skidz
adrenaline junky
Are you effin kidding me? Are we going backwards? What is it with these idiots in position to make decisions not knowing their history? I remember discussing this with A4's a while back, became a good discussion. Effin ridiculous.
The MG3 is based off the MG42, the M240 is not.
The 240 is suitable for squad usage in a line company, because we do it.
And because it has HK stamped on it, we'll be over-paying for it no doubt.
No offense Phrog, but that's TBS, their intention is not to teach you proper employment of infantry weaponry, especially belt fed weaponry, that's my job.
Oh god, had to bring up futureweapons with it's uber tool host. "touches the bolt - this means no cook offs" wtf? you serious? no, it's the very hot barrel/chamber that cooks off the round, not the damn bolt. Give me an open bolt weapon, and I will still be able to cook off a round by placing one in the chamber, with the bolt still to the rear.
For the 240 there are nutsacks, and we have the attachment pieces for the nutsacks, just no nutsacks. All those went to the army. We have made field expedient boxes and sacks for our 240 rds, but it's not common. We just let a short link hang and our a-gunner hooks us up once we get to our position.
Overall, the 249 is not an unreliable weapon, the user just must know how to properly maintain it and employ it. That means ditiching the CLP for LSA, LSAT, or MGG if you can get a hold of it. CLP is less than mediocre for lubrication purposes, ESECIALLY for a belt fed, high volume, weapon.
If the Corps really wanted a weapon build on the Ar platform, that fulfills the SAW role, blends in with the other weapons of the squad, and can fluidly supliment it's high volume, potentially unending and uninterrupted fire, belt fed ammunition with magazines, they should have chosen the SHRIKE to test and improve upon. That's a system I can see the Corps making an infantry staple.
But that's just the .02 of a Marine Machine Gunner, what do I know compared to these heavy collared desk jockies deciding contracts.
The MG3 is based off the MG42, the M240 is not.
The 240 is suitable for squad usage in a line company, because we do it.
And because it has HK stamped on it, we'll be over-paying for it no doubt.
No offense Phrog, but that's TBS, their intention is not to teach you proper employment of infantry weaponry, especially belt fed weaponry, that's my job.
Oh god, had to bring up futureweapons with it's uber tool host. "touches the bolt - this means no cook offs" wtf? you serious? no, it's the very hot barrel/chamber that cooks off the round, not the damn bolt. Give me an open bolt weapon, and I will still be able to cook off a round by placing one in the chamber, with the bolt still to the rear.
For the 240 there are nutsacks, and we have the attachment pieces for the nutsacks, just no nutsacks. All those went to the army. We have made field expedient boxes and sacks for our 240 rds, but it's not common. We just let a short link hang and our a-gunner hooks us up once we get to our position.
Overall, the 249 is not an unreliable weapon, the user just must know how to properly maintain it and employ it. That means ditiching the CLP for LSA, LSAT, or MGG if you can get a hold of it. CLP is less than mediocre for lubrication purposes, ESECIALLY for a belt fed, high volume, weapon.
If the Corps really wanted a weapon build on the Ar platform, that fulfills the SAW role, blends in with the other weapons of the squad, and can fluidly supliment it's high volume, potentially unending and uninterrupted fire, belt fed ammunition with magazines, they should have chosen the SHRIKE to test and improve upon. That's a system I can see the Corps making an infantry staple.
But that's just the .02 of a Marine Machine Gunner, what do I know compared to these heavy collared desk jockies deciding contracts.
