-15 LMG? Instead we get a tour of a obscure prototype gun. very disappointing.
Not quite a prototype as _this_ AR-15 is a commercial unit
It's an obscure prototype *of a trial AR-15 in LMG configuration*.