|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From 200 rounds (or 100 is using the soft bag) to 30 (ahem 28) . . . I thought the SAW was for suppressive fire. How does this equate? Why not just go back to FA M16s? http://www.betaco.com/ There is a reson the US Army put out an official order to stop using these magazines and prohibiting their further use. They are range toy POS's. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Why do you think you are even remotely qualified to make such a statement then? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From 200 rounds (or 100 is using the soft bag) to 30 (ahem 28) . . . I thought the SAW was for suppressive fire. How does this equate? Why not just go back to FA M16s? http://www.betaco.com/ There is a reson the US Army put out an official order to stop using these magazines and prohibiting their further use. They are range toy POS's. This And since they are a POS, and can't be used. Right now that only means these weapons can use 30 rounds mags which is  for a support weapon where you MUST have fire sustainability.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I liked my saw , but i would much rather have that. I did some training with the dutch marines and they had something similar. Weight? Clumsy for urban terrain, like room to room. Its an awsome weapon down on its bipods for suppresive fire. I mean you can put a shit load of accurate rounds down range. I loved shooting it, just not so much trying to climb through a window with it. |
| What are the marines thinking. They wont to replace a belt feed with a mag feed. not good. But the ACOG on all AR not good either. i know takeing it off course but what are they thinking. Im not a fan of the M249, it got its problems but when its working its a good weapon and not that heavy( the ammo is gets heavy but you still gotta carry that). The ACOG thing, good glass but for general issue not good. If they are planeing on fitting Iraq as the next war good for them i just hope they dont get a jungle instead. In a limited way this might work but very linited. |
|
Quoted:
What are the marines thinking. They wont to replace a belt feed with a mag feed. not good. But the ACOG on all AR not good either. i know takeing it off course but what are they thinking. Im not a fan of the M249, it got its problems but when its working its a good weapon and not that heavy( the ammo is gets heavy but you still gotta carry that). The ACOG thing, good glass but for general issue not good. If they are planeing on fitting Iraq as the next war good for them i just hope they dont get a jungle instead. In a limited way this might work but very linited. Grammar sucks, spelling sucks, and you feel capable of making a statement on military doctrine. You might be 100% correct but no one will take your opinion seriously. I'm curious about the Colt/FN/HK IAR vs. the LWRC. The LWRC seems to be a great concept in the AR package and I'd like to know the operating differences between the 2. I'd love to play with the open-bolt/closed bolt feature. |
|
Quoted:
What are the marines thinking. They wont to replace a belt feed with a mag feed. not good. But the ACOG on all AR not good either. i know takeing it off course but what are they thinking. Im not a fan of the M249, it got its problems but when its working its a good weapon and not that heavy( the ammo is gets heavy but you still gotta carry that). The ACOG thing, good glass but for general issue not good. If they are planeing on fitting Iraq as the next war good for them i just hope they dont get a jungle instead. In a limited way this might work but very linited. We have been using ACOGs throughout the world, to include the jungle. The Marine Corps runs the last jungle training center in the US military at this time. The ACOGs work fine, they actually have a high time between mean and gross failure than the rifles they are on. |
|
Defense Review has nice photos and write up on the Colt IAR entry.
Impressive and likely favored due to its parts commonality, user familiarization, etc DEFENSE REVIEW article Photos and write up credit to D Crane |
|
Having been a SAW gunner in combat I can easily see a role for this, even with 30 round mags.
The SAW's weight and awkwardness made it difficult to use offhand. This is where the IAR would shine. If I were in a support position laying down a base of fire I'd prefer the SAW but could get by with the IAR and having my mags layed out ready to keep feeding. If I were assaulting an objective I'd prefer the IAR but could get by with the ungainliness of manuevering with a SAW. There are trade offs in every scenario, adding another option to the squad while keeping mag and ammo interchangeability seems to make sense to me and the Corps. yak |
|
Quoted:
To the best of my knowledge, the idea behind the IAR was to make the support weapon more versatile. Because the M249 is fired from an open bolt, it made first shot reliability spotty, meaning the SAW gunner couldn't take point, kick down doors, etc. With the IAR, the first shot, even on full auto, is made with the bolt closed, massively increasing first shot reliability. Subsequent shots are made from an open bolt position. Granted, this is all based on an article I read about the LWRC IAR prototype, I really don't know how the Colt/HK/FN versions differ, if at all, from this basic idea. The Colt model also fires from an open bolt, all the time, like the M249, if I remember correctly. Why they wouldn't choose LWRC's IAR with the semi/closed bolt and auto/open bolt option is beyond me. Any way you slice it, there's a shitload of politics in it, and Colt seems to really excel in that area... It's too bad their engineers aren't as good as their lobbyists. |
|
For some reason I thought the Marines were seriously interested in the STE Ultimax?
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=134 |
|
Quoted:
From 200 rounds (or 100 is using the soft bag) to 30 (ahem 28) . . . I thought the SAW was for suppressive fire. How does this equate? Why not just go back to FA M16s? No, they're 30 round magazines. Downloading by two rounds for reliability issues originated in Vietnam with straight 20 round mags, where certain conditions could create a malfunciton if you didn't download by one or two rounds. That myth really needs to stop spreading before someone comes up a round short in a firefight because they thought their weapon would jam if they loaded it up all the way. Modern day 30 round magazines are just that, 30 rounds. The only possible reason to download is to make reloading on a closed bolt easier, which I personally do. |
How long before I can get a civvie version?  ..........I keed, I keed
|
|
The Marine Corps. may feel that in a more urban, low intensity firefight the squad will better benefit from having what is essentially two more riflemen instead of SAW gunners. As others have said, the SAW is a bit on the clunky side to be clearing rooms with compared to an M4, so they're compromising and giving the automatic riflemen in the squad these hybrids.
So they're profitting in regards to low intensity urban combat environment (current battlefield). They're putting their chips on that there are more times when a smaller, lighter weapon would be better versus when you want someone laying down massive suppressive fire (M249). I don't know what to think of it. In the typical Iraq firefight it might be better to have, but that doesn't give you any comfort when in that not-so-typical firefight where the shit is going down and you want those beltfed weapons. |
|
Quoted:
I watched a show(Future Weapons?? yeah, suspect I know.) They were showing off the LWRC model. One of the stated reasons for adopting something like this was to have the AR blend in with the rest of the squad as to not be singled out by the enemy. 
Oh yeah... SEAL boy was serious. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a great system/firearm. A guy shooting at me with a 30 round mag is enough to make sure my ass is glued down low. Add a Beta mag to that rifle and I start praying.
Raise your hand if you've seen somebody drop a beta mag and break it. 
(wasnt even loaded) |
| No comabt exp here. But I did fire some while I was a POG. back in 96 our saw were getting warn out. I can only imagine what condition the 03's saw where in. Plus Ive read some AARs about the SAW and it wasnt getting good reliability reviews. Personally, the Shrike would fill this role if they could get them out in bulk. Ive also dont know what the reliability of the few Shrikes that have made it out is like. |
|
Quoted:
That myth really needs to stop spreading before someone comes up a round short in a firefight because of it. Modern day 30 round magazines are just that, 30 rounds. The only possible reason to download is to make reloading on a closed bolt easier. Its not a myth, and you justified in your own post why you should do it: to make reloading ona closed bolt easier. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That myth really needs to stop spreading before someone comes up a round short in a firefight because of it. Modern day 30 round magazines are just that, 30 rounds. The only possible reason to download is to make reloading on a closed bolt easier. Its not a myth, and you justified in your own post why you should do it: to make reloading ona closed bolt easier. The reliability issue with a full magazine is now a myth. It was true during Vietnam, it originated out of magazines not being assembled properly. A lot of soldiers weren't confident in knowing whether there's was assembled properly so they didn't risk it and just downloaded. IIRC, it had to do with the way the spring was put in. When the basis of the statement is false, the statement is false. Made with a different basis, it could be true (such as the case is with reloading). I personally download by a round to max slamming the magazine home on a close bolt reload easier. Just because that makes sense doesn't mean the downloading for reliability purposes myth is true. I slightly rephrased my original post to make it more clear and concurrent with this post. |
|
Quoted:
I had no position in the article I just found it while looking for new contacts for one of my stock positions and thought it was a quite a chunk of change for test rifles. The contract amounts reflect what they will get if they actually purchase the rifles, and they won't decide that until after they finalize testing and select a winner. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Why do you think you are even remotely qualified to make such a statement then?
Common sense, various military journals on weapon development, articles on military doctorine. Talking to a gentleman that was a SAW gunner in the Marines, about his expierence as a SAW gunner. Others here answer my question, smaller more manuverable weapons system for Urban Warfare. The magazine capacity still has me scratching my head, but what the hell my understanding is not required. I have an rough understanding of the concept at least. I thank you for your contribution, SSeric02, it was most enlightening. 
|
|
Facts:
There have been some in the Marine Corps who have been clamoring for this for years. I remember an article in (I believe) Marine Corps Gazette from 2000 where (I believe) a Marine Gunner called for dumping the M249 for the open bolt, heavy barrel bipoded Colt. The rationale was (I recall) the effect of the open bolt on accuracy, the weight of the belt feed system, the perceived lack of need for the belt feed, and the fact that the Corps has not had a legitimate automatic rifle for the automatic rifleman since the BAR left service. The Marine corps, at least in textbook exercises, had as of the mid-90s a system where each squad had three fire teams, and each fire team 4 guys: one with an A2, one with a A2+203, one with an SAW and an "assistant automatic rifleman" with an A2 (who presumably helped carry ammo for the SAW). I can't tell you how this looked like in the Fleet, or how this looks now after nearly ten years and lots of combat experience. Belt fed weapons go to the company/platoon weapons platoon/squad. Many of the SAWs out there are old and are/haven't been properly maintained, as well. Even if the weapon system was perfect from the factory, both of these conditions would definitely decrease its reliability. Finally, I am not a Marine and am physically unfit for military service. I claim no real expertise on the subject. I'm just trying to show some perspective, based on what little I know. Opinion: BASED SOLELY ON THE ABOVE, I'd say the following: - the weapon that fits their concept would probably be a one-man weapon. My impression of the SAW is that it really isn't an individual weapon, and more of a crew served weapon. (though I know of dudes whose thankless task was to use the M60 as an individual weapon) - ultimately, just from the above, it's a matter of squad organization. I can think of at least two different on-paper squad structures: German WWII: 2 MG42s, a loader and spotter for each '42, a squad leader and a few extra riflemen. In this case, the power of the 42's are the center of the squad. Soviet motor rifle: one guy with an SVD, two guys with RPKs, one dude with a PK and a loader, a squad leader and a few dudes with AKs. All these dudes (theoretically) fit into a taxi called the Badly Moves People. Each organziation has its theoretical strengths and advantages. Each of them -if implemented- probably worked well enough in different situations that I don't think you could empirically prove that one or the other would be better in a situation. The Marine organization is more of a mobile, light infantry organization. In this case, it looks like an individually operated weapon which can sustain a higher rate of fire for a short time would be better for the (textbook) Marine concept I described above. I'd imagine a belt fed machine gun would be too much. Bias against full auto fire and for using an infantry weapon with a mindset and method similar to CMP highpower rifle competition, emphasizing careful shots and minimizing misses (a bias some Marines certainly had - M16A2) also may play into the decision. The only problem is getting a reliable heavy barrel M16. Colt's been playing with various forms of M16 SAWs for at least 20 years. Some of the problems have included getting a reliable open bolt mechanism, and also getting the weapon to take the abuse that a SAW goes through (real world use has frequently found people using full auto far more than the "one shot one kill" types would like) . If they go through with this IAR, I certainly hope that the manufacture has solved those problems...... |
|
Quoted:
I have never had a round "cook off". Is this a legitimate concern? or is the bad ass navy seal just adding unneccesary drama as usual? I am assuming you watched the youtube video. I suspect that sustained fire (several hundred rounds rather constantly fired) could get enough heat to cook off a round, but his test was BS. He poured water over the barrel after firing a few rounds from closed bolt (it hisssed - no big surprise) and then fired several rounds from the open bolt and touched the BOLT with his finger, exclaiming that it was cool enough to touch! He did not touch the bolt after the first test. Nor did he pour water on the barrel (it certainly would have hissed also) Apples to oranges comparison. While I can see that the bolt might get hotter from being in contact with the hot barrel when firing from a closed bolt, he did not go into the obvious negatives of open bolt firing- getting crap in your gun. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Not just you but anyone else who "doesn't understand" First off before the M249 SAW there was the M-16A1 for the automatic rifleman in the fireteam, he was the only one authorized to go full auto and carried a bipod and extra magazines. Before that was the M-14 squad auto and before that the BAR. The advantages of a mag fed automatic rifle vs the SAW is as follows: *SAW weighs 21 pounds with 200 drum: IAR is 7-8. *SAW gunners typically can not keep up with the rest of the fire team during the assault due to weight. *SAW is mainly accurate in the prone position, difficult in the offhand and kneeling. *SAW uses another source of ammunition (5.56 link) adding yet another source of ammo that the company gunny must procure. *Today's battlefield is mainly urban with friendlies mixed in, SAW is not meant for discretionary battlefield. I'm a Marine officer currently assigned to the School of Infantry West. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Not just you but anyone else who "doesn't understand" First off before the M249 SAW there was the M-16A1 for the automatic rifleman in the fireteam, he was the only one authorized to go full auto and carried a bipod and extra magazines. Before that was the M-14 squad auto and before that the BAR. The advantages of a mag fed automatic rifle vs the SAW is as follows: *SAW weighs 21 pounds with 200 drum: IAR is 7-8. *SAW gunners typically can not keep up with the rest of the fire team during the assault due to weight. *SAW is mainly accurate in the prone position, difficult in the offhand and kneeling. *SAW uses another source of ammunition (5.56 link) adding yet another source of ammo tha the company gunny must procure. *Today's battlefield is mainly urban with friendlies mixed in, SAW is not meant for discretionary battlefield. I'm a Marine officer currently assigned to the School of Infantry West. And here's input from someone who knows. And all the above are plenty good reasons in my view (esp. the last one). Give the Marines what they want. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Not just you but anyone else who "doesn't understand" First off before the M249 SAW there was the M-16A1 for the automatic rifleman in the fireteam, he was the only one authorized to go full auto and carried a bipod and extra magazines. Before that was the M-14 squad auto and before that the BAR. The advantages of a mag fed automatic rifle vs the SAW is as follows: *SAW weighs 21 pounds with 200 drum: IAR is 7-8. *SAW gunners typically can not keep up with the rest of the fire team during the assault due to weight. *SAW is mainly accurate in the prone position, difficult in the offhand and kneeling. *SAW uses another source of ammunition (5.56 link) adding yet another source of ammo that the company gunny must procure. *Today's battlefield is mainly urban with friendlies mixed in, SAW is not meant for discretionary battlefield. I'm a Marine officer currently assigned to the School of Infantry West. IAR = 7-8 lbs loaded? No way. |
|
Quoted: I saw a news piece about a kicking coach who was supposedly one of the best in the nation. He was paralyzed from the waist down. YMMV. Quoted: I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Why do you think you are even remotely qualified to make such a statement then? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I saw a news piece about a kicking coach who was supposedly one of the best in the nation. He was paralyzed from the waist down. YMMV. Quoted:
I'm sorry, but trading a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat. Granted I am not a veteran, and mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me. Why do you think you are even remotely qualified to make such a statement then?
And what was that coaches experience prior to being paralyzed? My mileage does vary. ETA: thmsmgn cleverly cites "Common sense, various military journals on weapon development, articles on military doctorine" yet has obviously not any of the articles published in the Marine Corps Gazette over recent years regarding the subject, obviously hasn't any education on Soviet Block dcotrine and TO/E, uses a sample of one SAW gunner he spoke too, and has never himself used a SAW for the puroses which the IAR is designed, or any other for that matter. Yet he feels qualified to decry the Marine Corps' decision to trade "a belt-fed LMG for a magazine fed LMG makes no sense for use in Combat," which isn't even technically correct (see above listed common sense and "experience"). The IAR is not a LMG nor is it supposed to be used as one. It's, as its name implies, an automatic rifle. Go read some more "articles on military doctrine" to learn the difference. Finally, I read "mayber there is some advantage, if there was I wish some explain it to me," not as an invitation for someone to explain the mater to him, but as a know-it-all snub. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter