<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US Army looking for lighter .50 machine gun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/</link>
	<description>Firearms not Politics</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jcamelo</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-3160</link>
		<dc:creator>Jcamelo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-3160</guid>
		<description>Sounds like what they need is an XM312 .50 cal.

they are way lighter and more portable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like what they need is an XM312 .50 cal.</p>
<p>they are way lighter and more portable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tiger</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-2380</link>
		<dc:creator>Tiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-2380</guid>
		<description>Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not change the material? Instead of a new gun, build a M2 out of Titanium or Scandium with a Carbon fiber barrel?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not change the material? Instead of a new gun, build a M2 out of Titanium or Scandium with a Carbon fiber barrel?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-1652</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-1652</guid>
		<description>I read that the problem with the XM312 was the slow rate of fire (260 rounds/min), half the rate of the M2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read that the problem with the XM312 was the slow rate of fire (260 rounds/min), half the rate of the M2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daverino</title>
		<link>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-1651</link>
		<dc:creator>Daverino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/03/03/us-army-looking-for-lighter-50-machine-gun/#comment-1651</guid>
		<description>Sounds like the XM312 would be good fit. If they haven't canceled the program that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like the XM312 would be good fit. If they haven&#8217;t canceled the program that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
