Grendel LMG

[stanc]

There have been more than a few conflicts since the invention of the belt-fed machine gun, belt-fed light machine gun, automatic rifle, and assault rifles with full-auto capability upon which a reasonbly informed person can make a reasonable justification for his recommendation based on his own combat experience or that of others.

Shouldn't be too hard unless the military establishments really have no clue? Is my question that difficult? What's the fundamental justification in today's military for a belt-fed SAW as opposed to magazine-fed?

As I said, Paul is the best person to ask. The only reply I can offer is this: A belt-fed LMG provides longer engagement time before having to reload than a mag-fed IAR (100 or 200 rds versus 30 rds).

Is it worth it? Some armies think yes, and use a belt-fed SAW, while others disagree, and use a mag-fed SAW. But, I don't know of any armies that do not use a SAW, and rely solely on assault rifles.