Talk:Mk 48 machine gun

Image
http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Mk48-1.jpg

I had a couple images for the Mk 48 uploaded, but both were deleted for apparently not meeting fair use criteria. Although I was able to find some pictures that were likely to be from the U.S. military (meaning they'd be on public domain), I couldn't find any sources for these images, and the websites they were hosted at had the usual copyright message at the bottom of the page.

If anyone can upload a free image of the Mk 48 for this article, it would be greatly appreciated. —Squalla 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mk 48 Mod 1
It looks like a new model of the Mk 48 has already been developed: http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m249fam/mk48mod1.htm. Does anybody have more information about this? —Squalla 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mk 48 Mod 0 are being refurbished to the new specs, and new Mk 48 Mod 1 are going to be ordered as well. New parts and changes include:


 * Barrel with handle (P/N 49372); receiver handle to be removed
 * New gas block cap (P/N 49216)
 * New multipurpose tool (P/N 49378)
 * Heatshield (P/N 49371)
 * New forward rail (P/N 49369)
 * Interim receiver pins (P/N 49376, 49375)


 * I also believe that they are to be refinished in Flat Dark Earth. In related subjects, there is now a Mod 1 version of the Mk 46, and Mod 1 and 2 versions of the Mk 11.  D.E. Watters 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good info, D.E., thanks. May I ask your reference(s) for this so we can add the information to the article in the future? I'm planning on adding inline citations for the article, so any references and sources you have would be useful.
 * On a side note, is there an official U.S. military naming convention for Mk-type weapons? In other words, should it be written "Mark 48", "Mk 48", "MK 48", "MK48"…? —Squalla 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The info on the parts upgrade is from: Statement of Work: MK48 Receiver Overhaul & Retrofit to MOD 1 Configuration (23 Mar 06: Rev 1). It was an attachment to the second amendment/modification of NSWC-Crane solicitation N00164-06-R-4878. The amendment/modification document is dated May 3, 2006.  The complete document also included attached SOWs for upgrading M240 to M240B, and Mk 46 Mod 0 to Mk 46 Mod 1.


 * The info regarding the Flat Dark Earth finish is included in Performance Specification for the 7.62mm Lightweight Machine Gun dated Dec. 11, 2006. Elsewhere, it is titled MK48 MOD1 Lightweight Machine Gun Performance Specification PS/4081/C01/1242.  It was an attachment to NSWC-Crane solicitation N00164-07-R-4813. The solicitation document was dated Dec. 18, 2006.


 * Actually I've seen the designations listed with-and-without 'All Caps', and with-and-without spaces. However, you do not often see "Mark" spelled out completely.  D.E. Watters 04:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Origional Design
I have ran across a couple of reliable referances to the M-249 being origionally designed in 7.62 NATO. the first is a Small arms review Article by Dan Shea ( FN Certified armorer for the M-249 familly) and Tactical Small arms of the 21st Century by Charlie Cutshaw. Is there any other information to back this up? Paulwharton 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It's a variant of the FNMI M249, the case for the M249 split from the Minimi is already flaky, this is going a little too far. Koalorka (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Parts commonality"?
The claim is made that the M240, M249, Mk46 and Mk48 have "70% parts commonality."

Anyone with any actual knowledge of the guns in question recognizes this to be absurd. There is no commonality between the M240 (MAG-58) and the M249 (Minimi), let alone the Mk46 and Mk48. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.239.96 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have cited the statement (even though the reliability of Global security is a little questionable). Marcus Qwertyus   06:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is more than "questionable" and the claim is simply impossible. For the Mk48 to have "70% parts commonality" with the M240, M249 and Mk46 those weapons would have to have an extremely high degree of parts commonality.  There is absolutely NO parts commonality between the M240 and M249 as even a brief examination of the technical manuals for those two guns would make clear.  Refer to the operators' and armorers' manuals for the guns in question:


 * M240: TM 9-1005-313-10 and TM 9-1005-313-23&P


 * M249: TM 9-1005-201-10 and TM 9-1005-201-23&P


 * A Google search will bring up multiple sources for each.


 * The -23&Ps break down each gun to every individual part, giving its NATO Stock Number (NSN) and a sketch of the part in question. There is no overlap of parts between the M240 and the other guns, let alone "70%" commonality.  About the only commonality is in some of the accessory items, such as the sling which is the same one used since the 1960s or '70s on the M60 GPMG.


 * The GlobalSecurity.org article cited was clearly written by someone who had no actual familiarity with the weapons in question and was regurgitating press releases. There is a considerable degree of commonality between the M249 and the Mk46, since the Mk46 is merely a lightweight variant of the M249.  The Mk48 was developed with M249/Mk46 parts commonality in mind.  All three utilize rotating bolts, the M240 is a completely different design using a tilting-block bolt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.220.149 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge
This article doesn't seem to have enough references or differences from the 249 to be its own separate page. I propose a merging. Anyone want to assist? Littlemslawandorder (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mk 48 machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140105041755/http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/machine-guns/mk-48-46-series/mk-48-mod1/ to http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/machine-guns/mk-48-46-series/mk-48-mod1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114024552/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkBTamilio.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkBTamilio.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323121048/http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF060&gid=FNG008&mid=FNM0042
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316154259/http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/military/machine-guns/mk-48-46-series/mk-48-mod1/ to http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/military/machine-guns/mk-48-46-series/mk-48-mod1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323121048/http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070131165726/http://smallarmsreview.com/pdf/jul03.pdf to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/jul03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)