Thanks Thanks:  18
Likes Likes:  18
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 52
  1. #26
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvlSJVlFymo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ16UmqKFh4

    Some vidoes of the Danish army's trials to replace their section machine guns, between the HK 121 and the M 60E6, and the eventual winner the M 60E6

    Intresting given the danes have lots of experience from Iraq and Afghanistan that the criteria they chose the winning design from

    The M60E6 was chosen for the benefits it holds over the current M/62 MG3 which has been in use with the Danish Army since 1962:

    - Weighs 9.35 kg, approx. 3 kg lighter than the M/62, with better weight distribution
    - Better control of alternative shot positions, such as kneeling and standing
    - Lower ROF of 550 RPM when compared with the M/62′s 1200 RPM, which improves shooter accuracy, reduces ammunition consumption, and significantly minimizes the risk of collateral damage
    - Single shot capability
    - Reduced recoil
    - Picatinny rails allows for the addition of accessories such as tactical lights, lasers, etc.
    - Stable adjustable stand
    - Fast barrel change is possible without the use of gloves.

    The Dames are also going for an optics and sensor package for daylight optics, thermal optics, red dot optics, tactical lights, tactical lasers, and laser range finders.

    And now t0 cost, the Danes are looking at buying 700 of them and the whole package will weigh in at about 12 million, which aint bad.
    Last edited by paul g; 28th April 2014 at 00:03.

  2. #27
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    The reason that I raised the idea of the Steyr LMG option (under the 'New rifle or upgrade' thread) was the simple, intuitive theory that there should be available to troops, some middle ground weapon bridging the gap between the individual rifleman, and the intervening distance to the usually much different and significantly heavier, crew served supporting weapon with a very high &/or sustained rate of fire (ROF) of a belt-fed, full power rifle ammunition weapon.

    That the options of LMGs and larger, belt-fed machineguns have co-existed before, and existed for many years, in many different theatres and with a number of different armies just proves this theory IMHO. Good ideas do not go away you could say, though fashions can change (and doctrines, like corporate strategies, are often enough just 'fashion'...or the best 'new idea' or practice...e.g. how often has CPR practice changed?). I'm referring to the families of weapons employed from just before, during, and years after, WW2 (but with their earliest forms from WW1).

    These weapon families were known of course by the 'outmoded' but perfectly logical, and functional terms of LMG, MMG and HMG (light, medium and heavy machineguns). The LMG term and role was otherwise dressed up in modern decades as LSW and SAW.

    In World war 1 the British had their LMG and HMG - Lewis and Vickers MGs, the French had their own equivalent. Before WW2 and until the early stages of the Vietnam War, the US had the LMG and MMG/HMG of the BAR and M1919(?) respectively, and the British and allies had the famous Bren and Vickers LMG and MMG/HMG (and pretty much all the other European nations had the same type families). It is important to note that while the ordinary infantry usually did have bolt actions rifles (except the US with semi-autos) (and in the latter years the US, German and i think, Russian troops with semi-auto rifles) that all of the belligerents also had generous provisions of sub-machine guns. The point, that it is not as if automatic fire (or near automatic) was not already available to them via their ordinary infantry and with crew served MMGs/HMGs, but they still nearly all though it necessary through much experience to still deploy LMGs. It was noted it seems, that in the Vietnam era, that with the US introduction of the M16 rifle (with too high a rate of fire) and M60 MMG with too low a rate of fire, but also too heavy, and too awkward for sections/squads in jungles...that they had lost the valuable 'light support' middle ground of the 'BAR' rifle/LMG.

    As infantry weaponry and tactics have not fundamentally changed over many, many decades, and neither has human anatomy (in terms of carrying weight etc.) and that bullets are still not cheap, and finance is still an issue, that how could a type of weapon and role that lasted for decades really and truly no longer have a place? It probably did, and that is why the US reintroduced the concept with the (Belgian designed) Minimi, and the Russians never stopped employing both LMG/MMGs (the PK) along with LMGs (RPDs then RPKs).

    It seemed to me for a long time, that the theory of the LMG did not match the high rate of fire (ROF) of the Minimi- and because of the small size (and so recoil) of the bullets, and high capacity feeds (belts in boxes) that it was just too easy to fire automatically - and so human nature would be to fire it too fast, and employ it like it was doing the MMG's job of fire support. Note historically, that the Thomson sub-machinegun, MG42s MMG/MG, and M16s rifles all eventually had their high rates of fire reduced by manufacture design.

  3. #28
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Finally (!) continuing above stream of thought, i've wondered, considering how human nature and anatomy has not changed since WW1, and basic infantry tactics had not really changed either, that decades of everyone's experience with relatively 'low' rate of fire (ROF) sub-machineguns and LMGs; had not translated into 5.56mm automatic rifles, and LMG type weapons with similarly 'low' rates of fire. Bearing in mind that even a 'low' (cyclic) rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute is equal to 10 rounds a second..so why was 750+ the usual standard?

    Though the Russians, i presume being more pragmatic, have used a lower cyclic levels of fire for all of their rifles, LMGs and MMGs since WW2.

    Which made me think that, if the army here were to employ the Western ubiquitous FN Minimi brand LMG (or better, the Daewoo K3 near clone), that it try to attain a version that had a Bren LMG/ Gustav sub-machine et al, ROF of 550 rounds per minute, or even 500... suitable to its LMG role and individual soldier deployment.

    Another significant reason for such a 'low' ROF would be that using rifle magazines, from the Steyr rifles, would become a far more feasible prospect. This is due to the fact that the required strength of the feed required to pull in the belts of ammunition for an ROF of 750 results in a ROF of it seems, of 250-300 rounds more cyclically per minute than when using the easier to feed from magazines (see the belt vs. magazine differentials for the VZ.52, minimi and K3..if I've read correctly).

    Assuming that the DOD would never go as far as purchasing 2 Minimi/K3 LMGs per (tripartite/ three way split) section along with the 'MAG' MMG...a K3 and a Steyr rifle based LMG might be a little closer to a possible reality. The K3 could then also use the extended magazines from the Steyr LMGs, and the ordinary rifle magazines (besides using belt ammunition).

    I keep mentioning the Daewoo K3 as, I've always imagined that the FN company would not acquiesce to changing their production facilities to make the Minimi compatible to the AUG magazines. Daewoo however, seeking to break into the Asiatic AUG armed armies, might do. Also, I'd imagine that a premium price would be paid for FN Minimis.
    Also, K3s seem to have a longer barrel but in the same equivalent overall length.

    If by way of comparison, CIE here, can spend hundreds of millions going against the European grain, and purchase Japenese and then Korean trains, i do not see why the military could not do something similarly 'brave'?

    Again, it is dificult to see anything other than advantages to changing part of the upgrade order with Steyr-Mannlicher (seeing as the Dept. of Defence plumbed for the premium supplier) to provide AUG LMG kits as upgrades, to mirror the existing MMGs in the Army's infantry sections?

    LMGs have had a long life, and are again it seems, being reinvented. Why not take the opportunity right now, to acquire them again (with a small bi-pod/foregrip change previously mentioned) via the already long since existing, purposely designed version of the standard rifle? Extremely few other armies would have the same opportunity, and it would easily maximise the AUG inventory in the army here.

  4. #29
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by X-RayOne View Post
    doubt the ARW use them much nowadays......barely using Steyr as a rifle, never mind as LMG/LSW.

    More likely just being stored in the gucchi stores. Probably beside one of these......

    They've been booting around the Curragh Camp recently in some very gucci sand coloured quads
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  5. #30
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Beta C mags are very prone to stoppages.The wing no longer use them.
    PSO section strength is 10 troops. 8 dismounts and two APC crew.That is doctrine and SOP.
    We kept the MAG after our experience in Timor and the advice from both the Aussies and Kiwis who lamented getting rid of theirs.We only bought the new model 3-4 years ago.No change coming anytime soon.
    The wing first got the Minimi and M203 for Timor.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  6. Thanks DeV, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #31
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's gas; I remember getting shot down for suggesting getting the HBAR Steyr for the then-FCA as a Bren replacement years ago & here we are again! I suggested it as a low-cost alternative to the MAG for the pre-integrated Reserve. It would have minimized the training required; given Reservists a support weapon they could have actually used on exercise and, given that any real-world operation they would have carried out would have been an internal security one á la the 70's, been adequate for requirements.

    Even if there wasn't a question over the Beta mag's reliability, I always thought that it looked very unwieldy on the Steyr. You'd have to stick with the 42-round magazine, or if you're really walting, get Surefire to come up with a compatible version of their 60-round mag.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  8. #32
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Beta C mags are very prone to stoppages.The wing no longer use them.
    PSO section strength is 10 troops. 8 dismounts and two APC crew.That is doctrine and SOP.
    We kept the MAG after our experience in Timor and the advice from both the Aussies and Kiwis who lamented getting rid of theirs.We only bought the new model 3-4 years ago.No change coming anytime soon.
    The wing first got the Minimi and M203 for Timor.
    A couple of points.
    PSO section will change with the Mowag modernisation. The crew of the mowag will go to three (Driver, Gunner and vehicle Commander) with the introduction of the RWS, which will reduce the number of dismounts for a start.
    More importantly the optics on the RWS will allow precision fire support from the vehicle to support the dismount team to a far greater extent and at much greater ranges than the existing turret.

    Secondly while only the RWS has been announced it’s also likely that there will be changes to the mowag that will improve its level of mine protection .In particular seating that will improve crew survivability against IED blasts. But that will further reduce interior space leaving space for seven or potentially six dismounts (just like the Canadian LAV).
    http://www.armateconline.com/wp-cont...l-Version.pdfz

    Thirdly, the whole idea of having a weapon like the mag in the section dates back to cold war doctrine and fighting tanks. The idea was that the FSG would fire at armoured vehicles forcing their crews down from hatches reducing visibility and thus the rest of the section could use its anti-armour weapons to engage the targets. However fighting tanks is no longer a priority, the actual priority is small groups of insurgents mixed in with and hard to tell apart from the civilan population.

    A key lesson from the Brecon experience for me is from the notes on slide 50

    During a pl attack with TES a Pl on PSBC grouped their 3 x GPMG as a fire support group. The first objective was an open fire pit with 2 x enemy in it. At H Hr the GPMGs began to engage at a rapid rate, The first Section then launched. It dropped off a Fire Team (with an LMG) as a point of fire. It then dropped off another pair (with an LMG) as a point of fire. The final pair then assaulted. This meant that at one point there were 9 men, with 5 belt fed weapons, engaging the enemy position. When the TES data was interrogated it showed that the first two rounds fired on H Hr had hit and killed the two enemy. The enemy had then neither moved nor fired for the rest of the attack. Therefore for approx 5 mins the Pl had fired several thousand rounds at two dead bodies.

    I’m not advocating getting rid of the mag but it shouldn’t be a section weapon, it’s a platoon level weapon. That’s what the US do and given the optics and training available today and the fact that the mag is a heavy awkward ****er to move about, I’d agree with Brecon that it makes sense to deploy it at platoon level, where it is an area suppression weapon (along with a 60mm commando mortar to fire illume and smoke to support the platoon.). And that’s what the Canadians do in their lav platoons.

    A key thing for the brits is that their Northern Ireland experience has led them to use multiples more often than platoons, and that cuts to their budget will result in them bringing down the numbers even more. I’d suggest Brecon are looking at the platoon at slide eleven onwards as pretty standard.

    If I were them, and looking at what they’re advocating, I’d argue their thinking about keeping the platoon HQ as it is, and removing three men from each section to from a platoon level FSG with a single MAG and improved optics (Corporal, gunner assistant gunner). That leaves three sections each with six men, and by Afghanistan standards they’ll have 2 UGLs, 2 Minini and 2 rifles for the Corporal and his lance, (Possibly one is the sharpshooter?).

    Basically the future British section is going to be more like an enlarged fire team with six members. Again going by slide 41 they’re looking at moving away from belt fed weapons and moving the section more towards assault.

    I’d argue that they’re not going to bring back the LSW as anything other than an interim measure , its just too shit for words, but they’ll look at something like the M-60E6 the Danes have just bought (low recoil, low rate of fire, in 7.62mm, that people can crawl around buildings and hedgerows with) and just have one per section, and possibly only one grenade launcher.
    Last edited by paul g; 28th April 2014 at 15:04.

  9. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes SwiftandSure liked this post
  10. #33
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi all,
    This smells of the 7.62 versus 5.56 argument, which just goes around in circles. Cold hard experience is what really decides and I think that removing a machine-gun from a section is a bad idea, as well as reducing the section size. If you look at the Iraq and Afghan experience, what usually happens is that taking even one casualty reduces the effectivity of a reduced-size section drastically, as they have to use at least two men to treat and move a casualty or get them away from an IED as well as defend themselves so you are soon down to three of four people capable of firing, one of whom is attempting to be in charge of the immediate situation as well as spend a huge amount of his time trying to maintain credible comms. Also, the firepower demanded invariably goes up from section rifles to machine-guns to section-fired explosives such as 203/hand grenade/AT-4 to platoon-level mortars or HMGs to vehicle weapons, right up to aircraft weapons.Also, the physical burden being placed on men is not sustainable, because it drives up the casualty rate for non-combat injuries such as heat exhaustion/ muscle and bone injuries and so on. Anything that can be done to ease the load has to be considered.

    regards
    GttC

  11. Thanks DeV, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  12. #34
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not going into too much detail
    9 man section with 1 x GPMG - 6 people available to bayonet enemy
    8 man section with 2 x LMG - 6 people available to bayonet enemy

    The section will have a casualty - you need at least 6 people to CASEVAC 1 casualty even a short distance

  13. Thanks apod thanked for this post
  14. #35
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is no one right answer

    There are a lot of factors to take account of:
    - ground (length of fields of fire)
    - cover (penetration required)
    - dispersal of en (size of beaten zone vs accurate fire)
    - ROE
    - likely hood of collateral damage

    The whole fire team idea is that they are interchangible. If the DF want to go down that route we need twice as many (and a new (probably 5.56)) LMG. The huge distance is that you can't go larger than 10 per section (too hard to control, spread over 2 vehicles etc), anything less than 8 is really useless as 1 casualty more or less means the whole section is gone). So that leaves 8 or 9.

    The more riflemen you have the more flexible you are.

    The huge advantage we have over a lot of armies is we have coy level support weapons.

  15. #36
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    PSO section will change with the Mowag modernisation. The crew of the mowag will go to three (Driver, Gunner and vehicle Commander) with the introduction of the RWS, which will reduce the number of dismounts for a start.
    No need for that to happen.At present once the section(8 pax) is mounted the section commander is the car commander.Once dismounted the gunner becomes the vehicle commander.So their is no need to change the current structure.If the car comes under contact while the gunner is "UP" he can easily drop down and man the RWS(section dismounted)but if contact is imminent he will be hull down anyway.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  16. #37
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    you also need men to build defences/ stand guard/man VCPs/maintain a food and water supply/detain PoWs/service vehicles, who are usually robbed out of sections for the task.........build the section, for the moment, without considering the vehicle size, as it may not always be Mowags that move them. In fact, section size may be dictated by helicopter cabin size or accomodation size. In fact, build the section on a fighting patrol scale around the ten-man ideal.

    regards
    GttC

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #38
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Because you are unlikely to have a full section - atts/dets, work parties, patrols, duties, leave, casualties

  19. #39
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    No need for that to happen.At present once the section(8 pax) is mounted the section commander is the car commander.Once dismounted the gunner becomes the vehicle commander.So their is no need to change the current structure.If the car comes under contact while the gunner is "UP" he can easily drop down and man the RWS(section dismounted)but if contact is imminent he will be hull down anyway.
    Depends where they put the controls

  20. #40
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Truck Driver View Post
    They've been booting around the Curragh Camp recently in some very gucci sand coloured quads
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  21. #41
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    It seems like sections of 9/10, split into three groups (of 3 pers' each minimum), offers the most flexibility in many respects.

    Having only 6-8 pers' sections could possibly lead too quickly, to having sections split into two small halves, and if one half becomes ineffective, it leaves the other very vulnerable, and with no backup. Similarly, it would too easily lead to only pairs of soldiers operating together and again, same danger that if one becomes ineffective, the other becomes very vulnerable and has no backup.

    Working in threes would much better provide for cover, and backup - e.g. if 1 pers in 3 is injured = 2 to CASEVAC and cover initially, or in case of section groups, there will always be the backup (MMG) group to reinforce, provide cover for, or RV point for the other two groups - especially if one of the first two groups becomes ineffective. The practice has worked for a long time...

    The possibility of ...retreat... in the case of things going badly should not be forgotten (!), and in that case - the 'hangback in the background' MMG /FSG element with the MAG could come into its own.

    (Otherwise, visualise it as this; each group as a dot/point - with a line - linking it to the next. And think in terms of movement of these points,.. or elimination of these points by attack from any angle. With only two points you can only make a line, and if one point disappears - you are immediately left with one vulnerable unsupported point.
    With 3 points - a line or, a circle can be made, and if one point disappears - it is not a disaster, as at least there is a mutually supporting linked pair).

    9/10 Section:
    A group - Steyr (box fed) LMG [to close to objective]?
    B group - K3 LMG (low ROF belt fed/Steyr box compatible) [manoeuvers in support of 'A']?
    C group - MAG - MMG as exists (belt fed) [holds a rear position in support of 'A' & 'B']

    ???? - above two simple LMG additions combined with the exiting army's Section format and MMG, offer a lot of flexibility (e.g. pick and choose elements for missions)...purchase price of Steyr LMG and K3 LMG would probably be quite reasonable, and if obtained minus (mostly extraneous) accessories...

  22. #42
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-machine-guns/

    UK looking at getting rid of Minimi

  23. #43
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    The return of the FAL?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. #44
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    The return of the FAL?
    Has been back for a few years.... for sniper pairs

  25. Likes Truck Driver liked this post
  26. #45
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    As one of the Arrse posters pointed out, the Minimi was fine until the Taliban copped on and stayed back at 800m range and used their usual PKM, so you had 5.56 being upstaged by a round first brought into service a century ago...

  27. Likes DeV, apod liked this post
  28. #46
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe the US are using a lightweight MAG , the M240L as their section level support weapon in certain units.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  30. #47
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is also a 7.62mm Minimi

  31. #48
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like
    How long before someone puts a tangential optical sight on a lightweight Bren design with 50 round 7.62 plastic magazines (perhaps even disposable) and espouses it as the future of section level support weapons?
    Last edited by Archimedes; 28th March 2018 at 00:38.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  32. #49
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like
    "My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening thru a cosmic vapor of invention."

    The big dis-advantage of the Bren style weapon is the inherent 30/40/50 round stoppage (depending on magazine size).
    When whoever is out there listening redesigns my beloved Bren, could they please add a 10 round cache built into the weapon immediately above the bolt .
    A set of one-way free-wheeling cogs would allow the cache to be charged with 10 rounds by the force of the magazine spring when a magazine is inserted into a port at the top of the cache. As rounds are fired, the cache would be replenished from the magazine until the magazine is empty and only 10 rounds remain in the in-built cache.
    The magazine wound then be removed by the No 2 but the 10 rounds in the cache would continue to be fed to the bolt (as the firer continues firing) by a pawl mechanism turning the one-way cogs. When the No 2 inserts a fresh magazine into the port at the top of the cache, the cogs not engaged in rounds would freewheel until the rounds from the new magazine have caught up with the last round of the first magazine.
    In this way, there would be no loss of fire support while the magazine of the LMG is changed.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  33. #50
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Redesign the Bren for modern conditions with a modern copy of the 100-round Motley Drum and fit sights for left-handed firers, too, while you are at it. Existing L4s can take the 30 round FAL magazine, as standard.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •