Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M249 5.56mm not good enough?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Evil Monkey, Feb 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,486
    In this thread,

    http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=338702

    in the third post down, "alsaqr" said,

    I've heard about this numerous times now. Is there a report on the subject out there from experiences in Iraq? Is it really true that the 5.56mm in a LMG has been somewhat of a failure?

    Recently I've found a Janes article dated 2001-2002 called "Calibers Reconsidered" and it had some interesting things in it.


    Interesting! We shouldn't be worrying about 5.56 v 7.62 from a rifle, rather from a Light machine gun/ squad support weapon. Your thoughts?
     
  2. brian923

    brian923 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    676
    my brother-in-law used a m249 to light up a dump truck in Iraq. he said it worked really well... i think that the 5.56 is a great round and is very under-rated. if it is no good, why have we been using it for 40 years?? yes there are alot of differant rounds out there, but there is no "magic" round that can do everything. this is why we have different weapon systems availible. as for a "light" sqaud auto. weapon, its amazing. i think.
     
  3. AndyC

    AndyC Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    I used an M249 as a trunk-monkey - excellent for laying down covering-fire and good on soft-targets, but it took more rounds than I would have liked to stop a vehicle. That forced us to go to PKMs in 7.62x54R

    Horses for courses and all that.
     
  4. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Different pluses and minuses (echoing what AndyC said).

    The SAW has its strengths and limitations, as do medium machineguns in 7.62 flavors. I don't see either the 5.56mm light machinegun or the 7.62 LMG/MMG going out of the inventory any time soon. As for the longer term, the powers that be seem content with the idea of a squad level suppressive weapon in an intermediate caliber, judging by the focus of the LSAT program.

    I think the bigger problem, as far as end users are concerned, are mechanically unreliable SAWs that are a bit too long in the tooth, more than limits of the 5.56mm round in an LMG. (Particularly when it is employed within the context of a squad or platoon's range of assigned weapons, etc.)
     
  5. Devonai

    Devonai Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,855
    Location:
    Connecticut
    For Infantry 101, the M249 excels, i.e. dismounted patrol, Battle Drill 1A, et cetera. If you need to lay down a lot of fire so that your B team/squad can flank the enemy element, it's just what you need.

    In the turret, I hope it's only a backup to your Ma Deuce/ Mk 19.

    The M60 is a good compromise between size, weight, and caliber, especially if you have a vehicle to get you from A to B. On the ground, you better have some PT studs on your weapons squad or it's dead weight.
     
  6. LeibstandarteAdH

    LeibstandarteAdH Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    South Carolina (Midlands)
    I dont know about you guys, but the M249 carries pretty damn heavy to me compaired to something like (especially) the new slimed down 240 Mk whatever. Or even a PKM.
     
  7. Bart Noir

    Bart Noir Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    887
    Location:
    Mossy part of Washington
  8. Beowolf1911

    Beowolf1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Eastern PA
    Buddy of mine was a saw gunner, they do a great job at what they were intended to do stop people from charging you, but they do a terrible job at what they were never intended to do, ie anti-material. There are advantages and disadvantages to every weapon, that is why you use them the way you were trained and not the way you would like to use them.
     
  9. possum

    possum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,942
    Location:
    Concord, N.C.
    the FN mag aka the m240
     
  10. woodybrighton

    woodybrighton member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    BRIGHTON
    the minimi in 7.62 is slightly lighter than a gpmg or m240 but you'll never see it unless you something special as no governments going to buy lightweight 7.62 mgs when its already got 7.62mgs in sstore
     
  11. kBob

    kBob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,447
    Location:
    North Central Florida
    "Infantry squads used to have an M60 machine gun as the squad automatic weapon."

    Dispite appearences and even recollections, this was not true of the US Army Infantry.

    From the time the M16A1 rifle was adopted until the adoption of the current SAW the "auto rifle" in each of a squads fireteams was an M-16A1 or A2 with a clip on bipod and not a single other difference.

    Each Infantry Platoon of three rifle squads and a Weapons squad had two M-60 GPMGs assigned. Inother words two GPMGs for three squads. Typically one of the guns was attached to one squad and one to another, but that left one squad "out in the cold" and there were times when the mission of weapons squad may have required one or both guns to be withdrawn to be back under the control of the Weapons squad leader.

    The Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E)for the rifle platoon called for a rifle squad to consist of from nine to eleven men (depending on the time period and place) divided into two fire teams. The weaposn carried in the rifle squad were rifles and grenade launchers and before the adoption of the M203 Grenade launcher when team Grenadiers were issued the M79 "Bloop-Tube" GL those gunners were issued an M-1911A1 .45 ACP side arm.

    Notice there was nothing in the TO&E about a belt fed MG of any kind in the Squad.

    It was nice to have an M-60 attached, but not an everyday thing.

    Compared to an M-16A1 set on full auto, fed from standard 20 or 30 round magazines, on a cheap clothes pin type bipod.....the current SAW when belted ammo is available is a wonderous thing.

    Having fired the .30 "SAW", the BAR, and the 7.62 SAWs, the M-14A1 and M-14 A2 (E2) I personally was underwhelmed with being handed a stamped steel spring loaded bipod that could either be attached to the rifle with its legs sticking down or stored in its bothersome pouch. Amazingly those bipods and pouches were lost at such a rate they were hard to find on occassion.

    Later after it was decided I need a better education I moved to a weaposn squad and after a few weeks of being married to an M67 90mm Recoiless rifle had a M-60 gunner leave the service and his assistant turn himself in for drug treatment and inherited an M-60. Yes, there is no comparison to be had between a 7.62 GPMG and a 5.56 "auto rifle" but as has been noted carrying the M-60 and only a mere 300 rounds took a lot out of a fellow that also had to carry his own personal gear. For me about the neatest thing about being a -60 gunner was that I got to keep my 1911A1.....and I confess that seemed heavy at times

    Let's stop this silly 7.62 SAW in the good old days as it did not exist in the US Army.

    I do not know about the USMC but they usesda a three fireteam squad for a good long while and seem to recall that they only deployed one gun with one of the teams.

    The SAW as it was invisioned in the US Army was to be issued one to each infantry fire team, that is two to the Squad. Some how two dedicated (not pulled out by the Platoon leader when ever he damn well pleases and sent some where else) beats a maybe we will get one 7.62 gun if it isn't busy some place else.

    Now lets move on.

    -Bob Hollingsworth
     
  12. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    When I was in the infantry (mid 80s) we were assigned an M60 for each squad in our company. This was an anti armor company (11h), not a rifle company, but our weapons list was 2xM16s, 1xM203, 1xM60, repeat.

    I think my training company may have been the first to train on the 249 at Benning (on of the first at least--the bull dozed trees caught fire on the sides of the range in a few places, shutting us down to douse 'em).

    At the time, the M60 was held in contempt by most. The common discussion at the time was why did the US even develop that piece of junk when the MG3 was available. (not saying I agree with that, just saying that soldiers like to bitch about their gear for the most part. Well, they just like to bitch. lol)
     
  13. wadeXD-40

    wadeXD-40 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    gulfport, MS
    for a squad level automatic rifle the light caliber is all right because you can carry a lot more ammo
     
  14. TimboKhan

    TimboKhan Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,141
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    I was a machinegunner in the USMC, and as such, I didn't have to goof around with the SAW much. I can tell you that there is a signifigant difference in weight between the SAW and the M-60, the Saw is much easier to fire from the shoulder if necessary (although you can fire an M60 offhand), and the SAW fires the same round as the rest of the squad, which is no small thing. I happen to think it is a so-so weapon, but it fills a gap and it seems to do so moderately well.
     
  15. Bart Noir

    Bart Noir Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    887
    Location:
    Mossy part of Washington
    MudPuppy, are you saying that the 10-man squad had 2 M-60s??? That is a lot of firepower, but not enough to stop armor:D What did you have to hump for anti-armor weapons?

    Possum, I agree that the M240 is a fine MG, although I believe it is heavier than the M60. But I was refering to the Mk48, which is a whole different MG and really is a 7.62 version of the M249. What I don't know is just how much it is used by the SpecOps people.

    Anybody know more about the Mk48 in service?

    Bart Noir
     
  16. dixierifleman

    dixierifleman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    124
    6 full drums and a para saw is not easy to lug around. actually it sucks. id hate for it to be replaced with anything heavier. plus we have 2 240s for the platoon. that with 9 SAWs and 40 M16s is usually enough.
     
  17. kBob

    kBob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,447
    Location:
    North Central Florida
    MudPuppy,

    First when you were a direct fire anti tank weapon team member, what was your teams main mode of transportation? does not sound like you were in a team or squad of 11Bs as most Infantry are.

    The reason the MG3 was not selected over the M-60 is that the MG3 had not been invented yet. Certainly there were the MG1 conversions of MG42s but not the MG3.

    Certainly the M-60 is a lighter gun than the T37 (7.62 NATO version of the M1919A6) it has an easier to change barrel than the 1919 series guns and an easier to deal with feed system than the 1919.

    Basically the M-60 was the end result of a project begun immediately after WWII that mated the MG42 feed system with the FG42 and dropping the requirement for select fire, select bolt positioning.

    The two biggest problems for the M-60 were its age the Army did not buy enough to keep it in production and two Peter G. Kokalis (sp?)who took every opertunity to remind Amercain youth what a poor gun the M-60 was.

    Most of the things "wrong" with the M-60 could have been fixed with up grades if production levels had been kept up.

    I never got to play with the M-60 IMOD that the USMC ended up using a bit but it did seem an improvement over the M-60.

    Guns get replaced because tactics and conditions change and when there is money to do so. Politics play a huge role in Arms Procurement. When the M-60 was adopted and for a bit after it looked like about the best allround idea.

    As a M-60 gunner or some other 11B slot I got to shoot and compare the MG42 family from MG1 with waffen amp marks to the MG3 and also the FN MAG, dispite its warts I liked the M-60 best even though before I got to try the others I though both would be a better gun.

    My point was that the M-60 was part of a RIfle Platoons Weapons Squad and ther were never enough for every firetam to have one or even one per squad according to US ARMY TO&Es for Rifle Companies.

    -Bob Hollingsworth
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page