I have been thinking about the various Squad Automatic Weapons (SAW) designs used by various militaries. Some countries use a magazine fed design like the Steyr HBAR, the RPK, or the HK MG 36. While other countries use a belt fed design like the FN Minimi (M249), or the HK MG 43 design I was wondering what advantages that the a magazine fed system has over a belt fed system in a SAW role, and which one would you prefer? Historically I think of the Soviet's decision to replace the RPD with the RPK, and to this day I do not understand the logic.
Belt Fed vs. Magazine Fed for a SAW
- Thread starter Number 6
- Start date
- Status
mikeb3185
Member
the m-249 is the saw, and it normally uses 200rd disintegrating belts in a ammo box, however it can also use a m-16 magazine. with normal rate of fire of 750rpm upto 1000rpm. the 30rd m-16 mag does not seem very efficient.
1 old 0311
member
Belts can get dirty, or get links bent. This is a bad situation. When you see belts carried "Mexican Carry" of wraping around the neck this is for 'Hollywood' or morons. Mags are less likely to get damaged.
Kevin
Kevin
beerslurpy
member
Advantage with the belt is that potentially it can hold infinite ammo
Advantage with the magazine is that the gun doesnt have to deal with delinking the cartridges, which is a source of unreliability.
Advantage with the magazine is that the gun doesnt have to deal with delinking the cartridges, which is a source of unreliability.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
m-249s don't like working with M16 mags, ask someone who has tried it - M16 mags just don't feed well, apparently.
An advantage to a magazine fed squad automatic is that you would be able to feed it with rifle mags instead of having to depend on a belted supply, assuming the mags and ammo are interchangable.
The problem with most mag fed SAW's would be they are typically a fixed barrel setup, so the rate of fire is not going to be much more than what the riflemen can put out. Notable exceptions would be the Type D BAR which was mag fed and a quick detachable barrel.
The problem with most mag fed SAW's would be they are typically a fixed barrel setup, so the rate of fire is not going to be much more than what the riflemen can put out. Notable exceptions would be the Type D BAR which was mag fed and a quick detachable barrel.
The problem with magazine fed automatics in the support role is that it is difficult to keep up a good rate of fire. Having to reload after every 30 rounds or so can be a problem.
Another issue is that, say, 300 rounds of ammo in 10 30 round mags is going to weigh more than 300 rounds of linked and belted ammo. The weight of the mags adds to the total weight carried.
As far as sharing mags with the squad, you run into the same problem of limited mag capacity. Also, my understanding is that the M 249 will not run reliabily with M-16 mags and that inserting a M-16 mag into a SAW damages the mag to the extant that it has to be discarded afterwards or limited to SAW use only. (I believe this has to do with the feed lips being damaged).
One of the reasons the XM-8 didn't make it was that HK said the Beta C mag would work as the feed device for the SAW/LMG version. The army really wanted a belt fed SAW/LMG and also had problems with the Beta mag specifically and decided this wasn't acceptable.
Another issue is that, say, 300 rounds of ammo in 10 30 round mags is going to weigh more than 300 rounds of linked and belted ammo. The weight of the mags adds to the total weight carried.
As far as sharing mags with the squad, you run into the same problem of limited mag capacity. Also, my understanding is that the M 249 will not run reliabily with M-16 mags and that inserting a M-16 mag into a SAW damages the mag to the extant that it has to be discarded afterwards or limited to SAW use only. (I believe this has to do with the feed lips being damaged).
One of the reasons the XM-8 didn't make it was that HK said the Beta C mag would work as the feed device for the SAW/LMG version. The army really wanted a belt fed SAW/LMG and also had problems with the Beta mag specifically and decided this wasn't acceptable.
There was more to that decision than "belt vs. mag." By switching to the RPK the Soviets set up a system where the main infantry rifle and the main infantry support weapon were variations on the same basic AK design. The controls, operating system and maintainence procedures where the same. This greatly simplied training, which was important to a large conscript army whose training standards did not reach those of Western armies.
When trying to understand decisions made by military establishments about weapons, look beyond the specific attributes of the weapon itself and examine it's place in the larger military structure. The impact of any particular decision on the training, logistical or structural component of the organization are greater than the relatively minor differences between the choices.
Here's another example: During Desert Storm, the U.S. military decided to run as many vehicle types as possible on the same specific type of fuel used by the M-1 Abrams. This fuel was not the best choice for some vehicles, namely multi-fuel trucks and, I believe, HumVee's because it did not provide as good fuel mileage and could increase maintainence requirements. However, this was more than offset by the significant decrease in the logistical burden that only having to provide one type of fuel created. The decision provided a "less than optimum" solution for the users of trucks and HumVees, in that they had to refuel more often and do more maintainence, but greatly benefited the war effort as a whole.
Remington788
Member
A good friend of mine was a SAW gunner in the Marines and I asked him about the use of M-16 mags in the SAW. He said they worked but you had to limit yourselt to 8-10 round bursts as the spring in the mag wouldn't feed fast enough for rate of fire the M249 was capable of. He said if you tried to dump the whole mag at once, it would either jam or just not feed a round into the chamber.
I have seen far too many front-line photos of US soldiers in war zones carrying belts of ammo "Pancho Villa Style" to believe that it wasn't done. I also have had infantry vets tell me that they had done this with their ammunition.
Since this appears to be so, it is no danged wonder that the M60 has a lousy reputation as a jam-o-matic. Belts carried in the open attract all sorts of crud, from airborne dust to whatever mud, or dirt, or water, or snow, or ice the soldier finds himself in. None of these are of any aid to reliable functioning!
The "squad automatic" in my early service was the wonderful Bren .303 Light Machine Gun, a magazine-fed gun. It was replaced with a heavy-barreled FAL, also a mag-fed weapon, and about eight pounds lighter. To a man, everyone I served with wanted the Bren back, after some experience with the FAL.
Routine management called for every man in the squad to carry at least two loaded 30-round Bren mags, in addition to the five carried by the gunner and another four carried by his #2 gunner. There are some advantages to the magazines. The ammo is protected and clean, as well as being in a compact and manageable "packaging". In hot spots, loaded magazines can actually be THROWN from cover to cover, which is tough with a 200-round belt!
After the HB FAL (C2/C2A1 in Canadian service) became standard, it used 30-round magazines, but the 20-round rifle mags used by everyone else in the section fit and fired perfectly in the C2, so no extra mags needed to be carried by the snuffies in the squad.
I've had some experience with belt-fed guns as well, and frankly, I'd take an L4 7.62mm Bren over any other squad automatic I've seen or fired. The later Brens were a good bit lighter than the early Marks, being down in the 18-pound range....and they offer DEADLY-accurate firepower. I just don't see the belts as much of an advantage. Firepower = rounds on target, not a lot of fast noisy misses. (Mag change on the Bren is about a two-second job with a two-man crew, and perhaps four or five seconds if the gunner is alone).
I'm not sure just how much a given number of links weigh, compared to an FAL magazine, for example. I suspect the net difference isn't all that much, although the links will clearly be lighter.
Anyway, this ol' soldier would pay the weight penalty, in favor of truly reliable function.
Since this appears to be so, it is no danged wonder that the M60 has a lousy reputation as a jam-o-matic. Belts carried in the open attract all sorts of crud, from airborne dust to whatever mud, or dirt, or water, or snow, or ice the soldier finds himself in. None of these are of any aid to reliable functioning!
The "squad automatic" in my early service was the wonderful Bren .303 Light Machine Gun, a magazine-fed gun. It was replaced with a heavy-barreled FAL, also a mag-fed weapon, and about eight pounds lighter. To a man, everyone I served with wanted the Bren back, after some experience with the FAL.
Routine management called for every man in the squad to carry at least two loaded 30-round Bren mags, in addition to the five carried by the gunner and another four carried by his #2 gunner. There are some advantages to the magazines. The ammo is protected and clean, as well as being in a compact and manageable "packaging". In hot spots, loaded magazines can actually be THROWN from cover to cover, which is tough with a 200-round belt!
After the HB FAL (C2/C2A1 in Canadian service) became standard, it used 30-round magazines, but the 20-round rifle mags used by everyone else in the section fit and fired perfectly in the C2, so no extra mags needed to be carried by the snuffies in the squad.
I've had some experience with belt-fed guns as well, and frankly, I'd take an L4 7.62mm Bren over any other squad automatic I've seen or fired. The later Brens were a good bit lighter than the early Marks, being down in the 18-pound range....and they offer DEADLY-accurate firepower. I just don't see the belts as much of an advantage. Firepower = rounds on target, not a lot of fast noisy misses. (Mag change on the Bren is about a two-second job with a two-man crew, and perhaps four or five seconds if the gunner is alone).
I'm not sure just how much a given number of links weigh, compared to an FAL magazine, for example. I suspect the net difference isn't all that much, although the links will clearly be lighter.
Anyway, this ol' soldier would pay the weight penalty, in favor of truly reliable function.
rero360
Member
so far I've only had one malfuntion with my SAW, and that was during zeroing feeding single rounds to it, never tried using M16 mags, but some of the more experienced guys say they are less than optimal. I've never had a chance to fire a MG that used mags but I do know that I love my SAW, M2 and MK19, if its in range, I can kill it 
Gunsnrovers
Member
I have limited experience with the Bren and really liked it. Mostly .303, but some 7.62mm. Mostly from a reenacting perspective, but more then a bit of live fire.
The down side, as mentioned, was you're limited to 28 rounds before you reload, however, with the magazine it's very fast to bring into action. There are no worries about belts hanging, jamming, etc. Point and shoot (and hit what you aim at!).
Having a good #2 makes a big difference in keeping things going (ammo and barrel swaps).
Easy to maintain, quick barrel changes, and accurate. I like the Bren. A lot.
The down side, as mentioned, was you're limited to 28 rounds before you reload, however, with the magazine it's very fast to bring into action. There are no worries about belts hanging, jamming, etc. Point and shoot (and hit what you aim at!).
Having a good #2 makes a big difference in keeping things going (ammo and barrel swaps).
Easy to maintain, quick barrel changes, and accurate. I like the Bren. A lot.
hank327
Member
The Bren gun is probably the best SAW ever fielded by any army. True it doesn't have the sustainable rate of fire that a belt fed MG has, but that is not the role of a SAW. You have the GPMGs to provide the heavy sustained fire. I think a downsized Bren in 5.56mm would make a grand SAW for the Army. I know it will never happen as the Bren design calls for too much machining in it's production to be cost effective these days.
Lomshek
Member
The US issue M-249 SAW was intended to use M-16 mags through a secondary feed chute located at the 7:30 position. The problem is the mag is held in place by a hinged dust cover door.
This door does not lock the mag solidly into place but allows a lot of wiggle room meaning the bolt could skip over a round or drive the nose of a round beside the chamber. Holding the mag with your off hand like a cockeyed VFG allows you to hold it at the correct position for reliable feed.
For most use the belt would be much preferred especially when you have 200 round belts contained in a protective box mounted to the weapon. The chances of a screwed up belt are much diminished.
With magazines in any true MG role you lose the ability for suppresive and sustained fire.
my .02
This door does not lock the mag solidly into place but allows a lot of wiggle room meaning the bolt could skip over a round or drive the nose of a round beside the chamber. Holding the mag with your off hand like a cockeyed VFG allows you to hold it at the correct position for reliable feed.
For most use the belt would be much preferred especially when you have 200 round belts contained in a protective box mounted to the weapon. The chances of a screwed up belt are much diminished.
With magazines in any true MG role you lose the ability for suppresive and sustained fire.
my .02
rangerruck
Member
if you can get weapons with side or vert loaded mags, this is much better. the plastic drum sfor the saw work great, in non bang up , knock around, low crawl, standard grunt type usage. they have a prob with wear and tear , at their link up point. you could say the same for belts, but belts are the biggest fail factor, with the most failure points.
jobu07
Contributing Member
Isn't the plastic box attached underneath a hard case that contains a belt of ammo?
Fire4Effect
Member
I would say that for a fast moving infantry unit, especially in an urban environment, the drum or magazine would provide more mobility. But in my case, as a helicopter door gunner where high volumes of suppression and support fire is used, then belts are the best since we can link 4-5 belts together... gotta love those .50cal API rounds...
- Status
