View Full Version : Corps to Replace SAW With Automatic Rifle
Not new news,, but anyone want to opine???
:munchin
Updated: I was not a fan-boy of the M249.
A 5.56 SAW never gave me a tingle.
Given the M60 & ammo weight,, to me it was worth is..
:(
Corps to Replace SAW With Automatic Rifle
http://www.military.com/news/article/corps-to-replace-saw-with-automatic-rifle.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Marine infantry squads will replace their M249 light machine gun with a highly accurate, auto rifle geared for fast-moving assaults. In late May, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, approved a plan to field the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle to all Marine infantry battalions.
The lightweight auto rifle, made by Heckler & Koch, is a variant of the 5.56mm H&K 416. It weighs just under eight pounds unloaded -- almost 10 pounds less than the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
The decision comes after the Corps fielded 458 M27s to five battalions as they prepared for upcoming deployments to Afghanistan.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m27-iar-e.html
Heckler-Koch HK M27 IAR Infantry Automatic Rifle (USA / Germany)
M27 IAR Infantry Automatic Rifle, as made by HK USA for US Marine Corps
Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 838 - 937 mm / 33" - 36.9"
Barrel length: 420 mm / 16.5"
Weight: 3.6 kg / 7.9 lbs empty
Rate of fire: rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds standard
The IAR - Infantry Automatic Rifle program was originally initiated by US Marine Corps (USMC) in an apparent intent to replace aging M249 SAW light machine guns in their "automatic rifle" (squad automatic) role. USMC sought lighter and more maneuverable weapon, still capable of at least some sustained firepower. Original contenders included guns from FN, Colt and Heckler-Koch, as well as some other, lesser known names. After extensive trials in 2009 USMC finally selected the HK IAR rifle, which, in fact, is no more that heavy-barreled version of their HK 416 automatic carbine (assault rifle), and it hardly looks like adequate replacement for a dedicated squad automatic weapon with belt feed and quick-change barrel. By all accounts, it looks like USMC played the whole IAR trick to get the replacement for their M4 carbines without entering the political hassle and budgetary debates. In May 2010 the USMC representative officially anounced the adoption of the Heckler-Koch IAR as M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle". It is not clear when HK will begin delivery of the M27 rifles, and how much rifles will be delivered to USMC.
The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle is a gas-operated weapon which is based on the HK 416 assault rifle. It uses short-stroke gas piston that operates the 7-lug rotating bolt, and fires from closed bolt. Receiver is made from high grade aluminum alloy. Combination-type safety / fire selector allows for single shots and full automatic mode. M27 IAR retains all M16-style controls, including last round bolt hold-open device, rear-based charging handle and magazine release button on the right side of the magazine well. M27 IAR is fitted with four Picatinny rails as standard, and may accept any type of sighting devices on STANAG-1913 compliant mounts. Buttstock is of typical M4 design, multi-position telescoped. M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle can feed from standard M16-type 30 round magazines, and will also accept high-capacity double-drum magazines from Beta Co (100 rounds capacity) and Armatac (150 rounds capacity).
x SF med
06-14-2011, 08:12
So... essentially they are going back to a 5.56 version of the BAR? Mag changes are going to be a bitch if it's the auto support for ops... SRF will drop... Getting rid of the medium weapons might not be a good idea.
Just my .02 as a washed up 18B turned 18D
WTF!!!! Guess Marines don't need supressive fire. Since they are going this way though they need to increase the weapon's weight so it can be referred to as the "pig" and guys can bitch about humping the damn thing.
MVP
Dohhunter
06-14-2011, 10:29
So best case scenario for rate of fire is 100-150 round drums?
I wonder if HK has a belt fed 416 upper in the works at all.
Who misses the (pig), M60, and should it come back?
to make sure I am reading this correctly...
giving up a belt fed 5.56 in the auto-rifle role (which accepts magazines)
adoptng a magazine fed 5.56 in the auto rifle mode
makes sense to me
Peregrino
06-14-2011, 12:02
Must have appeared to cost less than refurbishing the shot-out 249s. Wait until they have to buy a basic load of hi-cap magazines for them. And what will be the basic load? I'm speculating three magazines will cost about the same as one weapon (ideal gov't prices - no guesses for inevitable price gouging!). What happens when standard issue of (ultimately disposable) magazines is 7-8 each? I still prefer belt-fed. And NO! - I do not want to see a return of the M-60.
When the M60 started barking, everybody got a good feeling and got uprange. I don't see why they did away with it in the first place.
It was a bear to hump at first, but I got used to it.
They should have looked at this:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg25/ameli1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://world.guns.ru/machine/sp/cetme-ameli-e.html&usg=__OEqvAHq37Hor3vM1Xoxu3kkDDYU=&h=290&w=500&sz=44&hl=en&start=39&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=QzeTwyqZVdOuvM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=130&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dameli%2Bmg%2B82%26start%3D20%26um%3D1 %26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.mi crosoft:*%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D878%26ndsp%3D20%26t bm%3Disch&ei=m6v3Tc7INJGtgQfgzvyMDA
Peteyboy
06-14-2011, 13:33
I heard about this in episode of Future Weapons, I guess it's good for mixing an M16 and a SAW and there roles in battle (since many think that the future of war is urban combat) but what if you need some serious firepower?
Peteyboy
06-14-2011, 13:36
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter
Peregrino
06-14-2011, 13:43
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter
Please elaborate on your PERSONAL experience with M60s.
Dusty - You're suffering misplaced nostalgia!:p I'll stick with a 240; the MRBF is MUCH higher.
Shadow1911
06-14-2011, 13:53
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter
And when was the last time you humped that pig?
From what I've seen, Unqualified remarks aren't taken very seriously here.
And when was the last time you humped that pig?
From what I've seen, Unqualified remarks aren't taken very seriously here.
lol Sometimes qualified ones aren't, either. :D
The Dustmeister won the Individual Championship Trophy for the M60 from the MTU at Ft. Campbell, KY in '78 or '79. :lifter
greenberetTFS
06-14-2011, 14:11
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter
You're a young man with absolutely NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in carrying a M60,commenting about a weapon you've never used in your life........:rolleyes::eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Please elaborate on your PERSONAL experience with M60s.
Dusty - You're suffering misplaced nostalgia!:p I'll stick with a 240; the MRBF is MUCH higher.
Hey, Bro, I could hit the V-ring at 600 meters. Can you do that with a .22? :D
Peregrino
06-14-2011, 14:48
Hey, Bro, I could hit the V-ring at 600 meters. Can you do that with a .22? :D
Once upon a time; no shit, there I was - yes. It's a lot easier now with the 77 and 80 gr match ammo. :D
Wow, sorry I brought up the ol' M60 thing, but I'm with Dusty, the M60 rocked. It sounded great, created confidence in the squad, and meant the "enemy was engaged." I had no problem carry the pig or relieving another who was. Also, anyone, (and it was expected too), could carry another 200 rds., giving 2000 additional rds available aside from the basic load of gunner and AG.
Same can be said of other systems, but the M60 kicked ass. My dad talked about the 30 -.06 in the BAR and how it sounded, it made many get up and advance in battle. You knew someone was having a real bad day on the receiving end of BAR fire.
Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?
Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?
Now, that's another example of a weapons system you'd prolly wanna be uprange of...:D
Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?
Here's a little range action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nSnUGIBA4
Pat
mojaveman
06-14-2011, 18:58
I kinda liked the PKM. I shot one on the range one time and that thing didn't malfunction once.
Peregrino
06-14-2011, 19:11
When I was in Santa Ana, ES the quartel had an arms room full of ancient FMS weapons including M1s, 1917s, and 1919A6s. We rehab'd six (? this happened in 1986 so my memory is failing) of the 1919s because we couldn't get enough M60s for patrolling and we still had several fixed security sites that needed crew served weapons. With several hundred thousand rounds of 30-06 in tins there was considerable sense in recycling the old "warhorses". We kept the 1917 WC to play with at the Cuartel. Sweet toy; a true joy to shoot, even without the water reservoir. We had to improvise the packing around the barrel to keep water in the jacket but a series of 50 round bursts just left it "gently steaming", reminiscent of WWI stories of heating the water for afternoon tea. With the T&E (and a lot of sandbags on the tripod) cutting silhouette targets in half was child's play. To this day I still have fond memories of "the Brownings of Santa Ana".
I humped the pig for several years too. I much prefer the MAG 58/M240. MOO but mean rounds between stoppages more than made up for its lack of a forearm. Personally, I think the USMC will eventually regret getting away from the SAW. Magazines just can't beat belts.
The Reaper
06-14-2011, 20:27
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter
Based on what?
I want to see how well these replacement weapons run when they have as many rounds through them as the M249s do.
I had eight M-60s in my Scout Platoon. Most were usually in maintenance and those that were not were fine examples of the world's heaviest single shot 7.62 rifle. The M240 is a vast improvement, if slightly heavier, and the MG3 would have been a better substitute as well, if politically acceptable.
TR
craigepo
06-14-2011, 20:47
M60=23 pound deer rifle. I hated that thing. I hated how undependable they were, hated how heavy they were, hated the spare barrel bag. The MAG58/M240 is light years ahead.
We tried to help out the Puerto Rican National Guard with their M60s. We took their 60s to a range. I lost count of how many of their guns we deadlined in one day. Pieces were breaking like it was going out of style.
With the T&E (and a lot of sandbags on the tripod) cutting silhouette targets in half was child's play. To this day I still have fond memories of "the Brownings of Santa Ana".
Sweet.
PSM, thanks for the link.
Just talked to a friend who carried a M60 in RVN (67-68). I did not carry one but was trained in the M60 (Ontos Crewman). By the time I was in-country the Ontos was gone so I walked for a living. I don't remember any real complaints with the M60, yes it was heavy but so where our packs. Loads where shared among other Marines. My friend, who retired after 29 years as a Sgt Maj was gunner in the battle of Dai Do, so I think it safe to say he put a lot of rounds down range through a M60. With my recollection and his comment was something I have always heard. Cleanliness of your fire arm was important. Only problem that he had was a few times with the feed paws.
As far as the poor quality of the M60, I wonder if they were old used up ones? I just can not remember anything bad being said about the M60. Hearing, "Guns up" was nice sound. We did feel that Mr. Charlies AK was better than our M16s
Also he said this is a pretty heated issue. He stated that it is felt that NATO may have something to do with this.
Personally, Belt fed should not be dropped. But, I am working on old information.
Iraqgunz
06-15-2011, 00:21
I was a pig gunner in basic and they were still at my first unit when I reported in. As a matter of fact the M240 didn't show up until I was out. The only M240's we had were the ones for use in the Bradley (about 2 years later).
I believe that there is a company that has a much improved M60 (E4 variation) and they claim that it is robust and more reliable than it's predecessor. If FN can produce an M240L with a titanium receiver I wonder why they can't do the same with the M60? I believe that another one of the improvements was with the gas piston. The new design will not allow it to be installed backwards.
As for this upgraded HK416. I was under the impression from the guys I spoke with that it was going to supplement, but not completely replace the M249.
As far as the poor quality of the M60, I wonder if they were old used up ones? I just can not remember anything bad being said about the M60. Hearing, "Guns up" was nice sound.
IN 1970, my platoon carried 2 M60's. We did not have problems with the mechanics nor ammo. Daily cleaning of all our weapons kept the dirt and rust to a minimum. Contact was a couple time a week..
When we were rotated into the FB,, maybe every 4-5 weeks(??), we would have Mad Minutes at night where we would fire everything into the wood-line to discourage Charley. The guys would link 4 or 5 belts together, in a neat pile, and sandbag the barrel and let it rip. There were mini-contest to see who could fire the longest belt. We also did the same with the M16, They would truly glow after 10-12 20 rd mags.
No Problemo..
Now it was heavy and mechanically complicated so I would vote for something like the MG3/MG-43,,, belt fed,, 7.62x51..
Belt fed and 7.62 cal,, the bar the 5.56 can't reach..
:munchin
Problem with M60's was that they had to be regularly cleaned and PMCS'd. Don't know about the 240's.
bravo22b
06-15-2011, 07:00
IN 1970, my platoon carried 2 M60's. We did not have problems with the mechanics nor ammo. Daily cleaning of all our weapons kept the dirt and rust to a minimum. Contact was a couple time a week..
When we were rotated into the FB,, maybe every 4-5 weeks(??), we would have Mad Minutes at night where we would fire everything into the wood-line to discourage Charley. The guys would link 4 or 5 belts together, in a neat pile, and sandbag the barrel and let it rip. There were mini-contest to see who could fire the longest belt. We also did the same with the M16, They would truly glow after 10-12 20 rd mags.
No Problemo..
Now it was heavy and mechanically complicated so I would vote for something like the MG3/MG-43,,, belt fed,, 7.62x51..
Belt fed and 7.62 cal,, the bar the 5.56 can't reach..
:munchin
I'm pretty sure that my platoon had those same two M60's in 1992.
You can't beat a 7.62 belt fed machine gun. As many with more experience than me have pointed out, the sound of a M-60 firing drowned out the SAW's, letting everybody know that some serious lead was going downrange. You also can't beat the improved penetration and damage a 7.62 round does.
All that said, the M60's we had, although well loved, had a a bad habit of shooting themselves to pieces. The buttstocks would vibrate off, leaf springs constantly falling out (although tied down), etc. It was not uncommon to start off a company SBF position with six M60's firing and end up with one or two left trying to shoot through everyone else's ammo.
I've never fired a new M60, but the M240 sure seems to me like a better weapon.
Originally Posted by Peteyboy
Personally I think they should just modernize the M60
They did.
We call it the M-240b
If the USMC wanted an improvement to the M-249 maybe they should have gone to the MK48 instead.
All they did was buy a new battle rifle that fires full auto.
They could have pulled a bunch of old M-16A1's out of mothballs and would have nearly the exact same capability.
If the claim against an M-16/M-4 on full auto is a poor gas system, then they should have just stuck with the SAW, or traded up to the MK48.
Frivolous expenditure of taxpayer money.
...just my two cents.
Peteyboy
06-15-2011, 12:46
Please elaborate on your PERSONAL experience with M60s.
I'm sorry QP's I didn't mean personally as in I had PERSONAL experience with the weapon it was just my personal opinon (in hind sight maybe not the best choice of wording) but everyone I have talked to seems to speak very highly of it anyway....I'm sorry if there were any mix up:(
Black Knight
06-15-2011, 14:15
I hung on to an M60D for five years and it is probably one of my favorite weapons. We had problems with a few of them and I actually broke an op rod in half on one shoot. Never figured that one out. However, once I found a good one, I wouldn't fly with anything but that particular weapon, and it fired like a dream.
With that being said, I never understood how it ramped up from 100 to 200 to 550 rounds per minute ie. sustained/rapid/cyclic. Can anyone help me with this? Being an ops guy, we mainly shot them then cleaned them, that's it. The major work was performed by our squadron AO's, so I never found out.
I cant comment with a straight face as to how heavy it gets. The farthest I had to hump it was the flightline to the helo. :D
...With that being said, I never understood how it ramped up from 100 to 200 to 550 rounds per minute ie. sustained/rapid/cyclic. Can anyone help me with this? Being an ops guy, we mainly shot them then cleaned them, that's it. The major work was performed by our squadron AO's, so I never found out.
From FM 3.22-68
BLUF: You can fire your weapon as fast and as long as you want until (a) it blows up in your face, (b) the barrel melts and warps, (c) you run out of ammo, or (d) until Charlie overtakes your position...
Rate of Fire
5-29. Use sustained, rapid, and cyclic rates of fire with the machine gun (Table 5‑2). These rates enable leaders to control and sustain your fire and to help you avoid destroying your barrel. More than anything else, the size of the target and ammunition supply dictate your rate of fire.
Sustained Fire
5-30. This is the normal rate of fire for the gunner. Sustained fire for the M249 is 50 rounds per minute in bursts of 3 to 5 rounds, with 4 to 5 second intervals between bursts. The M60 and M240B are 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds. The gunner pauses 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at sustained rate for 10 minutes.
Rapid Fire
5-31. For all three weapons, the barrel should be changed after firing at a rapid rate for 2 minutes. This allows an exceptionally high volume of fire, but for only a short period of time. Specifics for each weapon follow:
M249
5-32. Rapid fire for the M249 is 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 8 to 10 with an interval of 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.
M60 and M240B
5-33. For the M60 and M240B, rapid fire is 200 rounds per minute in bursts of 10 to 12 rounds again with an interval of 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.
Cyclic Fire
5-34. Cyclic fire uses the most ammunition that can be used in 1 minute. The cyclic rate of fire with the machine gun is achieved when the trigger is held to the rear and ammunition is fed into the weapon uninterrupted for one minute. Normal cyclic rate of fire for the M249 is 850 rounds, M60 is 550 rounds, and for the M240B it is 650 to 950 rounds. Always change the barrel after firing at cyclic rate for 1 minute. This procedure provides the highest volume of fire that the machine gun can fire, but this adversely affects the machine gun, and should only be fired in combat under emergency purposes only.
Sustained Rate of Fire Application:
This is the gunner's normal rate of fire.
Rate:
· M249 50 rounds per minute,
in 3- to 5-round bursts.
· M60, M240B 100 rounds per minute,
in 6‑ to 9-round bursts.
Maintenance:
Gunner pauses for 4 to 5 seconds between bursts.
Barrel:
Gunner changes barrel after 10 minutes sustained rate.
Rapid Rate of Fire Application:
This rate of fire works best when the gunner is trying to establish fire superiority.
Rate:
100 rounds per minute M249 in bursts of 6 to 8 rounds
200 rounds per minute M240 or M60 in bursts of 10 to 12 rounds
Maintenance:
Pause for 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.
Barrel:
Change after firing 2 minutes at rapid rate.
Advantage:
Exceptionally high volume of fire.
Disadvantages:
Feasible only for short periods of time
Requires frequent barrel changes.
Cyclic Rate of Fire Application:
This rate of fire should only be used in combat emergencies.
Method:
Hold trigger to the rear; feed ammunition uninterrupted for 1 minute.
Normal Rate:
· M249
850 rounds per minute.
· M60
550 rounds per minute.
· M240B
650 to 950 rounds per minute.
Advantage:
Places the most possible rounds on the enemy in one minute.
Disadvantage:
Damaging to barrel.
Barrel:
Change after firing 1 minute at cyclic rate.
Table 5‑2. Rates of fire.
Black Knight
06-15-2011, 14:59
Your post...
Lots of great info in there, thank you sir.
But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).
I'm sorry QP's I didn't mean personally as in I had PERSONAL experience with the weapon it was just my personal opinon (in hind sight maybe not the best choice of wording) but everyone I have talked to seems to speak very highly of it anyway....I'm sorry if there were any mix up:(
You missed the point.
The point is, that without personal experience your comments on this subject are nothing more than noise and add nothing to the discussion.
A number of years back our team had a debate on whether or not SAWs were needed for a series of air assaults that we were doing. One set of guys wanted the 249's (2 for a 10 man ODA), and the other felt that everyone was accurate enough with their M4s to make it a moot point, at least in the terrain we were operating in. Luckily the 249 crowd won the argument on that one.
One operation saw a hot LZ with a downed team mate. The SAW gunners both went cyclic into suspected enemy postitions and it made a huge difference. Fire superiorty, not slow aimed fire, allowed guys to start maneuvering and eliminate the threat. Having to change mags every 30 rounds or so might not have made them as effective.
I think that some marines somewhere might regret this decision in the future, but thats just my opinion. YMMV.
The Reaper
06-15-2011, 19:47
But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).
You are kidding, right?:rolleyes:
TR
Retiredfire
06-15-2011, 20:23
Was with WPNS in USMC in the 90's (between times only paper targets). Carried the SAW and the M60 no 240's yet. The only thing i liked about saw was that it was lighter, but it jamed more. If i ever was in combat i would of wanted a belt fed (not counting the M2) 30 cal gun. Whats the point of a 30 rnd 22 cal mg?
Originally posted by Black Knight:
But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).
Reponded to by The Reaper:
You are kidding, right? :rolleyes:
TR,
I do not think that he is kidding? I think that he is really serious! :eek:
Black Knight,
Go back to BKKMAN's very informative post and reread it. Pay particular attention to the "Maintenance" portion for both the "Sustained and Rapid Rate of Fire" sections and to "Method" under "Cyclic Rate of Fire".
I will even offer you a hint. The M60 does not automatically change its rate of fire. Got it figured out now? ;)
Thomas
Lots of great info in there, thank you sir.
But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).
:eek::confused:Hmmmmmmmm...not exactly the response I expected, or maybe it should have been...
See the picture attached labeled "The Magic of Automatic Fire" for a basic understanding of firing the weapon at different rates...
As to why your particular weapon sometimes fired fast and sometimes not, let's take a look at the TM:
Sluggish Operation
Causes: Friction from dirt, carbon, burrs or lack of lubrication.
Corrective Action: Clean and lubricate...
YM (and rate of fire) MV
cback0220
06-16-2011, 14:47
What is wrong with the Mk 48? Fires 7.62 in a friendly operating system that most joes could figure out quickly. Plus it is already being used by units, could have made appropriations easier.
Peteyboy
06-16-2011, 19:32
You missed the point.
The point is, that without personal experience your comments on this subject are nothing more than noise and add nothing to the discussion.
Understood QP abc 123.
The M-60s I used when I was a younger man had manual transmissions...
...the ones with the automatic transmission must have been nice.
I think they are making a big mistake going with HK it will bite them in the ass later with the high cost of replacement parts, and the contracting with HK (Germans)... The Marines will not be able to deviate from the contract once signed. (nice guns poor customer relations) this is my opinion of course I expect flames from the HK lovers.:D
If they wanted lighter they should have just gotten a belt feed conversion for the
M16
http://www.dndguns.com/shrike.htm.
If you want dependable M240L
http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2010/04/20/making-the-army%E2%80%99s-first-titanium-machine-gun/
Black Knight
06-18-2011, 19:00
TR,
I do not think that he is kidding? I think that he is really serious! :eek:
Black Knight,
Go back to BKKMAN's very informative post and reread it. Pay particular attention to the "Maintenance" portion for both the "Sustained and Rapid Rate of Fire" sections and to "Method" under "Cyclic Rate of Fire".
I will even offer you a hint. The M60 does not automatically change its rate of fire. Got it figured out now? ;)
Thomas
T.R. and Thomas,
You are correct, I was serious and now more than a little embarressed. In my ignorance from way back when, I assumed these rates were something the weapon did, not something my trigger finger did. :o
I do know my way around weapons a little which is why I could never figure out how it was accomplished. Thanks to you guys my question has been finally answered.
Now you know why in 4 years I've only posted 20 times :D
I swear I'm not a dumbass just a little misguided. I blame the Navy.
Thanks again,
BK
Prior to the M249 making an appearance, we used to use two M14s - one was an M21 for the sniper and the other was an M14A1 (magazine fed w/auto-selector switch and bipod) for use as a SAW type support weapon similar to a BAR. The A1 worked extremely well under all types of conditions and gave us good extended range coverage when needed - weighed about 60% less than the M249.
We also had access to cut-down RPDs in 7.62X39 with 100 round drums - weighed about 50% less than an M249.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
EchoSixMike
09-07-2011, 12:26
Going to something in 7.62x51 would add that caliber to the rifle squad, something the supply type people in the USMC have always been loathe to do. The M249 currently has a bit of a bad rep in the USMC due to a variety of issues, the main ones IMO being: a.) it's old and worn out thus often unreliable and b.) it's heavy, bulky and slows the movement of the automatic rifleman and thus the fire team.
The USMC is eagerly looking forward to the titanium M240 for the company weapons platoon, which are typically attched to the line platoons. Since the parts are already insystem, I doubt the Mk 48 would be considered there.
I personally am a big fan of the M249 and would liked to have seen the USMC simply improve the existing M249 with something like the Mk46 or the Para-SAW thus decreasing the weight while maintaining the ability to have real suppressive fire.
Several of the Marines in my sniper platoon took it upon themselves through personal connections to have their M249's essentially rebuilt by our armorers prior to OIF 2. During the rains and mud of the fall/winter of 04, those SAW's did God's work along MSR Tampa and elsewhere when Fallujah went down. A key issue is that they were dilligently maintained, which is something that seems to be decreasing in frequency, given our society's love for hardware solutions for software issues. S/F(that would be Semper Fidelis)....Ken M
Good to see the thread get bumped.
Still like the M60.
Kyobanim
09-07-2011, 17:37
Still like the M60.
Go big or stay home. :)
MTN Medic
09-07-2011, 19:23
Am I missing something? The M249 is nothing like the M-60. I am certain that the Marines will still use the 240G (which is the modern equivalent). The new 240's we are getting are great weapons and my heart feels good when I hear two of them talking laying the proverbial black rain.
I have never been a fan of the SAW. MOO, but the thing was heavy/ weildly for what it brought to the fight.
EchoSixMike
09-18-2011, 05:59
The sustained suppression it provides to enable the rest of the team to close with and destroy really isn't "doable" with anything other than another belt fed weapon. Smaller and lighter is generally always nice, hence Para SAW or Mk46 being my pick for replacing worn out M249's. The 249's are worn out, absolutely, but that's not a rational reason to abandon the system, just to buy new stuff.
Sorta like the M1911 to M9 transition based on the 1911's being worn out. S/F....Ken M
Streck-Fu
03-08-2013, 16:23
What is wrong with the Mk 48? Fires 7.62 in a friendly operating system that most joes could figure out quickly. Plus it is already being used by units, could have made appropriations easier.
Sorry to bump an old thread but I came across a discussion on the M27 and had this same question.
Why wouldn't the existing Mk 46/48 work? The answer is most likely that the requirement was for accurate fire rather for hits than area suppression fire.
Can they accurately claim there is no need for a squad level belt fed weapon?
medic&commo
03-09-2013, 09:28
Given all the current legislation & the manufacturers policies a belt-fed system seems the way to go.
m&c
Bracholi
03-09-2013, 23:15
My experience with three different m249s issued while deployed to Iraq (If the number of weapons issued isn't telling enough).
Weapon system 1: Issued day of deployment from Ft. Campbell. Survived the journey to Kuwait. Survived 4 days of acclimatization. On the 5th day survived loading onto bus, along with 2 hour hop to mid-way range (sand dunes). Pronounced dead on range. Reason: parts broke off in trigger assembly, disappeared in sand; Parts utilized SERE training to evade detection including by magnet.
Weapon system 2: Issued upon arrival at FOB. Weapon taken to nearby range for test-fire. Attempted dis-assembly for cleaning. Found bolt was lodged in barrel. Weapon dead-lined.
Weapon system 3: Tied-on parts with 550 cord to ensure they'd stay together. Barrel change modified to include severing cord. Broken sights, negligible issue considering close engagement zone.
Weapon fills one role well. Ability to accept single 5.56 rounds and be hand linked back into a belt. Good capability for if you have the ammunition available and get stuck in an Alamo situation. Aside from that this is a useless ability.
Experience with 240:
One weapon issued before deployment, but staged in company weapons conex for shipping to Iraq. Survived deployment with minimal repairs/downtime.
Lacks shoulder fire capability (at least comfortable and accurate shoulder capability)
Awesome weapon in the right caliber to actually kill something.
As accurate a weapon as you'll ever need to spew lead in 3-5 round bursts.
Fairly susceptible to jamming without proper upkeep/otherwise highly reliable.
Fills multiple roles.
In defense of the 249s I was issued, each was a hand-me-down from recently returned BCTs so they'd taken much abuse and been given little shop time.
If my opinion counts for anything, I believe that the 249 should be continued. Replacing a belt-fed automatic rifle with a weapon that is essentially the same as what the rest of a team is already carrying makes no sense to me at all. If they're going to go this route and phase out the belt-fed, why not just issue more m4/m16s?
I was disappointed that they didn't decide to adopt the Ultimax 100 Mk.4 . Having used it myself I am a big fan, IMO probably the best shooting weapon I've ever fired. The only issues I had with the Mk.3 variants I had were a lack of rails to mount optics/other accessories, along with the bulky nature of the drums. It also takes a minute to load them.
Has anyone ever seen a breakdown of the testing the Marine Corps did to determine their choice of the M27? I have a suspicion the whole thing was a back door method of acquiring 416s for the force.