249/240 marksmanship and general use tips

[BushmasterFanBoy]

Do you know where in the handbook it says that? I was always taught that they should be kicked off with the most casualty producing weapon, which very well could be an open bolt MG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously your 240's and 249's are going to be your highest casualty producers available to a typical infantry platoon, and while it is advised to kick off ambushes with your highest casualty producing weapons (being that speed, surprise and violence of action are going to be unmatched by anything else) such weapons could range from anything to 40mm's to claymores set in during a deliberate ambush.

I'm gonna feel like a sh*tbag for not being able to pull a Ranger handbook open right now, but it may very well be missing in the latest version. I think the one referenced by the gentlemen who imparted this wisdom to me would've been the 2006 edition. Either way, it's one of those things accepted as common knowledge that's enforced as an SOP at the unit level. There's a million ways to skin a cat, but there's a solid case that you don't start skinning said cat with a weapon who's hallmark features include failures to fire on the first round/burst, the 'element of surprise' is supposed to apply to the enemy, not the look on your face when you realize that your mg's just shit the bed.

[Arctic1]

Interesting comments.

I have not experienced this at all, be it with the M2 .50 cal HMG's(ours are open bolt), MG3's or Minimi's.
We patrol with the MG3s loaded with a contact belt (50 rounds wrapped around the receiver), with the bolt forward for hasty stuff. Minimi's are carried with 100 round nutsacks, bolt in the open position, weapon on safe.

That said, I would assert that terrain, time and distance to threat should dictate how you open fire, and with which weapons. Oft times I would take exposure lines with the riflemen, in order to give the MG teams time to get into position, as it is a more cumbersome system.

If more time was available, I would open fire either with the MG3's or Carl Gustavs.

[Wake27]

Interesting. I had no idea that the 249s and 240s had such a reputation for malfunctioning.

[48J]

The M249s have a reputation for malfunctioning. I saw the malfunctions when using magazines instead of belt ammunition.

The U.S. Army refused to learn the SAW and forced modifications that made the gun less reliable. The originally fielded guns had an adjustable gas system that allowed an increased rate of fire as a means to burn off carbon and keep the gun running. The fixed gas system reduced reliability.

My experience with the M240 is with the C model. Keep the M240C lubed and it would run forever. The only malfunction I saw with a 240 was when a drive rod retaining pin sheered and the gun became a runaway.

[echo5whiskey]

Interesting comments.

I have not experienced this at all, be it with the M2 .50 cal HMG's(ours are open bolt), MG3's or Minimi's.

Maybe yours were made by a higher bidder. Maybe ours were too worn out. Maybe we just had sucky gunners. I can promise that it wasn't limited to my units; it was Marine Corps-wide.

[Arctic1]

Maybe yours were made by a higher bidder. Maybe ours were too worn out. Maybe we just had sucky gunners. I can promise that it wasn't limited to my units; it was Marine Corps-wide.

I am not saying that we have never experienced failures with the above weapons. I was referring to the issue of malfunction on the first, or first'ish, round.

[echo5whiskey]

I am not saying that we have never experienced failures with the above weapons. I was referring to the issue of malfunction on the first, or first'ish, round.

Understood. Apologies if my post appeared snooty.

I literally meant that the cause of the malfunctions we are accustomed to may, in fact, be due to something we are doing; whether it be part of the procurement process or utilization. I also wanted to make it clear that I'm not just drawing from personal experience, but that of my former peers and superiors as well.

[Mr blasty]

Understood. Apologies if my post appeared snooty.

I literally meant that the cause of the malfunctions we are accustomed to may, in fact, be due to something we are doing; whether it be part of the procurement process or utilization. I also wanted to make it clear that I'm not just drawing from personal experience, but that of my former peers and superiors as well.

It's a big enough issue to make it into military movies and TV series. It's a known issue even to civilians who pay attention to military stuff. I've had SAW's do it to me at ranges as a civilian, especially if fed from a mag.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[echo5whiskey]

It's a big enough issue to make it into military movies and TV series. It's a known issue even to civilians who pay attention to military stuff. I've had SAW's do it to me at ranges as a civilian, especially if fed from a mag.

I would presume that Arctic's reference to MG3s and such, as well as his profile location, would mean that he is more accustomed to the European side of MGs. That being said, I've never met the guy, so it is just a presumption.

We would op-check to ensure that our saws would "function" with mags, but our SOP was to carry enough belts so that it would not come to that. I have never seen, in person, a saw that was able to get through a full mag with no malfunctions. That doesn't mean that doesn't happen, just that I've never witnessed it. The use of mage is a great concept, just an unreliable practice.

[R0N]

The don't use a open bolt weapon to initiate an ambush really started with the M60