User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:51:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:53:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:55:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:56:58 PM EDT
[#4]
I'll take a radio and call in an air strike.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:57:23 PM EDT
[#5]
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 4:59:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Range matters
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:00:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:00:48 PM EDT
[#8]
How much ammo can a solider carry for a SAW or a 240?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:01:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? I will take a 240 every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:01:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? Which one I picked would depend on the specific needs of the question. Like what has been said....the m249 is better for rate of fire, mobility, and closer situations. The M240 is better when you are using a machine-gun in a more classic machine-gun role (longer distances, plunging fire, vehicle or other hard point mounted). There's more to using a machine-gun than there is a to using a rifle. It's not just point & shoot in every situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:01:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:01:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:02:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
METT-TC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC The answer to life right there 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:02:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
METT-TC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC So what are the situations where each meets its strength? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:04:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what are the situations where each meets its strength? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC So what are the situations where each meets its strength? Are you going to be shooting inside of 600m and against soft targets, being carried by a person and speed/weight is an issue? M249 Are you in a situation where 600+m might be possible, or you have light vehicles as targets, or are you mounting it to a vehicle? M240. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:05:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you going to be shooting inside of 600m and against soft targets, being carried by a person and speed/weight is an issue? M249 Are you in a situation where 600+m might be possible, or you have light vehicles as targets, or are you mounting it to a vehicle? M240. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC So what are the situations where each meets its strength? Are you going to be shooting inside of 600m and against soft targets, being carried by a person and speed/weight is an issue? M249 Are you in a situation where 600+m might be possible, or you have light vehicles as targets, or are you mounting it to a vehicle? M240. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:07:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M2A1..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC So what are the situations where each meets its strength? Are you going to be shooting inside of 600m and against soft targets, being carried by a person and speed/weight is an issue? M249 Are you in a situation where 600+m might be possible, or you have light vehicles as targets, or are you mounting it to a vehicle? M240. I don't disagree with you. Within the confines of the question though.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:07:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:07:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk Hmm, we never seemed to have that issue...proper PMCS, good armorer and usually new weapons for deployments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:08:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:09:00 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:09:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M2A1..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? METT-TC So what are the situations where each meets its strength? Are you going to be shooting inside of 600m and against soft targets, being carried by a person and speed/weight is an issue? M249 Are you in a situation where 600+m might be possible, or you have light vehicles as targets, or are you mounting it to a vehicle? M240. M134 works too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:10:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? Proper movement tactics will usually trump minor differences in firepower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:11:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:11:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will take a 240 every time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? I will take a 240 every time.  I humped an M240B a long time. Every problem in now a nail...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:11:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm, we never seemed to have that issue...proper PMCS, good armorer and usually new weapons for deployments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk Hmm, we never seemed to have that issue...proper PMCS, good armorer and usually new weapons for deployments. Ours were pieces of shit until they finally got switched out for the SPW. PMCS doesn't do much to help guns that are older than the guys shooting them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:11:57 PM EDT
[#27]
There is also a significant gap in the era of design / adoption. The FN MAG 58 dates to 1958 and the FN Minimi to 1974. And their U.S. adoption to dates to 1977 and 84 respectively. Small caliber / high velocity was the up and coming idea during this era. I think it's also notable to consider that the SAW project was originally experimenting with a special 6mm cartridge. Before we ended up with the SS109/M855 projectile in the 5.56 NATO loading.
I believe that the MAG 58 was initially adopted as a coaxial machine gun for tanks to replace the unsatisfactory M73/M219. So you might think of the MAG 58 as a 'commercial off-the-shelf purchase' when continued teething issues proved untenable. The earlier M60 was also not without its issues. There is a lot to this topic from shifting tactical doctrines, to improving technology and screwed up procurement. Search the archives for 'the lost art of machine gunnery' and read up on the SAW project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:12:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Well, I was never a heavy (M60 or M240) gunner, but I was an M249 gunner for a while Security Forces in the USAF and stationed at Minot AFB. At that time at least, the M240 and M60 were considered to be crew served weapons, which required an assistant gunner, and the M249 was not. The M249 only required a single, dedicated gunner.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:12:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much ammo can a solider carry for a SAW or a 240? All of it.... Or...at least that's how it felt 600rds was a "standard" load for a SAW...generally about double that. 240 gunner wouldn't carry but a couple hundred. That was mostly to get the party started. His AG would carry twice that usually. And good chance you had 100rd boxes/belts spread amongst other squad members. In the humvees...we never left with less than about 2000 rounds for the 240s |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:12:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. 240s are also bottom droppers and not side chuckers. Having the spent brass drop down instead of being spit out the side makes the 240 more flexible for mounting inside a closed space because a dunnage box can be placed below it for reliable spent brass and link collection. 240s can also be configured to feed from either side. Both weapons have their place even though they can overlap at times. I would not classify either as a "bullet hose" because both are very accurate. Both are reliable, with the 249 being somewhat pickier and requiring more care and maintenance. A lot of the extra effort involves the links themselves because 30 cal links grip the cases better and are less likely to have the rounds slide out of alignment. The smaller scale of the 249 also makes it more prone to failure caused by dirt and debris getting into the mechanism than the larger 240 with internals with greater spring tension and mass. 249s have a somewhat bad reputation for safety, but IMO from my experience a well maintained one is perfectly safe and most of the runaways are caused by people being issued open bolt weapons without proper training (and then blaming the machine gun for their mistake). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:14:35 PM EDT
[#31]
No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too.
Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:14:48 PM EDT
[#32]
For carrying around and looking cool...the SAW.
For actually shooting at people...the 240. I'm an ex M60 and 249 gunner. Never touched a 240. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:15:21 PM EDT
[#33]
I always felt sorry for the 0331's lugging around the 240's
I always thought the 240 always seemed like the bread and butter of the mil guns I used while in, I'd prefer it over an M2. I had one too many issues with all the SAW's I used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:16:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ours were pieces of shit until they finally got switched out for the SPW. PMCS doesn't do much to help guns that are older than the guys shooting them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Although there is some overlap, in the sense that both are belt fed bullet hoses, they are really fundamentally different weapons. The tactical doctrine that inspired them was very different. The SAW / M249 was designed to be a lightweight infantry mobile weapon. The MAG 58 / M240 was designed to be a reliable general purpose machine gun. GPMGs often get used from vehicle or aircraft mounts. Reliability and durability are paramount. SAWs are supposed to enable a lot of highly moble suppressing fire. Plus the SAW in the para config, makes a dandy building clearing weapon..... Right up until your 15lb rattletrap goes ka-chunk Hmm, we never seemed to have that issue...proper PMCS, good armorer and usually new weapons for deployments. Ours were pieces of shit until they finally got switched out for the SPW. PMCS doesn't do much to help guns that are older than the guys shooting them. Mine was from the 80s...(when I was carrying one one around '04-05.....Fabrique Nationale was written on the receiver in cursive :)) She ran like a raped ape....until they decommissioned it because "the receiver's out of spec/bent" Some could be finicky...especially on blanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:16:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=88362 I humped an M240B a long time. Every problem in now a nail...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm if you had the choice, and you were in harms way, and it was just you vs. other guys with guns, which would you choose? Would you choose the 249 for its mobility and increased ammo, or the 240 for its destructiveness and range? I will take a 240 every time. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=88362 I humped an M240B a long time. Every problem in now a nail...
It's not even a close choice the extra weight that comes with it is worth the increase in capability. SAWs can't punch out to the ranges that you're engaged from at times 240s can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:16:44 PM EDT
[#36]
OK so how about this:
If the 249s are really getting replaced with that weird HK rifle/mg what if there was an AR-10 mg version, which one then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:18:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too. Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:18:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? And as 161 said, its all about METT-TC. But they both have their places. Read FM 7-8 and you'll have a reason why they're both there... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:18:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? I'd be thankful for CAS, if I'm isolated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:20:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK so how about this: If the 249s are really getting replaced with that weird HK rifle/mg what if there was an AR-10 mg version, which one then? LSAT |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:21:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be thankful for CAS, if I'm isolated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One is 5.56mm and the other is 7.62mm. Maybe I should clarify. What I am asking is why have each of these for guys to walk around with and shoot at bad guys with. If the m240 works best vehicle mounted, why give some guys an m240 to patrol with, and others an m249. What dictates which will be used in different situations for units on the move. Also which one would those units rather use? Weight. As someone who humped a 240B in the hills of NTC for a month on pre-deployment, I would have killed villages in China for a 249. But imagine yourself isolated, your group vs. another group of guys shooting at you would you be thankful for a 762 gun then? Or would you still prefer the 249 because you could fire and move easier? I'd be thankful for CAS, if I'm isolated. Now you've done it. In before Sylvan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:22:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too. Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:22:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK so how about this: If the 249s are really getting replaced with that weird HK rifle/mg what if there was an AR-10 mg version, which one then? Only the Marines are making that stupid move... I'll take belt fed goodness every time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:23:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too. Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. It was when I was doing it. One guy got the gun and some ammo. The rest of the ammo was carried by others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:24:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too. Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. That's my thought too, the way his sentence read sounded like he meant on the gunner alone. Might just have been me though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:25:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Have you seen this thread, OP?
The Lost Art of Machinegunnery One of the more informative threads here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:26:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only the Marines are making that stupid move... I'll take belt fed goodness every time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK so how about this: If the 249s are really getting replaced with that weird HK rifle/mg what if there was an AR-10 mg version, which one then? Only the Marines are making that stupid move... I'll take belt fed goodness every time. If you understood the doctrine and train of thought behind it you'll realize it's not stupid. Besides the M27 is not replacing the SAW it is supplanting it in service SAWs can and will still be used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:26:31 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you seen this thread, OP? The Lost Art of Machinegunnery One of the more informative threads here. No and thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:27:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, it's now METT-TTC...gotta think about the tranny's now too. Having been a 240B asst. gunner in a wheeled Nat'l Guard unit, give me a SAW in MOST circumstances. Our combat load for a 240B was 1600 rds of 7.62. That's A LOT of weight to hump on your back in addition to the machine gun, the tripod (if required) etc... Isn't that like 110lbs of ammo alone? No way one man is carrying that and the 240, in addition to ruck and armor. Had to be spread around the squad, that's how everyone did it I thought. It is. But between my AG and I we always had at least 1200rds... the platoon carried the rest of the 7.62 for the guns
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2016 5:27:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you understood the doctrine and train of thought behind it you'll realize it's not stupid. Besides the M27 is not replacing the SAW it is supplanting it in service SAWs can and will still be used. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK so how about this: If the 249s are really getting replaced with that weird HK rifle/mg what if there was an AR-10 mg version, which one then? Only the Marines are making that stupid move... I'll take belt fed goodness every time. If you understood the doctrine and train of thought behind it you'll realize it's not stupid. Besides the M27 is not replacing the SAW it is supplanting it in service SAWs can and will still be used. This. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
