a, SMALL, problem with the USMC's M249

[Mr. Iboga]

hi there, before anyone tells me im wrong on this, id like to say ive spent four years in the USMC, as an Infantry riflemen, my first deployment to Iraq was as a SAW gunner(in the Marine Corps, the SAW is a Riflemen weapon), and i know the weapon better then most men know their own right hand.

for the MOST PART, its dead on, Collapsible stock, Short Barrel, Picatinny Rails, hell EVEN the idle bipods being folded to the front to accommodate for a foregrip being installed, HOWEVER!

for some reason alot of civilians don't know this, but you should NEVER EVER put a trijicon ACOG on an M249 SAW, the high fire rate, and simple buffer system produces MASSIVE recoil the ACOG CANNOT handle it.

i know what your saying now though; "but Mr. Iboga, 5.56 NATO/.223 rem, barely have any recoil!", for the most part, your right, compared to MOST ANY OTHER INTERMEDIATE RIFLE CALIBER, they do not, but at 900 rounds per minute, an M249 WILL break an ACOG!

"But Mr. Iboga, ive seen pictures of Marines with ACOGs on their M249 Squad Automatic Weapons!", Correct, you HAVE, ive seen a few inexperienced Infantry Battalions do this too, but the result is ALWAYS the same, first symptoms are a milky white bullshit when you look through the optic, and it does NOT take long,

so, in the interest of portraying an Infantry Battalion that DOES NOT have a retarded person in charge of acquisition (mainly what we call the Gunner, who would be a high ranking Warrent Officer who has undergone a year of weapons instruction, most infantry battalions have one), i would SUGGEST, feel free to say no for a valid gameplay/development reason, that you replace the ACOGs with the M136 ELCAN MGO that is on the M240B, seeing as MGO stands for Machine Gun Optic and is the PROPER optic to be issued with the M249 in the modern United States Marine Corps.

[Spec]

Approved for discussion. We do not, to my knowledge, currently have an active US Marine MA on the team, so I guess Marine suggestions are okay.

[Eddie Baker]

So why did they start switching to the SDO?

[Mr. Iboga]

well, im not terribly familiar with that acronym, but MY battalion (3rd btn 7th Mar 1st MarDiv), was using iron sights until we got the MGOs in, and as far as i know, they HAD tested the ACOGs on the SAWs, for a time, but found that they were breaking the tritium light collector thingy on the top, MGO's had been the standard optic on the 240's so they just slapped them on the SAW, i dont personally like them, i bought an EOtech with my own money, for some reason it held up better

when 2/9 came in to replace us in Ar-Ramadi in late 2007, they still had ACOGs on them, i had heard of the problems with doing so from my own Battalion Gunner, so i checked one of their systems out for myself, and sure enough, the picture was kind of a translucent white color

[Rabbit]

So why did they start switching to the SDO?

It's being phased in right now.

[Mr. Iboga]

well shit, nevermind, i see they built one for afghanistan, the SDO eh, the differences 3 years can make now i feel a fool

[Eddie Baker]

No need to. If they were really having problems with it and trying to get rid of it and they preferred the MGO to the SDO ACOG in practice, it would have been taken into consideration.

[Mr. Iboga]

nah i was mistaken, the SDO is a new ACOG specifically made for the saw, so i assume itll take the forces, i was wondering what that funky horse shue reticle was about, i had no idea they had adpoted such things, as im a bit behind, the ACOG problems i described were with mounting the standard rifle RCO's on them.

[Spec]

Alright then