Tequilla, Its not the report but the reference of it in the MC Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by
COMMAR
The SAW isn't going anywhere, a Squad will just have another option before leaving the wire. The report fr/ 7th Marines in 2001 should be online, also a recent IAR story fr/ The Marine Corps Times gives some info on it.
Marines to Test, Evaluate 4 Auto-Rifle Models: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ewsaw_020109w/ ....A Change in Mindset (Note view entire article on link, text removed due to copyright issues)
Good informative post, thanks.
However, in the future you might consider that to avoid copyright issues, this site encourages the posting of just an excerpt and a link instead of posting an entire -- or most of -- an article. The various service Times and Gannet in general are one crowd that occasionally get sticky about it. May not be a problem but it just keeps the board from getting in trouble with someone who's picky.
Not so on one, true on the other
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
I'm not sure there is actually much difference between the two Wilf. The 48 is made in the US, the standard in Belgium, both by FN. They weigh the same. The 48 has a different gasplug and (sturdier) bipod. Other than that they appear to be pretty much identical.
Not sure from whence that statement is derived. They are two very different weapons and concepts.
The Mk 48 weighs 18 pounds LINK, the M240 weighs 27 pounds LINK -- plus. Folks using it today tell me that those carried in theater today easily weigh over 30 pounds.
Note that FN brags about the light weight of of the Mk 48 and provides that weight -- but for the M240 series ground guns does not provide the weight LINK simply because it is the troops greatest complaint about an otherwise excellent weapon. Note also the FN is working on several mods to reduce that weight.
The Mk 48 is not robust enough to take the pounding an Infantry unit would give it; OTOH, it's okay to take out of a stock of weapons on a raid of relatively short duration and possible high intensity followed by return to an armorer to get ready for the next operation. It does not need to be excessively rugged.
Quote:
For as far as weight is any indication of robustness, the 7.62 Mimini is not much lighter than the old L4 (agreed, mag fed). I don't think the L4 had any durability issues.
No, the L4 was one of the most reliable guns of its type -- and that operating system is the basis of the M240 system. The Minimi / M249 / Mk 46 / Mk 48 operating system is different, based on but not as robust as the Kalishnikov system and it is not nearly as reliable. Weight is not an indicator of robustness, the type of construction and materials used plus the operating system are.
The MAG 58 / M 240 was designed at a time when those factors were dominant and the gun used heavy, thick plates and a strong riveted construction (The L4 from even earlier was even more so -- the receiver was milled fro one block of steel). The Minimi series OTOH was designed to be cheap to produce -- that was the dominant feature, so the construction is much more flimsy all round.