Originally Posted By coldblue:  There are at least three or more major factors that doomed the M249 SAW in the Marine Corps. First and foremost was the dropping of the mandatory Division SAW Gunners Schools too soon after the initial fielding was completed.  Such Schooling should have remained in place. Second maybe was the total lack of linked blank ammo during the first several years of fielding for training which forced the very unreliable use of rifle magazines loaded with blanks so the SAW gunners could play war. But this caused SAW gunners to lose reliability confidence in the weapon.
Due to manpower issues, most fire teams did not have full four Marines it was designed for. And because the SAW and its ammo load was the heaviest, it was assigned to the lowest ranking junior guy the team. This was contrary to when the older fire team’s BAR man was the second senior guy in the teams—literally the assistant fire team leader. I also remember one newsreel from Iraq that showed a SAW gunner wielding a sledge hammer—again—the junior guy getting the heaviest load.
Another was the total lack of increased logistic transport capability, i.e., more jeeps and trailers, at the organic infantry company level necessary to support the new 27 LMGs in each company. I mean that replacing 27 rifles with 27 belt-fed LMG’s were never complemented with appropriate motor transport at the company or battalion level.
In reference to the M27, numerous articles addressing its strengths and weakness are out there for you to glean an opinion on. However,I found it very ironic that when we might have rightfully expected to see massed human wave attacks coming across the North Korean border, we dumped a belt-fed for a box magazine fed. But then you also had some died-in-the-wool M16 haters (with an agenda) that saw a way to replace direct impingement rifles with those using pistons. However, there were live fire and maneuver deadly training incidents with the SAW that were being blamed of the open bolt firing nature of the weapon. This led to SAW gunners being required to completely unload numerous times during individual, 2-man, and team rushes; and thus a “requirement” for a “closed bolt” automatic rifle that was inherently “safer” while on safe and loaded with a round in the chamber during fire and maneuver than the LMG was thought to be.

Originally Posted By coldblue:
Second maybe was the total lack of linked blank ammo during the first several years of fielding for training which forced the very unreliable use of rifle magazines loaded with blanks so the SAW gunners could play war. But this caused SAW gunners to lose reliability confidence in the weapon.

Originally Posted By GHPorter:  I find this interesting.  In '88-'89, while I was stationed in Panama, the Army started fielding 249s with their units there.  They liked to come "war game" around my duty site, the Ft. Kobe Transmitter Site and our antenna farm (usually, but not always outside our fence).  They had bazillions of rounds of linked 5.56 blanks, along with the special belt boxes for blanks.  They had a habit of littering our road with brass, links and belt boxes from time to time.  Along with starting grass fires pretty regularly...

I will note that evidence suggests that their 249s were far more reliable than their M60s, simply from the rather large number of "broken" M60 belts (from clearing stoppages), with zero evidence of such from the 249s.  Of course the 249s were new and the M60s older than most of their gunners, but still...

Originally Posted By ankratz:
I've never been a fan of the "stock" pistol grips. They've always come off immediately in favor of MIAD's or MOE's. And a quick browse on the EE seems to mimic the same sentiment. (They're like awful stocking stuffers that no one wants)

I'm building an XM177'ish carbine, and just got in an A1 grip to slap on it. Holy smokes...it's still too small to be "comfortable" compared to a MOE+, but it's world's more comfortable (and seemingly universal) than the A2. It's wider, and doesn't have that annoying ridge right where you want to put your middle finger (unless of course you have truck driver/bass player hands).

Other than the stippling, how was the A2 grip considered an "upgrade"?

For that matter, how was that grip (in A1 or A2 configuration) ever considered large enough for American's hands to begin with?

Originally Posted By coldblue:
Marine Corps purchase of ammo types are not always in lock-step with the Army's. Our ammo guys were very "on the cheap" due to their limited budget. And blanks in 30-round mags were initially though to be good enough by the 'bean counters" for training. I remember them buying early 60's Army surplus boxed 7.62 tracer ammo for pennies on the dollar and linking it with 70's Lake City ball for our M60's...had lots of accidents with those old tracers like squib loads...

Originally Posted By coldblue:
Marine Corps purchase of ammo types are not always in lock-step with the Army's. Our ammo guys were very "on the cheap" due to their limited budget. And blanks in 30-round mags were initially though to be good enough by the 'bean counters" for training. I remember them buying early 60's Army surplus boxed 7.62 tracer ammo for pennies on the dollar and linking it with 70's Lake City ball for our M60's...had lots of accidents with those old tracers like squib loads...

Originally Posted By backbencher:

I have noticed there is a distinct enthusiasm in adoption of a new type of machinegun with as yet un-stretched receivers.  Studies are done when both types are in service, showing how much better the new gun is than the old.  30 years on, opinions change - possibly due to the simple fact that the receiver is the serialed part of the system, and therefore not easily replaced, no matter there may be a procedure in place to replace worn receivers.  The new gun is certainly better than the old, albeit the new gun may be no better than the old gun was when the old gun was new.

Originally Posted By tirod:

Americans were two inches shorter on the average and likely 50 pounds lighter than now.

Do you see the problem is one of perspective?

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The A2 handguard is the only part of the A2 that I would consider an upgrade over the A1.

Originally Posted By Gacksnabbit:

Furniture wise, I highly agree.

Originally Posted By cpl_fisher:
The Army seems to think that anything adjustable is to complicated for soldiers to understand, and they are unwilling to train them.

Originally Posted By GHPorter:

From my perspective as a technical training instructor (for half of my USAF career!), I have to agree.  And worse, by "lowballing" expectations, the Army training concept produces people who can't understand basic stuff like this.  Trainees live up or down to expectations - if you treat them like they're "short bus stupid" then you wind up with your "trained" troops being uniformly short bus stupid.

I've worked with a lot of Soldiers (and Marines, and more than a few Sailors, too).  Generally speaking, Soldiers are not stupid, not unintelligent, and certainly not UNmotivated to learn.  But they are usually well conditioned by "the Army way" to be spoken down to in just about every learning opportunity.  It is much harder to learn anything when you have to overcome that psychological barrier.

Originally Posted By HighpowerRifleBrony:
Why does the small aperture have the concave side towards the shooter?

Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:  I think its for anti glare. The Matech has it as well

Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:  Lol. Loctite is your friend. What the armorer don't know won't hurt him

I have 4 of them currently and only one is on its last leg, but to be fair it also spent some time in AFG. It has the opposite problem tho, thing is hard as HELL to move for windage

Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:

Lol. Loctite is your friend. What the armorer don't know won't hurt him

I have 4 of them currently and only one is on its last leg, but to be fair it also spent some time in AFG. It has the opposite problem tho, thing is hard as HELL to move for windage

Originally Posted By pezboytate:

It's more about the sights moving unknowingly than not trusting soldiers to be able to adjust their sights IMO. I mark my sights so I know if they've been accidentally adjusted. A1 sights don't have this issue.

Originally Posted By coldblue:
My issue with matech is the left & right windage slop/wiggle of the aperture component, like the rear sight on a M249 SAW...both sights designed by picatinny...just saying...

Originally Posted By pezboytate:

Not rereading the entire thread but my point is that the A2 (or any other exposed windage knob sight for that matter) could move inadvertently where A1 style couldn't.

Originally Posted By Combat_Diver:

I heard that!  Honestly never had any move on me.  Course we don't play with them when we're bored.

CD

Originally Posted By borderpatrol:
A2 grips don't work with 90% of the population. Most people are shocked when they pick up my rifles. I grind the high pointed tip off my A2 grips, removing half of the bump. The end result is a very comfortable $3.00 grip.

Originally Posted By Sputnik556:

I think the point of them is that they do work for 90% of the population.

Those $3 grips aren’t A2s anyway. Take a look at a real one, and then a cheap one. There are major differences in the contours.

Originally Posted By coldblue:
The removable carrying handle has finer click adjustment changes than does an A2 with a fixed carrying handle. And an M4 front sight post, even though identical to an A2, has larger elevation change than it does on a rifle. So, I recommend the 50 yard/meter zero with either, with the rear sight all the way down (300), or better, "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks past that. Only elevation zero adjustments at this point are to the front sight post. Attain a point of aim = point of impact (POA=POI) zero at 50, then test this at 100 where the POI should be a few inches higher. If you have a 200 range, then verify POA=POI. If the 200 POI is either high or low, fine tune with the front sight. If you started with the elevation "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks below the 300 mark, your have a good 200 zero. Subsequently, to engage a 300 target, then elevate the rear sight to the 300 mark and give it a try. Subsequent range adjustments are made with the rear sight elevation if you have positive/accurate feed back of target impact or miss.  In reality, this zero stuff is not all exact mathematical science because of various types of ammo, bullet weights, etc., in use; and our human inability to be dead nuts on target with eyes only from shot to shot.
Firing position can change zero as well. When I qualified with M14's over the years, my 200 to 300 zeros (what we called "dope" in those days) changed from 200 offhand to the 200 kneeling. And then at 300 my sitting zero was different by a couple clicks to prone rapid fire...all because my cheek weld was different in each firing position.
Another all to common factor at work here is how much training one has had with iron sights (sight alignment, sight picture, etc.) to begin with. I was lucky enough to have been well trained as a Marine Rifleman by expert coaches on live fire ranges out to 500 with hundreds of rounds of live ammo--and in Boot Camp. thousands of rounds "dry-fired"). Not many civilians or LE have been so fortunate.
Hope this helps.
Good Shooting!

Originally Posted By raf:
A2 grips can provide some issues with heavy winter gloves and mittens.  The A1 style does not have these potential issues.

Of course, adequate access to the trigger must also be addressed as a related issue.  The OEM fold-down trigger guard allowed unimpeded access to mittened hands/fingers.  Nowadays there are monolithic (built-in) trigger guards, some designed to be used by wearers of heavy gloves.  There are also "augmented" fold-down trigger guards, but the more "open" the trigger guard, the more it is a hassle to use with mittens.  I suggest some personal restraint in selection your "augmented" trigger guard, so that it does not preclude the easy use of mittens.  All this is a trade-off, and some experimentation might be worthwhile.

The monolithic trigger guards cannot be folded-down for use with mittens.  This is not usually an issue unless one is in an extreme cold environment, but it might be worth considering.

It is worth considering that "monolithic" trigger guards, be they "augmented" or not, are also a cost-saving measure for the manufacturer.  I have heard some mfr claims that such "monolithic" trigger guards make the rifle "stronger", but other than installation screw-ups of the folding trigger guard, I have never heard of a "weakness" in this part of the rifle.  Perhaps I am ill-informed.  OTOH, a cost-saving deletion of a feature has often been touted, in the past, as some sort of "advancement".  I remain very suspicious of such claims, and suggest the same suspicion to others.

YMMV.

 

Originally Posted By coldblue:


The report (done by a hired contractor) was a real hose job per the direction "we can't let the Marines make us look this bad...".
To be brief:
1. Some in the Army had real bad heartburn that we Marines were "doing their job" by fixing known A1 deficiencies.
2. The test lot of M855 ammo used in the early 1980's tests was so defective prone it was thought to have been sabotaged in favor of Picatinny's M777 round which had the M855's (actually the Belgian SS109's) steel insert, but was stabilized by the A1's 1:12 twist, ergo, not barrel change required to conform with NATO.
Canada came to the rescue as the first test was terminated because of the bad Lake City crap ammo and delivered 10's of thousands of Belgian SS109 which was used to repeat the testing and proved superior to the A1 testing in all respects.  (Something ignored by these report writers.)
3. If I wanted to take the time, I can counter every one of their listed deficiencies.

Bottom line is, the Army did not agree with this report and adopted the A2 and it became the standard service rifle.
Nuf said!

And on the A2 grip, I actually built the first two (using Bondo) in my shop at Picatinny, and then Colt used them to prototype the production item.
So now you know who to blame.
The only part of the A2 program I regret was the longer buttstock, that ironically the Army's Human Engineering Lab endorsed; and of course the 3-round burst control.  But adding the burst control "saved" a degree of full-auto capability that was planed to be eliminated as the SAW was going to replace the automatic rifle in the fire teams.  And the provisioning of belted SAW ammo aboard amphibious shipping supporting 27 SAW's in each Marine Infantry Company was displacing tons of "rifle pack-out" 5.56 to the point that a 3-day supply was adversely effected.  The SAW ammo pack-out of 800 rounds taking the same cubic space as 1680 rifle pack-out 5.56 in stripper clips and bandoliers.

Originally Posted By ArmyPilot12:

What the hell are you babbling about?

What exactly is the design problem of the A2 grip that causes "issues" with your beloved mittens/heavy gloves?

Originally Posted By ArmyPilot12:  What the hell are you babbling about?

What exactly is the design problem of the A2 grip that causes "issues" with your beloved mittens/heavy gloves?

Originally Posted By raf:

Sorry to be so "babbling" on.  I admit to trying to provide full answers to questions posed, and perhaps I go on too much.  My fault, and I apologize.

To answer your question directly, I have encountered some issues with using the A2 grip when also using very thick, insulating gloves.  The thickness of the gloves displaces my hands--on the A2 grip, and so my trigger finger, to an objectional amount.

The A1 grip does not have this objectionable effect.

I don't exactly enjoy using heavy gloves and/or mittens when shooting, but I train using both, as it seems reasonable to do so, given my AO.  Perhaps your AO is a bit more forgiving.

I hope this answer answers your question.