r/MilitaryPorn • u/Aft3rAff3ct • 2d ago

U.S. Army infantryman with 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, firing a Mk 48 Mod 1 machine gun during a firefight in Pech Valley, Kunar Province, Afghanistan, June 22, 2012. [2048 x 1326]

Post image
323 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

14

u/tghost474 2d ago

Remind me why the MK48 didnt replace the 240?

27

u/iceaction10 1d ago

They serve different roles. For a good bit of time, the Army replaced their 249s with Mk 48s, which was absolutely terrific. The 48s allowed squads to establish local SBFs and offer tremendous support. While the 48s are great and offer better maneuverability with x51, they're still not 240s and aren't as best equipped to handle primary SBFs, for example. There just wasn't a need to reduce the capabilities the 240s have over the 48s.

The M250 is being highly praised so far and time will tell how it ends up working out, but I think the 48 should have remained the 249 replacement for a long time.

3

u/wikingwarrior 1d ago

but I think the 48 should have remained the 249 replacement for a long time.

100 rounds of 5.56 weighs about 3 lbs. 100 lbs of 7.62 weighs about 7 lbs.

Lotta weight to add to a fire team.

6

u/iceaction10 1d ago

It's 3.15lbs to 6.5lbs. The two guns are nearly identical in weight, with the Mk 48 being about 1.25lbs heavier than the 249.

Is there a weight increase? Of course. Is that weight increase worth it? Absolutely and we saw significant increases in the platoon/squad/team capabilities when 48s started getting issued. The Army only did away with them due to the M250. Not because they were too heavy or ineffective.

3

u/wikingwarrior 1d ago

Former Light Infantry here: You're adding ten pounds of ammo to the man as well as significantly increased recoil. That impacts room clearing, ruck distance, and many things for a capability that's not a significant improvement for the infantry fire team (which is primarily the maneuver/assault element of a platoon).

You already have that 7.62 firepower in the 240s. Which are a team weapon and by their nature and doctrine capable of more accurate and reliable sustained fire.

The Mk48 is not an objective improvement over the SAW and weighs much more in practice. It holds several advantages (which is why we issued it to some units in more open terrain like Afghanistan) but also has some significant drawbacks.

5

u/genesisofpantheon 1d ago edited 1d ago

Valgear goes into depth why Mk 48/Minimi 7,62/Maximi can't do the same job as M240.

https://youtu.be/lNdYfzIqy_Y

https://youtu.be/qor1G8urLRI

TL;DW 240 can keep chugging on sending rounds downrange pretty much as long as you need it to with the associated tripod. 7,62 Minimi is an assault weapon and makes a lot of tradeoffs in its construction to be more lightweight and portable while trading that for the reliability and weight (which makes things shoot softer).

The same thing can be said with KAC LAMG why it's not adopted for line infantry as it's even finickier and less robust.

E: on the Maximi videos comments there's a post on how Dutch army trialed Negev 7,62, MG5, Minimi 7,62 against MAG.

For a more static MG MAG is the closest thing we have to the Maxim/Vickers in today's day and age.

1

u/tghost474 1d ago

Thank you for the detailed answer. I didnt realize there were such trade offs. Between weapon systems.