Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 9/2/2001 7:37:08 PM EDT
If you where planning configuring a M16 as a squad auto, what length barrel would you use? Heavy? Would you have a normall muzzle brake? Or ak style? optics? sites? RIS? bipod? How many cmags? Give me everything!!
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 7:42:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/2/2001 7:42:22 PM EDT by shaggy]
I wouldn't use an M16 with a direct gas system for a SAW. Gas tube is too flimsy for sustained fire conditions.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 7:44:08 PM EDT
If I were military brass and made such a suggestion I'd find myself guarding Alaska from icebergs.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 7:48:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/2/2001 7:49:26 PM EDT by Scarecrow]
Diemaco Light support weapons [img]http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-lsw.gif[/img] [img]http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-lsw99.gif[/img] [img]http://www.diemaco.com/images/sal-sfsw.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 8:10:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/2/2001 8:10:36 PM EDT by shaggy]
Yeah, basicly a Colt OBLMG. I fired them, almost bought one. But there is a reason the US military doesn't use them. It still has a direct gas system and still uses a gas tube. The gas tube is a bit heavier and may hold up a bit longer, but it just puts more heat back into the upper receiver and the bolt. It gives you a little more trigger time, but you take on a greater risk of a more serious failure. With a standard upper/tube, the worst you'll do is melt a $12 tube. It acts as a circuit breaker. Put too much heat into the system and you're risking damage to the uper receiver, bolt, carrier, and ultimately, the shooter. A direct gas system is simply not meant for sustained fire.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 8:15:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy: Yeah, basicly a Colt OBLMG. I fired them, almost bought one. But there is a reason the US military doesn't use them. It still has a direct gas system and still uses a gas tube. The gas tube is a bit heavier and may hold up a bit longer, but it just puts more heat back into the upper receiver and the bolt. It gives you a little more trigger time, but you take on a greater risk of a more serious failure. With a standard upper/tube, the worst you'll do is melt a $12 tube. It acts as a circuit breaker. Put too much heat into the system and you're risking damage to the uper receiver, bolt, carrier, and ultimately, the shooter. A direct gas system is simply not meant for sustained fire.
View Quote
Well said. Besides, it's the old argument that says "at what point does it cease to be what it was." If you reconfigure and beef an M16 up enough, at what point does it cease being an M16?
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 8:17:47 PM EDT
the m16 saw was considered by the military, but i was decided a difffrent machinegun would be better, as long as it accepted m16 mags.....
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 8:29:50 PM EDT
Actually, the M249 Golf has the ability to be belt fed or fire from a M-16 magazine. The M-16 doesn't have an open bolt, and that, along with the gas tube were some of the primary reasons it is not used as a SAW. Pluse it doesn't have an intrechangeable barrel.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 11:50:37 PM EDT
Hi, One essential feature of a light machinegun is the possibillity to change the barrel quickly. Another feature is that it's belt-fed for convinience. The M16 is neither. Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, RG.nl
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 5:24:04 AM EDT
timh70 Although the M249 (there is no M249G, you combined the M249 and the M240G) can be fired with a magazine the use of M16 mags with the SAW is highly discouraged, the one way you can seem to get them to work reliable is to pullback on the front bottom of the magazine when firing. Back in 94 the Marine Corps tested a "SAW" magazine made of orlite. It was found it cured most of the problems with the SAWs in magazine mode. But the magazine was less than reliable when used in a M16. Wisely it decided since magazine firing was an emergency method of operation, that it would not be wise to procure a magazine that may cause problems with M16s.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 5:38:55 AM EDT
B-A-R?
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 1:00:03 AM EDT
SAW, LSW, LAR, LMG, call it what you will, but in reality you must have a robust weapon which is capable of barrel changes, and firing from the open bolt, and be belt fed. I don't reckon the ole AR (even the belt fed job) could cut the abuse. Failures are the SA-80 LSW, Cdn FN C2/ Aussie L2 and metric FALO types, the RPK and RPK74s etc. Try laying down some 'fair dinkum' covering fire for any SHORT period of time, and you are fucked! Plain and simple! Rooted! Stoppages which = cook-offs etc. They just sieze up! Been there and done that (too often)over the yrs. I'd go any day a F89A1, M60, or MAG 58 over anything else, but in the 5.56mm calibre the F89A1 has got things beat. Two per Inf Sect, the rest with AUGs with (two with M203PIs on board of the AUGs) with 66s (M72s) and F1 frag grenades, shit one can lay down a wicked bit of fire power. And what about the PL and Coy levels on top of that, plus what you can drum up on the radio (fast Air, Art etc). I think I am getting 'warry' and leaving the topic a bit. Time for a Tassie Cascade Premium Lager! The F89A1 LSW Minimi or C9 ( NZ and Cdn) US its a M249 (I think) or whatever you call in your Army, it is a good example of being both mag fed and belt fed, although here in Australia the mag fed bit is not used, as we use AUGs. The LSW was for some time issued 20rd Viet Nam vintage mags, but this was generally a waste of time, so the mag bit is no longer used. Now for that beer......
Top Top