Variable Wrote:Agreed as usual.I'd rather rock a belt. I guess we always come back to IARs because it's easier to acquire something like that in the civvy world.
I sort of envision a narrow engagement window where an IAR would be simpler and handier, but since the real world doesn't feel constrained to that narrow window, I'd default to a belt-fed where and when I could.
Well, I suspect you have walked down the normal route of one beltfed vs one magfed. The beltfed would win just about every time.
However, if you stack one beltfed against TWO magfed, I think the odds would be stacked the other way, even if the beltfed had a QCB. (at least if the barrels of the beltfeds and the magfeds were of similar profile.
Two magfeds would give:
-Better precision
-higher firepower for a short window of time
-be able to take out a higher number of targets inside a given window of time
-no firebreaks if properly used
-better mobility
Or, you could have two beltfed lightweight lmgs, without QCB, like the KAC LMG. Which would give you many of the pros, and even lose some of the cons with small magazines.
I am not a big fan of QCBs in the classic offensive infantry-role. IMO, it should only be brought along when you have large amounts of ammunition readily available, like in a defensive position.