Quoted:


Yeah we didn't have to worry about jump status at Drum, I am 5ft 7in, and come to think of it I was the shortest gunner in the company.  Every AG dreams about being the gunner, I was just happy to be rid of that damn AG bag, and I thought the gun helped with balancing the weight of a heavy ruck on long foot marches.

Quoted:


HK21E
*7.62x51mm NATO
*20lbs unloaded
*Roller-delayed blowback
*Fires from the closed bolt
*Trigger mechanism offers safe, single shot, burst or full automatic.
*800RPM
*Capable of sub-MOA accuracy

<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/HK21.jpg" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/HK21.jpg</a>

Quoted:
Aside from which, why would you even want "sub-moa" accuracy out of a support machinegun? The whole point is dispersion of the burst, even when engaging a point target. Machine guns that are too accurate have historically required some really elaborate and fussy machinery to force dispersion on them, when fired from a tripod. Going down that road isn't exactly a good idea.

Quoted:


Seriously,  this institutional stupidity towards machine gunners in the Army needs to fucking stop.

Quoted:


The new "Ti" reciever guns being tested are M240Ls.  It would kind of hard to make a M60 out of titanium weight since it is a stamped receiver.

The Mk48 is an interim fix prior to fielding of M240Ls.

Quoted:


I guess you're right and the guys that tested them and reported back to us are lying.

Making the Army’s First Titanium Machine Gun

First adopted by the Army in 1977 as an armor vehicle mounted secondary weapon system, the M240 7.62mm medium machine gun series has long been a dependable workhorse. After Army and Marine infantry units began employing the M240B in the mid 90s, the popularity of the gun soared as it became known for reliability, durability and low maintenance requirements. Despite its success, however, Soldiers still pointed to the added weight and length of the M240 as compared to its infantry squad predecessor, the M60. This feedback inspired the remedy which has arrived today in the titanium built M240L.

“We’ve taken a great gun and made it better,” said COL Douglas Tamilio, Project Manager (PM) Soldier Weapons for PEO Soldier. “The M240L meets all the standards of the M240B, but in a significantly lighter package. More than ever, we need weapons in the fleet that reduce the burden on our Soldiers who have to operate with heavy loads in extreme terrain.”

Manufacturing a Titanium Gun

The concept for the M240L originated on the drawing boards of PM Soldier Weapons at Picatinny Arsenal and the M240 manufacturer. The organizations collaborated to develop a variant of the M240B that would reduce the weapon’s weight by four to seven pounds without compromising the gun’s operational characteristics and outstanding reliability. To achieve this objective, engineers started evaluating high-performance, lightweight materials and alternative manufacturing methods.

After much research, engineers ultimately settled on using a titanium alloy as the primary metal for the M240L. Known as a “space age” metal, titanium is especially known for having the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any metal. The new titanium parts on the M240L include the receiver body, the front site post, and the carrying handle.

Working with titanium called for adjustments to the manufacturing process. The lighter weight metal takes longer to machine than steel and requires more frequent replacement of tooling bits. Early on, engineers experimented with welding the titanium components together, but ran into warping issues. The final solution rested in using stainless steel rivets, which are more pliable than titanium and resist corrosion when in contact with titanium.

Once assembled, the weapon needed a protective coating to preserve the metal. Steel weapons typically get a phosphate coat and are subsequently oiled, but the titanium receiver required a completely different process.

“Titanium alloys don’t actually rust, they gall, causing the surface to become rough and deformed over time,” explained Thomas Walsh, M240 Product Management Engineer. “To solve this challenge, we researched coatings that could protect the metal under extreme operating temperatures. We found success with a chrome carbo-nitride coating used for industrial, high-heat applications. A ceramic-based top coat is added to complete the process.”

The final product weighs in at just 22.3 pounds, nearly five pounds lighter than the M240B. To those familiar with the M240B, there is hardly a discernible difference in the new gun beyond its lighter weight. The M240L meets all the operational requirements of the original while maintaining the same high standards of reliability and durability.

A New Weapon on the Battlefield

This January, PM Soldier Weapons delivered 50 M240Ls to dismounted Army and SOCOM units for operational assessment. Starting in September, more ground pounders in Airborne, Air Assault, and Special Forces units can look forward to receiving the new guns as production gets underway for the Army’s initial purchase of 4,500 weapons. Early Soldier performance tests indicate that Soldiers will like what they see.

In Aberdeen Proving Ground studies, Soldiers carried the M240L significantly faster than the M240B on the cross country course and turned in improved completion times in obstacle course runs as well. Soldiers also rated the majority of the mobility and user acceptability characteristics for the M240L significantly higher than the M240B.

Future enhancements to the M240L are already underway. This spring, testing will be completed on the short barrel, which will reduce the gun’s overall length by four inches and bring the weapon’s weight down to just 21.8 pounds. In addition, a collapsible buttstock for all M240 series guns will be available by late summer. Finally, an adjustable bipod is in the works.

“As we continue to listen, we continue to learn,” said COL Tamilio. “The titanium M240L represents a leap in weapons technology inspired by Soldier feedback. The lessons learned from this program will undoubtedly benefit future weapons systems that will maintain our continued advantage on the battlefield.”

Quoted:







A GPMG shouldn't be fired from the standing offhand.

Quoted:


I will throw a vote for the M60 as my personal M60E4 has always run without issue and I will never own a transferable 240 with the $80K + price tag.



With the E4 at least, you would have to be a complete idiot to put the gun back together wrong.  Hell, even with an older E1 how does anyone with half a brain manage to put the bolt carrier on the op rod backwards and then the bolt and op rod assembly back into the gun.  



One would think that the end of the bolt "where the friggin firing pin comes out" would be a clue as to which way it should point as the bullets don't come shooting out of the stock at you.

Quoted:


A GPMG shouldn't be fired from the standing offhand.

Quoted:


I guess you're right and the guys that tested them and reported back to us are lying.

Quoted:
The only problem I ever had with mine was the BFA, but that's not exclusive to the M60.

Me in 1993 or 1994.
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff98/mailbcw/littlekid.jpg?t=1300577317

Quoted:


Why do we need to incorporate dispersion?  How about some trust that the men running the machinegun will be able to understand the intent behind dispersing it, and giving them the option to apply it as needed?  This is America, we have smart troops, and this ability to work using initiative and commander's intent is what makes us so good.  The troops are not simply a cog in the machine.  They have knowledge, insight and skills.  Let them exercise it.

A distinct lack of trust in subordinates makes this a prime example of outdated fucked up thinking.

Quoted:

The Polish would know, google the UKM-2000.

Quoted:







I still think it's a nice thing to be able to do...and if you do need to, you probably really, really need to.



OTOH, I got out 20 years ago.....



I was talking to a former British Army officer a few weeks ago, Sandhurst, Gurkha Regiment, etc. he was appalled to learn that the US didn't train it's gunners like the Brits did. No indirect fire sights or training, etc.

Quoted:

Just looked it up. Sweet.


 

Quoted:





Just looked it up. Sweet.


 

Quoted:


The MAG is probably the best MG for mounted ops.  Its a full 12 pounds heavier than the PKM and carries very awkwardly. Not saying you can't carry one, but its both heavy and not well designed for dismounted ops.



For dismounted ops, PKM is hard to match.  Not only light weight, but even more reliable and carries much easier.

12 pounds is a lot in your arms.  It adds up.

The issue tripod for the PKM is also very well done, but the T&E on it sucks.



240B with old school tripod and T&E is scary good.  I have never used the new one, just played with it, so I can't judge.



the pig was easy to carry, which made the jams, falling off pieces and wiring the fucking thing together a little less a PITA.

Never used the MG-3, but I have heard them.  Drops rounds fast.  Wouldn't mind having that thing on mounted ops.  don't know the accuracy or recoil on it./

Quoted:


Your post indicates you have no fucking clue whatsoever about what a machinegun is for, or how it works. I'd recommend educating yourself, at least a little, before commenting further.

Quoted:
Things need to change. Period. The way we do business is insane, and more appropriate to a third-world banana republic than our military.

Capture the actual information about what's going on on the battlefield, and then go from there. All else is folly

Quoted:

None.  Whatsoever.    Never fired one.  Never been shot at.    

Smart troops.  God forbid the army seize an opportunity instead of letting them all fall through their fingers.  I'm sorry you can't think a little bit beyond doctrine.

edit:


I find this particularly ironic in light of your response.

I want that MG as accurate as possible while still very reliable.  I want my troops to exercise their judgement in their targeting, rather than the gun being engineered to take that out of the picture.  Your (historical) approach slices any attempt at that off at the knees, and is simply a sign of a bigger picture problem.




Right on.



By the way, you seem...familiar.

Quoted:


I still think it's a nice thing to be able to do...and if you do need to, you probably really, really need to.

OTOH, I got out 20 years ago.....

I was talking to a former British Army officer a few weeks ago, Sandhurst, Gurkha Regiment, etc. he was appalled to learn that the US didn't train it's gunners like the Brits did. No indirect fire sights or training, etc.

Quoted:


That is an Army-ism.  Our 0331s still train to do all those things.

Quoted:
My understanding is that in the Royal Marines you cannot promote either to or past Corporal without having led a machinegun team. I am in support of that.