August 18, 2005: The fighting in Iraq is taking a toll on the assault rifles and light machine-guns that do most of the shooting. So the U.S. Department of Defense has ordered another 50,881 M-4 assault rifles, at $1,042 each, and another M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) 5.56-mm light machine guns, at $667 each. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, which makes it easier to use from inside a vehicle, or when fighting inside a building. The M249 is basically an M-16 design modified with a heavier (and easy to change) barrel, and the ability to use belted ammunition. The M249 provides most of the firepower for the infantry, with each fire team of 4-5 troops having one M249, over a thousand rounds of belted ammo and one or two additional barrels (when the M249 barrel gets overheated from firing too many rounds too quickly, a fresh one can be installed within seconds.) The U.S. Army wants a new design for their light machine-gun, partly because the M249 (introduced in the early 1980s) was wearing out. But the heavy use of M249s in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in a need for new weapons, before a new design can be agreed on and put into production.

Is something wrong with this picture?  Are the prices reversed or do the M4 packages include optics?  This is from Strategy Page and I've never seen a technical mistake in one of their articles before.

I recall a thread no too long ago that posted what the DoD pays for a M4 carbine with rails and an Aimpoint. I thought I was well under that 1000 dollar mark? Something in the 400 dollar area??

Anybody remember that thread?

Quoted: August 18, 2005:  The M249 is basically an M-16 design modified with a heavier (and easy to change) barrel, and the ability to use belted ammunition. ......... Is something wrong with this picture?  Are the prices reversed or do the M4 packages include optics?  This is from Strategy Page and I've never seen a technical mistake in one of their articles before.

I don;t know about the price issue, but the part I kept from the quote is wrong.  How can you say the SAW is an M16 design....?
So, a belt fed (I know, only to well, it can also use M16 mags....), based on a WW2 German machinegun, is now based on a Stoner design from the fifties instead?  Or do they just mean becuse it fires 5.56NATO.

Quoted: Quoted: August 18, 2005:  The M249 is basically an M-16 design modified with a heavier (and easy to change) barrel, and the ability to use belted ammunition. ......... Is something wrong with this picture?  Are the prices reversed or do the M4 packages include optics?  This is from Strategy Page and I've never seen a technical mistake in one of their articles before. I don;t know about the price issue, but the part I kept from the quote is wrong.  How can you say the SAW is an M16 design....? So, a belt fed (I know, only to well, it can also use M16 mags....), based on a WW2 German machinegun, is now based on a Stoner design from the fifties instead?  Or do they just mean becuse it fires 5.56NATO.

Who knows.  I'm guessing this piece wasn't written by the guys at Strategy Page, but was just clipped from somewhere else.  But the price?  What gives?

IIRC, a thread on here months back had the prices of M16A2's at just under $500 (like $440-$460ish)

There's no way in hell the gubment buys rifles at retail.

WIZZO

Quoted: ..."The M249 is basically an M-16 design modified with a heavier (and easy to change) barrel, and the ability to use belted ammunition...

Hmmm. That's the same as saying the McLaren F1 is basically a Ford Conversion Van design modified with a lighter frame and larger engine, and the ability to fly backwards in outer space.

The only "M16" part of an M249 is that is can theoretically use M16 magazines-though everyone I've ever talked to about it says DON'T DO IT because they don't lock in or seat properly.  FN designed the M249-it's their "Minimi" machine gun with some Army-requested features.  Been around for a long time now, too.

I cannot see a naked M4 being more expensive than a naked M249, but if the SAW comes with zilch and the M4 comes with a whole bunch of accessories, that could be the difference.

I'd REALLY like to knwo what source you're quoting there, jquillen1985...

Quoted: The only "M16" part of an M249 is that is can theoretically use M16 magazines-though everyone I've ever talked to about it says DON'T DO IT because they don't lock in or seat properly.  FN designed the M249-it's their "Minimi" machine gun with some Army-requested features.  Been around for a long time now, too. I cannot see a naked M4 being more expensive than a naked M249, but if the SAW comes with zilch and the M4 comes with a whole bunch of accessories, that could be the difference. I'd REALLY like to knwo what source you're quoting there, jquillen1985...

I got it from Strategy Page.

www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htproc

Usually, their articles are very good and well written.  I've got a feeling they cut and pasted this little bit from somewhere that didn't exactly know what they were talking about.  But even in articles where the author has gotten numbers or nomenclature wrong, I've never seen prices wrong.  The M-4 package must have some gadgets included.  It struck me as off simply because I though a new M-249 was something like $2,500.

Quoted: Quoted: ..."The M249 is basically an M-16 design modified with a heavier (and easy to change) barrel, and the ability to use belted ammunition... Hmmm. That's the same as saying the McLaren F1 is basically a Ford Conversion Van design modified with a lighter frame and larger engine, and the ability to fly backwards in outer space.

oh fuck.  Thats funny.

I really think the articel is trying to say that they use the same ammunition, albeit very badly.