Replacing the SAW

[dwa]

Originally Posted by Flogger23m

This is true, but I still think a M249 para would be a better option. Does anyone know how much it weighs?

not much less

Originally Posted by Requiem

I've heard there isn't that much of a difference in weight actually. Maybe a few ounces or a pound or so.

you are correct the difference is negilible. the gain is ergonomic
the collapsible butt stock probably weighs more it just folds and the new thing as of 2006/2007 was an m4 type butt stock but metal. then there's the short barrel. the term para saw is kinda comical because you can convert between one and the other in seconds. its simply a short quick change barrel and a butt stock.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by Manong0369

The new belief is that the squad needs to able to place well fired shots at the enemy instead of just "spray and pray" fire. Even the automatic rifle can shot more accurately with the IAR. Training, going back to Field Weapons Training Battalion in boot camp, we were taught that rushes should not take longer than 3 to 5 seconds or "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down." Doing this with a saw and getting effective hits well be difficult. While a direct attack, there are three sections that is provided. One to block the position, support the attack and the attack section itself. Before, we would take one or two SAWs out of the assault section to bolster the support section, making it harder to have a full element for the attack.

i think the iar will be really popular in movements and light contact and will face its real test when a squad armed with them needs to gain fire superiority.
there's a difference in spray and pray and fire superiority volume of fire and suppressive fire. the brits tried something like this with this http://www.militaryfactory.com/small...allarms_id=207 a stoner lmg is beltfed and also weights about as much as the other entries do http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

[Tillers_Rule]

Looking at those new rifles, if they're going to *downsize* to what is essentially an M16 with a 30 round magazine, why not just issue the M16's to everyone. What's the benefit of having these new, slightly different in the cosmetic and ergonomics department rifles? Is automatic fire the only real difference, and if so, why couldn't a new selector switch be installed in the existing M16, make it an A5 or something?

[Manong0369]

Originally Posted by dwa

i think the iar will be really popular in movements and light contact and will face its real test when a squad armed with them needs to gain fire superiority.
there's a difference in spray and pray and fire superiority volume of fire and suppressive fire. the brits tried something like this with this http://www.militaryfactory.com/small...allarms_id=207 a stoner lmg is beltfed and also weights about as much as the other entries do http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

Good point on the British military using the Enfield L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon). I think that is the way that the Marine Corps is headed. I am a big fan of the feld fed weapon. I carried the M60 in the CA National Guard as an 11B and the SAW as a Marine rifleman and loved the amount of fire that it can bring to the fight. As a unit leader, "talking guns" were a reasuring sound during a direct/deliberate assault. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "spray and pray." It was just a phrased that I used for having fire that is not very accurate. IIRC the SAW is more an area weapon than a point weapon. That said, the need for accurate fire from the Marines that are firing while the rest are rushing should be more precise. I understand that contact during a patrol is totally different in having a "support section." The unit in contact relies on fire and movement learned through Immediate Action drills. The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by Manong0369

Good point on the British military using the Enfield L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon). I think that is the way that the Marine Corps is headed. I am a big fan of the feld fed weapon. I carried the M60 in the CA National Guard as an 11B and the SAW as a Marine rifleman and loved the amount of fire that it can bring to the fight. As a unit leader, "talking guns" were a reasuring sound during a direct/deliberate assault. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "spray and pray." It was just a phrased that I used for having fire that is not very accurate. IIRC the SAW is more an area weapon than a point weapon. That said, the need for accurate fire from the Marines that are firing while the rest are rushing should be more precise. I understand that contact during a patrol is totally different in having a "support section." The unit in contact relies on fire and movement learned through Immediate Action drills. The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

the 249 is both a point an area effect weapon. im doubting the ability of a mag fed rifle creating much of a beaten zone. a mag fed base of fire for the fire team is somewhat of a step backward there was the bar and hbar m14 previously and the 249 was the improvement the brits also dumped the lsw for the minimi (saw) in the base of fire role. my squad in iraq went only m4s but we were doing mostly entries and it worked fine. with the loss in firepower it will make it difficult for fireteams to bound and be mutually supportive. im curious to see how the iar pans out but it goes against everything ive been taught.

[Manong0369]

Originally Posted by dwa

the 249 is both a point an area effect weapon. im doubting the ability of a mag fed rifle creating much of a beaten zone. a mag fed base of fire for the fire team is somewhat of a step backward there was the bar and hbar m14 previously and the 249 was the improvement the brits also dumped the lsw for the minimi (saw) in the base of fire role. my squad in iraq went only m4s but we were doing mostly entries and it worked fine. with the loss in firepower it will make it difficult for fireteams to bound and be mutually supportive. im curious to see how the iar pans out but it goes against everything ive been taught.

Agreed. I, too, was trained with the same doctrine as you were. It's going to be interesting in how the Marines will like the change. I also agree that the SAW can be used as a point target weapon, but we used it more as an area target weapon. When I was in Aghanistan, the SAW was an important part of my platoon due to the open terrain and I would not have it any other way. My opinion of the IAR is one of doubt but change will come no matter what is said or done. I guess I'm trying to justify the higher ups decision so I can feel comfortable that the troops get the best equipment for the job.

[Pryde]

This was discussed on AR15.com recently
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=441034&page=1

Notice in the thread I posted, not a single person, not even the Marines.

This is just another example of the Corps' bullsh*t "one shot, one kill, every marine a rifleman, yut" being taken too far. Sure that crap helps people develop confidence in their marksmanship in boot camp, but in reality, the more rounds going downrange the better.

[sb_pete]

Originally Posted by Flogger23m

This is true, but I still think a M249 para would be a better option. Does anyone know how much it weighs?

According to the Wikipedia article on the M249
(Empty weights)
M249 - 17 lbs
M249 Para - 16 lbs
M249 SPW - 13 lbs
Mk46 - ?
Mk 48 mod0 - 18.5lbs
Mk48 Mod1 - 18.37lbs

According to the Wikipedia page on the FN Minimi (non-us versions)
Minimi std - 15.1 lbs
Minimi Para - 14.5 lbs
Minimi Vehicle - 11.7 lbs
Minimi 7.62 fixed stock - 18lbs
Minimi 7.62 telescoping stock - 19lbs

According to Worldguns.ru ("Modern Firearms")
M249 std - 7.1kg
M249 Para - 7.1kg (typo?)
Mk46 Mod0 - 5.75kg
Mk48 Mod0 - 8.2kg

According to the Official FN website:
M249 SAW - 16.5 lbs
M249 PARA - 15.95 lbs
Mk46 Mod1 - 12.6 lbs
Mk48 Mod1 - 18.64lbs

One would think the FN website would be the authoritative source, but then again, according to them we should be issuing all troops the FN LWRS (Light remotely-operated Weapon Station) systems as those apparantly weigh zero pounds

Bottom line is that the Para doesn't weigh much less, but it is handier. The Mk46 otoh, is 1-2lbs heavier than the IAR systems being proposed, but it does away with the STANAG mag well (of dubious use anyway), the carry handle (*shrug*), and vehicle mounting lugs (*shrug*). One is left with the fact that those 100rd and 200 rd assault packs are significantly lighter, more compact, and more reliable than any magazine based equivalent, but they are slower to load and the minimi designs cannot fire from a closed bolt.

Personally, I think it is an interesting idea to bring back the automatic rifle, but as has been said by many, it is NOT a replacement for the LMG, just an augmentation and a shift in the firepower breakdown of a squad. I think a more interesting change is what appears to be a coming shift from M60 and M240B/G GPMG's to the MUCH MUCH lighter Mk48 designs.

If you replaced every M60 or M240B/G and every third SAW with Mk48's, then replaced the other two SAW's with IAR's, you would end up with a different, but possibly more effective set up. I say possibly because the point is obviously very arguable. That said, the MK48 is an obvious replacement for the heavy a** M240B's and G's and is lighter and demonstrably more reliable than M60 based designs. Having the closed bolt or Closed/Open Bolt design of the IAR's would allow for more snap shots (I'm up, he sees me, I'm down) and the ability to take position at the front of the stack when clearing rooms. Further, the IAR would actually work reliably with STANAG mags rather than being there as an untrustworthy last-ditch option as it de facto ends up as with the M249. If they go through with this, it looks like one or two M249's per squad (out of three - USMC TO&E - each squad consisting of squad leader and 3 fireteams of 4 Marines including one automatic rifleman per fire team) will be replaced by IAR's. The remaining one or two M249's might remain M249's, or they might eventually become Mk46's or Mk48's. If each squad had two IAR fire teams where the automatic rifleman had an IAR which shared mags with the riflemen, then one fireteam had a Mk48 with more firepower than the M249 and shared ammo with the weapons platoon guys, it might actually end up a more efficient and effective setup, or maybe not *shrug*

I don't have a horse in this race, but it is interesting to see it shaping up. As to the thought of whether we can afford to do this now, or whether it is worth bothering with. Well, I don't know, but alot of those M249's are getting towards replacement time (or here you go reservists time) and the brass are seeing alot more MOUT operations on the horizon than they are Russkie divisions streaming through the Fulda Gap or CHiCom human waves across the Yalu, so maybe it ain't a terrible idea to shift the balance of firepower around a little bit
-Pete

[sb_pete]

Originally Posted by Tillers_Rule

Looking at those new rifles, if they're going to *downsize* to what is essentially an M16 with a 30 round magazine, why not just issue the M16's to everyone. What's the benefit of having these new, slightly different in the cosmetic and ergonomics department rifles? Is automatic fire the only real difference, and if so, why couldn't a new selector switch be installed in the existing M16, make it an A5 or something?

Three primary reasons:
1: You need a heavier barrel (preferably with thicker chrome lining in the bbl like the M249 has) to handle sustained auto fire
2. You really really really want quick swapable bbls (again for heat issues) which are not possible with the std M16/AR15 gas system
3. You want an Open Bolt or Open/Closed Bolt system to prevent cook-offs and to let the bbl cool off in between strings of fire.

The big problem with the mag-fed designs (esp. in mag-from-the-bottom spring pressure only as opposed to mag from the top with gravity assist designs a la WWII designs) is that the spring pressure tends not to be able to keep up with the gun and they tend to jam as a result. Also, drum mags are notoriously unreliable for their entire almost 100year history and you can't practically make a box mag much bigger than 40rds or so.

Originally Posted by Manong0369

The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

IIRC, when they went head to head in the 80's, the Stoner had teething problems and KAC bowed out to FN. I completely agree that it looks bad a** on paper and I hear that some contractors are happily using them. Back when the choice was made though, the Stoner lost fair and square *shrug*

-Pete

[Manong0369]

Originally Posted by Pryde

This was discussed on AR15.com recently
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=441034&page=1

Notice in the thread I posted, not a single person, not even the Marines.

This is just another example of the Corps' bullsh*t "one shot, one kill, every marine a rifleman, yut" being taken too far. Sure that crap helps people develop confidence in their marksmanship in boot camp, but in reality, the more rounds going downrange the better.

Thank you. I DIDN'T see the one you did on AR15.com. I brought up the issue here after reading in Leatherneck magazine. The mentality of Marines as one shoot one call can't be faulted for anything. I'm sure Marines aren't stupid enough to "take a breath, relax and pull the trigger" during an ambush or contact. During any contact I was involved, we used whatever we could to put more lead down range against a target. I am not saying that we think that we are snipers . In the ARMY, basic training for was a week long and my having my DS telling me to aim lower at the target. I shoot 39 out 40, taking home the Best Marksman for my platoon.

Thank you and sd_pete for the information. I, for one, will come out of this with more knowledge and understand from the other that posted in this thread.

[ST5MF]

Originally Posted by Manong0369

Just wanted to know your opinion on the four candidates that will replace the M249 SAW within the Infantry squad and LAR scouts teams in the Marine Corps. This was from the February edition of the Marine Corps Times. The switch is to try and make the automatic rifleman within the squad more mobile with a "smaller, more accurate, easier to employ" weapon.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ewsaw_020109w/

FN Makes both the MK46 and the MK 48 with titanium receivers too. The MK 46 Ti is easy to tote. I have done 10+ click patrols with it and a full load out with no issues. The MK48 titanium is not much heaver but the lighter weight makes it less stable; especially firing off hand.

Replacing a belt fed machine-gun with a magazine fed one is just stupid. Not even the same animal really.

[dwa]

Originally Posted by ST5MF

FN Makes both the MK46 and the MK 48 with titanium receivers too. The MK 46 Ti is easy to tote. I have done 10+ click patrols with it and a full load out with no issues. The MK48 titanium is not much heaver but the lighter weight makes it less stable; especially firing off hand.

Replacing a belt fed machine-gun with a magazine fed one is just stupid. Not even the same animal really.

not a fan of the amerikanski RPK?

[Dooly]

Knowing Marine Corps, they are going to use whatever is the cheapest and most efficient. After all, out of all the military branch, they are the poorest

[andrewj]

Originally Posted by Dooly

Knowing Marine Corps, they are going to use whatever is the cheapest and most efficient. After all, out of all the military branch, they are the poorest

Talk about a necro post

5-11-2009 ---> 4-17-2010

[Marine oifvet]

I carried one for a year and a half in the Marines, and in Iraq. While it does get heavy with six plus 200 rd drum, ex-barrel, and the weapon. I dont think that it can or should be replaced by anything other than a full auto belt fed weapon. The M249 is a life saver in most sit.

[socalblue]

Per my nephew (USMC armorer) one of the big issue is spare parts. M249 is out of production & keeping enough guns up is starting to become difficult (All the good ones & spares are going to the combat zones, what little is left).

[haiedras]

Whoa, that is a total necropost. That being said, this thread I was following was a pretty good conceptual discussion of why the Corps is looking at supplementing, but not replacing the SAW:
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums?a...61&m=251108494

Not enough time to read the previous posts, but it's a conceptual issue. The SAW is really more of an LMG than a squad automatic weapon ala the BAR. The IAW is supposed to be a rifle platform that just happens to have automatic capability. No one's saying that the SAW totally goes away, but to take a look at whether you're bringing the appropriate tools to the fight.

[patriot_man]

H&K has won.

[Tintreach]

This is the best version. The flash suppressor is vented on the end, so when you fire the recoil is near nil. I had one of these back in 05 for about 3-4 months. You have a strong back and able to haul to carry a combat load though. But replacing a belt fed weapon would be a faux pas. The SAW is 5.56 and seeing as how you have 600rnds readily available and another 600 in your pack or vehicle. (that was my combat load 1200) I think you can be very effective with 5.56 minus the penetration or over penetration. Oh and btw the aluminum milspec mags will fail in any weapon if you don't unload your mags and stretch out the springs every so often and SPORTS should be second nature. lol

Now for Afghan or long humps they should swap out the SAW for a M21E or something similar with a drum. Lay long range suppression or pinpoint shots. The 240B is a hell of a sniper weapon if you have the trigger manipulation but the flat trajectory of the 5.56 or the 7.62 both have more advantages then not. Different instruments different jobs or go modular. I am more interested in the evolution of modular configurations via Eugene Stoner. Just change the material or design to address flaws

If the USMC is seriously thinking to "upgrade the arsenal" then they need to stick with what works and turn to the squibs for guidance. My choice would be a Mark 46/48. (didn't see this was mentioned above) +10 for titanium receivers. lol If S&W can do it with revolvers, why can't FN with machineguns?

Originally Posted by Flogger23m

Why not convert them to M249 paras? They are shorter and should be a lot lighter as well.



To further save weight, issue the soft pack 100 round belts instead of the 200 round boxes. Maybe they can make a soft pack 200 round one as well.

[Funbaby]

Originally Posted by Manong0369

Good point on the British military using the Enfield L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon). I think that is the way that the Marine Corps is headed. I am a big fan of the feld fed weapon. I carried the M60 in the CA National Guard as an 11B and the SAW as a Marine rifleman and loved the amount of fire that it can bring to the fight. As a unit leader, "talking guns" were a reasuring sound during a direct/deliberate assault. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "spray and pray." It was just a phrased that I used for having fire that is not very accurate. IIRC the SAW is more an area weapon than a point weapon. That said, the need for accurate fire from the Marines that are firing while the rest are rushing should be more precise. I understand that contact during a patrol is totally different in having a "support section." The unit in contact relies on fire and movement learned through Immediate Action drills. The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

Interesting thread.

I remember the change over in the British Army when a infantry section was equipped with SLRs (FALs to you guys) and a 7.62 GPMG (M240) to the SA80 and 2 Light support weapons make up (both mag fed 5.56). It blew because a section lost a huge amount of firepower, no-one liked it. Eventually over time the LSWs were replaced with GPMGs and M249s, which was much better.

[buffybuster]

My opinion they should look at refining this:

"Ultimax 100 light machine gun

The Ultimax 100 is the world’s lightest 5.56mm light machine gun with the lowest recoil. Combined with its compact size, it is highly accurate and controllable, delivering significant advantage in firepower."

Th Ultimax was designed by L. James Sullivan. He was also the lead engineer with Armalite to downscale Stoner's AR10 design to the 5.56 cartridge (AR15). He also did basically the same thing for Ruger with the Mini14.

M249 SAW's being belt-fed is it's biggest advantage (sustained firepower) and also it's biggest weakness (easy entry of grit/dirt/sand into the chamber and weight of links).

[JDay]

Originally Posted by tyrist

Not exactly sure how any of those replace a SAW. Basically using an automatic rifle as a light machine gun.

That's pretty much what the SAW is, it fires the same 5.56mm round that the M16A2 and M4 use only at a higher rate.

[develown]

Originally Posted by Funbaby

Interesting thread.

I remember the change over in the British Army when a infantry section was equipped with SLRs (FALs to you guys) and a 7.62 GPMG (M240) to the SA80 and 2 Light support weapons make up (both mag fed 5.56). It blew because a section lost a huge amount of firepower, no-one liked it. Eventually over time the LSWs were replaced with GPMGs and M249s, which was much better.

The Brits still use LSWs. Their LSWs take the place of our saw and is basically just a full auto 5.56 L85. The LSW is a good weapon, but it has the same problem that all these saw replacements have, they are magazine fed.
Furthermore, They still have the 7.62 GPMG which acts as their 240.

Personally I don't see a need to replace the saw just yet, its actually a pretty good weapon in my opinion. Furthermore, i don't think its going to be replaced any time soon. The government would rather spend the money on buying fighter planes and air craft carriers. Small arms are usually last on their list of things to upgrade.