I'm going to stand by my statement that if the enemy is engaging me from 1km, I'm going to have my guys in cover, my m249 engaging and mortars dropping on the target. Of course I'm not going to be using my M4's. That doesn't make them useless.
I'm going to stand by my statement that if the enemy is engaging me from 1km, I'm going to have my guys in cover, my m249 engaging and mortars dropping on the target. Of course I'm not going to be using my M4's. That doesn't make them useless.
ok, i respect your opinion. better you call in artillery or mortars as you've said, because M-249 also has the bunny killer caliber 5,56. using this against a PK (7,62X54R), would be like a squirt gun versus a firemen hose! my point is, M-16/M-4/M-249 isn't bad weapons, they has a wimpy (short range) caliber. they can be used in warfare, in CITIES or other types of short range engagements, as a more powerful SMG. as combat rifles/ light support weapon, at ranges more than 400-500 yards unfortunely they're not suited (i would say useless, but it's a heavy word). if you ever have to call mortar fire because your rifles/LSW can't reach the enemy, better do like red army on final stages of WW2: sometimes, for EACH infantry regiment they had THREE artillery/ mortar regiment in support.
________________________________________
All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
Sun Tzu
Part of the problem is all the money invested with 5.56mm round and the weapons they bought. There is a huge logistical pressure to stay with the M-16/M-4 weapons. Some guys with stars just can't comprehend that battles can be fought at 1000 yards now. I think if you had two or three M-240 Machine guns at Platoon level it would be a great help when the range opens to 1000 yards or more. The grunts will still have to close to be able to fire back.
Pruitt
__________________
Ted Nugent quote to the Troops: "It may be a week until deer hunting season, but its open season on a**holes all year long!"
Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06
Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?
Part pf the problem is all the money invested with 5.56mm round and the weapons they bought. There is a huge logistical pressure tom stay with the M-16/M-4 weapons. Some guys with stars just can't comprehend that battles can be fought at 1000 yards now. I think if you had two or three M-240 Machine guns at Platoon level it would be a great help when the range opens to 1000 yards or more. The grunts will still have to close to be able to fire back.
Pruitt
As long as I never have to carry it, I'd love to have a 240. Oh man that things a beast.
In the last couple of wars, people have forgotten the importance of true firepower. Unfortunately, its going to take a couple of disasters to get things sorted out for the better.
for a couple of years i was a gpmp gunner in my platoon, we had 4 per pl thats 1 for each section. I never used it in anger but still saw its power, it could blow holes through walls and literaly cut trees in half.
As a section weapon it was, and still is, accurate at 800m and as stated. already up to 1800yards in the sustained fire roll.
At the time the SLR was the standard rifle also in 7.62.
Both firing the same round was a benefit and the firing pin fitted both weapons which was handy.
I still think that carrying the 7.62 round is worth it.
when we converted to the 5.56 SA80 we all thought it looked great and were happy to finaly have a rifle we could fire on automatic, having an optical sight was good too, however quite a few of us were not impressed with it over 300m.
The problems with stoppages and melting were fixed by the germans and the current rifle is one of the best being used, its still underpowered imho.
If this rifle was in 7.62 it would be the best assault rifle on the market.
the current rifle is one of the best being used, its still underpowered imho.
If this rifle was in 7.62 it would be the best assault rifle on the market.
Then again i am biased
Rob
... .... .. -
If it was in 762, it would be much heavier and longer.
If it was in 762, it would be much heavier and longer.
The 5.56 sa80 is heavies than its predecessor the SLR. Adding a few inches would not be a problem. The British army is used to carrying heavy loads over long distances, its part of training. look at the falklands war for the perfect example.
However i do see the point you are making, but with a few tweaks it really could be the best out there.
It would be easier to do drill if it was a bit longer.
Likewise if the us used an updated M14 it would be a battle winner
![Naffenea has a spectacular aura about [400]](images/reputation/reputation_green.gif)
![Naffenea has a spectacular aura about [400]](images/reputation/reputation_greenh.gif)
![Naffenea has a spectacular aura about [400]](images/reputation/reputation_gold.gif)
. better you call in artillery or mortars as you've said, because M-249 also has the bunny killer caliber 5,56. using this against a PK (7,62X54R), would be like a squirt gun versus a firemen hose
! my point is, M-16/M-4/M-249 isn't bad weapons, they has a wimpy (short range) caliber
. they can be used in warfare, in CITIES or other types of short range engagements, as a more powerful SMG. as combat rifles/ light support weapon, at ranges more than 400-500 yards unfortunely they're not suited (i would say useless, but it's a heavy word
). if you ever have to call mortar fire because your rifles/LSW can't reach the enemy, better do like red army on final stages of WW2: sometimes, for EACH infantry regiment they had THREE artillery/ mortar regiment in support. 
![Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]](images/reputation/reputation_goldstar.gif)
Linear Mode
