ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE SOLDIER DOESNT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY SHOOT THE WEAPON, HIS WHOLE STANCE IS WRONG, FROM HANDS TO CHEEK WELD, WE NEEDS TO LOOK INTO FM 3-22.68
The M-240B looks like it may have descended from the MG42 which was used so effectively by the German army in WWII. The Bundeswehr converted it to fire the NATO 7.62x51mm round and it was called the MG42/59. It was later redesigned and called the MG3 (maschinengewehr,model #3)and it is in wide use. It is very reliable and has a ROF of about 1200 rnds./minute. Does anyone know the ROF for the M-240B?
Originally posted by sturdley: The M-240B looks like it may have descended from the MG42 which was used so effectively by the German army in WWII. The Bundeswehr converted it to fire the NATO 7.62x51mm round and it was called the MG42/59. It was later redesigned and called the MG3 (maschinengewehr,model #3)and it is in wide use. It is very reliable and has a ROF of about 1200 rnds./minute. Does anyone know the ROF for the M-240B?
sturdley
The M-240 more commoinly known throughout the world as the MAG-58, is supposedly a modification of the BAR. FN turned the action over, and converted it to belt feed.(Small Arms of the World)
When we got our M240s and finally replaced the M73/M219 Coax machineguns (second worst MGs the U.S. Army ever purchased) with the 240 it was a God send...
To add more security to the known rate of fire, the Bravo shoots more closely to 650-700 rpm where as the Marine variant, the 240 Gulf, fires in the upper of 800 to 850 rpm. The faster expulsion of gases in the Bravo make it slower and more universal, however, the speed of the Gulf is not unmanageable. The Marines have deployed the Gulf as a turret mounted mmg but also, and more importantly, a troop-transported support weapon. The weapon was fielded in two man operators, but as combat prevailed, the need for man power became obsolete; the ending result is a one man operated, 850rpm, combat efficient mmg.
Originally posted by K_JonahCox: To add more security to the known rate of fire, the Bravo shoots more closely to 650-700 rpm where as the Marine variant, the 240 Gulf, fires in the upper of 800 to 850 rpm. The faster expulsion of gases in the Bravo make it slower and more universal, however, the speed of the Gulf is not unmanageable. The Marines have deployed the Gulf as a turret mounted mmg but also, and more importantly, a troop-transported support weapon. The weapon was fielded in two man operators, but as combat prevailed, the need for man power became obsolete; the ending result is a one man operated, 850rpm, combat efficient mmg.
Wrong, the M240B has a cyclic rate of 650-950 RPM. Don't know how the Marines do it, but the M240 gun team consists of the Machine Gunner, Assistant Gunner and Ammo Bearer.
IC2SS19Z50C5, Your profile doesn't sum up your stated history. Exactly which foreign war were you in to join the FVW on the Navy side? You seem to have gone to a few Army schools, yet do not note any units you were assigned to have reached Master Sergeant. You show your tin can badge, but not your dolphins.
Just curious.
Life ain't worth living, if ya ain't got a good cigar.
The M-240 is new to this retired old fart but the little experience I had with the M-60 led me to believe it was a sweetheart (at least to shoot). Could it be that the Army did something right on the first try (so to speak) by issuing the M240? I would appreciate comments from someone who knows more about the M60 & M240 than the little I do. My personal favorite is the M-2, but it is a little challenging to tote around.
