User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:14:44 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted: The FN MAG, designated “M240” by the US military, continues to hold on in service despite its advanced age. The MAG’s chief disadvantage appears to be its extreme weight, at 26 lbs empty. By comparison, the PKM weighs 16.5lbs and the FN Maximi weighs around 18. Additionally, some models like Knight’s Assault Machine Gun bring the weight down even further. In spite of the potential for shaving ten pounds or more, many militaries are sticking with the MAG. My question here is: why? It appears that some lightweight machine guns suffer from durability issues, especially when used from fixed mounts. The M-60 seems to have suffered particularly badly in this area, which was the impetus for the M240 being adopted in the first place. However, the PKM seems to have a sterling reputation for durability and reliability. If building a sufficiently durable lightweight gun is possible, why stick with the boat anchor? Does the MAG have other advantages, or is it simply retained for lack of funding/inertia/lack of interest in innovating? I don’t have much experience with machine guns but I’m sure many others can offer some good insight. The PKM/PKT will be unserviceable far earlier than the 240 series. That is why the 240s have stuck around so long and aren't really going anywhere. The riveted box style guns can pretty much be run in perpetuity. We will see if the Sig gun finally delivers on weight and longevity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:18:15 AM EST
[#2]
Quoted: The FN MAG, designated “M240” by the US military, continues to hold on in service despite its advanced age. The MAG’s chief disadvantage appears to be its extreme weight, at 26 lbs empty. By comparison, the PKM weighs 16.5lbs and the FN Maximi weighs around 18. Additionally, some models like Knight’s Assault Machine Gun bring the weight down even further. In spite of the potential for shaving ten pounds or more, many militaries are sticking with the MAG. My question here is: why? It appears that some lightweight machine guns suffer from durability issues, especially when used from fixed mounts. The M-60 seems to have suffered particularly badly in this area, which was the impetus for the M240 being adopted in the first place. However, the PKM seems to have a sterling reputation for durability and reliability. If building a sufficiently durable lightweight gun is possible, why stick with the boat anchor? Does the MAG have other advantages, or is it simply retained for lack of funding/inertia/lack of interest in innovating? I don’t have much experience with machine guns but I’m sure many others can offer some good insight. There's a light weight 240L around now. The 240 is in my opinion the best GPMG ever made. The PKM eventually beats itself apart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:35:23 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a light weight 240L around now. The 240 is in my opinion the best GPMG ever made. The PKM eventually beats itself apart. Ten pounds of weight savings isn’t worth more maintenance? Parts can be replaced on schedule if armorers are doing their jobs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:56:29 AM EST
[#4]
Lightweight guns beat themselves apart. SOCOM uses the MK48 which is a M249 in 7.62mm, while have many advantages, its disadvantages is durability. It has a shorter service life over the M240. Biggest disadvantage to the PKM is the quick change barrel, not very practical in the heat of battle. Again it will beat itself apart over time. MG3 barrel needs to be changed more quickly do to higher rate of fire. FN MAG/MAG 58/M240 has stood the test of time and honorable replacement for the Browning 1917/1919s. Remember the MAG is nothing more then an inverted 1918 BAR inside, BAR Type D ranchette barrel system, with a MG42 feed system.
Look at the .50 BMG development that John Browning started in July 1917. It would be produced as the M1921 water cooled .50 cal. In 1933 the M2 receiver was adopted. From that different barrels could be put on such as the Heavy Barrel for ground use or lightweight for aircraft, the AN/M2 (84 lbs vs 60 lbs). Guns are built to last generations. CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 1:59:12 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ten pounds of weight savings isn’t worth more maintenance? Parts can be replaced on schedule if armorers are doing their jobs. It’s the receiver that fails. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:08:35 AM EST
[#6]
Forgot to address the M60. The M240 was first adopted into the US Army as a coaxial machine gun to replace the M73 in the new M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradleys in the late 70s. Over time the M60 stamp receivers could not longer be beat back together during service repair work. So, it was replaced by the same gun that it competed against during its adoption trails.
CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:10:46 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s the receiver that fails. Then replace the receiver on an appropriate schedule? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:14:34 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lightweight guns beat themselves apart. SOCOM uses the MK48 which is a M249 in 7.62mm, while have many advantages, its disadvantages is durability. It has a shorter service life over the M240. Biggest disadvantage to the PKM is the quick change barrel, not very practical in the heat of battle. Again it will beat itself apart over time. MG3 barrel needs to be changed more quickly do to higher rate of fire. FN MAG/MAG 58/M240 has stood the test of time and honorable replacement for the Browning 1917/1919s. Remember the MAG is nothing more then an inverted 1918 BAR inside, BAR Type D ranchette barrel system, with a MG42 feed system. Look at the .50 BMG development that John Browning started in July 1917. It would be produced as the M1921 water cooled .50 cal. In 1933 the M2 receiver was adopted. From that different barrels could be put on such as the Heavy Barrel for ground use or lightweight for aircraft, the AN/M2 (84 lbs vs 60 lbs). Guns are built to last generations. CD At some point, one has to consider accepting increased maintenance costs to have more capability once the rubber hits the road. Given the prevalence of back and joint injuries among veterans, the US military needs to get serious about cutting weight. I’d rather they spend more time replacing parts than have more dudes end up with chronic pain for the rest of their lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:23:10 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forgot to address the M60. The M240 was first adopted into the US Army as a coaxial machine gun to replace the M73 in the new M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradleys in the late 70s. Over time the M60 stamp receivers could not longer be beat back together during service repair work. So, it was replaced by the same gun that it competed against during its adoption trails. CD …but the M-60 appears to be a fundamentally better gun when it’s running properly. Various formations even had them in what was essentially an automatic rifle role, which should be a great testament to that gun’s ergonomics and shootability. The M-60 itself probably wasn’t the right long term solution, but surely something more can be done. Why not just replace lightweight MG receivers on a set schedule? Nobody balks at replacing barrels when they get burned out, and they have to be every bit as expensive. A good AR barrel costs more than a receiver set, for example. People are usually willing to accept high maintenance requirements for a sophisticated weapon. For example, maintaining the RAM on a stealth fighter is just part of the cost for the extra capability it provides. If there’s some doctrinal issue that prevents receivers from being easily discarded and replaced (perhaps because they’re serialized) then that needs to be discarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:25:21 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At some point, one has to consider accepting increased maintenance costs to have more capability once the rubber hits the road. Given the prevalence of back and joint injuries among veterans, the US military needs to get serious about cutting weight. I’d rather they spend more time replacing parts than have more dudes end up with chronic pain for the rest of their lives. Dismounted guns are a minority of machine guns in service and use. Far more rounds go down range from mounted guns both in training and combat. The SAWs are to be replaced with the M250 and then 240 rebarreled. I will not be surprised when the MTOE is redone to exchange the 250 for the 240 in the dismounted slots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:52:35 AM EST
[#11]
Having spent many many years very intimately acquainted with it, I’ll say The 240 is the shit. Bipod, tripod, gun pintle, it’s the best medium machinegun ever made (sorry gramps, used em both and the 60 sucks balls… so does the MG3). PKM is pretty cool but nowhere near as controllable as the 240. The only way it could be better is if it had a constant recoil impulse system like the Ultimax and a spicier round. The end.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 2:56:29 AM EST
[#12]
It is heavy as fuck and that is the biggest downside. The pkm is the better weapon system for the grunt in the field. On a vehicle the 240 is great.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 3:03:32 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is heavy as fuck and that is the biggest downside. The pkm is the better weapon system for the grunt in the field. On a vehicle the 240 is great. Yah gonna strong disagree from experience on the “better weapon system for the grunt.” The 240 is FAR easier to keep on target (suppressing fire’s purpose is to kill as many enemies as possible, not shoot in their general area) and is much much easier to crew since you just get up and leave the links in the dirt instead of running around with a floppy half spent belt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 3:09:08 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yah gonna strong disagree from experience on the “better weapon system for the grunt.” The 240 is FAR easier to keep on target (suppressing fire’s purpose is to kill as many enemies as possible, not shoot in their general area) and is much much easier to crew since you just get up and leave the links in the dirt instead of running around with a floppy half spent belt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is heavy as fuck and that is the biggest downside. The pkm is the better weapon system for the grunt in the field. On a vehicle the 240 is great. Yah gonna strong disagree from experience on the “better weapon system for the grunt.” The 240 is FAR easier to keep on target (suppressing fire’s purpose is to kill as many enemies as possible, not shoot in their general area) and is much much easier to crew since you just get up and leave the links in the dirt instead of running around with a floppy half spent belt. You ever even even shot a pkm?....it's night and day. disintegrating links are nice and all but the weight savings of the pkm is a huge difference. I've shot the 240b mk48 and pkm extensively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 3:36:54 AM EST
[#15]
Engineering is all about trade-offs, and a vehicle doesn’t give the slightest bit of a damn about a 10-pound weight difference. That extra steel is used to get extra durability, and the weight also gives it better stability when firing.
I do appreciate what the designers of the M60 tried to do - the “bull pup” type design to reduce overall length, etc. Still problems with the end product, unfortunately. Another issue is whether the Army can actually assess the state of and replace an MG when it is worn out. I recall carrying an M60 that looked to be about brand new, a guy from the 82nd saw it and said “WTF, you should see the clapped-out POS M60 I carried.” (A solvable problem, of course, in theory) ETA: This thread is an appropriate place for post # 58. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 4:09:05 AM EST
[#16]
The 240 is amazing. It Just Works. If a Glock 19 and a Toyota Camry had a Machinegun Baby, it would be the 240.
Seriously, there aren’t proper words to describe it. It’s simply the most reliable weapon ever fielded. In my lifetime, made up of many machines, it was the most reliable, next to the hammer. Eta- I didn't enjoy humping it to the Motor pool. Hand Carrying that heavy bitch into combat would be sheer madness. My hats off to you guys who did it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 7:39:30 AM EST
[#17]
Yeah, I'm a big 240 fan, but I never carried mine
 When they were first adopted in 1979 as the COAX mg for the upgraded M60A3 and then M-1 Abrams tank, they were light years ahead of the M73/M219 COAX it replaced. Those Belgians came up with a real winner there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 7:54:57 AM EST
[#18]
The PK series is an amazing weapon system.
When I went to foreign weapons courses, it was astonishing how mobile their belt feds were…how the gunners could keep up with the riflemen on bounds or during an assault. The Russian tripods were exceptionally effective, light, and durable. Accuracy was on par with the 240s on the same line. Plus, the larger round fired by the PK hit with more authority and had longer range. I was impressed with the PK. It’s balance also allowed more accurate fire from unconventional positions while the 240 really just needed a tripod or prone. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:00:50 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ten pounds of weight savings isn’t worth more maintenance? Parts can be replaced on schedule if armorers are doing their jobs. PKM's break and are not field serviceable when they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:03:21 AM EST
[#20]
Remember design philosophy.
Soviet/Russian equipment wasn't expected to last in a real war long enough for depot maintenance. Their helicopters didn't get as much daily maintenance, but are work out POS before long. It's the same idea across their armament industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:05:20 AM EST
[#21]
I’d take a m60e 3-4-5 , or mg3, etc over a m240 for personal use, infantry, etc. much lighter n more user friendly. M240 is a heavy bitch, better suited for mounting on vehicles.
But I love the m60.   Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:06:10 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: , the US military needs to get serious about cutting weight. I'd rather they spend more time replacing parts than have more dudes end up with chronic pain for the rest of their lives. US military...we cut 10 lbs off your MG...now you can carry 20 lbs of other stuff... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:44:58 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a light weight 240L around now. The 240 is in my opinion the best GPMG ever made. The PKM eventually beats itself apart. Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a light weight 240L around now. The 240 is in my opinion the best GPMG ever made. The PKM eventually beats itself apart. Quoted: Lightweight guns beat themselves apart. SOCOM uses the MK48 which is a M249 in 7.62mm, while have many advantages, its disadvantages is durability. It has a shorter service life over the M240. Biggest disadvantage to the PKM is the quick change barrel, not very practical in the heat of battle. Again it will beat itself apart over time. MG3 barrel needs to be changed more quickly do to higher rate of fire. FN MAG/MAG 58/M240 has stood the test of time and honorable replacement for the Browning 1917/1919s. Remember the MAG is nothing more then an inverted 1918 BAR inside, BAR Type D ranchette barrel system, with a MG42 feed system. Guns are built to last generations. CD I've carried and shot the M60 and M60E4. I really like the PKM (I don't know what its true name is in Russian -- we memorized its acronym in English as "People Killing Machine"), but it has a different role as a light machinegun (like the SAW, but in 7.62 x 54). I like that it can keep a 100-round belt of armor-piercing incendiary tracer within a deuce-and-a-half truck door pattern at 200 Meters. As a medium machinegun the M60 can't hold a candle to the M240 durability- and dependability-wise (defined as mean rounds between stoppages and mean time between failures). M240/MAG-58 is absolutely heavier, but also works when you pull the trigger, and is why it was adopted over replacing the entire M60 fleet. Nothing lasts forever -- and in war, especially, stuff gets consumed quickly. The 240 fits its niche because it does work when called on, while the 60 could be spotty as it got used-up. The 240 seems to soldier on longer, sometimes when neglected. US Army equipment is often neglected. The Army doesn't like to replace weapons often -- although they are expendable, they're expected to be durable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:53:02 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You ever even even shot a pkm?....it's night and day. disintegrating links are nice and all but the weight savings of the pkm is a huge difference. I've shot the 240b mk48 and pkm extensively. All 3 man. B and L. Actual L, not just a B that someone put a short barrel and new stock on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 8:57:24 AM EST
[#25]
Somewhat relevant to the topic.
 The Fat Electrician Reviews: The M240 (11b/0331) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:08:24 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: …but the M-60 appears to be a fundamentally better gun when it’s running properly. Various formations even had them in what was essentially an automatic rifle role, which should be a great testament to that gun’s ergonomics and shootability. The M-60 itself probably wasn’t the right long term solution, but surely something more can be done. No. The only benefit of the 60 is it weighs 4lbs less. Everything about the 60 is inferior. Ergonomics of the stock, fragile sights, bipod, barrel change (don’t lose your mitten!). It’s a very finicky gun as well. When it works it works, if not have fun. The reason for this is plain as day to anyone who’s broken down a 60, as well as a 240 (or a PKM). The 60 is tremendously complex inside. It is a MASSIVE pain in the ass to disassemble for maintenance and reassemble. The 240 on the other hand is cleaned in the field by taking the stock off and dumping the bolt out. Youcan clean the gun in a minute and a half in the field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:17:30 AM EST
[#27]
I've had multiple PKMs of my own while deployed, and managed teams that ran them as well. Everyone thinks the PKM is great to fire from "unconventional positions" until they actually do it and has hot brass beating straight into your arm. My allure with the PKM died slowly the more belts I had to manually load as well. It's super fun when your guys come back from mission and lost their empty belts and you have to go find more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:31:25 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: …but the M-60 appears to be a fundamentally better gun when it’s running properly. Various formations even had them in what was essentially an automatic rifle role, which should be a great testament to that gun’s ergonomics and shootability. The M-60 itself probably wasn’t the right long term solution, but surely something more can be done. Why not just replace lightweight MG receivers on a set schedule? Nobody balks at replacing barrels when they get burned out, and they have to be every bit as expensive. A good AR barrel costs more than a receiver set, for example. People are usually willing to accept high maintenance requirements for a sophisticated weapon. For example, maintaining the RAM on a stealth fighter is just part of the cost for the extra capability it provides. If there’s some doctrinal issue that prevents receivers from being easily discarded and replaced (perhaps because they’re serialized) then that needs to be discarded. So I have never run either gun, just a gun nerd.....But this quote mmay be the first time I have ever seen someone say the m60 is better then the m240..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:42:44 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plus, the larger round fired by the PK hit with more authority and had longer range. YMMV. LOL No. The standard round for the PK/PKM is a 148.2 Grain bullet at 2,717 Ft per second The standard round for the M240 is a a 147 Grain bullet at 2,800 Ft per second They are nearly identical in terms of performance. Sure the Russian round looks slightly bigger but it is not more powerful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:49:46 AM EST
[#30]
Another FN product. I've seen one, but didn't get to shoot it. Weighs in at a little over 18 lbs.
FN Mk 48 Mod 1 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:54:42 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL No. The standard round for the PK/PKM is a 148.2 Grain bullet at 2,717 Ft per second The standard round for the M240 is a a 147 Grain bullet at 2,800 Ft per second They are nearly identical in terms of performance. Sure the Russian round looks slightly bigger but it is not more powerful. I hate people who say where outgunned by the PKM. Just because their tracer burnout is longer does make our bullets stop at 900m. Still effective out to 3300m if you call see impact or understand ballistics. I've hit targets at 2500m from a 7.62mm Minigun. Same ammo and tracer burnout. Have to school them on plunging fire. CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:54:47 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Another FN product. I've seen one, but didn't get to shoot it. Weighs in at a little over 18 lbs. FN Mk 48 Mod 1 https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/FN_MK_48_MOD1_Rotators_2-1800x825.jpg Since we’re mentioning newer models, this is as good a place as any to mention the experimental M-240 chambered for 338 Norma Mag. As long as I don’t have to hump the ammo |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:55:33 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL No. The standard round for the PK/PKM is a 148.2 Grain bullet at 2,717 Ft per second The standard round for the M240 is a a 147 Grain bullet at 2,800 Ft per second They are nearly identical in terms of performance. Sure the Russian round looks slightly bigger but it is not more powerful. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Plus, the larger round fired by the PK hit with more authority and had longer range. YMMV. LOL No. The standard round for the PK/PKM is a 148.2 Grain bullet at 2,717 Ft per second The standard round for the M240 is a a 147 Grain bullet at 2,800 Ft per second They are nearly identical in terms of performance. Sure the Russian round looks slightly bigger but it is not more powerful. The ESAPI plate was specifically invented because of the PK and SAPI plates that were only rated for M80 ball. A huge % of the 54R I encountered overseas was black tip, which also changes the equation. I don’t know how true it is, but I was told that the soviets heavily stocked AP ammo for their small arms as they believed WW3 would be a mechanized affair. Plus, most Eastern Block ammo is steel core to start with…so penetration is increased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 9:55:50 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Another FN product. I've seen one, but didn't get to shoot it. Weighs in at a little over 18 lbs. FN Mk 48 Mod 1 https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/FN_MK_48_MOD1_Rotators_2-1800x825.jpg Again not as durable as a M240. I repair Mk48s. Mk48s are a great assaulters MG. Not for base of fire. CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:02:12 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plus, most Eastern Block ammo is steel core to start with…so penetration is increased. The mild steel cores used in most Russian ammo have basically the same hardness as lead. So offer almost no armor penetration advantage. Another old wives tale presented as fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:06:38 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The mild steel cores used in most Russian ammo have basically the same hardness as lead. So offer almost no armor penetration advantage. Another old wives tale presented as fact. Wive's tales flow like water around here. Also, if only the US had made any technological advancements in the past 20+ years, like M80A1, then all of this killer 1940's heavy ball 7.62x54 that's been utterly destroying us this entire time could finally be matched. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:11:26 AM EST
[#37]
Having carried an used the 249, 60 an 240B/L..I'll take a 240L any day..the 240B was a fantastic MG mounted in a truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:25:48 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Having carried an used the 249, 60 an 240B/L..I'll take a 240L any day..the 240B was a fantastic MG mounted in a truck. Most people who've commented after firing the M60E3/E4 (MK43 Mod 0 or Mod 1), the M240, and the MK48 usually say they liked the balance and feel of the M60 (E3 or later) but apparently NSW/SOCOM thought it was better to replace the MK43 Mod 1 with the MK48, despite the (receiver) longevity being inferior. (Maybe they didn't know that going in?) I never hear about SOCOM running 240L dismounted; it always seems to be the MK48. I did observe a couple of MARSOC Marines running dismounted M240s during Raven. I think they were M240Bs though. I asked one why they didn't bring MK48s and he just kinda murmured something like "FML." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:36:15 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You had a regular M60 right? Most people who've commented after firing the M60E3/E4 (MK43 Mod 0 or Mod 1), the M240, and the MK48 usually say they liked the balance and feel of the M60 (E3 or later) but apparently NSW/SOCOM thought it was better to replace the MK43 Mod 1 with the MK48, despite the (receiver) longevity being inferior. (Maybe they didn't know that going in?) I never hear about SOCOM running 240L dismounted; it always seems to be the MK48. I did observe a couple of MARSOC Marines running dismounted M240s during Raven. I think they were M240Bs though. I asked one why they didn't bring MK48s and he just kinda murmured something like "FML." I see it all the time. Typically the 240L gets humped up to the SBF position and the MK48 gets carried into the objective. Things like receiver longevity only matter to organizations with limited support resources or whose typical mission profiles even intend on being on ground long term, which usually isn't NSW. For conventional maneuver units the MK48 was a TPE item exclusive to GWOT, it didn't make it over to the organic MTOE for a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:43:04 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I see it all the time. Typically the 240L gets humped up to the SBF position and the MK48 gets carried into the objective. Quote HistoryQuoted: I see it all the time. Typically the 240L gets humped up to the SBF position and the MK48 gets carried into the objective. I only ever see MARSOC, and only when they use our area for training. Things like receiver longevity only matter to organizations with limited support resources or whose typical mission profiles even intend on being on ground long term, which usually isn't NSW. For conventional maneuver units the MK48 was a TPE item exclusive to GWOT, it didn't make it over to the organic MTOE for a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:49:18 AM EST
[#41]
Which is why 240 is a crew served weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:50:39 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forgot to address the M60. The M240 was first adopted into the US Army as a coaxial machine gun to replace the M73 in the new M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradleys in the late 70s. Over time the M60 stamp receivers could not longer be beat back together during service repair work. So, it was replaced by the same gun that it competed against during its adoption trails. CD but man, when the 60 was new it was a great gun. me rocking one back in the day  " />
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 10:58:55 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but man, when the 60 was new it was a great gun. me rocking one back in the day  I love my M60E3 (and my RPD). I've never fired the M240 or MK48. PKM is cool, but the E3 is better for firing unsupported. PKM (as mentioned up above) ejects violently and somewhat randomly. I always wanted a long-sleeve shirt while firing one. The M60E3 (and later) have nice forward areas for your support hand as well, unlike the PKM. Easier to reload the 60 also. I rarely open the top cover on mine. First belt:  M60E3 100 round belt, standing |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 11:07:51 AM EST
[#44]
Concerning the M60, I have seen a few runaway gun malfunctions.
kinda concerning. but later versions with the extra notch on the op rod fixed that. broken bolt lugs are a problem, moreso than receiver life. THIS is the 60's main design flaw, the helical bolt lug channel. I worked on the development of the bolt fix, back in the day. sluggish operation is the #1 malfunction on the 60 the M60E3+ is the best balanced machinegun in the world. it can be used as an Auto-rifle, providing accurate aimed fire, then go rock&roll base of fire. SEAL's used it that way to great effect. what else can do that? MK48 might be the perfect evolution of that concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 11:10:16 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again not as durable as a M240. I repair Mk48s. Mk48s are a great assaulters MG. Not for base of fire. CD Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Another FN product. I've seen one, but didn't get to shoot it. Weighs in at a little over 18 lbs. FN Mk 48 Mod 1 https://fnamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/FN_MK_48_MOD1_Rotators_2-1800x825.jpg Again not as durable as a M240. I repair Mk48s. Mk48s are a great assaulters MG. Not for base of fire. CD can you speak to MK48 durability/issues you have seen? I have 0 experience with it. seems like a cool gun @Combat_Diver |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 11:54:22 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: can you speak to MK48 durability/issues you have seen? I have 0 experience with it. seems like a cool gun @Combat_Diver Bolt failures CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:22:41 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I worked on the development of the bolt fix, back in the day. I terminate my belts with snap caps to avoid bolt deformation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:45:15 PM EST
[#48]
The PKM isn't a bad gun, as long as you accept the Soviet design philosophy behind it.
The MAG58 is better overall though, and the weight issue can be dealt with.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:50:24 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The MAG58 is better overall though, and the weight issue can be dealt with. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/135411/Ksp58DF_jpg-2398855.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2022 12:52:06 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The PKM isn't a bad gun, as long as you accept the Soviet design philosophy behind it. The MAG58 is better overall though, and the weight issue can be dealt with. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/135411/Ksp58DF_jpg-2398855.JPG Well that's certainly a different setup. What's the weight on that? |
|
|
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.
