I will say that the MK48 has allowed for a change in organization. To give you an honest and thorough answer to your question, it would require detailed descriptions of the compositions and dispositions of MK48 gun teams in various forms (individual loadouts, duties and responsibilities etc).
Considering who is primarily using the MK48’s, we are getting into a gray area of OPSEC that I would prefer we not dabble in on a public forum.
Sure thing, I was attempting to word my question carefully with OPSEC in mind. I ended up changing my post about 5 times before posting.
It has been my understanding that the 48 is 7.62 and the 46 is another 5.56, and if that is correct, I did mean the Mk48.
I am a much bigger fan of 7.62 than 5.56 when I need something more than personal weapons to deal with an issue.
I know that it is an apples to oranges comparison, but I think the concept is far more interesting and thought provoking than the tired M249/M27 debate.
Gotchya. Thought you were going with a 46/IAR comparison but now I see what you were getting at.
Not trying to turn this into an ARFCOM picture thread, but I thought you guys might enjoy this picture featuring a 48. Glad I got this on film.
Surprised to see an Elcan on that MG, but cool picture. Isn’t there an ACOG specifically designed for this weapon system?
I carried a Pig in basic and was a Pig gunner at my first duty station before I was promoted to SAW gunner.
One thing I liked about the M60 was it balanced better and seemed lighter than the M240. But, it was old technology when it came out. There were also issues with the receiver rivets as I recall.
I had a chance to look at the Mk46 and 48 last time I was at FN. I liked the fact that they put them on the Weight Watchers diet.
In a normal infantry platoon the 249 is a light automatic weapon issued to one guy in a four man fire team. The M60/M240B carried by a by a weapons squad. They’re intended for and used in different roles. a fire team needs to be pretty mobile so a M240B or M60 doesn’t make a lot of sense. Working at the squad level there are going to be two fire teams each with a SAW and a 240 gunner wtih an AG that will normally stay close to the squad leader. Things can get jumbled around a little in real life but generally the guy with a 7.62 belt fed stays put and shoots and the guy with the 5.56 belt fed moves with his fire team.
Did you guys adopt the dog?
I did a little. I was never issued one so I don’t have significant experience with it but it was a good MG. They were more reliable than our long barrelled ones but that was probably more to do with them being newer or refurbished.
for use like this right?..
http://youtu.be/uQMLEE_-K4E
That’s the M-145 Machine Gun Optic (MGO) by Elcan. It is what is issued with guns and is relatively speaking a heavy POS. But it does have mag and it is issued. We mounted ACOG’s on ours, better mag, lighter, better all around optic. The ACOG’s were issued for M4’s though (RCO/TA31 type).
The 240 is head and shoulders better than an M60 ever was. It is heavier, hopefully the new lighter weight/shorter barrel 240L helps that issue without harming the reliability/indestructability.
The 249 is a good weapon, problem is most are beat to death, so they have maintenance issues. The short barrel/collapsible stock SAW with a 100 round nutsack is the heat. Easy to get accurate bursts off shoulder fired, etc.
As far as the MK46/48, they are SOCOM weapons. A bunch of regular units in Astan have them as well, but they are TPE and stay in Astan being transferred from unit to unit. regular units still have the 240/249 on the MTOE.
Yes, there are TA11H-308 ACOG’s available for the 240’s and 48’s also. It really boils down to personal preference. Many gunners grew up and became quite proficient with the 145, so they chose to stay with it. Some went the ACOG route. Mission dependent, it’s also not uncommon for Aimpoints to be utilized. Especially when working in urban areas the Aimpoint on a crew served weapon can be quite useful. Point is that much of it boils down to personal preference and METT-TC.
Good post, thank you for sharing your experience.
However please consider there are others here with a comparable level of experience. I am very familiar with the optic as I had one on my SAW when I was first placed as an AR. You are right, it is a POS. Mine was held on with safety wire. :rolleyes:
There have been new ACOGs developed from the TA11.
http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA11SDO-CP
This is what I was asking about.
This is what was most commonly used by the SAW gunners in my unit during my final deployment in 2006. Short barrel, collapsible stock, 50 or 100 round nutsack, M68. It worked best for a light MG used in an urban environment. Still though, if I were going to be engaging things at 300m and beyond I would want something like the ACOG I linked here. You are of course correct, it is all METT-TC dependent.
When I enlisted in late 1997 we still had M60’s. My impression was that it was a maintenance queen. Soon thereafter we turned in our 60s. That left my unit (Military Police) with Mk-19, SAW, and M16/M4. In my opinion, that left us with a huge hole in our lineup.
A buddy of mine was killed in 2004. He was manning a pintle mounted SAW at a checkpoint in Karbala, Iraq. They were attacked by a dump-truck filled with sand. He successfully killed the driver, but was unable to disable the dump-truck. The dump-truck ended up ramming the HMMWV he was in.
I can’t help but feel that if he had had a 240 or an M2 he might have been able to kill the driver sooner or disable the truck. There is no way of knowing if a more potent weapon could have kept Jesse from getting killed. That power gap in the lineup always seemed obvious enough even a lieutenant might notice.
The US Ordnance M60E4 (Navy MK43) is an exceptional platform. Most, if not all, of the shortcomings of the M60 up to and including the E3 were addressed in the latest variant.
The “thuga thuga thuga” of that M60 variant warms the heart no doubt. Interesting, thanx.
Learning a lot in this thread!
I agree. I read a couple of articles about it and then saw it in action. It made me want to shoot the Pig again.
All crew served weapons are a pain in the ass for those carrying them. We had M-60E3’s when I was in a machine gun section of a company weapons platoon. At 18.5 lbs the M-60-E3’s were a lot more manageable than the M-240B’s that replaced them. I have heard from current vets that the M-240 gets left in the vehicles or left behind altogether.
I suppose the 240’s are more reliable but what good is a slightly more reliable gun if it’s so heavy that it gets left behind.
What??? I can assure you that any damn serious unit out there is not going to “leave the 240 behind because it is too heavy”. That is just utter non-sense. What “current vets” are you talking to??
Let me put this in context, as I feel like I came off the wrong way. I have never seen, nor heard of a platoon sized or greater element maneuvering dismounted without at least 1 M240B, but usually 2 M240B teams.