Based on Slater's find, so far all I'm hearing is heavier, less ammo, and harder to keep running in the field.
Based on Slater's find, so far all I'm hearing is heavier, less ammo, and harder to keep running in the field.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Flash hider maybe. But most likely they flipped the 5 and the 3 in 13.5.
The article also says the XM250 is 4 pounds lighter.
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
I missed something here earlier. The XM250 doesnt have a quick change barrel? I was under the impression it did. I cant remember if I read that or just assumed because it's an obvious feature to put on a belt fed machine gun. I was actually pretty impressed with the XM250 otherwise.
So now we are going to have a suppressed belt fed machine gun that shoots 130+ grain projectiles at 3000+ FPS operating at 80k PSI chamber pressure and it doesn't have a quick change barrel?
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
This has debacle written all over it.
That would certainly limit its sustained rate of fire, ruling it out as a good 240 replacement in ground units. Could still be viable as a Mk46 and Mk48 replacement. 249 questionable. I’m curious about its barrel profile, given the claims of the weapon being significantly lighter than the 249. A lighter barrel would limit rapid rate of fire, or at least the amount of time the gunner could use that rate, which would make it a big step backwards. Even with the same weight barrel, I’d expect the cartridge to limit the rapid rate of fire. This would all be too bad, because the MG replacement portion of the program makes more sense than the M4 replacement portion. At least to me.
My theory since the beginning is the rifle gets scrapped and the MG gets adopted but rechambered in 7.62 Nato.
I watched (skimmed) the video from TFB TV last night about the XM250 to see about the barrel. They were talking with the lead engineer. She said they have a model of it with the quick change barrel but that the NSGW contract specified not having one. So it sounds like Sig is foreseeing this being an issue and already have the solution waiting.
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
Consider M250 an automatic rifle and NOT a light machinegun. It'll work the same role as a BAR or M16A1 with bipod.
There still isn't a doctrinal role fit. SAW made it easier to have an LMG in the squad but burdens it with weight. M250 is neither fish nor foul -- it provides anti-body armor capability that's not required in East Asia / Southeast Asia jungles against chinamen.
Bookmarks