M231 Port Firing Weapon

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

For a different game I had a character take a M231 and after putting on a scope they modified a M249 collapsing buttstock to fit on the firearm. it looked something like the folllowing.

Great photoshopping, but I don't see the point when there are AR-15s and AK-47 clones growing from every tree. It does have the "cool factor" though.

[Rockwolf66]

The idea was to take a a gun that wasn't effective and some parts off a broken weapon and make an effective weapon.

Why they built firearms that were nearly useless off of a vehicle is beyond me. Did people never think that the crew of a disabled vehicle may need every bit of firepower they can lay their hands on?

[Brother in Arms]

I guess if they Bradley was broke down (threw a track or whatever) was forced to become a pill box having guns on the side could keep guys without RPG's from planting satchel charges on it....I dunno I think it failed in practice but was a decent concept.

[bobcat]

they were originaly designed to be useful disounted. hence why they still have the equipment carrying handle for mounting optics. they also were meant to have a collapsing buttstock. this was removed from the final design because army brass were afraid soldiers would actually dare using the weapons outside of the vehicle.

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by bobcat

they were originaly designed to be useful disounted. hence why they still have the equipment carrying handle for mounting optics. they also were meant to have a collapsing buttstock. this was removed from the final design because army brass were afraid soldiers would actually dare using the weapons outside of the vehicle.

Which actually happened in practice. My friend above and the members of his unit prefered the M231 in CQB to the M16. Not only was it a shorter weapon, it's rate of fire was impressive.

http://youtu.be/hjVE6bocSNk

[.45cultist]

I think the parts are available to do a closed bolt, semi reproduction. A unique survivor weapon for an NPC.

[jester]

Hmmm, I may have to build one just to see.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

The idea was to take a a gun that wasn't effective and some parts off a broken weapon and make an effective weapon.

Why they built firearms that were nearly useless off of a vehicle is beyond me. Did people never think that the crew of a disabled vehicle may need every bit of firepower they can lay their hands on?

As far as Army doctrine goes, the answer is no.

I date back to the transition time between M48/M60 and M1, my experiences may shed some light. Tankers were always considered to be weapon system operators, self defense took a very far second place. Primary weapon for a tanker was a pistol, on the 48/60 series, you had two M3 series SMGs, and it was not unusual to see the older WWII M3, that was it. Others weapons was the M-2HB or M85 .50 HMG or a M73/M219 coax with no ground mount. Yes tankers had training on the M16 during our Basic/AIT, but the only personnel assigned rifles were some of the mechanics and the headquarters platoon personnel.

When the M1 came out, the SMGs were removed, in some units, and replaced by a single M16. The amusing thing was there was no additional training on the rifle and it was treated as a pain in the arse. You now had two M240s, and there was talk about discounting one, but both were the coax versions and could only be used dismounted with a great deal of trouble.

There was always a lot of talk about a ground mount kit for the loaders mg, but I only saw one kit in the six years I spent on the M1.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

As far as Army doctrine goes, the answer is no.

I date back to the transition time between M48/M60 and M1, my experiences may shed some light. Tankers were always considered to be weapon system operators, self defense took a very far second place. Primary weapon for a tanker was a pistol, on the 48/60 series, you had two M3 series SMGs, and it was not unusual to see the older WWII M3, that was it. Others weapons was the M-2HB or M85 .50 HMG or a M73/M219 coax with no ground mount. Yes tankers had training on the M16 during our Basic/AIT, but the only personnel assigned rifles were some of the mechanics and the headquarters platoon personnel.

When the M1 came out, the SMGs were removed, in some units, and replaced by a single M16. The amusing thing was there was no additional training on the rifle and it was treated as a pain in the arse. You now had two M240s, and there was talk about discounting one, but both were the coax versions and could only be used dismounted with a great deal of trouble.

There was always a lot of talk about a ground mount kit for the loaders mg, but I only saw one kit in the six years I spent on the M1.

You are correct that it is not Military Doctrine but for some commands it is. I started with tanks (spent about ten years, all with M-1/IPM-1/M1-A1's) after they had officially made the switch (about eight years after) but we still had the M1911A1, and M3's, we also had two dismount kits for each tank (one for loaders and second for Coaxial). They fought and delayed as long as they could the switch to the M9/M16. Now I am not saying that the M16 is a bad weapon, but it is a bad weapon for tanks. My brother was in the same unit years later and they switched from the M16 to the M4 as quick as they could (at a one M16 for two M4).