User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:02:54 PM EDT
[#1]
The SAW had a much higher than anticipated failure rate and the SAW gunners couldn't keep up during fast paced operations. This is what I've been told by guys "in the know" at Weapons Training Battalion Quantico.
I have read David Bellavia's excellent "House to House" account of his fight in Fallujah. The SAW worked very well for him and his guys. I wonder if my beloved Corps had crappy, shot out guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:03:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: They need to bring back the M60!  The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:04:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
If anything they should have gone with Shrike it can take mags & belts and is ultra lightweight and parts interchange... 
<a href="http://img132.imageshack.us/i/shrike556cqblmg.jpg/" target="_blank">http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1205/shrike556cqblmg.jpg</a> THIS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:05:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: I was under the impression that the Colts fired from a closed bolt ONLY on semi auto and the first round of full auto. The advantages are things like: interchangeability of mags within a squad, making it harder to identify the heavy gunner on the squad. maneuverability in urban environments, etc. This The weapon is not replacing the saw this is supposed to be for use in urban combat. It's 'replacing' the SAW for the Marines, at least in the current fight... BTW, when you take away belt feed, you now have a plain old assault rifle... You can't 'Identify' the heavy gunner, because there isn't one anymore... As for mags, you do realize that the 249 takes M16 mags AND belts, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:06:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I think the idea is stupid. The M249 para is a much better idea: 
Smaller and a little lighter. I know it is not completely replacing the SAW (or is it?), but I'd still rather have two SAWs than one of those other modified assault rifles. They bring up the point they want the IAR to shoot in single accurate shots, with the occasional burst. But the M16A4/M4 can already do that fine. 
And I am sure the Colt will win. Probably the HK next, since that is the closest to the M16/M4. But it could be the SCAR... since that is what the Army SF units seem to be going with. I want! I want I want I want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:06:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Plastic guns in combat........what could happen
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:07:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
What about Ultimax? +1 I wish it would have made the cut. There were problems with the sight height but that could have been easily fixed. I have been drooling over that weapon for over 20 years. Yep, it's been around that long. jd1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:08:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Better question is how did the automatic rifleman end up with a light machine gun in the first place? Because the original doctrine of 'Bipod + more mags' never made any sense to begin with... If your weapon is employed in a support role, dispensing automatic fire, it's going to be treated by the enemy as a machine gun... So you might as well actually have a machine gun, if you are going to get the 'attention' the enemy will dish out when they think you have one... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:08:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
 If they are going to pick something like that then why not just drop the saw and buy a full auto capable version of the m16a4? AKA M16A3 How the hell, is a 30 round weapon, take over the duty of a 100 round or 200 round weapon????? Wow, just wow. If you and half the other people in the thread would read the thread, you'd know already. The SAW is ridiculous for an urban environment of tight, enclosed spaces. That's why they want an intermediary weapon for urban conflicts. They will still have full auto capability, without the bulk and size of a SAW. The Marine Corps has recognized a need for a specific environment and are answering it. Who would have thunk? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:09:13 PM EDT
[#10]
First of all you must understand that the Marines who make these decisions have no (zero) common sense
.
Second the Marine Corps is based around the grunt, period, no if ands or buts about it. MLCOA is that this will supplement our current SAW and be used in urban areas. The SAW will not go anywhere, just as Marines are still going to AFG with M16A4s and A2s, some get M4s but we still go old school shit. Semper Fi |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:10:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they are going to pick something like that then why not just drop the saw and buy a full auto capable version of the m16a4? AKA M16A3 How the hell, is a 30 round weapon, take over the duty of a 100 round or 200 round weapon????? Wow, just wow. If you and half the other people in the thread would read the thread, you'd know already. The SAW is ridiculous for an urban environment of tight, enclosed spaces. That's why they want an intermediary weapon for urban conflicts. They will still have full auto capability, without the bulk and size of a SAW. The Marine Corps has recognized a need for a specific environment and are answering it. Who would have thunk? The Army recognized the same 'need' and came up with the chopped-down SAW you see posted above... A much better solution to the same problem, that preserves squad-level access to belt-fed support weapons... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:16:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... Dave_A, Tell us why you think the M60 was an abortion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:17:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If they are going to pick something like that then why not just drop the saw and buy a full auto capable version of the m16a4? AKA M16A3 How the hell, is a 30 round weapon, take over the duty of a 100 round or 200 round weapon????? Wow, just wow. If you and half the other people in the thread would read the thread, you'd know already. The SAW is ridiculous for an urban environment of tight, enclosed spaces. That's why they want an intermediary weapon for urban conflicts. They will still have full auto capability, without the bulk and size of a SAW. The Marine Corps has recognized a need for a specific environment and are answering it. Who would have thunk? The Army recognized the same 'need' and came up with the chopped-down SAW you see posted above... A much better solution to the same problem, that preserves squad-level access to belt-fed support weapons... We already use the chopped up SAW |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:18:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Are you out of your fucking mind? They need to bring back the M60! Have you ever used that POS? I have, good riddance. Quoted: The 2nd time ever we agree on something.Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... OT: I feel bad for the Marines, I was in the Army pre/ new issue M249s and we used M16s as SAW. Using a magazine fed M16 as a SAW was a fucking joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:19:55 PM EDT
[#15]
The Marine grunts have the parasaw issued out pretty much universally right now, the main problem with it is reliability. Though i never carried a saw when i was in iraq, i saw them go down more often than not, guns that had just been inspected by team/squad leaders.
On the otherhand i read that the saw was reliable from guys who have btdt so it makes me think it might just have been warn out guns. It might serve the Corps better to just buy a bunch of new saws instead of using 20 year old ones that have been converted over to the para model. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:21:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
How in the fuck do you replace it with a closed bolt gun? They are looking rifles that fire full auto with a open bolt, and semi auto with a closed bolt. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:23:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Unreliable, broke easily, wore out quickly, gas piston could be assembled backwards causing an unrepairable jam (this got people killed in Nam).Quoted: Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... Dave_A, Tell us why you think the M60 was an abortion? Other parts could also go in backwards too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:23:49 PM EDT
[#18]
The move makes some sense. The M249 units in service now are reportedly very worn out. If this is true now is as good a time as any to procure a new weapon. The military is probably looking at M16 type weapons to decrease the supply line costs. The thirty round magazine will limit the effective rate of fire somewhat, but the trade off in reloading time and reliability might be worth it.
If the weapon they adopt has a heavy weight quick change barrel it should fill the SAW role adequately. This is not a heavy weapons slot. It is a squad automatic weapon intended to give some fire support capability at the squad level. The M240 will still be around to supply heavy fire support when necessary. I think the military feels that the M249 is too specialized of a weapon to issue at the level that they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:25:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Anyone know where I can find those hand guards that are one the 6940 on page one of this post?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:25:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Seriously? Give up a SAW for one of those weapons? That's not efficient, especially if you're throwing massive lead down range. Let's see... 200rnds vs. 30rnds to keep their heads down.
The basic infantryman can use those last three in the pic. The SAW gunner... well... needs something equivalent. Those replacement examples are not the equivalent of the SAW.
Maybe they've thrown the biggest curve ball ever and will use the M56 Smart Gun. I can't imagine what the replacement for the 240G will be 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:27:23 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... I understand the current version of the M60 is a huge improvement over the Vietnam era guns. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:27:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... But the Corps doesn't use the Bravo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:29:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... Dave_A, Tell us why you think the M60 was an abortion? Let's see... Unreliable as hell... Cobbled together solution by the same folks who gave us the M14 - 'Invented here, so it must be good'... 'Quick' change barrel that required the use of a mitten... Could be put together wrong, causing a significant (non-field-correctable) malfunction & putting the gun out of action on the first shot... Yes, it was lighter weight... But that didn't make up for the rest of the 'problems'... And we're far more mechanized/motorized than we were back then.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:30:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: The Marine grunts have the parasaw issued out pretty much universally right now, the main problem with it is reliability. Though i never carried a saw when i was in iraq, i saw them go down more often than not, guns that had just been inspected by team/squad leaders. On the otherhand i read that the saw was reliable from guys who have btdt so it makes me think it might just have been warn out guns. It might serve the Corps better to just buy a bunch of new saws instead of using 20 year old ones that have been converted over to the para model. Most of the SAWs I saw in the Army were, in deed, worn to shit & then some... I would guess that the Marines have the same problem... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:30:33 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... But the Corps doesn't use the Bravo. Correct, we use the 'Gulf.' Close enough.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:32:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... But the Corps doesn't use the Bravo. No, they have the Golf, which (IIRC) is a ground-mount conversion of the 240C coaxial MG... Same basic gun (MAG58)... As the golfs wear out (if that's possible, the MAG is a fucking tank of a gun - kind of like the M2, but smaller), I would assume the Marines will likely replace them with Bravos... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:33:25 PM EDT
[#27]
This is the shit right here for squad automatic duty. Quick change barrels, adjustable gas regulator, short stroke system, requires no buffer tube/spring etc.
 http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page914.htm More pics http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page1039.htm Why aren't these guys in the running??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:34:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: As someone who chose to carry the M249 overseas all I can say is wtf USMC. Are they saying you guys aren't strong enough to utilize a 22 lb weapon? Maybe you guys need to bulk up. Seriously though, the M249 equipped with the shorter barrel is not unwieldy for any man who has any business in combat. I don't get wtf they're trying to accomplish other than wasting valuable money.  When did US currency get 'valuable' again?The Treasury is working hard taking it in the opposite direction. And like a lot of the others, I don't understand the point of a heavy M4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:35:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Ummm.... How is belt fed bad? Increased bulk and weight. The belt links are point of failure. Reliability is a big issue. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:37:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: This is the shit right here for squad automatic duty. Quick change barrels, adjustable gas regulator, short stroke system, requires no buffer tube/spring etc. http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page914.htm More pics http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page1039.htm Why aren't these guys in the running??? Budget, probably not quite upto mil spec (I'm only guessing out of my ass on this one)... doesn't live up to serious abuse, wear and tear of continuous/repetitive firing... and it makes too much damn sense. Anything that makes sense doesn't cut it for the USMC.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:39:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: so what's exactly wrong with the SAW? not reliable? and what about making a new, lighter, better belt fed? Nobody in charge was getting kickbacks from production... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:39:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Clearly no one in this thread has carried a Saw(yes even a para)+combat load in 120 degree heat for a few hours.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:39:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Isn't the idea not to replace 1 SAW with 1 IAR, but give all squad members an IAR?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:43:25 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:46:10 PM EDT
[#35]
They should just replace the SAW with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:56:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
how would replacing a belt-fed, with a mag fed, be any better? It 'fits' Marine Corps institutional (rifle-centric) culture to give their 'all rifleman' service rifles instead of LMGs... The arguments 'for' the IAR all boil down to 'We are deploying a LMG like a rifle, and wondering why that does not work so well'... The actual weight difference between the 249 and M16A4 (since the Marines also 'snubbed' the M4) is not that significant, when UNLOADED... The big difference in combat loadout weight comes from all the AMMO that a SAW gunner ends up carrying... 800rds+ of linked 5.56, vs 270rds+ for a rifle load... Gee, I wonder what weighs so much? The ARMY got it right, by simply sticking a collapsible stock and short barrel on the 249, to make it 'Urban Friendly'.... STFU and go work on a helicopter. Deploying an LMG like a rifle works like a charm. The ability to provide a base of fire at the fireteam level is essential to the Corps. Perhaps this indicates some doctrinal shift in the near future, I dont know. What I do know is that none of the IAR contenders are a worthy replacement for the SAW. A good alternative would be Corps adoption of the para-SAW that the army uses. I see very few of these in the hands of Marines. Usually I just see that collapsible stock abortion that takes all of 3inches off of the weapon. In my opinion the best solution would be Corps purchase of the MK 46 to replace the SAW in the fireteam. 240s would be relegated to vehicles and weapons platoons and the fireteam would have a weapon with the same empty weight as the SAW with the funtionality of a GPMG. Dumping the 240Gs in a squad would mean more people available to spread load the increased ammo weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:59:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... You're 100% right here. The M60 is a tremendous piece of shit. The rest of NATO went to the MAG58 almost 50yrs ago. Someone should have gone to jail over the adoption of the M60. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:05:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: You can put him in the cell with the fuckstick that forced us to take the M-14 over the FAL.Quoted: Quoted: They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... You're 100% right here. The M60 is a tremendous piece of shit. The rest of NATO went to the MAG58 almost 50yrs ago. Someone should have gone to jail over the adoption of the M60. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:12:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! The M240B is a far better GPMG than that abortion ever was... Dave_A, Tell us why you think the M60 was an abortion? Allow me to take a crack at it... - The receiver stretches and it shoots itself out of headspace - The barrel requires the asbestos mitten and takes a long time compared to the 240 - The bipod and the gas system is attached to the barrel. meaning you gotta carry 2 bipods and 2 gas systems around - The belt is expected to make a 90 degree turn to enter the reciever which lead to the brazed c-rat can on door guns in vietnam - The feed mechanism is overly complicated and uses 2 fingers instead of 1 compared to the 240 - The gas system needs to be safety wired or it can shoot loose and the gun stops running - The FCG can be re-assembled wrong after cleaning causing a run-away gun. It is impossible to identify during a function check - The spring clip that holds the FCG in place can and does break regularly and can fuck up your whole day when it happens (this is why you see zip-ties on 60s) It took 40yrs for the DoD to admit they fucked up and purchase the MAG-58 anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:20:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Clearly no one in this thread has carried a Saw(yes even a para)+combat load in 120 degree heat for a few hours. I have... (2) 200 round drums on belt, and (4) in alice pack. I would have never been able to get up from a prone position
That being said, I never had an issue with my 249, but it was the early 90's. I wouldn't compare it to the 60 or 240 as some previous posters have though as they are crew served weapons. Apples and oranges. I think a "lightweight" belt fed has it's place in the Corps. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:21:42 PM EDT
[#41]
I think this is a bad move, I have cleared rooms with a M249 just fine in Iraq/A-Stan. We had the folding stocks, and short barrels like the one in the pic above. To me it seemed like each SAW was different, and one in my PLT seemed to get more reliable when it was dirty. I prefer my M240B though, God was it heavy, but every time I shot that big bitch it put a smile on my face.
Sure this thing might be better for MOUT, but what happens if the unit moves away from the urban area. They will wish they had a belt fed weapon at the SQD level when they get into contact out in the open. I know one thing for sure, those Marines will make it work in combat, and I bet they will still be able to out gun anyone they come up against over there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:37:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
You're 100% right here. The M60 is a tremendous piece of shit. The rest of NATO went to the MAG58 almost 50yrs ago. Someone should have gone to jail over the adoption of the M60. Actually, most of NATO uses the MG-3. MG-3 = MG-42 in 7.62 NATO (with some mods to internals) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:47:44 PM EDT
[#43]
The armchair commandos are strong in this thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:50:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Allow me to take a crack at it... It took 40yrs for the DoD to admit they fucked up and purchase the MAG-58 anyway. While the M-60 does indeed have these major faults, it did have a few good innovations 1. Stellite lined barrels for improved barrel live 2. Semi-bullpup design allowed for a much shorter package. Locating the Ammo feed almost directly over the pistol grip shortens the weapon significantly. The base M-60 is only 2 in. longer than the base M-249 and 6 in. shorter than the M-240. Like other troubled weapons of the Vietnam War (like the M-16), the M-60 was modded into a very usable platform, the E3 and E4's, which corrected most of the uber-glaring problems |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:55:50 PM EDT
[#45]
I would take an M-60E4 any day over the M240...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:56:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
The armchair commandos are strong in this thread +1 Since when did this board become a place to discuss the relative merits of firearms. Wait this is a gun board never mind. You need to STFU. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:59:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Seriously? Give up a SAW for one of those weapons? That's not efficient, especially if you're throwing massive lead down range. Let's see... 200rnds vs. 30rnds to keep their heads down. The basic infantryman can use those last three in the pic. The SAW gunner... well... needs something equivalent. Those replacement examples are not the equivalent of the SAW. Total WTF are they thinking? There is NOTHING on that pic that can replace the SAW/Minimi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:05:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: How in the fuck do you replace it with a closed bolt gun? Yeah, this doesn't seem to make much sense to me, either. How is a closed bolt machine gun better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:07:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: If they are going to pick something like that then why not just drop the saw and buy a full auto capable version of the m16a4? That's basically what Seabees use, the M16A2E3, an A2 with an A1 lower. We're just too cheap to invest in SAWs. AR just flips his selector switch a little further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2009 9:11:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
They need to bring back the M60! BAR!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
