USMC is seeking an Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)

[Jeremy2171]

Of course...call me "Crazy"....
but there is nothing "wrong" with the M249 right now. Once again we are looking for a replacement weapon that doesn't need replacing......

 

[ugaarguy]

There already is a reliable large capacity magazine for the AR/M-16, the Beta C-Mag. Seems to me like a Colt/Diemaco super heavy upper - modified to use a piston perhaps - coupled with C-Mags would be a good solution. All available off the shelf, keeps with AR components already in inventory. Just an idea.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Beta-Cs "aren't" that reliable, especially under field conditions.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Jeremy, your location says you are in "Sunny Iraq". Might this be a hint that you are in the Marines/Army?

 

[Jeremy2171]

"Aye, that it be".....

 

[Evil Monkey]

Are you in a squad, fighting in the streets?

Tell us about the tactics you guys use. Tell us about the effectiveness of the M249. Tell us whatever you can. If anywhere in this forum, this thread is the place to spill everything.

 

[LaEscopeta]

Of course...call me "Crazy"....
but there is nothing "wrong" with the M249 right now. Once again we are looking for a replacement weapon that doesn't need replacing......

I remember reading in a news story (about replacing the M16/M4/M249 with the XM8) a quote from a Marine officer saying their M249s are getting old. Apparently they were all purchased over a few years, and incremental purchasers have not been made since then. So the Marine Corps M249s are all approaching 20+ years old, the useful life of the mechanism. They could replace them with brand new ones from FN, but if the Army was going to go through with the XM8, the Corps was going to go along, including with the IAR version of the XM8. Since both the Army and Marines is sticking with the M16/M4 for now, then Marines need to replace their aging M249s. And since they have to be replaced might as well look at alternatives.

(My memory is not what it used to be, so I’m sure I’ll be corrected if any of the above is wrong. Also my memory is not what it used to be.)

 

[Joe Demko]

M14a1 was phased out with the other M14s. Plus it was marginally controllable, aiui. It was replaced, aiui, by an ordinary M16 with a clip-on bipod and permission to fire FA.

No, the USMC used M-16's with heavier barrels than the standard-issue M-16 in the role of automatic rifle. They did use a clip-on bipod with it. Some of the features of the Marine Corps automatic rifle were subsequently used in the PIP that eventually resulted in the M-16A2. So they've bee down this road before. If they need it, they need it and should have it. I just want to know what factors made them abandon it last time and if those same factors will cause them to abandon it again.

 

[Jeremy2171]

LaEscopeta Quote:Of course...call me "Crazy"....
but there is nothing "wrong" with the M249 right now. Once again we are looking for a replacement weapon that doesn't need replacing......

I remember reading in a news story (about replacing the M16/M4/M249 with the XM8) a quote from a Marine officer saying their M249s are getting old. Apparently they were all purchased over a few years, and incremental purchasers have not been made since then. So the Marine Corps M249s are all approaching 20+ years old, the useful life of the mechanism. They could replace them with brand new ones from FN, but if the Army was going to go through with the XM8, the Corps was going to go along, including with the IAR version of the XM8. Since both the Army and Marines is sticking with the M16/M4 for now, then Marines need to replace their aging M249s. And since they have to be replaced might as well look at alternatives.

(My memory is not what it used to be, so I’m sure I’ll be corrected if any of the above is wrong. Also my memory is not what it used to be.)

Well there are plenty of brand new ones here and those that need rebuilding get it. They are very rugged weapons and pretty reliable as long as you maintain them. The biggest thing that kills them is the early guns didn't have a reinforcing ring for the front sling swivel and when that gets bent/worn out then the receiver is coded out. You could probably repair it but since there are ample numbers in storage why do that. Most of our M249s have already been converted to "para" standards (short barrel and collapsible buttstock).

Joe Demko Quote:M14a1 was phased out with the other M14s. Plus it was marginally controllable, aiui. It was replaced, aiui, by an ordinary M16 with a clip-on bipod and permission to fire FA.

No, the USMC used M-16's with heavier barrels than the standard-issue M-16 in the role of automatic rifle. They did use a clip-on bipod with it. Some of the features of the Marine Corps automatic rifle were subsequently used in the PIP that eventually resulted in the M-16A2. So they've bee down this road before. If they need it, they need it and should have it. I just want to know what factors made them abandon it last time and if those same factors will cause them to abandon it again.

No heavy barreled M16A1s were issued they were all "standard" weight barrels. The heavy barrels came along with the A2's and are still here with us in the A4s.

 

[GunTech]

I had a chance to fire tha Amelli MG80 back in the day - It is a terrific weapon, and if the 1200 rpm rate of fire is too much for you, you can change the gun to reduce fire to around 800 IIRC. The barrel change is the best ever invented - you change the barrel and nothing else with a pull of a lever. I liked iot much better then the Minimi (M249). Everyone made a big deal about the M249 being able to take M16 magazines. I's rather have a lighter, simpler weapon.

As far as the Shrike, I know of two people who ordered the kit when announce and sent in their deposits. So far as I know, neither has received the upper yet - some many years later

I did a brief writeup if the shrike a few years ago after seeing one at the shot show. Great concept. Ares has had a hard time delivering.

http://www.guntech.com/shrike/index.html

http://www.aresdefense.com/status.htm

 

[hcddog]

Jeremy2171, question for you since you're in the thick of things over there...

To me, the 249 SAW seems like it would be too cumbersome to lug around for use in a house to house, door to door fight. Do the Marines/soldiers doing such fighting think the same, or is it's weight not an issue for them?

 

[Jeremy2171]

Well considering we aren't doing much "house to house, door to door fighting", (that was 2 years ago). They aren't that big of a deal. Most of us aren't running around with 7+ mags "loaded for bear" as we rarely find any bears around.

We normally aren't too far from our vehicles where resupply isn't a problem. If we run into trouble it usually doesn't last long. I typically carry 2 spare mags for my M4, 3 M9 mags and a frag. Sometimes I have a Congo "para" FAL and it gets 2 spare mags as well.

 

[buzz_knox]

Sometimes I have a Congo "para" FAL and it gets 2 spare mags as well.

If you're active duty, how'd you get permission to carry a FAL?

 

[Jeremy2171]

Depends on who's around.......

 

[SpeedAKL]

Has the SAW encountered any major problems besides those mentioned in this thread?

 

[Jeremy2171]

The M249 doesn't have any major problems from my experience.

 

[jerkface11]

Jeremy your injection of reality is taking the fun out of this thread. I mean look at the Ameli it's soooooooooo much sexier than the SAW. Next thing you know you'll be telling us 5.56 is just fine and the M4 is a good weapon. This completely wrecks our armchair generalship.

But seriously thank you for chiming in with your experiences and for your service.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Here's something interesting, a couple days ago while researching the Finnish KvKK 7.62x39mm LMG/SAW, I came across a military forum with a discussion about how the Finnish are going to replace the KvKK in squads with PKM GPMG's!!!!!! Apparently, the 7.62x39 doesn't penetrate urban barriers well enough like the 7.62x54R.

It seems like nothing matters but doctrine. Doctrine decides all. The weapon doesn't make the doctrine.

So what's the doctrine of the USMC to require an IAR and not the M249? Weight can't possibly the only issue because it can be reduced whether belt or mag fed.

 

[Lucky]

I think the USMC was designed so that each group of 4 men would always have auto-fire available to them. If the 3 guys keep out-pacing their 4th, they don't have it.

 

[max popenker]

Evil Monkey, 762 KK 62 (this is the current designation of the thing ) has its own share of problems, such as high rate of fire and non-detachable barrel. It also has some issues when firing from hard surface - brass is ejected straight down and once in a while it can bounce back into ejection port and jam the whole thing.
PKM is certainly much more reliable and has more punch, especially in the woods.

On the other hand, more than a few Euro-armies replace their 7,62 GPMGs with 5,56 LMGs, such as Swiss (replacing superb 7,5 M51s with 5,6 Mimimi) or Germans (replacing 7,62 MG3s with 5,56 HK MG4), and some others...

 

[0007]

Can anyone say "Stoner 63"?

 

[Jeremy2171]

Lucky I think the USMC was designed so that each group of 4 men would always have auto-fire available to them. If the 3 guys keep out-pacing their 4th, they don't have it.

Considering that most M4/A4s weigh almost as much as the M249 that point is moot..... Oh and the fact that we are doing vehicle ops 99% of the time as well.....

25lbs of armor plate slow you down more than anything else........

Stoner 63??? C'mon are you kidding? The Stoner 63 LMG and the M249 are almost the same gun.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Why can't there be 2 SAW's in a fireteam to compensate for the loss of a belt fed?

In an 8 man squad plus 1 leader and 1 NCO....

Team one:
1x squad leader (M4)
1x Rifleman/Anti-Armor (M4 and AT4)
1x Rifleman/Grenadier (M4/M203)
2x Gunners (Ultimax MK4 short barrel)

Team 2:
1x NCO (M4)
1x Rifleman/Grenadier (M4/M203)
1x Marksman (M16A4 or XM110SASS)
2x Gunners (Ultimax MK4 short barrel)

Now every body, save for maybe the marksman, can conduct CQB and at the same time there is no loss of firepower nor is anybody being outpaced if the intro of a mag fed LMG like the Ultimax will solve that problem.

Here's what I had in mind as the SAW.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Why can't there be 2 SAW's in a fireteam to compensate for the loss of a belt fed?

Seems like the single belt fed M249 is superior if it takes two alternatives to do its job.

Now every body, save for maybe the marksman, can conduct CQB and at the same time there is no loss of firepower nor is anybody being outpaced if the intro of a mag fed LMG like the Ultimax will solve that problem.

Looking at the Ultimax, I'm pretty certain I'd prefer a Para-SAW. Haven't tried the Ultimax, but don't find the Para-SAW very troubling, nor does the SAW really generate a mobility differential compared to an M4 or M203. It's the belted ammo that adds up, but that should be distributed around the team and squad under normal conditions.

 

[KC&97TA]

There's nothing wrong with the M249... there's the Para SAW that came out in early 2004 to most units as well, short barrel and collapsable stock... let me tell you, it's a great CQB weapon

The M249 was designed to be employed as an automatic rifle, instead most units employ them as light machine guns... there is a differance...

For those that haven't lugged it in a fire team or up 1st Sgts Hill in San Mateo, they're worth thier weight at 17lbs, when you're makeing a small wall of lead in the streets of Ramadi. Here's the problem, a bunch of REMF are into wageing war, and everyones answer is to get a new weapon...

Ever heard the lines below?

my M16 jamms when it's dirty... we need a new weapon

I shot a guy once in the leg with my M16 and he didn't go down... we need a new weapon

my SAW jamms when I fire blanks through it, even though we've never live fired the M249... we need a new weapon

my SAW runs slow and I have it on gas setting 3... clean the gun you lazy REMF... we need a new weapon

my new SAW doesn't have gas settings so I can't put it on setting 3 when it's dirty... we need a new weapon

when I lube my SAW with LSA it attracts alot of dirt, lube it with CLP or a light coat of LSA-T moron... we need a new weapon

my M9 jamms because I left my 15 round mags packed with 15 rounds for 5 months, I was taugh to rotate my mags but I'd rather play X-Box... we need a new weapon

I was present to the testing of the H-BAR Colt in 2000, I never knew a 30 round mag could go so fast and the uppers would get so hot the reciever would turn white and the barrels would droop, they weren't Marine proof

Problem is the Corps doesn't believe in full auto fire on a rifle, except in a Machine gun, we don't even believe in Burst Fire, it's there because the Army and Airforce wanted it there. There are M16M41's that are full auto in 'select' units, and they are there as a back up only as needed to provide the replacement to not haveing a SAW on hand in a small element.

You have to understand; if you tell a Marine something is "Marine Proof" they'll break it, they'll call for fire on it or run it over with a tank... if you tell a Marine "if you loose this piece of gear, you'll be mauled by wild bulls", he'll still loose it. If you tell him not to fire on full auto, unless he needs it, he'll shoot full auto till his whole team is out of ammo.