What gun is this

[lasersailor184]

It's really simple.  You show me a picture of an MG, and i'll tell you what it is using the things I already said.  



BTW, what i've said is how they judge the guns.

[rabbidrabbit]

Alright.. there is enough cross terminology to make this confusing.  What I was told in training was that the gun was classified by caliber but there are enough references to light varients of the same guns to say it could be either way.  Fair enough I yield..>

[VOR]

Laser and GS are absolutely correct.

Now...there is a semi-debate at work about the '60 vs. the m240 just about every time someone brings either up. I lean towards the 240 because of its simplicity/serviceability and rate of fire. It's also very quick and easy to change out the barrel. Granted, I've only fired I think 200 rounds from the m-60 vs. several thousand from the 240, so I may be biased. Still, based on my experiences the 240 is a superior weapon.

What do you guys think, and why?

[lasersailor184]

Yeah, just because you see most .50 cal machine guns being HMG's, it doesn't apply to the calibers.  




Vor, I haven't fired either weapon.  Although i've only heard good things about the M60 by those who used them.

[-tronski-]

Funny I thought it was a PKM...

 Tronsky

[rabbidrabbit]

I have had nothing but good experieinces with the m60 but have heard complaints about it from many others so I don't know.  All in all its a fine gun but may be a bit more break prone than the 240.  The 240 is a simpler design with less intricate parts.  

I yield to your point but thats not how we ever refered to the MG's we used.  When we wrote up the range cards for defensive positions m249's were always refered to as lmg's and m60's as mmg's regardless of mounting options.  This was due to the different properties of each weapon system.  The larger weapons were set up in areas where long range fires, be it point, AP,  or grazing fire, was needed.  Where the 249's were relegated to short range fire lanes and backup. The symbols for each were by caliber not whether or not one was tossed on a pintle mount or not.  Thats because the ballistics of the rounds mattered, not whether or not they were supported one way or another.  It's not a huge issue but thats the way I was taught and we employed the weapons systems.

[BlckMgk]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I have had nothing but good experieinces with the m60 but have heard complaints about it from many others so I don't know.  All in all its a fine gun but may be a bit more break prone than the 240.  The 240 is a simpler design with less intricate parts.  

I yield to your point but thats not how we ever refered to the MG's we used.  When we wrote up the range cards for defensive positions m249's were always refered to as lmg's and m60's as mmg's regardless of mounting options.  This was due to the different properties of each weapon system.  The larger weapons were set up in areas where long range fires, be it point, AP,  or grazing fire, was needed.  Where the 249's were relegated to short range fire lanes and backup. The symbols for each were by caliber not whether or not one was tossed on a pintle mount or not.  Thats because the ballistics of the rounds mattered, not whether or not they were supported one way or another.  It's not a huge issue but thats the way I was taught and we employed the weapons systems.

Very cool...

Whats your experience, meaning are you active still, and what unit etc..

[rabbidrabbit]

Nope...  Caught a virus when in Germany and it wrecked my heart.  Had first series of heart attacks when I was 20 and after having a defibrilater implanted in me and all sorts of fun drugs my days are about through.  The Infantry was lots of interesting experiences but after that, 2 wrecked elbows, a crushed wrist and a knee that got torn apart it kinda got old.  It's a tough life.