New IAR vs. SAW M249

[rugerdude]

Uhm, the SOCOM units that are out there all alone need all the firepower they can bring. I'm a Marine recon man and I'll probably never even see this thing. Now, I'm not saying our SAW's are perfect, but the amount of firepower they bring is a tremendous asset.

There is no clear answer to me. On one hand a belt fed can open up a big can of whoopass and ammo can be carried very easily. However, they are heavier and prone to their own kinds of stoppages (operator error plays a bigger part with these too).
Barrel changes are good too, although in my unit we are told not to worry about changing them in a firefight.

A mag fed would be light, and handy, and perhaps more reliable. However sustained fire is greatly reduced, pehaps fielding more of them would help it compete a little more since the operator wouldn't need an A-gunner (hell, the SAW doesn't need an A-gunner).

Honestly I think we need to be looking towards lighter, more reliable belt feds.

Oh, and the logic behind the SAW using mags isn't entirely crazy. Sure, if you're using a mag in a SAW then you're not effectively using the ammo that you must be low on at that point. However, do you really want the SAW gunner to just sit there if he's out of ammo?

Sure it's not something we really NEED and it's usefulness is limited (maybe the logic of FN because they couldn't seem to make it work quite right) but it doesn't hurt to have the option.

 

[chauncey]

I think this is a move absolutely in the wrong direction. I despised the SAW when i had occasion to use, it; i felt it did not possess the durability and ammunition advantages offered by the M240's and M60's that I also had experience with.

imo since we are waging desert wars what we need now is more 7.62x51 weapons in each fire team. i think the USMC and AUS should be looking for a more size-effective version of the M60 or M240 instead of a pumped-up M16. a desireable added feature would be different barrel lengths for different missions, and the ability to fire single shots from a closed bolt to also use the wepon as a DMR.

i understand it is a lot to ask for a weapon to have the ability to operate from both an open and closed bolt, but iirc from Futureweapons the IAR has the ability to do just that.

i understand the IAR might have some real advantages in MOUT but for the small advantage the USMC is getting over a M16A3 (full auto) i don't think it's worth all of the trouble they are going to

if a version of the IAR should be considered, it should be a 7.62x51 so at least there is a heavier punch in each fire team and a weapon applicable for the DMR role when it is needed.

 

[Al Thompson]

RE: Magazines in a SAW - years ago when the SAW was first fielded, we (US Army Germany) were enthused about the magazine feature as mud was a constant factor. Thought was that the initial burst (s) could be from the magazine, followed up by a 200 round belt. The ancestor to that was the 35 to 40 round "teaser" belt used in Vietnam with the M-60. Same issue, mud screwing up belted ammo. As a note, mud was so bad that we routinely put belted ammo into the ammo cans to keep it clean.

 

[strambo]

What is needed is a lighter,more reliable (ie updated) belt fed, barrel change capable M249 replacement...for both services.

Being able to sustain a high rate of fire is why these weapons exist and lives depend on it. Read about the battle of Wanat in Afghanistan last year (yes, the one that has everyone in a tizzy about M4 reliability).

The enemy brought overwhelming fire to bear on that poorly place outpost. They had to return fire at the highest rate possible with all weapon systems just to hope to survive and repel the attack. At least 1 M249 seized due to overheating and multiple M4's, they went down like crazy.

A 13 lb -ish updated LMG would be very valuable.

Kinda reminds me of the whole M60-M240 thing. Our inventory of M60's was old and worn out. Updated models were available that were much lighter and very reliable. Instead, we got the M240 which is even heavier than the M60 was and not an updated design of anything. Yes, it's reliable...but politics has as much to do with weapons procurement as anything. Especially when it down to 1 or two offerings that each meet the procurement guidelines.

 

[Jeremy2171]

What is needed is a lighter,more reliable (ie updated) belt fed, barrel change capable M249 replacement...for both services.

Being able to sustain a high rate of fire is why these weapons exist and lives depend on it. Read about the battle of Wanat in Afghanistan last year (yes, the one that has everyone in a tizzy about M4 reliability).

The enemy brought overwhelming fire to bear on that poorly place outpost. They had to return fire at the highest rate possible with all weapon systems just to hope to survive and repel the attack. At least 1 M249 seized due to overheating and multiple M4's, they went down like crazy.

A 13 lb -ish updated LMG would be very valuable.

Kinda reminds me of the whole M60-M240 thing. Our inventory of M60's was old and worn out. Updated models were available that were much lighter and very reliable. Instead, we got the M240 which is even heavier than the M60 was and not an updated design of anything. Yes, it's reliable...but politics has as much to do with weapons procurement as anything. Especially when it down to 1 or two offerings that each meet the procurement guidelines.

For the record:
There is nothing wrong with the M249...it does it exactly what it was desinged to do. It IS a reliable and accurate weapon...

In a firefight "any" weapon can go down...including M1s, Carbines, BARs and AK's...

The M249 is a wonderful weapon, I have 100% faith in it and you really don't want to be on the other end of it. The M249 won't overheat IF you change the barrel....however as posted above they are teaching troops to NOT change the barrel......hmmmm does that sound like it's the weapons fault or possibly doctrine?

 

[strambo]

Whoa Jeremy, I'm not knocking the M249, just saying that even it will overheat and seize, I don't think we need/want this IAR design, I would rather stick with the SAW and it's weight right now. (I'm Army, so it's not my concern now anyhoo)

That Wanat fire fight was FUBAR. based on the 187 pg. report I read, it was all they could do to keep fire on the enemy, they were going cyclic, the soldiers in the OP may not have had a chance to change barrels, all were wounded (in the OP) in the 1st few minutes. Enemy lobbing 100's of RPGs...

Anyway, M249 is good, current technology is capable of producing a lighter and even more reliable LMG, that is what is needed IMO, not a glorified rifle.

however as posted above they are teaching troops to NOT change the barrel......hmmmm does that sound like it's the weapons fault or possibly doctrine?

Umm...where did I say that? I never said (and never heard of) any unit not teaching barrel changes. Heck, the opening line you quoted, I said "barrel change capable". As in, that is good and needs to be sustained.

Bottom line: LMG with quick change capability, plus belt fed, plus lighter with same or better reliability = good. "LMG" mag fed, w/o barrel change capability (even if very light) not so good....IMO.

 

[Maverick223]

Bottom line: LMG with quick change capability, plus belt fed, plus lighter with same or better reliability = good. "LMG" mag fed, w/o barrel change capability (even if very light) not so good....IMO.

I completely agree with your assessment...if FA capability and light weight were paramount the MP-5 would be the LMG of choice, and somehow I don't think that would turn out so well. Additionally I would surmise that a little additional weight (without being overly unwieldy and difficult to transport) may be beneficial in the capacity of accuracy during sustained fire.

 

[rugerdude]

I posted about not doing barrel changes. However, Marine reconnaissance is a specialized unit where we carry a hell of a lot of weight anyway without lugging around another barrel. I've seen our para-SAWs go through 1000 rounds within 6-8 minutes without a barrel change and not have any malfunctions. Since that's about as much ammo as we can possibly carry for it without an A-gunner, we can survive without barrel changes.

I like the SAW (I don't carry it ), but I know a lot of guys who don't. They seem to be hit or miss in the reliability department. We've had SAWs go through rounds like crazy and we've had ones that just did not want to run at all.

Fix the spotty reliability issues and try to shave off some weight and I think it would be a real winner.