Will it work? Is the SAW so bad that the Generals would trade it for a rifle with greater accuracy but much slower rate of fire, much lower ammo capacity, and a fixed barrel? i guess we'll see.

http://www.military.com/news/a...fle.html?ESRC=dod.nl

The SAW works fine, if you keep it serviced.


The problem with the Marines, is their shooting old guns, that have lived long, hard lives.

Any weapon, will eventually have issues if you run it hard enough, and long enough. The IAR, WILL fail under the same circumstances. But because they're trading in a heavily used system for a new one, they're probably going to get a bunch of years of good use out of them before this time.


I would bet a good chunk of change, if they issues them 5K brand new M-249's they'd see good service from those as well.

The former US Ordnance Dept has a long and consistent past of ignorance of what is needed in the field.

Rich

I really do not think thats the case here.


The Marines felt they needed a new weapon, started a competition to fill the need they saw, and issued a contract for the best fit they found.


This is pretty much exactly how it should work every time.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
Will it work? Is the SAW so bad that the Generals would trade it for a rifle with greater accuracy but much slower rate of fire, much lower ammo capacity, and a fixed barrel? i guess we'll see.

http://www.military.com/news/a...fle.html?ESRC=dod.nl

One of the biggest problems I've seen with the M240 and the M249, but especially the M249, is that when all excited and with bullets flying, the gunner neglects to change that barrel. So what good is a "quick change barrel" if the gunner still cooks it by burning through all that belted ammo he has?

No matter how well trained a machine gunner is, when bullets fly, so does the gunners belts. The USMC may well be taking a step to correct this "human problem" by adopting a fixed barrel, slower firing rate weapon that will force the gunner to slow down his rate of fire. Granted, bullets down range is way important, but I've seen far too many cooked barrels to think this isn't a problem among all the services.

I hope it all works as they plan. Lives are on the line here.

Eric

Angels and Aviators and Paratroopers have wings
mine are silver.

Marines have a relationship with automatic rifles that goes back about a 100 years.

Although the IAR will simply be another tool in the toolbox and SAWs are expected to remain in the armories, I am not fully convinced the "need" couldn't have simply been filled by dropping old M16A1 fire control groups in the A4's. As it is, dumping 22 mags on a guy who can't provide sustained suppressive fire anyway seems counterintuitive.

quote:

Posted 21 June 2011 20:08 Hide Post
The former US Ordnance Dept has a long and consistent past of ignorance of what is needed in the field.

truer words were never spoken

quote:

Originally posted by ChetNC:
Marines have a relationship with automatic rifles that goes back about a 100 years.

Although the IAR will simply be another tool in the toolbox and SAWs are expected to remain in the armories, I am not fully convinced the "need" couldn't have simply been filled by dropping old M16A1 fire control groups in the A4's. As it is, dumping 22 mags on a guy who can't provide sustained suppressive fire anyway seems counterintuitive.

From what I've heard that is what they are going to do. Full auto the M4's and the reason Surefire was contacted to develop high volume stick magazines as the military doesn't want the drums.

The new surfires look very promising. They come in both 60, and 90 round versions.

quote:

Originally posted by b78-22250:
Angels and Aviators and Paratroopers have wings
mine are silver.

The Marines think the paratroopers are pussies............................................................................................................................................................
Because they wear parachutes when they jump out of air planes.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:

quote:

Originally posted by b78-22250:
Angels and Aviators and Paratroopers have wings
mine are silver.

The Marines think the paratroopers are pussies............................................................................................................................................................
Because they wear parachutes when they jump out of air planes.

Jim

Those must be Marines who never heard of the "ParaMarines" of WWII. Even as old as they are now I'd think they'ed whoop ass on someone that called them "Pussies."

And last time I saw one, the Marine "Recon" Badge was a set of wings. Seems they wear parachutes when they jump too.

Just saying.

Eric

Hey Eric
Think about it. How dumb do you have to be to jump out of an air plane, while it's flying without a parachute?
Just saying.

Jim

The Russians actually tried that in the 30's. Didn't work too well...

quote:

The Russians actually tried that in the 30's. Didn't work too well..

That's because they used Ukrainians as jumpers.

Back on Topic:

The Soviet SPETSNAZ switched to the AK-74 starting in 'er 1974. They gave the designated squad gunners a "bunch" (lets say about ten) of magazines that were filled with 45 rounds of 5.45x39mm ammunition, and a controllable rate of fire.

Now, the USMC is catching up. The H&K weapon handles sustained rates of fire far better than the M-4 or M-16. Surefire has a very reliable 100 round magazine out in the field as we speak.

Shortly, the USMC will not have to worry about the Minimi/SAW/M-249. You can effectively fire the H&K with a lower head position. It will be a lot harder to pick out who the squad gunners are.

I was skeptical when I first heard about the change, but it makes a lot more sense now. No partially or fully exposed linked belts of ammunition; the H&K is more reliable, lighter and more user friendly than the M-249.

The way I undestood it was that it wasn't just substituting a new gun but new tacticts as well.

I suspect adopting the HK 416 as a LMG is a way to get it type qualified and then replace all the M4's as well.

I was partially responsible for stopping procurement of the M249 when it was first being tested by the USMC. Under Secretary of the Army James Ambrose read my review in Janes monthly magazine, International Defense Review and halted the first 100 million procurement until the design difficiencies I identified were corrected.

The bolt buffer reduced cyclic rate from about 1100 spm down to 800, barrel wear was corrected by that and moving the steel insert of SS109 ammo farther forward in ogive. Nothing to be done about the barrel lock up or unecessarily heavy receiver. (I suggested getting rid of magazine feed option).

When FN invited me to Herstal to test the product improved M249 with the bolt buffer installed, the M249 was capable of at least one hit per burst on an Echo target out to 800 meters.

The USMC is getting one hit out to 300 m with the new HK firing semi auto.

I like the HK as an AR but my Stoner 63a can fire 100 round burst into about 16 inches at 100 yards. An Ultimax can put 100 rounds into 12 inches. The Stoner 87/93 with aluminum receiver uses alot of M249 components and can do almost as well and only weight 11 or 12 pounds.

There are better LMG's out there.

You only really need about 650 spm in a LMG or AR. M4's and M249 both shoot too fast and that is really alot of the reliability problem.

Andy

Time to go back to the Bren gun !!! LOL.

500N,

I think you are onto something there!

Downward (bottom) ejection, 19 pounds for a full power 30 caliber, buda, buda, buda cyclic rate sounds like a 0.50 caliber.

I love the Bren gun.

BAE gave me a 7.62mm nato conversion for my 303, which I sold a few years ago, one of the only conversions in USA.

The HK 416 will probably replace the M4 and that's OK, but you are right, bring back the BREN!

A two man team can sustain fire as well as an M240.

Andy

quote:

The USMC is getting one hit out to 300 m with the new HK firing semi auto.

Andy

It was your comment above (plus others) relating to the "accuracy" of the various MG's that mae me say it as I didn't know whether you were complaining or not, especially once past 300.

I don't know what the cone of fire or beaten zone is for the weapons you mentioned (as opposed to comparing it to the M60).

I was always told by those who used it that the Bren was almost TOO ACCURATE for an MG (I have used it but not enough to say myself) in that it didn't have that wide a cone of fire or beaten zone so didn't have that good spread like an M60 for harasssing the enemy at longer ranges.

And of course I am not sure what criteria the USMC and others are using for evaluation or employment of the weapons.

.

The bugs aren't worked out of the 416 yet. Lots of failures in military service.

500N,

I was complaining I guess that the USMC would think one hit at 300m was impressive. When I first tested the minimi at Quantico it ran out of hits at 300m. Beyond that its extreme spread was so great you could not be sure of hitting a giant echo target.

I am a little fellow but can still get multiple hits per burst at 500m with an M60 which has a modest cyclic rate, only slightly more than a Bren.

The bolt buffer which was added at my suggestion reduced its rate of fire so that I could routinely get at least one hit per burst out to 800m. That is why I say the USMC is going backwards in hit probability.

Did you shoot the 303 or 762 Nato Bren?

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
Did you shoot the 303 or 762 Nato Bren?

Andy

7.62


I'm not old enough for the .303 !!!! LOL


I've seen private one's shot but the one's we had in our unit were 7.62.
Either way, they got the conversion right that the accuracy stayed.

Re the USMC, yes, they are going backwards then. With the M60's, even shot out barrels were not that bad accuracy wise, especially if held steady.

Just my HO, I was never an expert, just my observations at the range where
we purposely used shot out barrels on M60's when running soldiers through.

.