Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/16/2001 12:03:02 PM EDT
I'm not sure what a SAW is? Is it like an M60? What are the differences?
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:05:30 PM EDT
S.A.W. Squad Automatic Weapon. I believe the M-60 is a SAW.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:07:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 12:14:14 PM EDT by gardenWeasel]
The F.N. made M249 in .223 is the currently used SAW. This weapon is what M855 or SS109 was originally designed for as it has a 1/7 twist barrel. They are loud, quite heavy (at 22.08 pounds with a 200 round ammo box (linked)) and can also use an M16 mag in a pinch, but with a cyclic rate between 725 and 1000 rounds per min it doesn't last long. I liked everything about them except for the nasty bipod.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:08:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:10:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 12:11:02 PM EDT by Righteous_Kill]
Slave is correct, it’s a "Squad Automatic Weapon". Some people on this board use the term incorrectly to designate a "Semi-auto Assault Weapon".
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:10:22 PM EDT
A tool I use occasionlly to cut wood. Wooden handle, metal blade with sharpened teeth. Sorry fellas, couln't resist [:D]
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:13:04 PM EDT
The SAW for the Army and Marine Corps is the M249. It is made by FN and is a 5.56 mm light machine-gun that fires either from belted ammo, preferred, or M16 magazines, emergency. The SAW was meant to be the replacement for the M60 in the Army until they realized that a 5.56 cannot do some things that a 7.62 can do. The Army is in the process of replacing the M60E1 in its front line units with the M240B. The Marine Corps replaced its M60E3 back in 94-96 with the M240G. The Air Force and the Navy still has M60 of various configurations.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:14:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:17:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 12:37:36 PM EDT
S.A.W. is a generic term referring to squad level weapon dedicated to full auto fire. The BAR was a SAW as was the M-14E2. But I'm sure you are referring to the U.S. military M-249 5.56mm light machinegun.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 1:03:52 PM EDT
uncle buck I'm pretty sure that the designation SAW came about with the adoption of the M249. Both the BAR and the M14E2 where classified as automatic rifles, vice squad automatic weapons. Even the billet of the SAW gunner has remained "automatic riflemen."
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 2:34:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 2:38:21 PM EDT by Sukebe]
The term squad automatic weapon has been around for a long time. It became commonly used in the mid 80's with the introduction of the M-249. Is an automatic rifle an automatic weapon. Yes. Is it machinegun? Not in military terms. Yes the Marine Corps fire team has had a designated automatic rifleman position for a long time. The BAR was at one time a fire team level weapon in the Marine Corps. I believe the M-249 is now. Between the M-14E2 and the M-249 the automatic rifleman used an M-16A1. He just carried more ammo. A poor substitute for a SAW. Lots of armies use a SAW not all of them are the M-249. Regardless, I think the original question was refering to the M-249 so I'll leave it at that.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 2:36:43 PM EDT
Thanks guys. That thing is BAD ASS! Anyone ever have the pleasure of shooting one?
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 3:08:14 PM EDT
I've fired both the M-60, and the M-249 at a National Guard open house, but only blanks. :p The SAW is basically an FN Minimi with certain minor changes to suit US manufacturing processes They wiegh 15.1 lbs unloaded as opposed to the 23 lb M-60. The rate of fire on the US version is 750 rpms, it's gas opperated, with a 20 inch barrel. The total lenght is 40.9 inches Not all of them have bipods either, the one I fired didn't The saw, even when fully loaded still weighs 1 lb less than an empty M-60. There is also a "para" version with a shorter barrel
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 3:59:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 3:58:46 PM EDT by warlord]
Here is a link to FN USA's website. They have some more info and some pretty nifty pictures there. URL: http://www.fnmfg.com/
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:10:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GeoffM24: Thanks guys. That thing is BAD ASS! Anyone ever have the pleasure of shooting one?
View Quote
Many times. They're a REAL bitch if you're shooting blanks though them though, but REAL fun when you get to "rock and roll" on them! [uzi] the only problem with them, is they are even MORE sensative than the AR. You HAVE to keep these clean and WELL lubed, or you're dead.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:10:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 4:08:49 PM EDT by STLRN]
I had to do a little research just to make sure I was feeding you some wrong info. This is out of the MCWP 3-15.1 Machine Guns and Machine Gunnery. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s the Marine Corps operated with an automatic weapon at the squad/fire team level that was extremely limited. The automatic rifleman’s weapon (the M16A1) was the same weapon carried by the other members of the fire team. The automatic rifleman had no unique capabilities or equipment except that he was given a removable, “clip on” bipod for his weapon. This shortfall was remedied with the introduction of the SAW in the late 1980s. The Marine Corps has never had a more capable and versatile weapon at the squad level. Prior to the fielding of the SAW, the Browning automatic rifle had been the last automatic weapon used by the Corps that provided significant firepower to the rifle squad beyond the capabilities of the other small arms carried within it. Various models of the Browning automatic rifle were used by Marine units from World War I to the early 1960s. Even the much-respected Browning automatic rifle, that served the Corps so well for over 40 years, had limitations that the design of the SAW has overcome. The Browning was an AUTOMATIC RIFLE and it had some design limitations common to other rifles of its day. These included a limited ammunition supply (only a 20 round box magazine), problems with overheating during continuous firing (because of a fixed barrel that could not be changed by the operator), and a limited maximum effective range. Although employed as an automatic rifle by the additional flexibility to the unit leader in terms of weapons employment options. In the army FM 23-14 it is still classified as a Automatic Rifle. The term SAW was coined with the adoption of the M249 in the 80s. Matt All SAW come with a bipod. It is forms the collar that goes around the gas tube. When not deployed it is stored into recess in the hand guard. However it can be removed to save about a half a pound in weight. The above pictured version is the M249 PIP. The PIP mods were done in the mid 90s to make the weapon a little more durable reduce burns and to reduce the cyclic rate of the weapon. When it was originally introduced it was the same as the FN Minimi and many of the earlier ones still in use are stamped Minimi. The specs for the weapon are 16.41lbs for a PIP modified gun and 15.3 lbs for a non-modified weapon. The rate of fire for the non-PIP guns was 750 in with the gas system in normal and 1000 in adverse. But everyone left the weapon on adverse causing increased wear on the weapon. The PIP has a fixed cyclic rate of 850 RPM.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:19:30 PM EDT
And the magazine feature was a good thought, but I have yet to find any that will feed properly with an M-16 magazine, 20's or 30's beyond 5 rounds(1 or 2 with blanks). Anyone have any different experiences?
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:39:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/16/2001 4:54:08 PM EDT by Steve]
In the new SAR the new Minimi by FN will not have the M-16 mag well. He are some more "Minimes" [img]http://www.tvdance.com/austinpowers2/minisway-.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:45:29 PM EDT
No, for the most part, I read that the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) replaced the M-60, but don't quote me!
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:51:23 PM EDT
If I'm not mistaken, in the new movie Swordfish Travolta's character "Gabriel" got a SAW (M249) out of the trunk of that sweet car he was driving and started blasting away at the SUV's that were in pursuit.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 4:52:58 PM EDT
Currently the Marine Corps uses both the M249 (SAW) and the 240G. The 240G replaced the M60 if I'm not mistaken.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 5:03:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Callahan44m: And the magazine feature was a good thought, but I have yet to find any that will feed properly with an M-16 magazine, 20's or 30's beyond 5 rounds(1 or 2 with blanks). Anyone have any different experiences?
View Quote
The only time I have seen live rounds fired in a SAW with the magazine inserted was when the Dutch were using their Thermolds in them. (they didnt have linked ammo) 100% flawless. I have also seen blanks fired through them with the mags. It doesnt work. But then again, blanks hardly ever work in a SAW (at least not for long). But only use mags in an emergency.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 5:04:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bryan_: Currently the Marine Corps uses both the M249 (SAW) and the 240G. The 240G replaced the M60 if I'm not mistaken.
View Quote
Yep. They both replaced the 60. The M240 is usually used at the squad/platoon level and there is one SAW per fireteam (four grunts).
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 6:03:49 PM EDT
I beileve they first saw action in Panama. BTW
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 6:36:53 PM EDT
Hey guys are you concerned that we are reliant on foreign designs? How is it that we can't come up with a good SAW of our own? What happens if we goto war with Belgium. I am sure they are manufactured in the US but is there any Americans actively designing our own? From my understanding the M60 was a mediocre gun at best with a lot of problems.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 6:47:17 PM EDT
Death_By_AR15 The 6 M240G in a Marine Rifle Company belongs to the weapons plt. It is one of the company commander's three fire support assets he has organic, he normally will attach them or make them OPCON to a Rifle platoon. The SAWs are the Plt commander and the Sqd leaders base of fire weapon. We have 9 in a rifle Plt, 3 per squad. In other units of the Marine Corps they issued in different numbers and are used in different ways. Steve you are correct the SAWs first saw use in Panama, and have seen use in ever other operation since then. When I was a student at TBS, we had a Lt. from the FMF come in give a presentation on the SAW, he was quite impressed with them with their use at a fire fight at Cape Haitian. His gunners where able to cut cars in half to get to the Haitian police on the other side. The use of magazines is an emergency item. It compromised the reliability of the weapon. It was found that spring in M16 mags are not strong enough for SAW. In 93-94 the Marine tested a SAW magazine, is was made of orlite and increased the reliability of the SAW. But it was less than reliable in the M16. Wisely since the magazine feed is not the preferred method with the SAW it was decided to not make a SAW magazine. The normal TTP for using a magazine in a SAW is to pull back on the bottom of the magazine, it seems to increase the reliability of the weapon. With this technique you can fire off magazines with about the same reliablity as the belt feed. ARDOC There where several contenders for the SAW competition, to include Colt and Cadillac Gage, but the Minimi was the most reliable. All US SAWs are now made in the FN factory in the US, along side the M240s and the M16A2s.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 6:52:28 PM EDT
What ever happened to the Stoner 96?
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 8:04:42 PM EDT
What are the particulars on the M240G, weight, rate of fire etc??? FN has a factory in Columbia SC. I think that arms makers must have US factories in order to sell to the US military.
Link Posted: 6/16/2001 8:48:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: I had to do a little research just to make sure I was feeding you some wrong info. This is out of the MCWP 3-15.1 Machine Guns and Machine Gunnery.
View Quote
Oh yeah. well I've been out for some time so please forgive me if I forgot that information supplied by the Marine Corps is 100% fail safe.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:23:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2001 4:49:20 AM EDT by STLRN]
It may not be but I was reading through a book called "The Grim Reaper. Machine guns and Machine guns in action" last night. It also stated that the Squad Automatic Weapon was new classification came about when the M249 was proposed. It was to fill a role in between the sustained fire M60 and the M16. This is the data for the M240G, it is a little different from the M240B, since the B is little heavier with its heat shield. Weights/Measurements Total system weight (gun and tripod complete) .... 45.6 pounds Weight of machine gun ..... 25.6 pounds Weight of barrel ..... 6.6 pounds Weight of spare barrel case, complete with spare barrel and all SL-3 components ..... 12.90 pounds Weight of tripod, complete with flex-mount including T&E mechanism ..... 20 pounds Length of machine gun ...... 49 inches Height of machine gun on tripod ........17 inches Muzzle velocity .... 2,800 feet per second Ranges Maximum ...... 3,725 meters Maximum effective ...... 1,800 meters Grazing fire ........ 600 meters Rates of fire Sustained .......... 100 rounds per minute, fired in 6 to 8 round bursts 4 to 5 seconds between bursts, barrel change every 10 minutes Rapid ..... 200 rounds per minute, fired in 10 to 12 round bursts 2 to 3 seconds between bursts Cyclic .... 650 to 950 rounds per minute (depending on gas setting) And for the M60E3 that is replaced. Weights/Measurements Total system weight (gun and tripod complete) ......... 36 pounds Weight of machine gun ....... 18.5 pounds Weight of spare barrel case, complete with spare barrel and all SL-3 components ..... 8. 0 pounds Weight of tripod and T&E mechanism ....... 17.5 pounds Length of machine gun ...... 42.4 inches Height of machine gun on tripod ...........19.2 inches Muzzle velocity .... 2,800 feet per second Ranges Maximum .......... 3,725 meters (approx.) Maximum effective ........ 1,100 meters Grazing fire ............. 600 meters Sustained ........ 100 rounds per minute fired in 6 to 8 round bursts 4 to 5 seconds between bursts, barrel change every 10 minutes Rapid ............ 200 rounds per minute fired in 10 to 12 round bursts 2 to 3 seconds between bursts Cyclic 550 RPM (Approx.) Weights/Measurements for PIP SAW Weapon bipod and tools ........ 17 pounds With 200 round drum ......... 23.92 pounds Measurements Length ................. 40.87 inches Muzzle velocity Ball ammunition ...... 3,025 feet per second Tracer ammunition ..... 2,870 feet per second Rifling ...... Standard right hand twist one turn in 7 inches Ranges Maximum ............... 3,600 meters Maximum effective Point targets ...... 800 meters Area targets ........ 1,000 meters Grazing fire ........ 600 meters Ammunition: Caliber ..........5.56 millimeter Types in use ..... Ball, tracer, blank, and dummy Basic allowance ........ 600 rounds per SAW, carried by the automatic rifleman and assistant automatic rifleman Weight of full 200 round drum ..... 6.92 pounds Rates of fire: Sustained .......... 85 rounds per minute, fired in 3 to 5 round bursts, 4 to 5 seconds between bursts, no barrel changes. Rapid ....... 200 rounds per minute, fired in 6 to 8 round bursts, 2 to 3 seconds between bursts, barrel change every 2 minutes. Cyclic ....... 850 rounds per minute, continuous burst, barrel change every minute.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:30:54 AM EDT
Here is a SAW being fired, by me: [img]http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/pix/dave_again.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:44:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bryan_:If I'm not mistaken, in the new movie Swordfish Travolta's character "Gabriel" got a SAW (M249) out of the trunk of that sweet car he was driving and started blasting away at the SUV's that were in pursuit.
View Quote
Yeah, I think he did have a M249. Sure looked like one.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:52:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC:Hey guys are you concerned that we are reliant on foreign designs? How is it that we can't come up with a good SAW of our own? What happens if we goto war with Belgium. I am sure they are manufactured in the US but is there any Americans actively designing our own? From my understanding the M60 was a mediocre gun at best with a lot of problems.
View Quote
Well, I doubt we'll go to war with Belgium any time soon:), but you raise a good point. The reason machine gun technology development in the US has stopped is because it is practically impossible to design one. It started with the NFA of 34, then the GCA of 68, then the FOPA of 86, each which made possession and manufacturer/design of MG's increasingly difficult by individuals(who designed all the great MG's-think Browning, Stoner, Kalishnikov(sp?), Gattling, etc), and hence domestic design stopped. It is a sad time for gun design.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 6:54:53 AM EDT
STLRN: thanx for the info. The M240G seems to be a little more versataile and be able to throw more lead. The SAW is a little heavier than I thought but it is good that sustained fire doesn't require barrel changes (with a skilled gunner anyway). Libertyof76: Look we don't need a war with Belgium, can you say waffle embargo? That's not a pretty thought is it [;)]
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 1:53:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC: Hey guys are you concerned that we are reliant on foreign designs? How is it that we can't come up with a good SAW of our own? What happens if we goto war with Belgium. I am sure they are manufactured in the US but is there any Americans actively designing our own? From my understanding the M60 was a mediocre gun at best with a lot of problems.
View Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the SAW based on the FN MAG, which itself is based on a Browing design? Lots of Browning's stuff went to FN after a dispute with an american company, winchester, I believe. M-60 was designed by a comittee, not a single individual, based supposedly on the MG-42(german). You have a point though, the only big American designer after Browning at the turn of the century has been Eugene Stoner. John Ross in Unintended consequences blames this on the heavy taxes on MG manufature placed by the NFA.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 2:47:41 PM EDT
I'm assigned as the team gunner right now and have to lug around the M249 SAW. Actually, it is much easier than the M60 on the shoulder. It is really, really fun to shoot. Last time I fired it was shooting at old tanks about 100M out at an Army range. FUN,FUN,FUN!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 3:56:53 PM EDT
I know we wont get into a fight with the waffle makers but what gets me is that we should have our own design team. Even the M60 is a knock off from the MG34 and MG42. A country that makes F-22 and F-15s should be able to field a General Puropose MG. The guys have a point, the last designer of any note was Stoner and Browning.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:03:18 PM EDT
I've had a lot of experience with the pig -- excuse me -- the M-60 but none on the M249. Two questions: Is the 249 more reilable and easier to use, i.e. change barrels? How is the 249 for lefties? I had to shoot the 60 right handed.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 4:13:16 PM EDT
Well, until I read this, I didn't know what one was either. I was an ignorant "SemiAutomaticWeapon" person. I've always wanted one, now I know what they are. Thanks! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 5:37:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2001 5:56:04 PM EDT by STLRN]
geek4guns The M240/FN MAG is based on older Browning weapons. The M249 is more a scaled up scaled up FNC with feed mechanism of the FN MAG. The M60 used the gas system from the FG-42 and the feed system from the MG-42. The M249 is pretty reliable if used with the belts, when used with the magazines they less reliable. Maintenance is fairly simple, the worst part is scraping carbon of the piston head. Changing barrels is a snap compared to an original M60.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 5:52:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2001 6:13:11 PM EDT by TimJ]
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 6:46:31 PM EDT
MG-42 did not have a gas system it was recoil operated. M-60 differed from the MG-42 in that respect. M-60 was built that way because it was felt that a gas operated system recoiled less than the recoil operated system. Many of the other features were the same or slightly modified. MG-42 was probably so effective due to it's 1100-1200 rpm rof, which the M-60 cut in half.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 8:07:54 PM EDT
For those who are interested, Rapidfire in Troy, Ohio is supposedly building semi-auto beltfed MG-42s in the near future. They used to make 1919a4-a6 but shut down production. Price is around $2000.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 2:14:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/18/2001 2:14:05 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:16:21 PM EDT
The term SAW for Squad Automatic Weapon originated when the Army was looking for something more than an automatic rifle for squad fire support. The M249 was selected as the squad automatic weapon but never meant to replace the M60 which is a platoon fire support weapon. As far as American weapons design goes, we do a good job on the fancier stuff, electronics and aerospace, but a lousy job on the more basic stuff. Maybe its a sign of the times. Not many fathers want their daughter to marry a gun designer, but who could resist an aerospace engineer for a son-in-law. Killing from a distance seems to have more acceptance in our society than killing up close. This isn't the case in other countries, which is one reason we use Belgian designed 5.56mm and 7.62mm Machine guns firing Belgian designed 5.56mm ammo, British 81mm mortars, Swedish 84mm and Israeli 83mm recoilless guns, Italian and Swiss 9mm pistols, British 105mm light artillery, and a German 120mm tank gun which replaced the previous British 105mm. All in all I think these are probably the best in the world. Now take a country like France which will buy nothing but French designed and manufactured equipment.. I can think of no weapon in the French arsenal that is the best in the world.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 11:05:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC: Hey guys are you concerned that we are reliant on foreign designs? How is it that we can't come up with a good SAW of our own? What happens if we goto war with Belgium....
View Quote
This is a topic all by itself. There are plenty of similar strategically stupid moves we've made or allowed to happen. We are very dependent on SE Asia and Japan for electronics, including chip making. We cut our strategic reserves of certain metals like cobalt a decade ago or more. Apparel? Pretty dependent on PRK. We need to not only cosider loyalties in time of trouble, but also logistics & practicalities. We could wind up able to buy what we need but not be able to get it here. Aren;t we net importers of oil? We are net exporters of technology, I think. Plenty of other areas to think about. [red][size=4] P.R.K.
Link Posted: 6/19/2001 3:11:44 AM EDT
The M249 SAW replaced the M16A1 not the M60. They are a pain in the ass to shoot with blanks but are alot of fun firing live rounds through. I have fired them for the past 5 years and lugged then around that long too, much prefered over the M60.
Link Posted: 6/19/2001 5:31:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2001 2:21:26 PM EDT
Around 1992 the Army had quite a few articles in “Infantry” magazine about replacing all most all the M60s in the Army light forces with M249s. I even think they went as far as starting an initiative to do just that. But around 1993, Somalia occurred. It became quite apparent that a 5.56 machine-gun could not do some of the things that a 7.62 machine-gun could do. The brick building material was in Mogadishu proved to be a bit too much to penetrate for a 5.56. About a year afterward there was a competition for a 7.62 machine-gun to replace the M60s that had been in service for about 40 years at that time. The two major contenders, what became the M240B and the M60E4. The Marine Corps and the Army Rangers had already adopted the M240 in the “G” guise by that time. The M60E4 was really only a M60E3 with a Picatinny rail and a few other small mods added. Because the M240 and the FN MAG were the world standard for machine-guns at the time and had a MRBF almost double the M60, they where adopted as the M240B. Its only real difference from the M240G or the FN MAG is the addition of a Picattiny rail on the feed tray cover and a heat shield that cover the gas tube and portion of the barrel above the gas tube
Top Top