Why a belt-fed squad automatic?

[chauncey]

my experience with the SAW M249 as an 0311 in the USMC gave me little faith in this weapons system. it seemed to require an inordinate amount of CLP to keep working properly. magazines seemed to add to the unreliability of the system. we were instructed in SOI to NEVER use a magazine in the M249, unless in an absolute emergency, and the few times I witnessed it attempted reinforced this instruction.

given the choice, with consideration for range, reliability and relative weight, I'd rather hump a M240G than a M249.

as for the belt fed issue, belts can twist, hang up on objects or get tangled, but I believe they are a more reliable system than 75% of the M16 magazines I was issued.

 

[hankdatank1362]

The benefit of the Minimi

???

 

[jerkface11]

The SAW is the MINIMI in the rest of the world. Though theirs may not have the stupid magwell.

 

[wulfbyte]

Kind of funny. I ask why something is, and explain why I'm asking.

The people who are actually qualified to answer, give a straight answer.

The people who doubtlessly are not, ask how I could possibly be qualified to ask a question. After all, you have to know enough to not ask in the first place, to get a question-asking license.

Welcome to the internet.

I've humped an M60 and an M249 for more miles than I can remember. I've fired the M60 from the shoulder, from the hip, while on the move, just about every way you can fire it. When the M249 came along, I was an NCO and had to train on it myself and train others to it. I think I might be qualified to answer your question. The problem is I can't figure out what your question is.

If you had just simply asked why the Army uses a belt fed machine gun at the squad level instead of a mag fed, then you would have gotten a lot of good answers and perhaps learned something useful. I don't see you doing that. What I see you doing is putting out a lot of opinion about why the way it's done is wrong and the way it isn't done is right and then asking for a confirmation. If you approach it that way, you should expect someone to ask how it is you formed those opinions. Was it from first hand experience of operating the weapon systems in question while under fire? Or did you form those opinions from shooting them on a range? Have you ever shot them at all or are your opinions based on only academic research?

I don't have much experience with Russian weapons, so I can't tell you if their decision to replace the RDP with the RPK was based on logistical (that would be my bet) or operational reasons. In either case, I don't think that it is relevant to the reasoning behind what is deployed by our troops.

A lot of good feedback from others on why belt fed is superior to magazine fed in a LMG, so I won't go into that any further.

I don't know battlechimp or medusa, and they don't know me, and presumably you are in the same boat. Given that assumption, I find it a bit offensive that you feel that those who politely ask what your background is are doubtlessly unqualified to answer your question.

I'm a bit curious to your background that you have such strong opinions that differ so widely from my and others experience. Does that make me doubtlessly unqualified? Does that invalidate my many years of service?

 

[Nolo]

Kind of funny. I ask why something is, and explain why I'm asking.

The people who are actually qualified to answer, give a straight answer.

The people who doubtlessly are not, ask how I could possibly be qualified to ask a question. After all, you have to know enough to not ask in the first place, to get a question-asking license.

Welcome to the internet.

Use smilies.
I'm not kidding. I seem to get into trouble every time I don't use them. Well, this time seemed to be an exception, but...
See, watch me type this sentence:

Why do we use belt-fed SAWs?

That can be interpreted by some as:

Why the HELL would anyone WANT to ever use a belt-fed SAW??? :banghead:

Or:

As an honest question, why do we use belt-fed SAWs? I am truly puzzled. Please enlighten me.

It's all in how you read it.
And welcome to the Internet. Thank God for smilies.
Oh, and make liberal use of the "Edit" button. Sometimes things don't come out right and you should re-read them. The "Edit" button gives you a chance to truly take back what you said. Which is part of the beauty of the Internet.

 

[Medusa]

If you had just simply asked why the Army uses a belt fed machine gun at the squad level instead of a mag fed, then you would have gotten a lot of good answers and perhaps learned something useful. I don't see you doing that. What I see you doing is putting out a lot of opinion about why the way it's done is wrong and the way it isn't done is right and then asking for a confirmation. If you approach it that way, you should expect someone to ask how it is you formed those opinions. Was it from first hand experience of operating the weapon systems in question while under fire? Or did you form those opinions from shooting them on a range? Have you ever shot them at all or are your opinions based on only academic research?
...

I'm a bit curious to your background that you have such strong opinions that differ so widely from my and others experience. Does that make me doubtlessly unqualified? Does that invalidate my many years of service?

That was exactly what I was thinking. Sadly I don't know many fellows in the THR, thus I did ask You politely, why the issue in the first place, negative personal experiences? For instance, the Negev is a picky little piece and regular Galil instead of this is actually a better choice, in my opinion.

I didn't see any question. Just a need to reinforce what You already believe.

RPK shares commonality and pretty significant parts interchangeability with the AKM, so the production is simpler as there is no need to make more different parts, but to take a max out of what is already there. it's simpler and cheaper. How many parts can be swapped between SAW and M16A4, excluding the ammo? But is it really important?

 

[earplug]

Its been over ten years since I was active duty US Army.
I wonder why knowone has mentioned the problem of filling mags while someone is shooting at you.
Loading belts is so much nicer.
And you don't have to back track to pick up any dropped mags.
The belt is much nicer to deal with.

 

[Powderman]

The answer to the question is found in two words: fire superiority.

If you are engaged in a movement-to-contact scenario--or, if you are unfortunately engaged as the focal point of an ambush--your life and your buddies' lives depend on who achieves fire superiority. This simply means that the person who throws the most lead at the other side--ACCURATELY--will force them to stop shooting and get behind cover. This will allow you to commence fire and maneuver--and if in an ambush, to assault through the ambush.

Now that I have said that, to "cpttango", this one's for you.

Is the 249 perfect? No but neither is the most expensive weapon in the US Army the Patriot Missle. Did you know that it has a bug in the program that allowed it to lose .1 sec every day. This threw off the targeting system and all them spectaculer kills you seen in the Gulf War were really a guy in the control both hitting the self destruct button.

Please state your experience with HIMAD or SHORAD missile systems. You are making a claim about a current missile system. Be advised that you should not even be posting it, in the interests of OPSEC. Do NOT go into any particulars about ANY current missile system; simply state your experience.

Cordially,
Powderman
(former) SSG, USA
Infantry/Air Defense Artillery

 

[goon]

I'll grand you that my experience is limited to about two belts each from a SAW, an M-60, and a 240B - just enough to be impressed as hell with the 240.

But I don't think that comparing any of them to the RPK is an accurate comparison. The RPK has it's own disadvantage. It can't keep up the same rate of fire for long. The RPK has no way to change the barrel. Even if it can keep up in rate of fire with a belt fed gun, once it heats up you got problems.
One bit of advice I was given by an experienced E-7 was to never carry more weight than you have to AND he was specifically referring to linked ammunition when he said it. You can make linked ammo lighter by tossing the can and disposing of the cloth bandoleer and cardboard box that the belts come in (100 rounds for 7.62x51 IIRC) but what can you do with a magazine?

 

[Beagle-zebub]

Soon the whole ammunition argument will be null and void when they come out with caseless ammo with biodegradable plastic links that act as a feterlizer.

What you meant to say was that the links will be made of hemp.

 

[BigG]

The belt is to keep the MG stoked since the SAW operator keeps pressure on the enemy while his buddies maneuver to flank em. Can't do that with an empty MG which happens too often with magazines. HTH

 

[SDC]

The SAW is the MINIMI in the rest of the world. Though theirs may not have the stupid magwell.

Yes, they do; they're used in Canadian service as the C9 LMG, and the ones I've fired worked OK with mags, but belts are definitely the way to go.

 

[Art Eatman]

Granted it was before most folks here were born, and for many, before their parent were born--but in Basic with the light, air-cooled .30, we were taught, "Fire a burst of six." (Yeah, you can play John Wayne and shoot one from the hip. The recoil and vibration from a six-round burst moves you back about a foot, each time. )

Same for me on my half-track in Korea with its Quad-50 mount. The loaders keep two guns operational at a time, and the gunner says to himself, "Fire a burst of six," and that's about how many rounds go off. Pause, and repeat. You can keep that up without interruption until the ammo's all gone.

Saves barrels, that way. Avoids rapid burnout.

My knowledge of actual combat only comes from guys who were there before me. In discussions, some of them commented that when you're facing a human wave assault, you fire everything you have for as long as it will shoot. You wind up winning or running like hell.

That's when a belt-fed critter is your security blanket.

 

[goon]

Art Eatman - When I was in basic at FLW in 99 we were taught to tell ourselves as we fired the M-60 "I need a burst of six".
It pretty much worked but I found that I didn't need to do that to let go of the trigger soon enough.
The 240 fires faster so I doubt that would work with it.
But even with the higher rate of fire, it wasn't hard to pop single targets out to 400 meters or so with single rounds once I figured out what I was doing.
I actually got yelled at for ignoring the closer targets and only shooting single rounds at targets past 300 meters. My squad leader said they were more of a "threat" so we should shoot them first.
I replied that they were too easy to hit.
He chuckled and didn't say anything else - my hits were saying all that needed said.

With the SAW there was just something about the ergonomics I did't like. I couldn't get comfortable shooting it no matter how I shifted my body or the gun. I think it was because of that I had trouble firing only one round at a time with it.

Off topic kind of - just wanted to let you know that you aren't that old.

 

[RyanM]

That was exactly what I was thinking. Sadly I don't know many fellows in the THR, thus I did ask You politely, why the issue in the first place, negative personal experiences? For instance, the Negev is a picky little piece and regular Galil instead of this is actually a better choice, in my opinion.

I didn't see any question. Just a need to reinforce what You already believe.

Looks like you misread my thing and I misread yours.

I actually want to know. What are the benefits of a belt-fed SAW? I wasn't seeing very many of them, before.

From a layman's perspective, belt feds don't let you shoot that much more than a mag fed with the same cooling unless you link more than 100 rounds at a time, they're more mechanically complex, etc.

My experience with them isn't much at all, but during my brief time with an M249, it managed to impress me as a ridiculously heavy piece of hardware with a ton of moving parts in it, and a much greater potential for dirt and crud to get into it, especially if the belt is loose and gets dragged through the dirt while you shoot. It also took forever to reload compared to a mag-fed rifle and needed more manual dexterity to get the first round positioned right. Though it was a little easier to do while prone. I definitely see why the Bren had a top-mounted magazine.

 

[doc2rn]

Quit griping the SAW LMG accepts magazines as well as belts. If you want to use a mag then do so. I prefer to be able to stay on target for the 200 rds.
Hearing MGs talk in a Z formation ambush will alieviate that sense of what do you need.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I actually want to know. What are the benefits of a belt-fed SAW? I wasn't seeing very many of them, before.

From a layman's perspective, belt feds don't let you shoot that much more than a mag fed with the same cooling unless you link more than 100 rounds at a time, they're more mechanically complex, etc.

They're simply a much more efficient base of fire weapon. Belts do help you generate a greater volume of fire, and quick change barrels help you sustain it if you need to -- look at the British example. They adopted a long barrel magazine fed version of the L85 for use as a SAW (L86 LSW) and simply found it to be pretty close to an utter flop for suppressive fire use.

The solution? They bought a bunch of Para-SAWs as a replacement, and turned the LSW into a sort of designated marksmans rifle instead of a base of fire weapon.

 

[cpttango30]

The last time I fired a SAW I took 12 cans of ammo and linked them all together and stuck them in a pile next to my SAW and just pulled the trigger. That open bolt didn't help much. As the next day I spent 2 hours getting yelled at by my CO and 1sg for some how welding the barrel to the action. HEHEHEHEHEHE

If you think about it with a rate of fire (From FN Web Site) of 750 rpm a 30 round mag goes real quick. 750prm = 12.5 rounds per second which is only 2. sec to dump a entire 30 round mag. Were as I can take 2 or 3 belts and link them together and have extended my firing time 2 or 3 times. Can't do that with mags.

 

[rero360]

I've never had anything but trouble using the mag well on the SAW, I think if you lose that, go with the short barrel and collapsable stock and smooth some of the sharp edges it would be a much better weapon.

Oh, the M145s (those scopes that are like 2.5 power or something) are crap, not enough eye relief for the SAW, horrible paralax issues and just plain weird. Who ever heard of a scope with the eyepeice being larger than the objective lens.

I'll admit I'm a wimp and I don't like to carry heavy stuff for extended times, go figure 6 years 11B, but I'll take a 240B over the SAW anyday, I'd like to shoot a BAR some day.

 

[elmerfudd]

It's been a long time since I shot an M60, but belt feed and a few cans of ammo really allows you to lay down a lot of fire. I can't imagine an RPK would come close to matching it, even with several drum mags. The sheer weight of the barrel on the M60 means it can fire for a lot longer without heating up, not to mention the open bolt firing mechanism.

As for the capability to change barrels, I've done it, but I sure wouldn't want to do it in combat. First off, when you change barrels the barrel is usually hot enough to cause severe burns. There should be an asbestos glove along with the spare barrel, but even with that glove on, handling a hot barrel is tricky. The way we did it, (no idea if it was the correct way or not), was to tilt the gun up until the bipod and the barrel formed a tripod on the ground with the butt of the gun pointing up. You set the replacement on the ground in the same manner and released the barrel. You would then lift the gun off of one barrel and set it down on the new one and reattach it. We generally did this while standing. Trying to do it with a red hot barrel while in the prone and taking hostile fire would probably result in burns, but I guess when your life's on the line you do what you got to do.


A little bit off topic, but I once saw a M60 fired so much that the barrel turned red hot and actually bent like a rainbow. I'm sure somebody caught hell for that.

 

[stiletto raggio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100

Superior to the M249 for the SAW role. Period.

A lot of guys in the Army call a SAW a "crew-served." They call it a "crew-served" becasue it has a belt and is automatic. It, and its ammo, are carried by one person, so in no way is it a crew-served weapon.

I agree that a tripod- or vehicle-mounted machinegun is best designed to use belted ammo, but on a true SAW, I feel a high capacity magazine is better. Magazines change much, much faster than belts, and the operation is comparatively easy to do in the dark. Spare 30 round magazines are carried by the dozen in most combat patrols, so if push comes to shove, a magazine-fed SAW can use them. I would say the M249 can use about half a 30 round magazine, on average, before jamming.

Also, keep in mind that the role of a SAW is not long periods of sustained automatic fire. It is there to provide mobile automatic fire during the assault. The true crew-served weapons should be called on for the heavy automatic fire because they are more powerful, have greater range, and are truly built to endure long strings of automatic use.

 

[REAPER_87]

that may be true but the m249 can be made to take a standard m16a2 mag

 

[Art Eatman]

goon, thanks, but I started Basic in January of 1954...

, Art

 

[Powderman]

Hey, elmer...

Don'tcha love the old pig?

23.2 pounds of whupass. Used with a sling for carry (gives backaches) or just balance the feed tray on your shoulder, grab it by one bipod leg and go.

A little rattley, but accurate, too.

You can lay down suppressive fire, shoot 5-7 round bursts with a few breaks here and there almost forever. Hot barrel change, from the prone? Rollover toward, ammo side up if you're using the box. Reach forward, hit the barrel release and shake the barrel out. Grab your spare, slide in, down with the lever and you're good to go.

Only problem was shaving brass. The field expedient was a good amount of oil. Squeeze a bit on each belt when you break open the box.

Yep, they were VERY hard to clean, too--especially that @%@#$%!! receiver. Hopefully you had some carb cleaner or some trike (1,1,1 trichloroethane) to use.

Brings back memories....

And yes! I have melted my share of M60 barrels. Gone so far that I've actually had some blow on me--the pressure defeats the hot--almost molten--steel, and blows a hole in the side. Oops--barrel gone!

 

[1KPerDay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVEV_x-DsmY