Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "How NATO's M240 Machine Gun Fits Their Tactics" video.

  1. Actually the M240 choice had been casual. The one exposed is an explanation "a posteriori" As said, the US army selected the M60, that's more of a "PKM" style machinegun (but way less durable), light and way less apt to sustained fire than the M240. The M240 had been selected as vehicular MG (where weight has no importance) only due to the utter failure of the domestically designed M73 and M279. Then the Marines equipped themselves of M240 dismounted from vehicles simply because their M60s were worn-out beyond usability. Then the Army followed the Marines without even a real competition, because to keep the M60 operative was becoming way too expensive and time-consuming. The M240 is heavy only because it has a riveted construction and a BAR style bolt. In respect to a monolitic construction (like for the PKM) a riveted one must be heavier for the same durability, and a BAR-style bolt, locking on the rear of the receiver, requires a more sturdy receiver than a rotating bolt. so yes, the M240 is very durable, but made differently it could have had the same durability weighting less. Also mind that many NATO countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey,Greece, Spain, Portugal...) use the MG3.
    2