So? The M249s at IRUNGUNS US site??
- Thread starter DARKSTANG
- Start date
Just a wait and see now.
I take one out whenever I go to my plant in USA, 6.00 for 20nds and the links are reusable, albeit a PIA to load, the Saw will also accept mags as well. Last time we were out, we went thru 2000 rnds
Dirt McGirt
Regular
- Location
- 36 Chambers
Yo dis gun strait up tite. You be flexin on all dem brokeass scrubs wit dis hammer.
I'm going to sit back a drool. Always have been a big fan of the m249. If I had the money I would make the purchase as well! Heck if it accepts regular ar mags who says a guy cant chuck a 10 round lar mag in it and really have fun!?!?
#1bcshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- North Of The DMZ (US border)
That's a lot of money to have tied up for 2 or 3 yrs .
Not to mention the lab rats shooting the sh1t out of it & trying to make it FA
Not a big fan of the Minimi due to its excessive weight. There are now systems with equal reliability and superior accuracy at half the weight and 2/3 the cost of the C9/M249. I'll just leave this here.....
Not a big fan of the Minimi due to its excessive weight. There are now systems with equal reliability and superior accuracy at half the weight and 2/3 the cost of the C9/M249. I'll just leave this here.....
Yeah but what is the price to commercial markets and then Military ???
Not quite sure what you are asking, but civilian retail in Canada is $7,420 for a complete system with a single barrel, akin to the M249S. Do the conversion on the US price for the M249S and you will see that the Fightlite MCR is approximately 2/3 the cost. Any military procurement contract would undoubtedly benefit from economy of scale, with large-scale purchase resulting in a significantly lower per-unit cost.
Understood that it seems like a cool concept, but it's actually been a bit of a flubb service-wise.
The initial aim with the concept was to upgrade the section/squad firepower after going to the 5.56 cartridge, but most armies in the world are now dropping it.
US Army dropping it, UK Army dropping it, Australian Army dropping in, and Canada is not dropping it but not buying more (also based on a probable new 6.Xmm caliber standard).
Numerous tests, both simulated and operational, have shown that they don't produce the same enemy effects as things like sharpshooter rifles.
Most soldiers don't even really use it as a machinegun, it's just used as a not-really-accurate automatic rifle that uses a lot of rounds to spray an area.
Don't get me wrong, I love MGs, and I originally joined the Army to fire them, but this C9/Minimi/249 is a dying breed because it has been shown to be not worth the complexity of having a different system for what it offers.
The initial aim with the concept was to upgrade the section/squad firepower after going to the 5.56 cartridge, but most armies in the world are now dropping it.
US Army dropping it, UK Army dropping it, Australian Army dropping in, and Canada is not dropping it but not buying more (also based on a probable new 6.Xmm caliber standard).
Numerous tests, both simulated and operational, have shown that they don't produce the same enemy effects as things like sharpshooter rifles.
Most soldiers don't even really use it as a machinegun, it's just used as a not-really-accurate automatic rifle that uses a lot of rounds to spray an area.
Don't get me wrong, I love MGs, and I originally joined the Army to fire them, but this C9/Minimi/249 is a dying breed because it has been shown to be not worth the complexity of having a different system for what it offers.
I don't dispute what you have to say as applied specifically to the Minimi platform. It is overly heavy, complicated and expensive for the questionable downrange effects that it provides. The Minimi is little more than a morale-lifting noise-maker for those who don't know any better.
The Fightlight MCR on the other hand, is a different take on the belt-fed SAW concept given that it is simply an Upper Receiver that can be fitted in seconds to any C7/C8/M4/M27/M16/etc/etc Lower Receiver. Even the new USMC M27 (16" HK416) is limited in the sustained-fire, pinpoint suppression role as a function of its fixed barrel and magazine feed. The MCR addresses those limitations with a simple Upper Receiver swap. Accuracy at 100m is equivalent to any rack-grade AR I own or have been issued over the decades, enabling the same pinpoint engagement as the M27 but with a near limitless supply of ammunition and a Quick-Change Barrel to eliminate overheating. Yes, it is an Upper Receiver that differs from the standard rifle Upper, but so what? At the end of the day it is just an Upper Receiver, not a complete weapon system. It is a bolt-on force multiplier. If the AR platform's envelope will host the new 6.?mm NATO Service Cartridge, then so will the MCR. It has already been successfully tested in 6.8 spc.
I agree that the days of the dedicated, belt-fed, rifle-calibre LMG in the Section/Squad support role are numbered. The MCR however is a different kettle of fish which offers the flexibility to optimize a basic service rifle/carbine for use as a sustained Fire Support Weapon while retaining rifle-like accuracy. It is a capability enhancement rather than a completely different Weapon system, with inherent savings in manufacturing capacity and end-user training.
Last edited:
Bartok,
Agreed that platform would be better than the C9, but even then, how much would it be worth it to still have another platform?
That would be more like the F1 C1/C2 platform, but the main difference being that the stock C7 is already capable of automatic fire.
The counter-argument is "Being 'capable' does not mean it's really designed for sustained automatic fire" is right, but the whole point is that we've found that sustained automatic fire isn't really that effective at killing the enemy compared to precise aimed single shots. Auto sounds good in theory when we think of defensive positions like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, but that's such a low probability of happening that it's not worth it for a rifleman/machinegunner to carry them. If we ever have a dedicated static position, then by all means load it up with as many MGs as possible.
My stance is that there's really only two times a soldier would use automatic to good effect:
- Clearing something from extremely close range, be it a trench or a room if the battlespace allows it.
- As a last ditch "Holy-sh!t I'm surrounded and they're not taking me alive" effort.
Either one of those cases would be within the automatic capability of the C7 without destroying it.
For everyone else, sorry for the mini thread jack.
Agreed that platform would be better than the C9, but even then, how much would it be worth it to still have another platform?
That would be more like the F1 C1/C2 platform, but the main difference being that the stock C7 is already capable of automatic fire.
The counter-argument is "Being 'capable' does not mean it's really designed for sustained automatic fire" is right, but the whole point is that we've found that sustained automatic fire isn't really that effective at killing the enemy compared to precise aimed single shots. Auto sounds good in theory when we think of defensive positions like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, but that's such a low probability of happening that it's not worth it for a rifleman/machinegunner to carry them. If we ever have a dedicated static position, then by all means load it up with as many MGs as possible.
My stance is that there's really only two times a soldier would use automatic to good effect:
- Clearing something from extremely close range, be it a trench or a room if the battlespace allows it.
- As a last ditch "Holy-sh!t I'm surrounded and they're not taking me alive" effort.
Either one of those cases would be within the automatic capability of the C7 without destroying it.
For everyone else, sorry for the mini thread jack.
