Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sig wins Next Gen Squad Weapon
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rickt300" data-source="post: 3768986" data-attributes="member: 50678"><p>Yes it was cut and paste, information you need to understand why the X250 is not exactly the ideal SAW. The SAW was developed to solve the problems the M60 possessed. Those same problems were not cured by the M240, the M240 being a more reliable weapon than the M60 but both are medium machine guns not good SAW's. You appear to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to not remember Vietnam where these lessons were learned the hard way. 3+ years? Boy what a stretch of time! And all to come up with a SAW that lacks firepower when served by one man, firepower that can only be improved with belt feeding it. Being belt fed it requires more than one person to run and supply ammo to. A high pressure round that requires the added weight and length of a suppressor. What I am trying to get through your fog is that the X250 is more of a medium machine gun than a good SAW and the reason for this is the bullk of the ammunition. Don't be surprised if in the future the weapon cartridge is changed to the 7.62x51. Are you all fired up over these weapons because they have a "cool factor"? And regarding your lack of reading comprehension the points I am making directly compare the X250 to the M249 and comparing the X250 to the M60/M240. The carry ammo capacity for the X250 is 50 rounds where the M249 usually has a 200 round capacity. The X250 is more comparable to medium machine guns than the M249. Which by the way many consider an excellent SAW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rickt300, post: 3768986, member: 50678"] Yes it was cut and paste, information you need to understand why the X250 is not exactly the ideal SAW. The SAW was developed to solve the problems the M60 possessed. Those same problems were not cured by the M240, the M240 being a more reliable weapon than the M60 but both are medium machine guns not good SAW's. You appear to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to not remember Vietnam where these lessons were learned the hard way. 3+ years? Boy what a stretch of time! And all to come up with a SAW that lacks firepower when served by one man, firepower that can only be improved with belt feeding it. Being belt fed it requires more than one person to run and supply ammo to. A high pressure round that requires the added weight and length of a suppressor. What I am trying to get through your fog is that the X250 is more of a medium machine gun than a good SAW and the reason for this is the bullk of the ammunition. Don't be surprised if in the future the weapon cartridge is changed to the 7.62x51. Are you all fired up over these weapons because they have a "cool factor"? And regarding your lack of reading comprehension the points I am making directly compare the X250 to the M249 and comparing the X250 to the M60/M240. The carry ammo capacity for the X250 is 50 rounds where the M249 usually has a 200 round capacity. The X250 is more comparable to medium machine guns than the M249. Which by the way many consider an excellent SAW. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sig wins Next Gen Squad Weapon
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom