New IAR vs. SAW M249

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what is driving the Marines to pursue the IAR is they have found over the last several years in two wars they often don’t need light machine guns. In two different countries on different types of battles fields they are facing small groups of lightly armed insurgents who mostly use ambush-and-run and hit-and-run tactics. They are usually not digging trenches nor building sandbagged fighting positions. The advantages of a light machinegun (suppressive fire, firing enfilade, etc) are not a big use to the Marines in many of their engagements.

I’ve read the Marines have found what they need and don’t have is true automatic fire (not the sub-gun type auto from their M16/M4s) that they can quickly maneuver around to pin down the insurgents before they can escape and melt into the population. A true automatic rifle one Marine can run up stairs with to fire from a rooftop, or run to a flanking position to fire along the gully the enemy is taking cover in. I understand with the weight the current SAW gunners have to carry, they are bringing up the rear in combat maneuvers, and the bad guys are gone before the SAW can be set up in an effective position.

They also need the longer effective range true automatic fire provides, to keep the enemy engaged for a longer distance/time as they are trying to break contact. Same reason the Marines developed and deployed the designated marksman rifles.

The Marines are keeping their SAWs and are continuing to train with them, for the next war when they might need light machine guns again more than they need them now. They are also trying to add a new weapon that they need now.

Well stated. As the missions change, so should the weaponry. The SAW (and the successor to the M249) will always have its place. The Marines need something between the M16/M4 and the SAW for these urban assault missions in particular.

So, what's the hang up?!?, they want to add heavier barrels to some of their M16s, install a full auto switch, maybe a bipod and voila!, the IAR.

It makes sense, but the IAR will need some improvements over modified M16's such as higher cyclic rate and better reliability. Plus, the PMO has money that's burning a hole in their pockets. Gotta keep the beltway bandits happy, y'know... ;)
 
The M16 is about 8-9 pounds, depending on how much you put on it. The M249 is about 20 pounds. So, for about double the weight, you get over 6 times the magazine capacity, a quick change barel and the capability for long range, sustained fire. I don't know how much a loaded SAW drum weighs, but i'd gues 5-6 pounds. A 100 round C-mag is 2.2 lb unloaded and 5lb loaded So, after you fire you magazine, you stil have a buch of plastic to carry. The SAW drum prabably weighs the same, since it dosn't have springs or stuff like that. Also, it is easyer for the rest of teh squad to carry a spare belt a la Veitnam than a spar C-mag. The one good thing i can say about the IAR is that it's not a bullpup. Bullpups are fine for rifles, but MGs are SUPORRT weapons, they need sustained fire. I've never seen a magazine larger than 42 rounds (Steyr AUG) for a bullpup.
 
As for a dusty 249 on top of a turret is a rare sight these days unless paired with a MK19. Even then you dont see that to often. Also I am not sure what unit would be able to move mounted for 48 hours without some kind of rest period. In addition infantry 101 is that you clean and maintain your weapons before eating or sleeping. Also if you state your freaking safty is falling off... either you have never touched a M249 and are just posting BS on the fourm or your definintion of cleaning your weapon is hitting it with a hammer repeatly. We always rolled with extra MGs in the rear of one of our trucks if we were going on more than a day patrol.

What kind of military are you in? You are right, 249s are usually on the turret with Mk19s... doesn't make them any less important. Mk19s kinda suck in an urban environment.

What kind of unit would move mounted for 48 hours? For a two month period my mission lengths ranged from 18-48 hours, without rest. I was in a line unit. How about the SF in the early days of Afghanistan and Iraq, and driving around god knows what country now.

I remember after quite a few missions in dust/mud storms, wiping 1/2" of gunk off all exposed surfaces of my M2. A SAW doesn't work very well when its that dirty.

The safety issue first presented itself in PEACETIME on factory refurbished SAWs. It popped up later too. I heard the cause was gunners half charging their weapons so they could engage the safety to get into the chow halls on bigger bases. Not sure, as I'm not a SAW armorer.

Extra MGs in the rear of your truck? I guess you've never been in an RG31 mk3. Barely enough room for ammo.

Keep in mind, not every unit has the same equipment, mission types, or needs... but the weapon that is issued should work equally well regardless.

And whoever mentioned a SAW A-gunner... in the Army at least, the SAW is a personal weapon.
 
Cripes, just what we need - another weapon in the inventory.

I vote with the guy who recommended the Ameli. I got a chance to fire the MG80 some years ago and it rocks! Not much heavier than a loaded up M16, and with the plastic belt can it's easy to sling around.

The M249 is overly complex, which is probably why it appealed to US procurement

As noted, the Colt MG has been tried before. Colt must be feeling the pinch with FN building so many guns.

If they want an M16 based MG, why not something like the ARES shrike?

shrike1.jpg
 
Anyone ever try a beta mag in a saw? I ran into an M249 specific beta mag a couple days ago and thought it was one of the most ridiculous looking things I've ever seen, and that's not factoring in the round cycling issues that plague the M16 mag well.
 
essayons21 - I know the SAW is a personal weapon, in the Marines, There is the SAW gunner who's primary is the SAW and the A gunner has his own rifle too usuallly an M16, he carries extra SAW barrels, extra SAW ammo along with his own gun and gear too. It's a two man team in the Marines.

LaEscopeta - The SAW gunner usually ends up being in the rear because he is a SUPPORT man! Who do you think lays down the suppressing fire so the lighter riflemen can advance on a position? It's all part of a squad rush, there is a reason "suppressive fire" is suppressive. Besides the Navy has Full Auto M16's (at least when I was in) so if a full auto rifle was necessary they could just employed those.

I'm not saying the SAW is perfect, it isn't and has many flaws and faults, but there is no way that a fighting man would want to have an "IAR" with 30 rounds for suppressing fire to cover him when he is rushing out in the open towards the enemey instead of a 200 rnd MACHINEGUN. I don't care what some wiki-what-a says or government spokesperson says, (military always makes mistakes and sometimes bad judgement on gear too) Like when ALICE packs were finally replaced (Great pack but took them long enough to upgrade it!) by the MOLLE packs, which was a great idea, but those first Gen packs the frames just kept on breaking the MOLLE system worked well, but the pack frame design was pathetic, it took numerous try's and improvements to find the right fix.

I'm not saying the IAR doesn't have a place or isn't a fine weapon, but it is by no means a support weapon. The SAW does need to be replaced by something hardier and more robust, but replaced by a machine gun, the level of firepower and the effect it has on an enemy is vital and cannot be replaced by a magazine fed weapon.
 
Well form personal experience, we hated the SAW-- it was prone to jamming and was a dirt magnet-- but that was 12 years ago, so maybe they are better now...whatever the decision, I hope we give our guys (and gals) the very best weapon possible-- NO MATTER THE COST TO US TAXPAYERS...

USMC-0331, 91-97--Semper Fi...
 
Like when ALICE packs were finally replaced

Not everywhere! :(

We just did a 12 miler with the ALICE packs here at Ft. Sill. Coming from Benning where I had the MOLLE, the ALICE packs were like going backwards in time to Basic.:eek:
 
I wish they would just pick the damn Ultimax already, its such a sweet gun with a proven track record. Lightest and most reliable squad automatic in the world, that should say enough.weighs about 11lbs

Ultimax%20STK%20photo.jpg

GDATP_IAR_11.jpg
29.jpg


it was made under the supervision of L. James Sullivan who is largely responsible for the M16 and M63 stoner. so its not like its a completely foreign design.
 
Last edited:
Edmond - Tell me about it! I had the unfortunate pleasure of being there during the new switch and it was a univerislly hated pack at the time, we HAD to use them until we realized the frames would break if we sat on the packs, so after one guy got his ALICE back we all started "accidentally" break the frames so we could get the old packs back. ALICE were indestructable! But they wised up and we were stuck with them.... Plus ALICE is small enough that they don't try to give your more stuff to pack into it, damn you MOLLE pack, damn you.
 
SAW (Sweet Automatic Weapon)>IAR (Inbred Assault Rifle), of course I haven't any experience with either, but I have a hard time understanding how a detachable box magazine fed rifle will replace a rifle that can use a mag. or a belt. :)
 
Madcap, that was my son's load out as a gunner on an M1113. There was another 1000 rounds in the M1113, plus his "buddy" carried another 400 rounds. He was detailed in a quick reaction force of 4 M1113's per squad doing perimeter security.
 
Last edited:
The ultimax is really soft shooting too, thank to the fact the bolt never bumps the receiver or even fully compresses the spring.

Sullivan was responsible for preparing the blueprints for the M16 from Stoners AR-10 - more than a simple scaling down of the AR-10. Stoner gets the credit for the M16, and very few even know who Sullivan is. Sullivan was also responsible for the mini-14 and the Ruger M77 in addition to the other weapons already noted.
 
Edmond - Tell me about it! I had the unfortunate pleasure of being there during the new switch and it was a univerislly hated pack at the time, we HAD to use them until we realized the frames would break if we sat on the packs,

Hate the MOLLE ruck. When they first came out, I saw one ruck where I swear it just broke from a guy picking the thing up to put it on his back with some weight in it. Thankfully, I transitioned rapidly to a unit where they didn't care what sort of ruck we carried, and I switched to a Kifaru.
 
Update:

http://defensenews.com/blogs/modern-day-marine/tag/infantry-automatic-rifle/

Corps to reveal choice for M249 replacement

By Dan Lamothe
Marine Corps Times

Editor’s note: This story first appeared in the Sept. 28 issue of Marine Corps Times.

“We’re close to having a decision,” said Maj. John Smith, the weapon’s project officer at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va. “I’m on schedule to have a decision on the program to move forward. Maybe within three weeks or so, there will be a lot more information.”

Testing is complete, Smith told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday, and plans are underway to make sure logistics, training and maintenance of the weapon are handled.

Late last year, the Corps chose three companies — Colt Defense, FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch — to compete for the IAR contract, saying the new weapon would allow Marines to maneuver under fire more quickly and improve accuracy.

But the plan has incited some debate. Critics don’t like the idea of giving up the SAW, which can carry a 200-round drum and unleash a massive volume of fire, in favor of the IAR, which is drastically lighter but uses 30-round magazines. The IAR finalists weigh between 8 and 11 pounds empty, whereas the SAW weighs about 16 pounds empty — 22 when loaded.

Smith acknowledged that Commandant Gen. James Conway has questioned how the IAR will fit into fire teams but said that concern was “answered in short order.” He declined to elaborate. SysCom anticipates the project staying on schedule, with initial fielding next year. Maj. David Nevers, a spokesman for Conway, said the commandant was unavailable for comment.

In April and May, the Corps held reliability testing for the IAR at Marine Corps Base Quantico, using two weapons from Colt and one each from FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch, Smith said. Over three weeks, 20,000 rounds were fired from three makes of each weapon. The Corps also held limited user evaluations for about three weeks in April in Hawthorne, Nev., with Marines from Camp Pendleton, Calif. assessing each of the finalists.
 
I really don't understand the need for a light machine gun to be able to use rifle mags. I mean, it makes sense to want to have logistics and ammo-sharing, but it seems to me that if you actually need to pop a STANAG mag into a machine gun, then you either: 1) are a/have wasteful or bad gunner, 2) should have brought more ammo, or 3) made a serious tactical error in which you chose a battle where what you really needed instead of more ammo was more support.

I also agree how the mags look ridiculous and just further add to the weight issue of the SAW role.

However, I have not served and am not educated on modern tactics; only the weapons in a general sense. Maybe someone could explain it to me?
 
And another thing...

Some background on how the Marines first used Automatic Rifles, and why they are looking for a new one to fit between the M16/M4 rifle/carbine and the M249 light machine gun. These articles are long so I just copied the first part if the first article here. Please follow links for the rest of it (if you are into this kind of thing.)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040616124558/http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2004/04eby1.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040616124651/www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2004/04eby2.html

Automatic Rifle Concept: Part I—History and Empirical Testing

by CWO3 Jeffrey L. Eby
(Marine gunner, 7th Marine Regiment.)

‘Those German units fortunate enough to have officers who understood the effect of modern firepower went into battle in dispersed skirmish lines, with as many as six meters between each man and with each man granted the freedom to make use of whatever cover was available during his forward movement.’1

—Bruce Gudmundsson
Stormtroop Tactics


The relationship between the lethality of weapons and the dispersion of the troops found on the same battlefield has been a consideration for commanders since man first engaged in combat. From the Spartan phalanx to German stormtroop operations, combat leaders have been forced to adjust their tactics to the technology of the day. The dispersion of the troops has always been a critical aspect of the tactics employed. As the lethality of weapons has increased so has the dispersion necessary to preserve combat power.

History
Throughout history, advances in technology have driven tactical changes. As smaller units of combatants have gained greater firepower, dispersion has become a critical function of survivability on the battlefield. Dispersion is not merely a function of physical distance between elements but also incorporates the elements of mobility, command, and control. One end of the spectrum of dispersion is a massed armed force in physical contact, slow to move, and under the direct observation and control of its senior leader. The opposite end of the spectrum is a force of individual skirmishers moving quickly and guided only by a general intent. Commanders have continually adjusted the deployment of their forces in order to most effectively bring fire to bear on the enemy while simultaneously attempting to minimize the effects of enemy fire on their own forces.

The combatants of World War I learned a number of lessons as they attempted to resolve how to increase dispersion in the face of increased firepower, while still maintaining some type of control over their squads and platoons. By increasing the training standards of the individual soldier they hoped to enable themselves to decentralize command and increase dispersion.2 Better trained soldiers could operate more effectively without direct supervision.

Realizing that coordinated rushes drew fire, soldiers began advancing using stealth, microterrain, and individual rushes.3 The development of a light machinegun and trench mortar—fielded at the squad level—increased the unit’s firepower without having to resort to linear formations of riflemen.4 Without the need to “build up the skirmish line,” squads could maneuver freely, furthering dispersion while maintaining offensive momentum.5

By the beginning of World War II almost all combatants possessed squad organizations built around light machineguns and automatic rifles (ARs). Armies fielded units capable of the dispersion necessary to survive and operate on this new, more expansive battlefield in both offensive and defensive operations.

As World War II progressed, American Army and Marine Corps squads focused on gaining further firepower that improved their survivability and allowed for further dispersion and movement. Army experiences in the bocage country of Normandy and the woods of the Huertgen forest led to two and even three Browning ARs (BARs) at the squad level. The American “light” machinegun—a water-cooled, .30 caliber model—could not be used in the assault due to its weight.6

The Marine Corps developed the fire team concept. As early as the Corps’ Nicaragua experience, Marines recognized the need for a squad-level automatic weapon.7 Through World War I and into the Pacific campaigns of World War II, Marine Corps squad development continually evolved toward smaller maneuver elements, each armed with an AR. In keeping with the “triangle” concept, the Corps finished World War II with the 3 fire team, 13-man squad still utilized today.8

By Vietnam the Marine Corps rifle squad lost the BAR as an AR largely due to logistical, vice tactical, concerns.9 Attempts to replace the BAR with a modified M14, a never fielded M15, or the M60 medium machinegun proved to be failures.10

After the Vietnam War the Marine Corps led development of the M16A2 to replace the M16A1. However, with the loss of the M16A1’s full automatic capability, even the fiction of an AR at the fire team and squad level disappeared.11 As the M16A2 was fielded the Marine Corps searched for an available weapons system to fill in the AR void. While some testing apparently occurred, the vagaries of the contracting system and the urgency of fielding demands led to the selection of the FN Minimi light machinegun—the M249 squad automatic weapon (and the introduction of the term “SAW” to the Marine Corps lexicon).12

[Section deleted for brevity, please follow link for entire article]

2/7 believes that the next step in increasing the lethality of the rifle squad does not consist of replacing the M249 SAW. Rather, squad lethality, both quantitatively and qualitatively, can be greatly increased in two very cost-effective ways. First, the M249 SAW should be used in the LMG role for which it was designed, not the ad hoc AR role for which it was purchased. Second, to ensure that each rifle FT possesses the automatic weapon necessary for the close combat fight, a true AR should be acquired.

As threat forces match the firepower of the current rifle squad, the Marine Corps must maintain the innovative edge for which it is famous. While experimentation is still required, the evaluations undertaken by 2/7 definitively indicate that the Marine Corps should place the M249 into an LMG role and add a true AR to the squad’s inventory.
 
Last edited:
well some soldiers might want a weapon that can have a heavier sustained fire, but do not want to lug around a 16 pound weapon. They also might not want to be picked out as targets for snipers so a magazine fed weapon might help in that regard. I still think the ultimax 100 is the best of the breed...either that or the spanish ameli. However the US does not like adopting a foreign design.
 
I can see the IAR being useful for units that will be doing a lot of moving on foot. (Specifically, SOCOM units.) I agree that to truly be an improvement, it needs a larger capacity. If the beta mag isn't reliable, perhaps someone needs to invest in something similar that is. There are those who say that part of the advantage is that it resembles a regular rifle, and that it loses advantage if the heavy gunner is easy to spot. I would say that this option is different enough from the regular rifle that the bad guys won't be fooled anyway.

I have no problems with the SAW. ESPECIALLY when used in a two-man team as intended. I spent some range time with some marines this summer, and I didn't hear them complaining either. I don't see any advantage in replacing vehicle mounted crew-serveds with an IAR.
 
Just a thought here...I first enlisted in the US Army in 1977 and was issued an M16A1. Aside from the heavier barrel, how much difference is there between the M16A1 and the IAR. It seems like they are reinventing the wheel here.

Some one please correct me if I am missing something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top