|
My experience with three different m249s issued while deployed to Iraq (If the number of weapons issued isn't telling enough).
Weapon system 1: Issued day of deployment from Ft. Campbell. Survived the journey to Kuwait. Survived 4 days of acclimatization. On the 5th day survived loading onto bus, along with 2 hour hop to mid-way range (sand dunes). Pronounced dead on range. Reason: parts broke off in trigger assembly, disappeared in sand; Parts utilized SERE training to evade detection including by magnet.
Weapon system 2: Issued upon arrival at FOB. Weapon taken to nearby range for test-fire. Attempted dis-assembly for cleaning. Found bolt was lodged in barrel. Weapon dead-lined.
Weapon system 3: Tied-on parts with 550 cord to ensure they'd stay together. Barrel change modified to include severing cord. Broken sights, negligible issue considering close engagement zone.
Weapon fills one role well. Ability to accept single 5.56 rounds and be hand linked back into a belt. Good capability for if you have the ammunition available and get stuck in an Alamo situation. Aside from that this is a useless ability.
Experience with 240:
One weapon issued before deployment, but staged in company weapons conex for shipping to Iraq. Survived deployment with minimal repairs/downtime.
Lacks shoulder fire capability (at least comfortable and accurate shoulder capability)
Awesome weapon in the right caliber to actually kill something.
As accurate a weapon as you'll ever need to spew lead in 3-5 round bursts.
Fairly susceptible to jamming without proper upkeep/otherwise highly reliable.
Fills multiple roles.
In defense of the 249s I was issued, each was a hand-me-down from recently returned BCTs so they'd taken much abuse and been given little shop time.
If my opinion counts for anything, I believe that the 249 should be continued. Replacing a belt-fed automatic rifle with a weapon that is essentially the same as what the rest of a team is already carrying makes no sense to me at all. If they're going to go this route and phase out the belt-fed, why not just issue more m4/m16s?
|