[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: M240 (2).jpg (575 KB, 1883x1059)
575 KB
575 KB JPG
M240B is great. Belgium gets my vote for best automatic weapons manufacturers. Either that or Germany. Any other contenders?
>>
>>39150555
>i miss that gun
>>
The PKM weighs half as much and it's more reliable.
>>
File: 1536945020928.gif (357 KB, 263x239)
357 KB
357 KB GIF
>>39150555
My personal favorite.
>>
>>39151055

Does the PKM have nearly a dozen different varients suited to everything from dismounted infantry to coax mounts?
>>
Bitch is too goddamn heavy for dismounted operations, gimme a Mk 48 any day
>>
File: Pkmt.jpg (11 KB, 600x134)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>39151095
Uhhh... yeah?
>>
>>39151055
>More reliable
Lmao. You aren't touching a box receiver machine gun in terms of reliability and durability.
>>39151097
MK48 a shit. Luckily America isn't a poorfag country so it can buy titanium gucci 240ls.

Honestly the Barrett 240lws is amazing too.
>>
File: 1524116620202.jpg (51 KB, 499x500)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>39150555
>M240 is great
Have you used one? t. former assistant gunner
>>
>>39151095
Obviously. There's even 7.62x51 variants in service.
>>
>>39151146
> box receiver machine gun

now you are just making shit up. wtf is "box receiver" supposed to mean? the receiver is box-y? well, so is the receiver of the PKM you faggot.

>M240lws

you fucking cod faggot. that thing is barely lighter than a mk 48, and still heavier than a PKM while doing the same job. I doubt you ever held any of these guns, and certainly never had to work them. go home, sit down, shut up.
t. former PKM gunner
>>
File: Bez-tytułu.jpg (24 KB, 447x218)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
The ultimate GPMG had already been created, and it's the Polish UKM-2000.

>weight of a PKM
>fires 7.62 NATO
>folding stock
>picatinny rail to use non slav-shit optics
>true quick change barrel unlike the PK's locking wedge under the feed tray

Belgian waffle gat 240 can't get close to this thing.
>>
>>39151359
>t. former PKM gunner
fucking cod faggot
>>
File: ItAintMe_in_Danish.jpg (404 KB, 2048x1365)
404 KB
404 KB JPG
Haven't heard much about the M60E6, apparently fixed most of the issues with the original
>>
>>39151359
What foreign military were you in where you got to use the glorious PKM?
>>
>>39150555
Checked, gotta admit as much as Belgium is a meme country, some of the best manufacturers hail from there.
>>
>>39151635
still has the pk shitty bipod
>>
File: target.jpg (165 KB, 2048x1536)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>39151176
Eh, I'm decent with it.
>>
>>39151867
They did? Great travel back in time and tell 1950s Colt how to unfuck their product. Also It still need tools to simply field strip it.
>>
File: 20161216_145323.jpg (1.27 MB, 2560x1920)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
>>39151939

I was with YPG, a Syrian militia.
>>
>>39153584
In Australia?
>>
>>39151635
>UKM-2000
>It is worth noting that the UKM-2000P weighs almost a kilogram (2 lbs) more than the PKM, while hosting a barrel about 10 cm (4”) shorter than the original. This difference is attributed primarily to a longer receiver and larger, heavier belt feed unit.

The PKM is light because you bleed off bolt speed pulling the rimmed rounds backwards out of the belt and then push them leisurely forward into the chamber. A smaller, shorter return spring is okay.


Nato push through links are shit because you have to have a big long spring not only to catch all the energy of the bolt coming backwards, but to slam it forward hard enough to break through the resistance of push through links and chamber a round.
>>
Every LMG gunner will say theirs is the best and decry every other LMG as shit.

They are all roughly the same in capability and have benefits and flaws. Personally I'd rate whichever is the lightest while being capable and reliable as the best, purely because LMGs tend to be pig fat for no reason, probably due to how GPMGs and M60s were so prolific in the West.

I'd give it to the PKM solely on it being both of those things, especially since you can get 7.62x51 variants as well so don't need to worry about slavshit rounds.
>>
>>39153830

lol. idk why it does that, they are all shown right on my fucking system, but whenever i upload those pictures it fucking turns them around. somewhere along me transferring them from phone to phone shit got messed up.
>>
>>39153884
PKM is 16.5lb
The 7.62x51 variants are 2lb heavier.
Ex: UZM = 18.5lb,

The HK21 is lighter at 17.5 lb if you want NATO
>>
hey you fucking weapons pigs. Do air guys, armored guys all have the same machine gun training as infantry? I would assume crew chiefs and armored guys have different training for their roles than a guy digging a machine gun pit or doing talking guns.
>>
File: 240B.jpg (133 KB, 640x480)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>39150567
I hear you.
>>
>>39151055
Isn't it funny how Russian stuff is always better but isn't ever better.
>>
>>39154160
It gets the job done. IMO russkies small arms biggest drawbag is bad QA at ammo production (or ME produced shit), but mechanically, it is very good, and the fact that its lighter isnt to be underestimated considering its mainly an infantry weapon.
>>
File: IMG_20170808_212645_837.jpg (1.41 MB, 1536x1536)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB JPG
>>39150567
Same
>>
File: ukm2000p-d.jpg (97 KB, 1024x674)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>39153884
>>39151635
this
>>39153864
Its an FN MAG with PKM styling not a PKM in 7.62 NATO, pic related
>>
>>39154308
mid 2000s they taught us to have legs together when firing so rounds fired back dont hit. They change that once again?
>>
>>39154872

2013 legs out
>>
>>39153884
Nope. I was a SAW gunner and the 249 is shit
>>
>>39154933
yeah, 249 is trash.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.