Quoted: Sure, lets hump the 240, its longer and heavier than the 60. Yeah, thats smart. Oh, and its design dates back to 1958.
Yes, it is a more reliable weapon, but the E4 fixes the problems (finally) that have plagued the Pig since its inception, and does it in a smaller/lighter package.
And it is a conversion kit, which means units that have 60's can upgrade their existing guns at far less cost per unit than getting new 240's, and that is minus the expense of sending unit armorers off to learn the new system, or the cost of retraining the operators.
Money is a big deal to individual units, we so often run out of funds for training, equipment, etc. etc. well before the end of the fiscal year.
I love the 240, as compared to my old Pig, but it aint the best thing out there, and we should get only the best!
Regardless, belt fed full auto always gives me GUN WOOD!
|
Longer and heavier was a fine trade off for me when my return was a weapon that went bang every time the bolt slammed shut. And I was, at that time, a pissant that was 5-11 and weighed 175# while humping that GPMG all over hells half acre, still no complaints. As for bulk/length. Barely noticeable after I make it too, and I'm zipping through belts with nary a stoppage on a support by fire. I carried my M240B through the jungle in Panama, and the jungles in Thailand. I sure don't recall pissing and moaning about its length in two of the worst enviroments one could encounter carrying a GPMG.
As for a desgin dates, the two are damn near the same age. So given a choice, who in their right mind would want to carry into battle something that took 40+ years to get to work, almost as reliably as another platform that has ran perfectly for the same amount of time? Call me crazy but I sure as hell would want to go with the one with the proven track record, the world over, vs. something that is a patch job of a bad design. More so when our new miracle tool only has a video sample of eating it up some links during range conditions.
As for $$$, I don't seem to have noticed my COs in the 25th I.D. and 2nd I.D. balancing too many checkbooks. Training assets, and ammo funds yes, tools for the main business, negative. Is cost a factor to our Reserve and Guard units, most likely, so I'll have to agree with you there. As for armorers, the transition seemed pretty painless when we got rid of our M-60s, but again, maybe that is differant for non active duty units.
So the one valid area, I'll barely acknowledge, is weight/length. I can clearly see why most, but not all, SOCOM units would want to go with that weapon. They need a decent GPMG that also has to be compact and lightweight because they, 99% of the time, will only have what they carried in on their person. So yes, in that small arena, that new Pig may shine. But what happens when/if somebody at FN decided to make a compact 240? That new pig design would be outclassed again.
Your points seem to come from a executive officer/managment level, not end user. You say cost and armorers, I say track record, outstanding accuracy, and bet your life on it reliability. But that is from the perspective, at that time, of an active duty Machinegunner in a U.S. Army Infantry Platoon. I cannot think of a Machinegunner in my Brigade in the 25th I.D. that didn't damn near sing "ding dong the witch is dead" when we turned in the pigs and uncrated the M240Bs for the first time. On that level the Pigs were very used, very abused, and the percentages evidenced through mean rounds between stoppages showed it.