Re: Machineguns

[MathesonT@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 7/2/2001 1:29:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
salamndr@3web.net writes:


> While the M-249 is an excellent weapon, there are rumors that the US Armed 
> Forces would most likely had chosen something like the Chartered Industries 
> Ultimax, had it existed at the time of the contract tender. This was due to 
> its versatility (they have short barrels, silencers, the STANAG Magazines 
> fit in the same well as the 100rd drum, and even a tactical kit!) A very 
> big selling point for people who have to, "bring it all" with them. 


Weapons such as the Ameli and Minimi-Para were available at the time of the 
M249 adoption, but they never stood a chance.  Two factors were in play.  
First, US Army command was very much against infantry having weapons with 
collapsible stocks and other gadgets (dumb I know but a reality).  Second, 
the USMC was a partner in development and they wanted a crew served weapon.  
They still deploy the M249 with two-man crew and T&E.

Times have changed for the Army.  Current M249s mostly have collapsing 
stocks, all have rail systems for optical sights, and some units are 
authorized short barrels.  Special operations has the M249 LSW/Mark 46 Mod 0 
which is a stripped down M249 featuring a very short barrel (406mm), 
collapsible stock, no STANAG feed and full rail system.  As time goes by you 
will see more of these components appearing on infantry weapons.

The Ultimax was evaluated by SEALs and rejected, leading them into the Mark 
46 Mod 0 development.  Ameli performed very badly in US Army testing.  SAS 
has shelved theirs in favor of Diemaco C8 SFSWs.  

For ME purposes I would rank SAW/LMGs as;
FNMI Mark 46 Mod 0/M249 LSW
Diemaco C8 SFSW (very cose to tied with above)
H&K MG36
Ultimax 100
M249/Minimi
Ameli
anything else

Rob