Iraq soldiers carrying a more SAWs than M4s?

[c_yeager]

Hope this is not too off topic, but just saw on BBC news quite a few marines in the thick of it were using AKs. What is the rationale behind this? I assume they had been issued US rifles, but they only had the AKs.

What you are seeing are most likely Iraqi soldiers. They are wearing some similar gear to our boys and are operating alongside them.

The SAW is no more accurate than the M-4 (the opposite is probably true). In fact, due to its weight, it is slower to get into action making an M-4 more preferable. Remarks regarding the 5.56mm's effectiveness aside, the SAW is no more likely to put anyone down than an M-4/M-16. Rarely do more than one or two rounds of a 6-9 round burst hit the target.

I will defer to your experience on this since I have none myself in this regard. However I would think that the innacuracy of the SAW wouldnt be such a drawback in its INTENDED role (i.e. not room clearing) since it's innacuracy would contribute to a "cone of fire" that would provide good suppression. In other words a machinegun isnt much good if it puts all of the bullets into the same hole.

 

[VG]

It' not that the SAW is not accurate. It's that when firing full auto from a relatively light weapon, the aiming point changes with each round.

When I was an 11B (1981) they had not yet fielded the SAW and one man per squad was designated as an automatic rifleman. We qualified in Automatic Rifle in addition to Rifle, using M16A1's firiing in full auto mode. The instructors made the point that most target hits were first round, some were second, a few were third, and basically any longer burst would like miss a point target.

The use of such Squad weapons dates back to WWII, although the BAR is even older. Soldiers and Marines were trained in shooting precision engagements at long ranges, and told not to fire at targets they couldn't identify. Once they got to thir combat assignments, they learned that squads used suppressive fire on potential or known enemy positions so that another element could manuever. The M1 Garand provided a much higher (at least double) rate of fire to what bolt operated rifles could accomplish, along with the BAR, usually assigned one per squad.

Soldiers and Marines who fought in the Pacific theater also had a great deal of respect for the Japanese Nambus, light machine guns with a higher rate of fire and more portable than the BAR.

The Natick soldiers Center surveyed Afghanistan veterans and they generally had confidence in the SAW.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

I will defer to your experience on this since I have none myself in this regard. However I would think that the innacuracy of the SAW wouldnt be such a drawback in its INTENDED role (i.e. not room clearing) since it's innacuracy would contribute to a "cone of fire" that would provide good suppression. In other words a machinegun isnt much good if it puts all of the bullets into the same hole.

You are absolutely correct in your statement. The SAW is not meant to be a precision weapon, it is a light machinegun and subtle variations contribute to the development of the cone of fire. It was not my intent to suggest that the SAW is inaccurate, only to point out that when you fire a 6-round burst, all 6 rounds do not impact the target.