The new ones that have a Buy Now on GB are for $11K and $11.5K; then you pay $120 shipping, TAX and their 1% "compliance fee" and on top of that, if you pay via CC, an additional 3% on top of that.

So if you buy the cheaper of the M249s's at $11K, expect to pay another $1200-$1300 in taxes, fees, and shipping based on how you pay and your state sales tax.  



NOTE that ALL the M249S's with "Buy Now" prices at $11K and $11.5K on GB have already been sold.  

A fool and his money…..

I you want to spend that kind of money, go get a M11/9 transferable and throw a Lage M11/15 upper on it with a kickin' bipod and have a real "M249 SAW that your mother said we already have at home".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5ruVyWqAI

Your kidding right…

Totally different animals, entry level subgun with a toy conversion vs a current us military belt fed weapon built by FN…

I did not realize there is a military using a closed bolt semi auto belt fed weapon.

Is anyone aware of any information (pictures would be great) detailing or depicting the differences among the following?

1. the original M249s
2. the 2017 Recall altered M249s
3. the "pre 2022 Recall" altered M249s
4. the current Spring 2022 m249s

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Anyone-know-the-details-on-the-M249S-recall-/24-533270/

I'll save you the read...
There's no answer there either, nor is it explained at the linked FNforum thread: https://www.fnforum.net/threads/m249s-recall-info-question.229320/

More people than not seem to believe it's got something to do with making MG conversions harder, but nobody is saying if the receiver is modified as part of the recall.

Just thinking out loud here however if someone with an iron recalled rifle were to meet up with someone that owned either a recalled rifle or a new production rifle is the consensus that someone would be able to figure out whether or not the receiver had been modified?

No need to meet up.  All it takes is someone who has had the recall work done to take some decent pics.  The only pic we have thus far is of the replaced striker/bolt assembly, which I posted.  If someone does that, I'm more than happy to dig my M249s out of the safe and take pics to compare.  I've not set mine in and have no plans to do so.

$9499 at green top in Richmond.

On Gunbroker the other day I did see a factory OD Green which is the only one I have ever seen. I think that one went for $11K+.

I'm not 100% sure about a few sites selling theses. When the site payments are zelle (you get a discount) and crypto, just doesn't sound right

RM FN America Guns

FN Weaponary

Has anyone done business with either of these companies?

Both fake.

Fake fake fake fake fake

And any others that look like that, and only accept zelle or crypto, and have everything in stock ... Fake

The M2 is both open and closed bolt depending on the fire control option selected...18Z50...your friendly master gunner!

M2 only fires from the closed bolt position.

Scams run by street shitters in third world shitholes. In the last few years they figured out how to dip into the market of thirsty American gun buyers whose motivation exceeds their ability to read red flags.

Today, I finally got a chance to look at the modifications done to these rifles since FN issued their latest recall so I took the chance to compare Gen 1 parts to Gen 3 parts.  The rifle I looked at was brand new and in the upper end of the 7XXX serial range so it was built this way, not "converted".  FN had not bothered cleaning it before it left their factory which is kind of sad for such an expensive item.  Because I was in an open and busy business, I didn't take the time to look over everything for an hour and a half so I may have missed something but I'm fairly certain I didn't.

Notice I typed "converted" above.  When I say that, I'm pretty sure conversion of your recall rifle consists of replacing the slide hammer, firing pin, firing pin spring, and firing pin retaining pin and modification/replacement of the bolt and bolt carrier.  As far as I could tell, the trigger assembly and receiver have not been modified.  While I did not take the time to fully switch out the guts between the two rifles, I did verify that the slide hammers would switch out between the two rifles.  The upper internal rails also appeared to be identical although I did not intermix parts to ensure that.  I've read that some people who had the conversion done noticed their rifle was MUCH harder to charge.  I did not notice a difference between charging on either rifle.  Maybe "conversion" as opposed to "newly manufactured" makes a difference?  I don't know but I can't imagine that a converted rifle would have different parts than a newly made one.  What I can say is that the new trigger pull is absolutely HORRENDOUS.  An unmodified rifle has VERY light trigger pull, say around 4 lbs.  I don't have a trigger pull gauge but the new one I looked at had to have been pushing every bit of the 15 lbs. listed on FN's website, possibly more.  It was so bad that it would be a deal breaker for me.  I mean it is TERRIBLE.


Alright, let's look at a few pictures.  The quality is not as good as I'd like but I wasn't in ideal conditions.  Sorry about that.


First, we'll look at the bolt.  The latest is on the top:

The new one looks shorter.  I didn't notice this at the time so I'm pretty sure it's just an illusion created by the camera angle.   What I'm sure is different is the unknown hole in the side just behind the head that is absent on the older example.  Notice too that the firing pin retaining pin is now a larger diameter and the rear of the firing pin is radically different.  Otherwise, the bolts looked identical to me.


Here are the firing pins with the latest one on top:

The rear end is obviously different and the new spring is CRAZY strong.  The retaining pin looks shorter but that's an illusion created by the camera angle.  


Slide hammer, new on top and forward is to the right:

I didn't have time to really sit down and figure out the geometry here so I can't tell you exactly what's going on.  I'm assuming the extra mass at the rear is to counteract the stupid strong firing pin spring, but I can't explain the bit on two springs.  When we look at the bolt carrier, we'll see that there is a camming surface that interacts with this sprung part but again, I didn't have time to figure out exactly what's going on here.  


Bottom of slide hammer:



Rear:

Diameter of spring hole appears to be the same.


Front:

Diameter of hole in the front appears to be the same.


Detail, front left side of the new slide hammer with its submarine conning tower looking sprung thingee:



Bottom rear view of the bolt carriers, new style on the right:

It's been machined with a camming surface to allow for the lugs sticking out both sides of the new slide hammer and also for the small thin lug just in front of the sprung block on the slide hammer.  


Oblique view showing the camming surface more clearly:



Detail of camming surface:

I need to get more time with this because I really can't wrap my head around what's going on here.  With a bit of time, experimentation and fiddling around with it, I'm sure I could figure it out.  Maybe one of you guys understands it.  If so, please explain for the rest of us please and thank you.


Receiver markings are no different than before so there is no way to tell it's modified internally:



I didn't compare the slide hammer springs but they looked the same.  As I said earlier, charging required no more force than I am used to so I assume it's the same spring.


That's it.  As far as I know, these are the only pictures available on the internet of the new Gen 3 modifications.  Were these changes done for "safety" as FN claims or because the original slide hammer design was fragile?  Were they done because the rifle was too easily convertible to full-auto?  I didn't notice any changes to the receiver itself (although I may have missed something) so modifying full auto parts to fit the semi-auto receiver should be the same process as before, whatever that process may be.  Don't read too much into that last sentence kids.  I'm in my 50's now and I've got FAR too much to lose to play that game.  I'm perfectly happy with semi-auto thank you very much.  Whatever the case and for whatever reason it was done, the Gen 3 M249 looks the same as before but the changes have brought with them a trigger pull that is beyond bad.  For me, it's now so bad that I would have no interest in buying one.

@ProbableColtAddict

That is awesome!  Thank you so much for the effort and taking the time out of your day to look into the changes a bit more in-depth.  You're definitely the first to have done this from what I've been able to see, as very few people have an FN M249S, much less access to two M249S's and a pre + post recall one side-by-side at the same time!

The thing that is most interesting to me on the pics are the lugs on the new carrier, above the springs.  Something must cam those down on the new receiver design.

You're quite welcome.  Do you mean the lugs on the slide hammer?  If so, they interact with the cammed surfaces machined into the rear of the bolt carrier.

The unmodified one is mine bought new back in 2016.  I've posted some of the retro bits I've collected for it elsewhere on this subforum.  It's a lot of fun collecting all the various stuff but finding the old parts is harder than finding bits and pieces for my MP44!  I guess that's because they were mostly destroyed when the PIP was done back in the early 90's.  Some of the stuff I sourced from Belgium.  ANywho, that's off topic here.  I'll be back at the shiop where the new one is next weekend.  After I digest what I saw today and if it's not crazy busy, I'll try to fiddle with it some more and attempt to figure out just what's going on in there.  As I said though, I'm all but certain the receiver hasn't been changed.

I'm happy to hear that.
Thanks for the comparison pics!

The 2017 recall was about the disconnector sometimes not resetting or catching the slide hammer.

Those that had the problem described it as the disconnector, "sticking."

I don't remember anything else about it.

There is no disconnector in the 249S.  A link to the FN Press Release of the October 20, 2017 Recall Notice is below:

https://fnamerica.com/press-releases/fn-issues-mandatory-safety-recall-fn-m249s-rifles/


The problem was a reset failure concerning the slide hammer causing a dead trigger.  From my experience with the rifle, I'm pretty sure what they are talking about is what sometime happens when you pull the trigger VERRRY slowly, e.g., using an optic.  The way the trigger group works is somewhat similar to the full-auto version.  As you pull the trigger, it pushes up on the nose of the sear (which is considerably shorter than the full-auto sear), lowering the rear of the sear out of engagement with the slide hammer.  As you continue to pull the trigger, the part of it that was pushing on the nose of the sear slips past and off the front, allowing the sear spring to pop it back up and grab the slide hammer again.  That's the "click" you hear when you pull the trigger with the rifle uncocked; the trigger sliding off the front of the sear and it popping back up.  By the way, the trigger engages with the sear by way of a roller.  That's part of why the trigger is so silky smooth.

Now, there is, I believe, for lack of a better term, a "sweet spot" in there where the sear is low enough that it BARELY catches the slide hammer but the trigger is not quite pulled far enough that it lets go of the sear.  Add to this the fact that there is enough tolerance between the slide hammer and its guide rails that it can rock on the rails a little bit and you can end up with a situation where the slide hammer does not reset and follows the bolt group home.  So, just as you'll find when taking the disconnector out of many other semi-auto designs so that the hammer won't reset, what you end up with is an unfired round in the chamber and a dead trigger because the hammer followed the bolt group home and didn't have enough force behind it to ignite the primer.  The simple solution to this is to not pull the trigger so slowly.  Then the "problem" disappears.


Also, because the trigger is so light on the original design, the 249 is a bump fire champ, even when fired from the shoulder on a bench.  It drives the Fudds at the range bananas.  I don't think FN liked it very much either.

@probablecoltaddict - Thank you for posting this detailed info. Very helpful to understand.

I missed the boat on the first release. So I took on the plunge this time...

Is there a path to fixing the trigger pull so it's lighter than 15lbs?

Post sample bolt and lower drop right into the new verison. Its GTG...

You are quite welcome.

As for the trigger pull, I'm not aware of any fix but there are lots of guys out there way smarter than I am who I would bet are working on the problem already.

Christ all the ones at MSRP look like they're going straight to gunbroker. Anyone have a pulse on the quantity coming in? I know the first batch took forever to sell a few years back but these seem to be going somewhat quickly... Or at least getting scalped right away.

I think people learned their lesson last time to buy when they were $6,700. Now their going for $10k. Probably next time around they will be more $15K? With everything going on (major inflation predicted to hit in 2023) now is the time to buy one of these.

That was my rationale. Don’t expect these to get less expensive and unclear how many will be produced. I did buy from GB at ~msrp and free shipping. Local dealers are apathetic; slow responses on whether they could order & deliver.

Now about the trigger pull… hoping that someone comes up with a fix to lighten it

Nabbed an 18" for $8k. Have some Para stock FOMO but I think I really wanted the normal one anyways as cool as the Para is. Now I need to learn how SAWS work

Where'd you get it for that much?

Firearms Depot had one in stock for $9k and a 10% off coupon. I believe I bought the last one, though, for now.

Does anyone know FN's IOP price for these (or if they're even on the IOP list)?

EDIT (5/10/22):
IOP for M249S standard is $9,499.
Para is $9,999.

Anyone using a different handguard on their 249? It looks like there's the USGI rails but the other options appear to be for the mk46 or original MINIMI with some holes extra in the side of the receiver.

I use a lower tri-rail on one of my M249's.

https://www.modarmory.com/product/m249-saw-rail-adapter-system-kit/

You can get them used on GB for around $100 or so:  https://www.gunbroker.com/item/929877158

I may have to take that last sentence back - looks like with the new batch of 249's, prices on parts have started rising now.

That looks like the standard USGI one! If I'm not mistaken, it clamps to the receiver and a pair of pins on each half lock into holes in the receiver, yeah? There's really so little info and media out there on the M249!

Correct.

B&t parts sells a nice B&t m249 handguards

That's what I've had my eye on! Found a pic of a Swiss MINIMI with the smaller unit that shows it uses the receiver holes instead of the mk46 holes used by the KAC:



Thinking one of these is the way for the moment!

Yes, whatever it is called, it disconnects or resets the hammer and it was failing to function properly.

Regardless if called a sear or a disconnector, it serves the same exact purpose in a semi-auto.

It is called a sear only because the trigger moves it, rather than transferring that action from a disconnector to the trigger itself.

Here is the Knight's rail, with an unfortunate $75 increase since I bought mine a few years ago: OOS for now but they get shipments fairly regularly. Call and ask if necessary.

Knight's m249 rail

Thank you! Signed up for notifications. Installed the B+T today and I'm a fan in the meantime! Was a little tricky but only took 10 minutes once it got going.

Installed the B+T rail... While the install was relatively painless and the fit is solid, the top only covers half the barrel yet blocks the heatshield from being used. For the price, I think I'd much rather go the mk46 mod.0 or mod.1 route instead and get full coverage of the barrel. Also, the EOTech magnifier totally doesn't work on this. Eye relief is way to short!

For anyone interested, PSA and Tombstone Tactical both have the m249 para  today for $9999.

Not sure but I learned today that dealer pricing is $8,299.

Yes dealer pricing is $8,299 for the Para and $7,869 for the standard. (Color doesn't affect price.)

Hopefully the prices comes down a bit as the availability improves.

I just saw a factory new non-Para M249S sell for $8999.99 on GB.   That's one of the lowest prices I've seen in awhile.

Seeing a bunch of M249s on Gunbroker with no bids. Prices are starting to fall slightly.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/932756435

Yep.  As the economy and market drops, in addition to those who really wanted one already getting them right out of the gate, AND FN's crappy trigger job on the new version, I think we're going to see the prices continue to fall on these, not unlike the first run where eventually, dealers were selling these for well below cost just to get them sold.

There are a few new standard model ones - including one in FDE that already successfully sold on GB for under $9K.  So prices are moving downward on these even if most sales seem to be between the $9K and $10K still.