Fuck SAWs. One of those M60E4s over there please.steelie34 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y6Txz_jIcE
"Raise the flag high! Let the degenerates know who comes to claim their lives this day!"
srsly. pre-nerf tooBlade4509 wrote:
Fuck SAWs. One of those M60E4s over there please.steelie34 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y6Txz_jIcE
Last edited by steelie34 (2010-04-23 12:50:21)
M60s were replaced for several reasons, one of them being those things are damn heavy and the SAW puts more rounds downrange faster.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
*puts on shifty glasses*
I thought the M60 was replaced by the M240.
*takes off shifty glasses*
I thought the M60 was replaced by the M240.
*takes off shifty glasses*
m240 is also a SAW.Mekstizzle wrote:
*puts on shifty glasses*
I thought the M60 was replaced by the M240.
*takes off shifty glasses*
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
inb411bravo
I heard the M60E4 w/ assault barrel was one of the lightest machine guns available in the general purpose class, as opposed to something like the FN MAG on which the 240 is based.-Sh1fty- wrote:
M60s were replaced for several reasons, one of them being those things are damn heavy and the SAW puts more rounds downrange faster.
The M249 weighs in at 22lbs fully loaded, as opposed to the 21lbs of an E4 (Assault barrel setup). Whether or not that's loaded or unloaded I don't know. In comparison the lighter 240G is 25lbs.
I've never fired or used any of them of course so I can't comment from experience on reliability issues or effectiveness other than 7.62 dishing out greater damage than 5.56 etc.
Meks is right. And the M240 and M60 were designed as General Purpose Machine Guns rather than SAWs.War Man wrote:
m240 is also a SAW.Mekstizzle wrote:
*puts on shifty glasses*
I thought the M60 was replaced by the M240.
*takes off shifty glasses*
yup. crew served weapon. technically the saw is a crew served weapon but its not. they both fall under the category of "mass casualty producing weapon"
as far as I remember the 240b weighs in at 29 lbs
as far as I remember the 240b weighs in at 29 lbs
Tu Stultus Es
B has the heat shield over the barrel doesn't it? Bit like the SAW.eleven bravo wrote:
yup. crew served weapon. technically the saw is a crew served weapon but its not. they both fall under the category of "mass casualty producing weapon"
as far as I remember the 240b weighs in at 29 lbs
ok
just know its better than the piece of shit the marines use
just know its better than the piece of shit the marines use
Tu Stultus Es
do you have metal from real war?eleven bravo wrote:
ok
just know its better than the piece of shit the marines use
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
medal
Tu Stultus Es
METALeleven bravo wrote:
medal
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
email ur reply back asap
TL:DR version in bold
Put 11B behind a new generation SAW, and me behind a M60 - we'll be happy.
Switch weapons on us, and there's a good chance we'll each be cussing at the piece of shit junk pile you've forced on us.
Every weapon system has it's particular twitches.
17 pounds of SAW, or 23 pounds of M60, or 29 pounds of M240. 6 pounds doesn't make much difference when it's added to 60-100 pounds of other junk you're wearing.
The difference in length between a SAW and a M60 makes a slight difference in a MOUT scenario, in favor of the SAW.
SAW - a little lighter, a little shorter, a bunch more rounds in the air - great little house clearing weapon. Should replace the M16 with the SAW (I'm only half joking). Inside of 300 meters, versus unarmored personnel in the open - bring a SAW.
M60 - a little heavier, a little longer, slower rate of fire (but much larger rounds) - great overwatch weapon, handy enough for urban use if the gunner is tall enough to maneuver the weapon around. Beyond 400 meters, the SAW just won't keep up with the M60 for range and power.
M2- .50 cal. "The difference between cover and concealment, let me show it to you, little *****". You may have been behind adequate cover versus the SAW, even marginal cover versus the M60.. but it's nothing but concealment from a .50 cal.
A clarification;
M240 - FN Mag 58, 7.62x51mm
M249 - FN Minimi, 5.56x45mm
M60 - Saco M60, 7.62x51mm
Mk48 - M249 variant, scaled up to 7.62x51mm
M60 is it's own design, M240 is just the FN MAG renamed for the US, M249 is the 5.56x45 version and the Mk48 is the scaled up 7.62x51 version of the m249
Put 11B behind a new generation SAW, and me behind a M60 - we'll be happy.
Switch weapons on us, and there's a good chance we'll each be cussing at the piece of shit junk pile you've forced on us.
Every weapon system has it's particular twitches.
17 pounds of SAW, or 23 pounds of M60, or 29 pounds of M240. 6 pounds doesn't make much difference when it's added to 60-100 pounds of other junk you're wearing.
The difference in length between a SAW and a M60 makes a slight difference in a MOUT scenario, in favor of the SAW.
SAW - a little lighter, a little shorter, a bunch more rounds in the air - great little house clearing weapon. Should replace the M16 with the SAW (I'm only half joking). Inside of 300 meters, versus unarmored personnel in the open - bring a SAW.
M60 - a little heavier, a little longer, slower rate of fire (but much larger rounds) - great overwatch weapon, handy enough for urban use if the gunner is tall enough to maneuver the weapon around. Beyond 400 meters, the SAW just won't keep up with the M60 for range and power.
M2- .50 cal. "The difference between cover and concealment, let me show it to you, little *****". You may have been behind adequate cover versus the SAW, even marginal cover versus the M60.. but it's nothing but concealment from a .50 cal.
A clarification;
M240 - FN Mag 58, 7.62x51mm
M249 - FN Minimi, 5.56x45mm
M60 - Saco M60, 7.62x51mm
Mk48 - M249 variant, scaled up to 7.62x51mm
M60 is it's own design, M240 is just the FN MAG renamed for the US, M249 is the 5.56x45 version and the Mk48 is the scaled up 7.62x51 version of the m249
didnt like the SAW....
but used it a lot. prefer the 240G tbh.
but used it a lot. prefer the 240G tbh.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-04-24 03:19:47)
right. sorry.11 Bravo wrote:
didnt like the SAW....
but used it a lot. prefer the 240G tbh.
I get 11 Bravo and eleven bravo mixed up.
so, for those of you keeping score at home;
11 Bravo - M240G
eleven bravo - M249
RDX - M60
And which of them were allowed to use magnum ammunition?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I prefered the MK19 or Ma Duece.
i used a bowstaff
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Interesting thing is that, while the British Army/Royal Marines use Minimi's and the L7A1 (MAG), our Chinooks carry the M60D(?). I guess they didn't swap them over after they bought them from Boeing.rdx-fx wrote:
right. sorry.11 Bravo wrote:
didnt like the SAW....
but used it a lot. prefer the 240G tbh.
I get 11 Bravo and eleven bravo mixed up.
so, for those of you keeping score at home;
11 Bravo - M240G
eleven bravo - M249
RDX - M60
Did they use many vehicle-mounted miniguns?
sorry yes 6.5mmWar Man wrote:
Seeing as I'm the one and only true war man, that's pretty obviouseleven bravo wrote:
I saw more aussies in iraq than I did war mansWar Man wrote:
You Australians are hardly involved in those 2 countries compared to us.6.5mm or 6.8mm rifles/lmg's ya mean?GR34 wrote:
Replace all m16/M4 weapons with 6.3mm or 6.8mm rifles/ LMG's?
Yes I think we should move towards the one of the 2 6.5mm bullets if we need a replacement for 5.56GR34 wrote:
sorry yes 6.5mmWar Man wrote:
Seeing as I'm the one and only true war man, that's pretty obviouseleven bravo wrote:
I saw more aussies in iraq than I did war mans6.5mm or 6.8mm rifles/lmg's ya mean?GR34 wrote:
Replace all m16/M4 weapons with 6.3mm or 6.8mm rifles/ LMG's?
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.