# The FN MK48 MOD 0 Machine Gun



## Spr.Earl (4 Dec 2004)

Heres a link.
I like the sounds of it.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Mk48,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl


----------



## Tpr.Orange (4 Dec 2004)

Doesn't look half bad. I love the picture with it frozen in ice...saying the weapon can handle extreme conditions


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2004)

Seems like an excellent suppliment to the C-6. I'd rather be humping that through the woods any day.


----------



## bubba (4 Dec 2004)

looks like a nice peice of kit,for closen with an destroyin :skull:


----------



## m_a_c (8 Dec 2004)

It looks like an excellent weapon.  The frozen picture is interesting...


----------



## ibucephalus (8 Dec 2004)

A 7.62 version of the C9? Is that like a light version of the C6? It seems an excellent upgrade to an existing system but hardly revolutionary.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

Yes it is basically an upscale Mk46 (SF M249/C9)


----------



## Gunnerlove (8 Dec 2004)

It took almost 60 years to improve the FN MAG. I hope this new gun will stand the test of time.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

It won't is the the same disposable machien gun construction as the C9/M249/Mk46

  To lightly constructed to have a long service life.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Dec 2004)

If you read the (rather poorly written) article, you'll note that it is not a replacement for the platoon GPMG, but a section weapon for SOF use.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2004)

Dude I got to use one  ;D I know a few guys who work for FNMI...

I know what it is for - the problem is - some posting on here did not seem to understand that...


----------



## Britney Spears (10 Dec 2004)

> I know what it is for



Comment wasn't directed at you, as much as I like pushing my luck around here, I'm not quite ready to give the infamous *KevinB* any weapons lectures yet. Give me a few more weeks. 

My point was 


> some posting on here did not seem to understand that...


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2004)

I figured that you knew that I knew that I knew that I -- well you get the idea...  ;D


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Seems like an excellent suppliment to the C-6. I'd rather be humping that through the woods any day.


Got that right.


----------



## Kal (18 Dec 2004)

The MK48 will be most appreciated in fibua and urban ops.  All it needs is a collapsible stock and your good to go.  Almost makes me want to hump all that 7.62 ammo.


----------



## Argyll (26 Dec 2004)

Looks like a rather promising weapon system, I mean what soldier wouldn't want the advantages of the c-9 with the punch of 7.62?  If it's anything like what we've seen from FN in the past then whoever gets it is gonna be one lucky SOB, but what are our chances?


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2004)

Adair said:
			
		

> Looks like a rather promising weapon system, I mean what soldier wouldn't want the advantages of the c-9 with the punch of 7.62?   If it's anything like what we've seen from FN in the past then whoever gets it is gonna be one lucky SOB, but what are our chances?


ZERO
 It is SOF specific weapon - it is not designed for general usage.

 What advantages of the C9?


----------



## bossi (26 Dec 2004)

CFN. Orange said:
			
		

> ... I love the picture with it frozen in ice...saying the weapon can handle extreme conditions


(kinda reminds me of my windshield washer pump this week ...)

Yup - it's interesting to see two conflicting schools of thought clash - the 5.56 vs. 7.62 debate again.
Sure, the C9 uses the same calibre as all the C7's in the section, but ... it's kinda like the Hallmark card commercial ("... when you care enough to send the best ...") - it's nice to have covering fire that's a little more "potent" ... $0.02


----------



## KevinB (26 Dec 2004)

I disagree that is is a conflicting school - 7.62mm has range that 5.56mm does not - Cinder block wall - 7.62 is much more effective.

More after supper.


----------



## bossi (26 Dec 2004)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I disagree that is is a conflicting school - 7.62mm has range that 5.56mm does not - Cinder block wall - 7.62 is much more effective.



While you're chowing down ... I think you might have misunderstood me.
I'm in favour of 7.62 - I was merely pointing out that somebody, somewhere, thought it was a good idea to make the C9's the same calibre as the C7's (instead of keeping both C6 and C9 as 7.62)


----------



## KevinB (28 Dec 2004)

I see (and I forgot about this topic for a day)

 The Mk48 does have parts compatibility with the Mk46 (about 40% IIRC) however in keeping the weight down they have made a gun that does not do well under Sustained Fire situations.

 It will not mount in our (well Brit) SF kits (I admit this is a poor reason as they are prety much toast now anyway).

The Mk48 came out of a USSOC desire to have a lightweight 7.62mm - the Mk43 (M60E4 variant) and other shorty LW 7.62mm guns have been tried and this was FN's responce.

 However while you can sit down and put out 12K from a C6 in one afternoon  ;D The Mk48 will simply self destruct (like the C9 in those situations)  The savings in weight is done at the expense of part robustness.


----------

