WesWorld

An interesting choice, but OK.

General-Purpose Machine-Gun Model of 1937 - Designed along the basis of the Swiss Steyr-Solothurn MG30, the GPMG-1937 is belt-fed and features a folding bipod. The gun has a high rate of fire in short bursts.
- Caliber: 6.5x51mm Nemesis
- Overall length: 1250 mm
- Barrel length: 610 mm
- Weight: 9.95 kg (with bipod and light barrel)
- Feeding: Belt fed; can accept 50-round "can" magazines for firing on the move.
- ROF: 800 RPM

France: FM37 (Fusil-mitrailleur modèle 1937)
Atlantis: GP-37MG (General Purpose, Model 1937, Machine Gun)
Russia: RPSE-37 (Ruchnoy Pulemjot Saint-Etienne/Light Machinegun of Saint-Etienne, model of 1936).
Chile and Columbia: Ametrallar Modelo 1937, or MG37.

It would end up looking like the MG34/42 or AAT-52, basically. In 1937 it's still being developed, but it should start appearing in 1938 or 1939.

If you guys use actual Cartriges, I can proly get you the balistics data on them. I hand load for my Norma, and my Thompson so I have the Reloading books.

On the GPMG 1937: first, I think it's probably a little light, based on the MG-34. That weapon was 12.1 kg, which means that a weapon in a slightly shorter, slightly smaller caliber like the 6.5 x 51 would be probably closer to 11.25-11.75 kg.

Second, I'm rather surprised that the FARC nations are going towards a belt-fed LMG at this time (I'm trying to avoid noticing the GPMG label).


Tanthalas, on the cartridges, some of them are made-up cartridges (the 6.5 x 51 Nemesis and the 7 x 40 RWS that Germany and now India are using), though the 7 x 40 is actually close (now that I found it) to the historical 7.92 x 40 CETME, just using a bullet of smaller diameter. I reload for my 7mm Weatherby and my .243, so I've got a number of manuals myself.

Okiedokie then; we'll go with the heavier weight. Let's say 11.75kg for the standard; a version with a shorter, lighter barrel for marines and paratroops at 11.25kg. Sound good?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Okiedokie then; we'll go with the heavier weight. Let's say 11.75kg for the standard; a version with a shorter, lighter barrel for marines and paratroops at 11.25kg. Sound good?

Should be OK. The lighter-weight version, because the MG-30/34 action is a short recoil-operated action, will have a higher rate of fire, which will mean it needs it's barrel changed more often.


Have to say, though, I'm surprised that the FARC countries are leaping whole hog onto the belt-fed LMG bandwagon. After all, to this point, the only country using such a thing is Germany, and the MG-33 was somewhat finicky in Lithuania in 1935. Historically, none of the three real-life countries went to a belt-fed LMG until well after WWII. I'd have expected the FARC to go for something more like a rechambered FM24/29 (it's already been modified to use a shorter round, it's a relatively easy change to shorten it some more), or a beefed-up, heavy barreled, automatic fire capable version of the rifle (essentially, a smaller-caliber BAR). The latter, if a quick-change barrel was fitted, could use either a standard rifle magazine, an extended magazine, or a (rather more expensive and finicky, but holds more rounds) snail-drum magazine (though this might need an auxiliary support that the others wouldn't, depending on the weight).

Actually, of course, you don't NEED a quick-change barrel for an LMG, it's just kind of useful IF the LMGs ROF is high. The Finnish Lahti Saloranta didn't have one (that I can find mention of), the Russian DP didn't, I can't find mention that the FM 24/29 did, etc. The downside of needing a quick-change barrel is obvious: it's more weight for the crew to carry (which could be used carrying ammunition), it means you're able to burn through more MG ammo in the same period of time, and it means the barrel can be burned out if the crew forgets to change barrels.