SAS to use bigger bullets to kill enemy outright

[Sdustin 578]

Mk48 for the win.

 

Mk48 for the win.

[Sohei 10]

Yeah they have gone through several versions of the Mk48 now, with incremental minor improvements.

 

 

I like the M60 better than the 240B, despite the improvements. The 240B is much heavier to lug around with everything else. Makes a big difference when moving at a fast pace in rugged terrain.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Sohei

[gunfun 3,931]

"The problem of 5.56 mm rounds lacking killing power in firefights is worse because the Taliban use 7.62 mm rounds in their AK-47 Kalashnikovs and Russian sniper rifles. The SAS’s report said the 7.62 mm rounds flew farther and with greater accuracy – giving the enemy a distinct advantage, especially in long-range engagements".

 

The British media is just as stupid as ours. The Dirkas have been resorting to 7.62x54 beltfeds and SVDs to engage our guys because of the range/velocity issues and our guys are using 7.62x51 for the same reason which is why you now see a M14 variant in the mix as DM rifles. They have been issuing them at squad level for quite some time now. The 5.45/7.62x39 suffers at long range just as bad as 5.56 NATO.

 

I'm no expert on internal ballistics, and I understand that WSSM profile lends itself to inherent efficiency and consisten powder burn. However, the rounds we are using are more accurate than is generally needed and you can fit 30 of them in a compact magazine. I don't see the fat bottlenecks being very space or weight efficient however good the performance is.

[Sdustin 578]

If you had to lug a 240 bravo to a fight and it ran and ran and ran VS easily carrying a m60 and it bent when you closed the top cover with feed paw in the wrong position, was easily able to put the gas plug in backwards and turn it into a belt fed bolt action rifle you'd be happy to have the bravo insted of a piece of shit m60. Granted there have been improvements over improvements but that to me is just a sign that it's a POS.

[MT Predator 2,294]

I have humped both the 60 and the 240B. Monty is correct, the 240B is superior even though it weighs more.

[thebuns1 4,323]

Yeah they have gone through several versions of the Mk48 now, with incremental minor improvements.

 

 

I like the M60 better than the 240B, despite the improvements. The 240B is much heavier to lug around with everything else. Makes a big difference when moving at a fast pace in rugged terrain.

I believe its the MK48 Mod 1, according to my buddy still on active duty.

[XD45 7,124]

If you had to lug a 240 bravo to a fight and it ran and ran and ran VS easily carrying a m60 and it bent when you closed the top cover with feed paw in the wrong position, was easily able to put the gas plug in backwards and turn it into a belt fed bolt action rifle you'd be happy to have the bravo insted of a piece of shit m60. Granted there have been improvements over improvements but that to me is just a sign that it's a POS.

In all the time I ran a M60E3 I never saw a single failure other than a dead primer. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just didn't happen to me.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Problem with the pig like the 16 was always those asswipes in that funny shaped building.

 

Money not performance was the deal.

 

As for the Brits, screw em, collectivist morons.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Rhodes1968

[Eric Pate 478]

If you had to lug a 240 bravo to a fight and it ran and ran and ran VS easily carrying a m60 and it bent when you closed the top cover with feed paw in the wrong position, was easily able to put the gas plug in backwards and turn it into a belt fed bolt action rifle you'd be happy to have the bravo insted of a piece of shit m60. Granted there have been improvements over improvements but that to me is just a sign that it's a POS.

Yeah there are numerous design flaws in the M60. Although most of them have been corrected in the latest incarnations (theres youtube vids of people doing impressively long belt-dumps), I think these issues have left enough of a bad impression to where I don't see us going back to issuing M60s.

 

I can't remember where I read about it but you should try to find some info on the development history of the M60, its like a comedy of errors. IIRC the design team (Saco Defense, I believe) even incorporated features from the FG42 and MG42 that serve no purpose on the M60, which has led many to believe they had very poor understanding of those weapon's method of operation.

[uzitiger 193]

Read the comments after the article and it shows how stupid the and arrogant British government is. This is why we shouldn't allow them to disarm us the way they did.

[Sohei 10]

I have humped both the 60 and the 240B. Monty is correct, the 240B is superior even though it weighs more.

 

I have carried and fired both as well. I agree that the 240B is overall a better weapon. However, the extra weight can add to exhaustion which can get you killed as well. I noticed the weight slowed me down a little bit when carrying a lot of other gear. By itself it is not too bad but a few extra pounds makes a difference when combined with everything else. The weight of the 60 was like carrying around a rifle. Fired both at ranges and in rough field conditions. Did not experience any failures with either one but I saw how the 240B should be more reliable. I still think the 60 is reliable enough and worth the weight trade off if you are going to be moving around. For a long term fixed position or vehicle mount the 240B is better.