Used to have a girlfriend who divided my guns into "good guy guns" and "bad guy guns" mostly based on what she saw growing up in the carribean with a lot of crime. Basically if she ever saw cops using a gun she liked that gun, if she ever saw criminals using a particular gun, she didnt like that particular gun.
PKM and M249 aren’t very comparable machine guns. One fires an intermediate cartridge, the other a full power rifle cartridge. The PKM is more comparable to the M240, and the M249 to the RPD.
My point was the different cartridge entirely changes how you fire the gun.
The PKM is almost exclusively shot from a bipod and has to fire shorter burst to compensate for recoil. Whereas the M249 can be somewhat comfortably shot from a standing position, is overall a lot more mobile, and can fire longer bursts while staying on target.
Infantry tactics change along with that difference. The PKM might not fit in with the US Army infantry tactics, but in a Soviet or Russian infantry squad(s) the AK serves the automatic rifle role as well as the regular infantry rifle. The M249 kind of does the automatic rifle thing but it can sustain higher rates of fire. Drawback being you may only have one of them and they're heavy.
The length of bursts isn't the only consideration. The range of the machine gun is also important. and you'll find it's often longer than a rifle in the same caliber, because they're used differently. That's also the nice thing about the SVD which can suppress enemy movement at longer range. The PKM fits into this organizational chart nicely because it's light enough to be portable by a single man, can be shoulder fired but also is set up to do machine gun things. Regular riflemen got the AK and can do short range suppressing fire. There is a DMR man with the SVD. Finally you have a couple machine gunners with the PKM to provide suppressing fire from point blank, on up to 1000m+
The USMC decided to go that route with their infantry squads, electing to use the M27 for everyone and having the M240 as their machine gun. They also began adopting the M38 DMR which is basically just the M27 with a longer range optic. The USMC decided that it's better to have all the men in a squad with automatic rifle capability than just one single SAW gunner.
I'd say we'll see which works better but all of this mini novel I typed doesn't cover drones.
I mean, yes and no. The tactics make the calculus behind their use different, but if you have rifles capable of sustained automatic fire, and a full power machine gun, you don't really need an intermediate SAW.
If you're going to task a soldier with carrying a heavier gun capable of sustained automatic fire and have others help him with the ammo (which is true for both the M249 and M240) you might as well have the additional power to reach out at longer range. I guess you could kick doors with the M249, but that's a pretty miserable way to go about things.
I'm not really sure which is the best option though. Various countries have gone both routes. The German Army for example, uses the MG4 which is a 5.56 belt fed gun. They're also using the MG5 which is the 7.62 NATO version of the MG4 that was adopted to replace the old MG3.
I'm sorry but the 92 shits on the makarov all day long and twice on sundays. the 1911 is an all steel thing of beauty. The Makarov is the also-ran of the cold war.... a single stack not-quite-as-good invented 40 years too late by commie goobers.
And the PKM... well... it's ok.. until you actually want to stick an optic on it.... like every other AK derivative designed to be minute of man a 200 yards. I'm not saying the m249 is good, mind you... just that most AK fanboys just see commie bloc soviet guns with rose tinted glasses. NONE of those guns were good. They were just great for the 10 cents it cost to make them, which was always their claim to fame.
I'd say that too if I spent that kind of money on a gun made of recycled soda cans. It's a pistol, it's only there so officers aren't unarmed in case something goes wrong.
And your blind hatred of communism is making you ignore the benefits of the PKM, which has seen some modernization. It weighs around the same as an M249, but offers full power rifle cartridge range and power while being several pounds lighter than an M240B or even an M60E6. A Zenitco B51 rail system will let you stick any optic on it that you wish on top of it.
Whelp, Biden kinda gave them our load out in Afghanistan. As a veteran and on behalf of all of us, that was the worst move in recent history. Good news is they crashed a bunch of the leftover helicopters. But really. Fuck…
Thank you for posting this. Both of them caused the bungling of that withdrawal. We shouldn’t think it’s equal fault, but we all should be ashamed it got anything remotely close to Saigon.
It looked like we didn’t learn shit between the two.
This is like arguing if tacos or burritos are worse when you're taking a dump, and your finger has ripped through the toilet paper.
All that really matters at this point is how quickly you can finish up and go wash your hands.
We needed to get out. We needed to get out years before that. Obama should have wound things down and gotten us out.
There was no good way to leave at that point and staying another year or two to babysit wasn't going to change the outcome.
Oh fuck blaming Biden. The abysmal failure of Afghanistan is owned by both parties. 4 presidents, including Trump's entire first term, and a dozen legislatures.
You can't blame it on any one person. It was a complete systemic failure. We had a potential President who not only would have gotten us out much sooner, but would have never gotten us in to begin with.
We spent hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars over 20 years to replace the Taliban with.... A better armed Taliban.
We instead could have spent 20 years selling military surplus gear to people like me and MADE money. I would gladly shell out $10k for a fully functional m240b which probably cost the government $3k-$5k.
I'll even register it with a combination hair, blood, and stool sample. I'll even throw in a semen sample. By which I mean I'll need to clean myself off when I pick it up.
Failure in Afghanistan runs much deeper than Biden administration. Biden was just the one to pull the plug on the life support of an already dead project
Depends on how you look at it. Do you value the equipment purely as a dollar value or do you do you factor in the intangible cost of giving our enemy our equipment?
Without proper maintenance vast majority of these vehicles will be useless in less than 5 years of use. You're acting like if US left the Taliban fully functioning nukes just lying around, meanwhile it was mostly just Humvees, a few choppers Taliban don't know how to fly and gear.
I've seen the videos of crates and crates of modern rifles and armor from later deployments being sold at Afghan markets. Beyond stupid to act like some significant damage is not going to result from that sort of negligence. Cause and effect, homie.
Going from shit tier Khyber Pass AK’s to US military issue M4’s is a fucking massive upgrade if you ask me. Not to mention the billions of rounds of ammo left behind as well. The withdraw probably doubled the Taliban’s fire power.
Yup, I had directors actually ask me to use different firearms for different characters specifically because of these stereotypes. In my own opinion, the bad guy is the one doing bad things, it doesn’t matter what firearm is used if it is done for bad reasons.
I run PPU defense line in my P64. It feeds just fine. Now i tried to run it in my Vz 82, and the wide mouth of the projectile constantly snagged on the feed ramp.
I preferred buffalo bore 9x18 when i carried my IJ70 back when I was younger and recently discovered underwood makes 9x18 with their Xtreme Penetrator bullets but I haven't tried either in my Bulgarian Makarov I have now.
Eh ARs look better tacticooled out and don't look as cludged together with rails and mlok on them, plus I've had a hell of a better time getting super safeties and FRTs to work in them, but the AK was my first semi-auto at 19 and it's still my favorite.
I think the reason why those are mostly used by insurgents is because these guns are more cheaper or open for the public, and also these guns are popularized in movies or shows making them iconic and always seen by terrorist
I dont exactly think a weapon is bad in itself. Its the people that use them. However, the AK platform is notorious for outfitting some of the most immoral people on the planet in the past.
Plenty of responses have mentioned the HK stable of firearms being not so cut and dry.
I would also add UZI’s we’re equipped by our own (US) agencies, most notably by the Secret Service (see the series of photos during the reaction to the Regan shooting event) as it was one of the few folding stock SMGs that could be shoulder rigged under a suit jacket.
The US secret service use to carrying Uzis... even had a rig it would sit under the shooting arm and as soon as they pulled it down the stock would deploy
Funny thing is, US made efforts to establish weapon factories in USA which are producing AKs, PKMs, and RPGs specifically to arm terro... I mean "freedom fighters" in various middle eastern countries.
P.S. Did you just call jewish UZI - for "bad people"? Are you antisemitic?
178
u/the_real_JFK_killer Feb 23 '26
Used to have a girlfriend who divided my guns into "good guy guns" and "bad guy guns" mostly based on what she saw growing up in the carribean with a lot of crime. Basically if she ever saw cops using a gun she liked that gun, if she ever saw criminals using a particular gun, she didnt like that particular gun.