M249 SAW in 7.62x40mm WT / .300 AAC BLK / 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm Conversion Kit

The US Machine Gun Armory have developed a set of kits to convert the MK46 / M249 SAW into a range of 7.62mm calibers including the 7.62x39mm, 7.62x40mm Wilson Tactical, .300 AAC BLK and 7.62x51mm. All that is required is swapping out the top-cover, barrel and a few other parts.

The 7.62x40mm WT is available to purchase now for $866, with the rest of the kits going on sale after SHOT Show next year.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • I’ve always thought a good modifier for the SAW would be a feed tray capable of accepting an “assault drum” like the MG42 had.

    • noob

      I think they were hoping that a Betamag in the emergency magwell would do that, with the only flaw in that plan was that the plan was a complete failure.

      • charles222

        lol. I thought I’d seen an ad or something for a SAW C-mag, but I can’t seem to find a thing about it on Google.

  • Sid

    I have no experience with the 7.62×40 ammo. But I am fairly certain the the 7.62×51 NATO ammo will overpower the M249 frame. As issued, it is not meant to handle the higher recoil. Hear me: I am not saying that it cannot fire it. I am saying that it will be a very unpleasant and inaccurate ordeal.

    The M249 is being phased out of maneuver units in the USMC in favor of the IAR. The M249 will see limited use in fixed positions and support. I just can’t see the kits as being useful. Using the kits, you will take a weapon very capable of firing a 5.56 round and turn it into a weapon barely capable of firing an intermediate round.

    In my opinion.

  • West

    Have them cleaned and sent to my home in a plain paper package.

  • Other Steve

    7.62×40 Wilson is beyond stupid compared to 300blk. Why would they even bother?

    • 18D

      They bothered so you can have a 7.62 caliber AR15 without changing anything other than the barrel, which makes it extrmely cost effective. The WT cartridge has some nice Ballistics as well.

      • Other Steve

        Yea… Except that there is already whisper and 300blk.

        There is and never will be any support for x40WT. You really think it’ll ever get near the support of 300blk, 6.5, 6.8 or x39 for AR? So, I’ll ask again, why bother?

      • 18D

        There isn’t much support for the 7.62×39 in AR15 type rifles and the 6.8 SPC has lost a lot of steam as of late. The WT cartridge has quite a bit of appeal to shooters that want a 7.62 load for their AR15 rifles without breaking the bank.

      • 18D

        BTW, The 7.62×40 WT has slightly better Ballistics than the .300 BLK. With the WT cartridge, I only have to change the barrel in my gun, and I get slightly more efficient Ballistics than the AAR loading. What’s not to like?

  • Nater

    FN makes what is essentially a M249 chambered in 7.62x51mm, the US military knows it as the Mk 48 Mod 0. I can’t speak to durability, I’m guessing that it’s probably at least as good as the M60E3/4 it’s replaced in SOCOM, but that isn’t saying a whole lot. I’d venture it’s not nearly as tough as the M240B/G, but few MGs are. It’s a niche weapon, when a lightweight 7.62 NATO machine gun is needed.

    The 7.62x51mm conversion is the only one that I see a use for, the others might be interesting to some private collector that owns a SAW (however few there are) but that is about all.

    • Sid

      True.

      But the Mk48 Mod ) is not a M249 with some internal changes. It is a new frame and all. Totally different weapon in the same pattern as the M249.

      I agree that the only kit that has a real market is the 7.62×51 as ammo in the other calibers will be like hens teeth.

    • 18D

      At least as good as the M60 E3/4? It puts those systems to shame! The MK48 is ridiculously reliable. We ran them in OEF, and I wouldn’t want anything else in my team.

      • mosinman

        dont know much about the m240-b or the m-60, what makes the m-240 better?

      • Lance

        @Mosinman

        The M-240 had a better barrel change and had optics added to it. The M-60 did well and still serves some roles (Navy and Coast Guard) in the Military today. But for general infantry the NATO standard MAG/M-240 is standard issue.

      • W

        the M240 is vastly superior to the M60 platform, just like the FN MAG was far ahead of the M60 (despite being older). The M60 is still used because of political bureaucracy, that is it. the few that are used by SOCOM are liked for their lightweight, though the E3 variant has a even lighter barrel that cannot match the sustained firepower of the FN MAG platform. The only advantages of the M60 are its lighter weight, though this will be remedied by the Mk 48 and M240L.

        The M60 is the abysmal result, and perfect example, of what happens when corporations try firearms design instead of private inventors. Since the US military was so adamant about incorporating features of the idiosyncratic MG42 design, why didn’t they just copy the damn thing!?

      • mosinman

        @lance well if thats the case, couldnt they just modify the m-60’s barrel change and give it better optics?

      • Lance

        Can’t the M-60s receiver wont allow it. Some units still use 60s most use 240s that’s how it is.

  • Flounder

    THIS IS SOO AWESOME!!!
    Well… It would be. If anyone had a SAW. Well any civilians that is. I know there are a few real full auto SAW’s that people have or that are post dealer samples. And yes I know there is a semi auto only SAW copy or two out there. Though last I checked they cost somewhere in the realm of 13,000. So maybe this is just an example of what they can do…
    And i’ve only heard good things about the MK 48.

  • Bill

    Ahhh…but if it will run 7.62×39, it should run 6.5 Grendel….

    And that would be a game changer in many ways. Long range ballistics similar to 7.62×51, with half the recoil.

    • Other Steve

      No. Flight trajectory is not equal to energy is not equal to anything else.

      Grendel has it’s uses, but it’s not to replace 308 for a squad weapon.

      • Bill

        Who said anything about replacing 7.62? But it would make for a much more effective weapon than 5.56.

        PS, sorry about the double post above!

    • 18D

      Bill, the Grendel has long range Ballistics that are BETTER than the 7.62. The 6.8 SPC has similar long range trajectory to the 7.62 though.

    • 18D

      Any 5.56 gun will run the 6.5 Grendel.

      • Other Steve

        What? I think you’re mistaken there. 6.5 requires a 7.62×39 bolt head. Certainly not available for “any 5.56 gun”!!

        Maybe you meant 300blk because then your statement make more sense.

      • 18D

        So that’s why the 6.5 Grendel is chambered primarily in AR15 rifles? Your statement doesn’t make sense.

      • Amuse Bouche

        Chambered in AR-15 type rifles, using a 7.62×39 bolt.
        Just like those AR-15 rifles chambered in 7.62×39, funnily enough…

      • 18D

        No I’m not mistaken. The 6.5 Grendel is primarily chambered in AR15’s. AR15’s that are primarily chambered for the 5.56. The Grendel cartridge doesn’t use a 7.62×39 bolt. The 7.62×39 isn’t truly compatible with the AR15. The Grendel has a smaller case head diameter than the 7.62×39.

  • Bill

    BUT….if it will run 7.62×39, it should run 6.5 Grendel.

    And if it will run Grendel, that’s a game changer in many ways. 7.62×51 external ballistics with half the recoil!

  • Joe Schmoe

    What camouflage pattern is that on the SAW? It’s damn good.

  • Lance

    Its a awesome upgraded its sad that the Military wont goto another caliber there bought on 5.56mm NATO. 6.5mm would be the most logical upgrade.

    Note the M-60E4 is still in use with SEAL teams so is the 7.62mm version of the saw its up to the gunner to pick which weapon he wants.

  • Joe: I think that’s ATACS camo, not sure though.

  • Bart

    Nice vid of an noveske M249 with 300 AAC blackout
    http://www.aacblog.com/?p=8802

  • Gage

    It would have made better sense to chamber the M249 for something like 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC instead of 7.62×40 WT.

  • Nathaniel

    I am interested to know how they think they can convert it to 7.62x51mm, since it has a completely different OAL than 5.56. I am not super familiar with the 249’s operating mechanism, but my guess is that it won’t fit. The same is certainly true for virtually all other dedicated 5.56 platforms.

    7.62×40 seems of limited usefulness. Bad range compared to 5.56, OK terminals, probably not vastly better than the better 5.56 loads (Mk. 318, 62gr Gold Dot, etc). Much greater weight (more than 25% higher). Feeding has to be completely reworked, and if it’s not reliability will suffer. 7.62×39, being ballistically identical, shares the same downsides.

    .300 BLK only seems useful because of its subsonic loads. Without them, it would be in the same boat as the WT.

    6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel both have their downsides, but they’re better options than any of the .30 caliber offerings. With 6.8 SPC, I’d like to see higher velocity and smaller caliber, perhaps a 6.5mm shooting a 100gr bullet in the 2850 fps range. With the 6.5 Grendel, the 30 degree shoulder will likely hamper reliability, and should be changed. This should not greatly impact performance.

    • FN actually makes a 7.62x51mm FN Minimi, as does US Machine Gun Armory (its just conversion kits that are new).

      • TCBA_Joe

        Steve, while the MK48 is the 7.62×51 version of the Minimi, it’s a larger weapon overall to work with the larger round. It doesn’t have the same receiver as the MK46 or the M249. There is a MK48 conversion that allows the MK48 to feed 5.56.

        But, I do wonder how they got a larger length round into the shorter receiver, and what effect that has on the reliability and durability of the setup.

    • noob

      while we’re at it, has anybody managed to obtain and try out the 5.8×42 DBP87 Chinese in the AR-15 or M249 platform?

      I wonder what it would take to get 1000 unfired rounds for research and development purposes.

      • Gage

        I highly, HIGHLY doubt that Chinese made ammo would ever be imported. However, they did import some rifles in 5.56 to Canada if I remember.

      • Lance

        5.8 Chinese is known to over penetrate and both 5.56mm Mk-262 and 6.5mm are better than the Chinese round. If you want to go foreign 7.62×39 or 7.92 Kurzs would be far better. Even 5.45×39 would be better.

      • W

        the chinese round was never tested in the US that i know of. So rumors about its performance against the 5.56 and 5.45 should be ignored.

    • 18D

      The terminal ballistics of the WT cartridge are going to be substantially better than pretty much any 5.56 load.

      The MK318 does not use a Gold Dot.

      The 7.62×39 external ballistics are quite a bit different than the 7.62×40 WT, due to the fact that the 7.62×39 cartridge uses a different caliber bullet.

      • Other Steve

        “The 7.62×39 external ballistics are quite a bit different than the 7.62×40 WT, due to the fact that the 7.62×39 cartridge uses a different caliber bullet.”

        WHAT THE FU(K are you talking about!!!!

        The 7.62×39 uses a .311 bullet and the traditional 30 cals uses a .308 bullet. Don’t you dare start to claim that three thousands of an inch changes the ballistics in any sort of noticeable way.

        The x40 and x39 do not have different ballistics because of caliber of bullet, but COULD because of powder, rated pressure, and then ogive and general BC of bullets used. But to say because of a “different” caliber is absolutely incorrect!

        Just STOP IT! You are clearly misinformed!

      • 18D

        So, you say I’m incorrect, yet confirm my statement in the same comment. That’s interesting.

    • Lance

      It was tested in Canada and other places W it over penatrated and offerd no real advantage over 5.56 or 5.45mm.

  • elk hunter

    What about the 458 Socom? Near 45-70 ballistics. Don’t forget the buffalo hunters killed buffalo back in the 1870’s using 45-70’s at ranges up to 1000 yards.

    • noob

      While I think that a .458 SOCOM light machine gun (since the kit is for the minimi/M249/etc) would be an intimidating weapon, I have two questions to ask:

      1) recoil. both peak and sustained. Does a .458 SOCOM SAW need to be mounted on a vehicle? or can it still move with the squad without ripping the gunner’s rotator cuffs?

      2) ammo resource consumption. If you have one bullet that weighs 62gr and another that weighs 130gr, you can make two smaller projectiles out of the same amount of lead wire that you used on the bigger bullet. At what point does it become a bad idea to make a million rounds of big bullets when you could have made 5 million rounds of smaller ones?

  • Vector

    6.8 SPC or a reworked Grendal for feeding would be nice.

    I don’t think the weight makes sence if your going to the 300 BLK or Wilsons x40WT in a SAW platform, the SAW is long in tooth, and just needs a replacement. Start with a worked over Grendel, and make a lighter version of the IAR.

    The 300 Blackout is very specialized, and some groups could benefit with a suppressed SAW version, the x40 WT doesn’t really have the legs(or subsonic abilities). That link to the Suppressed SAW is pretty cool.

    The 6.5PCC is 5.56 based, and can fire a 85gr Bullet 2900fps. It would almost make more sence than the WT.

    The 300 Blackout is coming on strong, more ammo is coming on line, brass is still scarce, but places like http://www.BradsWarehouse.com has converted brass available, and I’m loving my Delta Company Arms upper.

    It’s good to see companies trying different Ideas, and SHOT could have many toys for us to drool over.

    • 18D

      What? The WT cartridge has slightly better performance than the .300 BLK. Not only that, but the WT has subsonic loadings. Any cartridge can be made in subsonic. So, in actuality the WT cartridge is more efficient than the AAC cartridge.

      • Other Steve

        “Any cartridge can be made in subsonic. ”

        OMFG YOU’RE KILLING ME HERE!

        Show me a loading for 22-250 subsonic please.

      • Other Steve

        Also, how is being able to load a MAX of a 150gr subsonic bullet make WT “More Efficient” than 300blk’s 220gr loads? How is it even comparable!? If I was topped out at 150gr, I would be hard pressed to just not use common 147gr 9mm! The whole idea behind 300blk is the option to use 110gr hunting ammo or 220gr subsonic in the same gun with the same gas settings.

        Let alone let’s just forget that “More Efficient” is bullshit. Going from .308 to .260 a case could be made for more efficient because of the superior BC of the 6.5mm bullets. You can’t say more efficient between two rounds that use the same exact bullet selection! At that point it’s pretty damn linear.

        What you meant to say was x40 is more “Versatile” but given that x40 runs 110-150, and 300blk runs 110-220gr that’s also incorrect.

  • Tommy big balls

    Seems like a waste of time to develop a kit to shoot unavailable ammo out of unavailable weapons. And 7.62×40 WT? Wow is that extra 1mm really gonna make it not just a ripoff of the Russians. Shall we just admit that SCHV was a stupid idea and now we’re saddled with weapons that shoot an inferior caliber. No amount of kits or whisper ammo is gonna make a diff. 6.8 or 6.5 i understand. Give me a AK-103 in 6.5. That would be the best gun I could ever imagine. 7.62×40 White Trash.

    • Other Steve

      The idea behind 300blk which is 7.62×35 and thus also the 7.62×40 isn’t to “rip off” the Russians, but it is recognizing that a heavy bullet has it’s purpose.

      The AAC and the WT rounds both allow a 30 cal bullet out of an AR. 30 cal is important because of the ridiculous bullet selection from 110gr- to 240gr+. AAC/Whisper uses a length that allows all the ranges of bullets to seat and feed in an AR magazine. WT trades subsonic performance for a little extra length, meaning those long bullets won’t fit and feed anymore but the supersonic can be pushed a little harder.

      The issue here is x39 in an AR just does not work well. Cracked bolts, rare mags, feeding issues, etc. The Russian x39 round also is very limited in bullet selection because it’s diameter is .311″ and not .308″ of 30 cal. The only heavy common bullets for it were meant for the Japanese WWII rifle the Arisaka and illogically the .303 British rifles.

      So, same desired effect, yes, rippoff, not quite. If you want to get into who copied whom, the 9mmx39mm round is the Russian copy of the Whisper idea. It’s a 9mm bullet stuffed in a cropped 7.62×39 case. Letting them use similar mags and bolts in their subsonic optional guns (AS VAL, VSS, etc).

  • Doug

    I find it funny that of all the calibers to convert a SAW to, they chose to include two obsolete (due to unavailability) calibers, not to mention the military is in no position to adopt new ones.

    The only conversion choices I see as viable are the 7.62×51 and x39. I don’t know the current policy on stocking captured piles of x39, but in a pinch this conversion would seem logical.

    • 18D

      Doug, I didnt see any obsolete cartridges listed. What are you talking about?

    • 18D

      Doug, I didn’t see any obsolete cartridges listed. What are you talking about?

      • Doug

        7.62×40 and 300blk. I don’t know about you but I’ve never seen either of those in a gun store yet. Let alone having enough made to be used as suppresive fire for the entire military.

  • 18D

    I don’t disagree with you there. Those two cartridges are not readily available on the ammo shelves. But, they are the exact opposite of obsolete!

  • Other Steve

    18D….

    “The Grendel cartridge doesn’t use a 7.62×39 bolt.”
    “So, in actuality the WT cartridge is more efficient than the AAC cartridge.”
    “The 7.62×39 external ballistics are quite a bit different than the 7.62×40 WT, due to the fact that the 7.62×39 cartridge uses a different caliber bullet.”
    “Any 5.56 gun will run the 6.5 Grendel.”

    Zero for Four… Congrats! It takes work to be that wrong.

    I have come to the consensus that you either know just enough about guns to sound like you know what you’re talking about without having any advanced knowledge of these things and just want to sound smart.

    Or… You’re intentionally trolling thefirearmblog to see how many incorrect or misleading comments you can make.

    You’re posts defending 7.62×40 WT vs 7.62×35 AAC Blackout seem to confirm either your grip on reality is faint, or you’re just having a laugh. Or maybe you’re Bill Wilson, I don’t know. Because no one who has looked at all the options would ever defend x40 WT, it’s just a copy of Whisper/300-221/300blk that trades good (200gr+ and still feed in an AR magazine) subsonic capability for a tiny bit of supersonic potential while making it infinitely less compatible and more rare than it already is. It’s a niche of a niche of a niche that’s only available from one place and only ever will be.

    U B Trollin.

    • 18D

      First of all, I haven’t been wrong throughout this entire thread.

      Second of all, you have explained a large percentage of my comments through your own statements. Saving me the time of typing explanations.

      Third, if you want to know about the other statements, all you had to do was ask. Instead, you got upset and started flipping out.

      Don’t mistake my short comments for incompetence or ignorance. Someone like you should already understand my comments without an explanation. Matter of fact, as I stated above, you explaned them in your own statements. For those that don’t get it, they can just ask for an explanation. Pretty simple. But, you are so eager to look for arguments and self assurance, you fail to even figure out what is going on.

      • Other Steve

        I see….

        So none of those four things are blatantly wrong?

        – Please show that a 6.5 Grendel gun does not use a 7.62×39 bolt.

        – Find some an example that proves with the same powder and bullet the x40 case is “more efficient” at propelling it’s bullet. Not more powder because that’s not efficiency, it’s just adding more fuel.

        – Go ahead an make the case the a .311 bullet will have any noticable effect on ballistics than a .308 sized bullet. You argued “caliber” so use the same BC number in your calculations. This is easy to do.

        – Since you claim ANY 556 gun will run Grendel, and also that a x39 bolt is “not” used, let’s see a SCAR, ACR, FS2000, or any other gun that does not readily have a x39 bolt available chambered in 6.5 Grendel.

        – Also in this thread you say “Any cartridge can be loaded subsonic”… Can you even start to explain why 22-250 subsonic does not exist? Do you know anything about twist and stabilization? Have you ever loaded ammo? Do you understand bullet length and it’s effect with rifling? Please, by all means make a case for 22-250 subsonic.

        You’re nothing but wrong. I’m wrong sometimes, I can admit that. I probably got something wrong even in this thread. I’m not the authority on this stuff, but I know enough to see when someone is talking flat out their ass. You 18D are completely full of shit, I’m being as polite as I can about that. But, you really need to stop. You’ve been called out in many other threads, the ones about SCARs come to mind.

      • 18D

        Show me that SCAR thread. This should be good.

  • Tinkerer

    I’ll add more fuel to the fire, just because I’m mean.

    According to Wikipedia, the following case dimensions and parent case apply:

    -6.5 Grendel: Parent Case is .220 Russian (whose parent case is 7.62×39). Rim diameter: 11.2 mm (.44 inch)

    -300 BLK: parent case is .223 Rem (sibling to 5.56×45). Rim diameter: 9.6 mm (.378 inch)

    So, in order to chamber 6.5 Grendel, the firearm’s boltface must be 7.62×39-compatible, not .223/5.56 compatible.

    • Other Steve

      Thanks for looking that up. You’re absolutely right.

      It’s why odd guns like the CZ-527 and Ruger Mini series have been converted to 6.5 Grendel because there are factory 7.62×39 options available to start with.

      Before today I had thought this was common knowledge.

  • Flounder

    Guys!!! LOL it’s kinda funny watching you all bicker!
    But then again its also ridiculous.

    The 6.5 grendel does use the x39 bolt Just go here http://www.alexanderarms.com/
    They designed the grendel to use a bolt that already existed it saves quite a bit of designing and makes things cheaper and simplier.

    The 7.62×40 WT is stronger than than the 300 BLK when loaded supersonic. It’s more on par with the 6.8spc and the 6.5 grendel. It shoots heavier bullets than the 300 BLK when loaded supersonic. But it is already too long and thus has a limit on what bullets you can use. The WT round also doesn’t function correctly in standard AR mags and you can’t get normal capacity and they sometimes have issues like binding, tumbling, and feeding incorrectly. I think wilson or another company made mags that function correctly with this round in an AR. and are proper 30rd mags.

    The 300 BLK round however came about because the 300/221 or 300 whisper was owned by someone. So to avoid paying royalties AAC made their own round that functions perfectly in normal AR mags with it’s main purpose being to launch a 220gr round subsonically. Yes they did make sure that supersonically it was a lil bit superior to the 300/221 and balistically is a perfect twin to the 7.62×39.

    SO there you all have it. Each round has a specific purpose.
    None of them are obsolete.
    And you might see 300 BLK on a gunshop shelf. Cause remington is all the way behind it and makin sure ammo is available for it at a somewhat reasonable price. Most online ammo suppliers have some 300 BLK available.

    • Other Steve

      That goes along with most everything I said, agreed.

      JD Jones owns the Whisper name. I’ve talked to him before. He’s seems like he knows his stuff, but isn’t the type of guy I’d want to have a beer with. IMO, if JD thinks something it’s right, IT THE ONE TRUE WORD, and that’s all there is to it. My GUESS is that even with money, AAC could not have gotten 300blk to where it is with JD Jones at the helm. He needed to be sidestepped and I think that was the right move. Alexander just released the Grendel round and I think that will keep it relevant, as where Whisper will fade away.

      Yes, WT suggests modified Lancer mags or AR mags to around half capacity. Even the modifed mags never get to full capacity. Even more niche if you ask me. 300blk’s best point is it uses AR mags to full capacity.

      It goes further that AAC just didn’t want to pay royalties. JD Jones did not get the round SAAMI approved, AAC did. He had since the 90’s to try, but instead chose to try and passively make money off it. AAC/Rem did the work to figure out pressure and powder charges to make it work sub and super in an AR, and what works for accuracy, and how it can be done to make money. I think that deserves a little bit of credit as I’m fairly sure it wasn’t easy, considering no one else has done it. Then again, it might have just taken Remington’s money and pull.

      While 300blk is very close to x39, I wouldn’t use the term identical as the SAAMI approved pressure and loads are a little different. Otherwise, agreed.

      You managed to make a post using full sentences and opinions based on evidence – You sir must be a witch!

      • Flounder

        Thanks other steve!

        To be honest I only knew that the whisper was owned by someone. And AAC/freedom group didn’t want to be constrained by another company. Especially one so much smaller than themselves.

        If I remember right the 300BLK came within like 50 ft/lbs of having the same muzzle energy as the x39 using bullets that were withing 5gr of each other so that’s why I said they were Identical. I didn’t look into the powder loads or the pressures involved.

        Okay what does getting a cartridge approved by SAAMI actually do? I mean I know you send the cartridge off to somewhere where they test it and I believe they just classify and quantify what it is…? You seem like you might know what it is.

        As for JD Jones I know nothing about him personally but half of the cartridges seem to just be Ackley improved designs (with an extra 5 degrees added to the should angle) relabeled as to whatever he wants. I will give him the credit he deserves on coming out with the Whisper ideas. Even though I think He just put the idea out there and since he owned the name a million other companies came out with their own designs. Every whisper round has a clone which hurts both companies since neither gets the market share it would have if the other didn’t exist.

        As a sidenote it seems alexander arms saw the grendel clone and wet their pants and got the grendel approved so that it would stay relevant. I’m still laughing about that one.

        You somehow separated each point of discussion in a neat paragraph and backed up your propositions with evidence! This is far too logical…
        You must be a vulcan.

  • calool

    not a big fan of the big fat bling barrel with the massive compensator, seems to throw off the look of the gun

  • Lance

    The M-60 wasn’t a horrible platform it did well in Vietnam and Desert Storm It was lighter and smaller than the M-240 which is why SEAL still carry them. The M-240 is good too and im not ripping it. But the 60 was good too it wasn’t as modular or Scope compatible and was one reason why the Army and USMC went to the 240 in 1997. On fixed post on ships the M-60 dose very well the one I shot had great rate of fire and was reliable.

    The 240 is itself in many ways a marriage of the old Browning 1919 and 1918 BAR into one in design. Nothing wrong with that weapon at all.

  • Eric

    To answer as many questions as possible:
    This paticular gun, Mk46 Sn18,is for sale on Gunbroker, in it’s semi-auto .223 configuration. $14k + the $900 barrel. Will accept a registered HK sear with a couple minor factory modifications. The urban camo is duracoated on, and looks much better in person.
    We chose 7.62 X 40 WT partially because it uses the m249 links, partially because we are helping Wilson promote the caliber. All that is required is swapping the barrel, no other changes.
    We are working on and testing other caliber conversions including 7.62X51, 5.45X39 (cheap ammo), and 300 AAC
    The ammo in the photos is handload, Nosler 125gr in LC brass.

    I’m almost disappointed that nobody commented about the muzzle device!
    It was the only one I had handy that was the right thread. It came off of a .308 pistol.

    • Other Steve

      Someone did comment that the muzzle device was… not good.

      300blk makes a lot of sense over x40WT. Both would use the M249 links. Good luck helping them promote that caliber though.

  • HK

    The Minimi was designed in 7.62×51 then reduced to 5.56×45. The MK 48 chassis is the same as the SAW with a couple of little file mods. It uses a different top cover, feed tray, barrel, bolt and some small parts. Unlikely anyone of the readers has seen one, but I have seen the stamping press.

    • William

      The Minimi is based heavily on the 5.56 FNC, there was never any intended provision for 7.62