Ok, fair enough.

So what did you do in that scenario using the IAR that you couldn't have achieved with an ACOG-equipped M4

I'll admit that I haven't shot the thing, but it just really really seems like the DoD is massaging the mission requirements to fit the rifle.

No magic HK logo on the side.  Your whole squad is gonna die.

But seriously, taking the same old rifle, putting on a fancy-ass piston system of debatable utility, a quad rail, and a Grippod and calling it a "new weapon system" is one of the most military things I've ever heard of.

If there is anything to learn from watching a shitload of Infantry combat footage from the GWOT. Troops very rarely use their optics in Combat. Even countries like Canada where the E4 Specialist  or whatever that has been in for 8 years, and is very experienced, LOL. You still mainly see guys throwing their fucking M4s, C7 or whatever around a barricade and shooting blindly. Or Johnny Rambo with the M60'ing it.

That was one argument I heard Chuck Pressberg make against 7.62, was guys don't usually use their optics in combat. Contrary to all the training we do State-side, where we'll use optics all the time, but in combat, we seem to forget all that shit.

holy fuck

that's some mighty fine police work engineering there, HK

There's no reason that an M4/M16 variant couldn't have the same barrel performance and a rail system at 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the M27.

Buying the HK 416 system just to get a different barrel and a full auto trigger group was just ignorant and wasteful.

it would probably be less expensive

Overall, that's a question I don't know if I can answer, I have never even seen an HK416 outside of some CAG and AWG versions I saw in Iraq nearly eight years ago, I've never seen an M27 in person, I don't really know what they're capable of or not besides the stuff I read online, which might not be 100% accurate. M4A1 is auto, better barrel, better trigger. Still needs a free float rail, needs this Geissele full auto trigger. Needs some sort of hand adjustable gas block, adj WAR upper receiver, adj BCG to change between suppressed and unsuppressed settings. If the M4A2 (with better rail and trigger) can do that, can reliably and accurately fire semi and full auto sustained, then let's go for it.

If not, let's find a rifle that can, that does infantry carbine, DM, and IAR functions all in one, and let's buy them. Maybe the LWRC, maybe that Colt version (I don't remember the name) that they submitted in the IAR trials. Maybe something better that someone is creating now. Maybe KAC can pop out something nice.

What excites me isn't any specific rifle model, but the overall concept. If we can (and its all out there and available) select the right rifle, magnified optic, piggybacked MRDS, ammo, bipod, sling, IR laser, taclight, we can issue that bitch to everyone, they can all kick in doors, pull DM duties, pull IAR duties, then we're golden, because that weight saved can be used M4 MAAW in the squad (though that might be better in platoon), more M320 GLs, or some other HE delivering goodies. Or just run the squad lighter as a whole, make it more maneuverable.

What is the mass penalty associated with drums and their accompanying pouches in comparison to nutsacks and their pouches?

Are IAR gunners running around with the same amount of ammo as SAW gunners?
If they are, should they be?
(IMO they shouldn't - because they're using a closed bolt weapon and their mags are compatible with the rest of the squad's)

Its because our live fire training sucks when it comes to suppressive fires. Not only are Joes not taught properly how to achieve it, most of all, NCOs are no longer held to the standard to ensure fire discipline is maintained, which has historically been a primary duty of small unit leaders. They aren't expected to do it, no PL or PSGs are jumping SLs asses because their guys are dumping mags and belts, I guess everyone is happy we're aggressive and shooting. But most fire delivered in combat isn't even suppressive, its posturing fire no different from the shit Hadji and Africans do, it makes them feel better but it aint kiling, it aint suppressing. Because this isn't what suppressive fire is supposed to look like, neither is this, neither is this, and neither is this.

Go watch SOF videos, their rate of fire, pace, and the use of optics is usually completely different from conventional Army or Marine. Even between Marine and Army videos you can often see a difference, besides the occasional USMC M240 bullet hose videos, Marine NCOs can be seen or heard giving more fire control commands than Army, who basically from what I've seen in real life or on video, don't do it at all. I'm not saying the Marines are great, because even they have issues. But something is better than nothing.

To kill means a hit, spraying fire even with full auto is unlikely to even hit. To suppress with a 5.56 round means the bullet needs to reliably impact or pass within 1-3 meters of the target, with 7.62 its out to 5 meters supposedly (but that's a bit much in my opinion, I'd say more like 3 meters). So suppressing fire is still aimed fire, its still precision fire, its just not delivered at a visible person but at or near the piece of cover you think one might be hiding beside or behind.

What I picture as a fix is sending squads on a weekly basis to the indoor shooting simulator, each branch calls it something different but they both do the same thing. The one where the realistic small arms running CO2 recoil shooting at a screen. Give them something like this as the terrain the squad covers on the screen. No visible enemy, add in only sound of enemy shots and occasional snap sounds on the speakers, and have the team and squad leaders practice with their men how to control and distribute proper suppressive fires. Designate sectors of fire. Deliver proper fire commands. Supervise fire discipline. Each man should know with a SAW, firing at known, likely, and suspected positions, how many 6-9 round burst in a minute he can fire at sustained vs rapid. Everyone with a rifle needs to know how many seconds between shots they're supposed to wait between sustained (5-6 seconds) vs rapid (1 per second, with a magazine reload, getting ~45 rounds per minute).

Have the NCO Corps riding Joe on fire discipline as much as they do about dumb fuck chickenshit uniform issues and this gets fixed.

or, Army (PEO Ammo) buys all gun/small arms ammo for everyone.

That's where the infantry rifle should be headed anyway.  I guess my quibble is the military trying to hail it as some new platform.

The R&D should really be going into a ground-up, purpose engineered SAW.  I'm envisioning something like the demonic overgrown offspring of a G11 but using some sort of 6mm-ish telescoping ammo stored in a helical drum mag.

Or just say fuckit and build a 6mm-ish beltfed and completely ignore the rifle mag requirement and actually service/replace the weapons every decade or so instead of running them until they fall apart.

You're right.

But even a piston gun needs an AGR. Especially if it's going to be suppressed. (according to Chris Bartocci, FWIW)

IMO, modern AGRs aren't variable enough. Adverse, Normal (as well as Suppressed...if you're lucky) isn't enough, especially considering how post-Cold War militaries deploy all over (ie Germany and their shitty G36s...tangentially related) and in some cases need to use each other's ammo (ie shitty British Radway Green, and FAMAS need steel cased).

This is all very new and doctrine is not written in stone so everyone can basically do whatever they want.

The way I'd run them is no IAR gunner in the team, because every swinging dick gets one. Same combat load, plus one extra mag pouch that remains for utility, or to either hold four 30 round mags or one 60 round drum. I don't really see the need for mutliple drums, I see them as only necessary for a few roles for automatic fire, and if the shooter is in that scenario, then pull out the drum, drop the 30 rd that was in the gun, reload with drum, place 30 round either in the dump pouch (everyone should have one), or back into the mag pouch it came from.

I'd augment squad firepower with more M320 GLs, issued on battlebelts with holster, ammo, as standalone. And I'd have KAC LMGs made available to the company, so they could be pulled out, with their own dedicated battle belt that has pouches on them too. Body armor contains M4 pouches, nobody in the squad wears a battle belt unless they are specifically tasked with a specific secondary weapon (GL carry M4A2 in addition, those with the KAC LMG leave their M4A2 back in the truck, COP, or company train for the duration of that mission).

Carl Gustaf, SWAW-D, AT-4, patrol mortars, and next gen Javelin-like precision missiles would also be available to platoon depending on mission.

pff, any day now, HK mags will dethrone the Pmag

Any. Day. Now

I just bought an adjustable BCG that you can access with a gerber from the dust cover, it has four settings, Full open, then two more, the suppressed, so there is some wiggle room. I haven't tested it, been having some issues with my piece of shit AAC suppressor.

I'm willing to stick with 5.56 but there are always possibilities. 6mm SAW, a 5.56 necked up to 6mm, isn't optimal but it allows use of same mags and bolt. 6.5 Grendel is meh, the case and rim is just too damn fat for me to trust the bolt in a gun designed to fire full auto from an AR15. 6.8 SPC really does have better terminal ballistics and barrier penetration than 5.56 but not very flat shooting. 6-6.8 SPC, necked down to a 6mm is pretty cool, that could be a great middle ground. But what has me all hot and bothered lately is the idea of an M855A1 bullet seated in a 224 Valkyrie casing. Or an M995 AP round. I think they're getting close to 150 fps more velocity or something like that. Even if its only 100 fps boost, its still a 5.56 SBR barrel that does near full length barrel velocity and only change is bolt and mags.

But this is purely hypothetical. I have zero belief the military as a whole will reform or make any smart decision regarding weaponry. They will just continuing down the path of mediocrity, bureaucracy, careerism, political correctness until they really are just the DMV in uniform.

CoS was talking about the importance of combat in megacities in the near future

Then again, he was also talking about a .308 service rifle being worth a fuck against the Rooskies.
(the correct solution to that problem is more anti-armor weapons, even an M72 will still fuck up a BMP or a BTR)

It's a ploy to get an M16A5 program up and running. This time with a 22" barrel.

Those are real neat. Gemtech or Bootleg?

I wonder if they (or something conceptually similar) would improve bolt life in <14.5" ARs...like LMT's Enhanced BCG, but (slightly) less expensive

A lot of the MOUT/CQB arguments for the incorporation of M27 are highly romanticized.

The American people will pull the plug if you think we will send general purpose infantry in to CQB through a major city, M27s or no.

The Marines tried that in April of 04 in Fallujah.  Took heavy casualties and they pulled the plug.  The second go around, they brought two tank/mech task forces to blow things up with 25mm and 120mm.  They were the Army, but dont let that stop you, Steinhab. Funny how most of the time in Samarra and Baghdad and Ramadi those were mech forces in cities. SAW or no SAW, no matter.

If you really want to take a town with US troops, bring mech. Bring tanks.

The approved way to do it, look at Mosul this year, is use "somebody else's infantry" and our fire support. Send the Iraqis in and if they take fire, blow the building up.  Cheap.  Doesn't upset Ma and Pa in front of the TV set and the attack rolls along.  The only thing we care less then the friendly infantry is the friendly building.  No photo ops, no 11B or 0301 casualties. No M27s either.

If you had to take a building, you'll wish you had belt feds to suppress the building to get across the street. Without, its a bloodbath and you aren't going anywhere.  There are lessons learned from Project Metropolis and JRTC that have proved that for years.

CQB for regular infantry is just a lot of attrition and 39 Marines with IARs aren't going to be exponentially better room to room then 39 Marines with 30 M4s and 9 SAWs. If the bad guys have assault rifles there is no painless way to do it, if you think youll get the call to suit up and do that you are kidding yourself. Watch the news.

There was also a pretty famous USMC document where they more or less said that if there are a lot of bad guys, and you have them cornered, you don't four man stack into a room full of pax with assault rifles...set a bomb in teh living room and sacrifice the building, or set it on fire, or call in a tank. They also did not advocate replacing the SAW

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/showdown_the_ba.html

If the USMC was serious about MOUT, then put an extra ship in with the MEU and fill it with tanks and buy those cool AAVs with the 30 mike mikes you didnt purchase.  Don't waste time with micro tactical discussions about the relative merits of a 30 round mag vs 100 round drum or how the bolt works.  Open bolt SMGs worked great in MOUT for a lot of people.

Still doesnt matter because with US infantry comes US reporters and there is just too much opportunity for photo ops to shut the whole show down.

There's a whole load of ways to improve the force rather then this.  Just dont bring up MOUT unless you are preaching to the ill informed.

Tagged for office reading

Honestly though, by that logic, when does it end? Everyone carries a gustav, bc what if you run into 100 T72's? That's hyperbole, but it begs the question of: 1. What does our rifle platoon need to be able to reasonably accomplish (in terms of fires)? and 2. What equipment does it need to possess to do this (with an emphasis on doing it with the least heavy and encumbering equipment we can possibly use)?

We'll say PFC snuffy sucks it up, then he ends up pussing out/stubs their toe/roll an ankle/heat cat/weak heart syndrome on patrol with a SAW and its super high altitude and air is black. Or, fuck, medivac gets called in still and then we're risking a bird because we love carrying a shitty overbuilt belt fed, for what gain? What demonstrable advantage does a saw bring to the table, beyond the warm fuzzy feeling of a belt fed auto when you factor in reload speed for nut sucks, how much ammo can even be carried in a combat load, etc. What's being gained with the additional 10+lbs, bulky equipment, and fatigue on PFC snuffy? What's being given up too? We have to think critically about it and not just fall in love with shiny brass and m27 links thinking that translates to carrying a death ray.

IMHO, the SAW was built to be a 5.56 240 wanna be for holding Ivan off at the fulda gap. That doesn't translate well to being part of a maneuver based rifle squad.

Saw was a reaponse to charlie not ivan

And if the threat is armored vehicles.than yes. Everyone gets a raaws.    To not have charlie g because muy cqb is fucktarded

What you seek is what the URG-I SOCOM is adopting.

14.5" CHF DD barrel.
Geissele Mk16 rail system.
Geissele charging handle.
Geissele SSF(Been in use for a while).
Surefire 4P with Surefire suppressor.

Another way of looking at it is that in WWII, rifle squads were equipped with either magazine fed ARs, or belt feds, and all weighed
16-22 pounds.  Therefore they assumed that if you reduced the caliber, for the same weight you could carry more ammo and have more firepower. Historically, squads were not slowing down because the guy with the bren or BAR or MG42 or RPD couldnt keep up.

A para SAW weighs less then a BAR, which the USMC happily carried along at 22 pounds, three per squad, in two wars, so it is hard to understand how squads are suddenly galloping out so fast that suddenly that weight is unacceptable.  I would say that in general squads with ten pound rifles and 20 pound automatic support weapons function acceptably.  The reality is if the SAW is slowing you down you must not be receiving heavy resistance, so what is the complaint?

Baghdad had 7 million, Mosul had a million, Fallujah had nearly half a million, Ramadi had nearly half a million. We still ran major combat operations in all of them and nobody stopped shit.

Vigilant Resolve didn't get called off from Marine casualties, that's complete bullshit and I have no clue where you go it from but its completely factually incorrect. The assault got called off because Al Jazeera was embedded with MSC insurgent groups inside the city and were reporting massive civilian casualties even though there weren't. This was nightly news at the same time Bush and Rumsfeld were dealing with Abu Ghraib scandal and a nationwide Sunni and Shi'a uprising that was engulfing most of the country. White House got scared, Marines were told to hold firm, hold what they'd taken so far, and await further orders, starting the famous siege period. Afterwards more time was wasted when some former Iraqi generals from the area came forward and claimed they could go and clear it with their own police/militia force, and I MEF got pressured into accepting it because Bush administration realized what can of worms they'd opened when they disregarded Mattis' advice was not what they wanted. At which point the Iraqi generals took charge of Fallujah, raised a force of militia/police, armed them, and then they all deserted pretty much instantly. After that I MEF decided to clear the city, encircled it, and from north to south, using four Marine battalions and two Army mechanized battalions (both of them were under the operation control of I MEF in Anbar, which is why they got tapped), this being Phantom Fury.

I really expected better than this from you. You were a commissioned infantry officer, I was a nasty unwashed enlisted man and I knew this. Aren't you the one who is supposed to know this stuff?

And bring infantry. Because, by doctrine, and again you're the one who is supposed to know this, in urban warfare who supports who? Infantry support tanks like maneuver warfare? Or tanks support infantry?

And infantry squads need arms that allow them to do CQB without worrying about the bolt of their M249 slamming home and nothing fast and metal coming out the barrel because it didn't pick up a round off the belt as it slammed home. You don't clear rooms with open bolt weapons for the same reason they beat it into your head at IOBC that you don't use them to initiating an ambush. Ringing any bells? I know somebody taught you this at some point but like most of the other micro it got pushed out to be replaced by important macro, like powerpoint and writing ten page CONOP to take a shit.

And there still needs to be infantry and those infantry still need to fire these things called weapons. They can carry beat to shit 20 lb M249 that wont reliably fire a first shot and only be able to spray bullets and jam, or they can use a rifle that allows them to play rifleman, DM, and automatic rifleman all in one. I'd rather the latter, and we know where you stand.

And we didn't rely on Iraqis in Mosul for Inherent Resolve because we're unwilling to take casualties, less than a decade before we were launching brigade sized kinetic clearing operations in that city, our dudes were getting smoked left and right, blown the fuck up left and right, and nobody but Code Pink gave a shit and them only because they hated Bush. For Inherent Resolve, the Iraqi govt did not want our troops actively participating, our own govt didn't want our troops actively participating. And yet we still had a shit load of ground troops embedded with the Iraqis, SOF snipers, EOD, medics. We still had to train them, run their logistics, unfuck their planning, direct their fire with embedded JTACs and FOs (unless you think we were allowing random Iraqis to give us calls for fire for JDAMs and M777 arty.

Okay, what does suppress mean? Let's look at the construction of a typical Iraqi house. Either mud brick or reinforced concrete, neither of which 5.56 or 7.62 is penetrating. So all that bullet hosing of the building exterior does nothing but fuck up the stucco paint job. What's left is firing into windows, doors, around corners, over the roof top. That means precise fire, aimed at a point target. With a SAW it means very short accurate bursts, which can just as easily or better with an AR15 capable of full auto, or by that same rifle which has the optic allowing it to fire precisely into targets on semi auto, like 3 foot wide doorways at 300 meters, because they can actually see it and put rounds where they need to be.

Except not a single one of those nine SAWs has the ability to guarantee a first round shot. Again, you being an infantry officer you should know this and what it means. When 25% of the fire team can't be relied upon to clear a sector of fire at close range. Who is going to cover down? The officers? lol

And how do you think they find out there are bad guys inside? Stand outside and yell, "Anyone home?" No, they send in rifle squads to clear them. And when they took contact they break contact, exfil'ed with any casualties they took, and then they dropped the structure with demo, D11 dozers, JDAMs, tank rounds, etc.

Serious in MOUT? You mean like the Army, whose infantry priority is a 7.62 infantry rifle? That serious? Marines have what they have, the Army has was it has. Nobody has 30mm cannons, unless you're talking about the ones the Army wants for Strykers so it can fight the Russians (lol).



Ladies and gentleman, this post I'm replying to sums up the effectiveness of the US military's NCO corps, even in the shambles its in nowadays. We allow officers to fuck off so much and "focus on the macro", like the important powerpoint storyboards they mastered by their captaincy, that everything still runs even though they don't know small unit tactics, weapons employment how to even use a compass, all while thinking they are the reason we succeed in combat.

Seriously, this post is fucking hilarious.

Pot, meet kettle. @CharlieR

Bootleg. I bought it for my 300 blk SBR but that whole gun isnt' working out the way I wanted so I stripped it down, plus my can is acting funky so I'm dealing with AAC/Remington customer service, which is everything you'd expect from a company owned by the Freedom Group of idiots.

My 5.56 SBR has a MicroMOA adjustable gas block with three settings, open for shit .223 ammo, then a setting for higher pressure 5.56, then one for suppressed. It works well when it works, but it seems to swell when it heats up and makes it damn hard to push. Plus I had to dremel my rail to get it to fit and I had to get buzzed to work up the courage and then I fucked up a made it ugly. But that gun is accurate as fuck, I have a 10.5 Rainier Match barrel on it and I center punch 500 yard plates with my Bushnell 1-6x and my 77 Sierra TMK hand loads with an ease that makes it boring.

If I ever get the can to work properly and not group like shit I will definitely test it.

NOTE: DON'T BUY AAC 762SD 51T SUPPRESSOR, THEY SUCK

Just to add to this, Vietnam proved that without an M60 in the squad or multiple in platoon HQ or weapons squad, fire volume and suppression could not be sustained with M16A1 and 20 round mags and M79. Army went through a bunch of different MTOEs, did a bunch of different testing. They found that one LMG (M60E1 was tested) greatly increased its effectiveness, two actually decreased it because of extra support needed and weight of ammo. But they knew they did not want a 7.62 SAW, they wanted 5.56 but none existed. The SAW program stagnated in the 70s because of budget cuts but proceeded when Reagan turned the funding back on. Thus the M249, not the best but one of the better weapons for the SAW trials, designed to do what the M60 did poorly in Vietnam. And it worked well with the one per fireteam equipping that the Army did for non-mech units.

Oh boy. We could talk about MOUT forever, just in it's own thread. lol. Let alone derailing this one.

nothin new there not everyone is willing to get behind their rifle and look to see where the shootin is coming from and shooting back with aimed fire.

Yeah but they didnt have IBA's and 60lb rucks either.

Out of curiosity, what did those tests cover and what role was the LMG implemented in? The SBF element or assault element? I can almost guess the answer but I'd rather not assume.

M1918A3 were a bit lighter if the shitty bipod was pulled off, that was 3 lbs right there. Now, let's think for a moment. Why were GI's taking off the bipod. Mhhhh...its almost as if they wanted to shed weight. But why would they need to do that if weight wasn't a concern?

Bren and MG34/42 weighed closer to 30 lbs loaded. And both were known as boat anchors for the squad, nor could either be effectively fired from the shoulder or relied upon for CQB. Why did the Germans scrap their 50mm platoon mortar? Weight. Why was the MG42 carried with a 50 round drum and not with a 250 round belt? Weight. Why was the LMG gunner in the German gruppe the second in order of movement in the file formation, with his AG behind? So in the assault the SL could direct him to take take two steps outboard, emplace the gun, and then remain motionless while firing it down the long axis of the squad before it deployed from chain to line, at which point they halted fire, picked up with the AG and moved to join the rest of the squad which either took the objective or was repulsed, at which point the MG was emplaced to stop a counterattack. Bren teams in their squad had something near identical, their gunners generally did not participate in the assault. Americans didn't work that way, we wanted our automatic rifleman to be able to move EVERYWHERE a rifleman could and even then basically every combat account detailing that micro stuff you hate talks about how fucking heavy it was and how much trouble the men carrying had keeping up.

Attached File


Since we're gonna derail and get into Infantry Theory or whatever you wanna call it. I KINDA like this design. A Side feeding, box magazine weapon.

Think about it:

1.) You can really get your ass low to the ground when you go prone.

2.) Much more ergonomic way to reload in the prone... No need to lift up the gun, and away from your target, in order to drop mag and replace with new mag. Much quicker and less energy it takes to do so.

3.) Torque is not an issue. People think so... BUT those who have handled and shot them, say it's not really noticeable. And that was with 7.92 Full powered rounds. And I highly doubt a 30round magazine would really make an AR awkward to shoot from.

Certainly, not the end-all-be-all, but I think it has some merit.

For squads with one LMG, it was used for SBF. With two teams, each having them, the SBF and assault element both used them. Read it here: The Infantry Rifle Squad: Size is Not the Only Problem

A side fed 5.56 rifle taking drum mags (reliable ones) with a beefed up operating system (compared to basic DI) to handle sustained automatic fire would be pretty tits.

Real good guns. The Wehrmacht hated them and didn't want them but the Luftwaffe loved them for their fallschirmjäger, who could jump with them on their body and not have to worry about finding a separately parachuted weapons case with their MG34 or 42.

Thanks, I'll give it a read!

These joglee/stienhab threads are always a weird amalgamation of an extra autistic game of dungeons and dragons and someone jerking off to a late 80s copy of soldier of fortune magazine...

@steinhab

I have the Micro MOA 2 setting adjustable gas block. I've never had any issues with it running either Tula, Wolf, Winchester white box 855 or my hand loads in the suppressed setting.

Every now and then I put a couple of drops of oil on each end of the plate and slide it back and forth a couple of times. I've never had an issue with it sticking, even when running pretty hard and getting really hot.

S7 is a poor choice for the tiny lugs on an AR15 bolt, particularly for extreme cold.

It could be made to work with very tight controls on heat treating, but why bother when there are better alloys.

LMT had a great bolt carrier group for the SOPMOD M4, but big Army shot it down because if it ever ended up in M16A2/A4, it would short-stroke the guns, which were then phased out of service anyway not too many years later.

I'm just wondering why you're saying belt feds will fail to feed all the time.

Well, for starters I was in one of the higher headquarters, in country, in Iraq, in April 04.  
The Marines had left Iraq in fall of 03, then came back, and left their tanks behind.

Prior to Fallujah number one there was this battle called Najaf, and there were mech units from 1st AD and 2ACR, in general, that were very effective against Al Sadr.  Casualties were very light and TTPs were very effective, generally armor heavy forces moving at night, with a lot of airpower, a derivative of the thunder run of 2003.  Then the USMC launched into Fallujah in daylight with light infantry and no armor, lots of assault rifles though, and took heavy casualties, relative and compared to what mech forces had been doing elsewhere.

The two armor/mech Army TFs were brought in and the axis shifted from the East to North in November.  The TTPs of the first to second fight changed a lot to look more like some other operations done by the Army, elsewhere, in places you weren't paying attention to.

And again, SAWs or IARs or M4s wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference. Using CQB/MOUT to justify IARs is not helpful.  I presented you a first person AAR that says just that. Go read it.  If you read the article I posted the link to, it would relate how the squads in Fallujah, the MOUT fight, reorganized into an assault, support, security task org, and came up with valid reasons to use SAWs. Dont blame me; combat experience indicates otherwise.

Re your other post:  Nobody in the German Army cared that an MG34/42 could not be fired from the shoulder, offhand. I don't know what planet you came form where you think that's a criteria. Nor does anyone use LMGs in CQB. By the way, you refer to brens and MG42s as "boat anchors." You have a primary source you wish to share?  I get it that you just do your speed typing routines and exhaust the reader, but this is one of your little myths disguised as fact. Who called it that?

There is this myth that if the attack is proceeding against such light resistance that the only thing slowing you down is the physical fitness of the SAW gunner, that this must be rectified.  Not so. Against such resistance anything will work.  Enjoy the moment. It wont last long.

You can clap your hands and scream "CQB" at the top of your lungs, click your heels like Dorothy if you like, but you arent going to get transported somewhere where support by fire and automatic fire in a suppression role doesn't matter.  Replacing every belt fed with an IAR isn't going to, overall, accomplish anything positive.

You routinely glorify CQB and the four man stack like an WWI CSM yelling at his Tommies to polish their bayonets and go over the top.  Seriously, lighten up.  That's the last thing to worry about.  You're optimizing tactics for the highest casualty mission you can conjure up, ignoring much more effective TTPs, and ignoring the reality noone wants to give it to general purpose forces anyway.

Beyond that there is no point arguing with you.

Things already seem to be at that point, with a hand full of exceptions among First World nations.

IMO, in some regards military culture has become toxic towards actually doing military shit competently. And it's not currently possible to bypass said perverted culture (with the perversion increasing the longer an individual has served and the higher their rank) by bringing in outsiders (like would be done in private industry).

that's a ridiculous excuse to not have bough the LMT bcg

i'd be surprised if it wasn't possible to mark it in some manner...

It is perfectly spec....for the British bullpup blank firing mag.

Not joking. There is a pic of it someplace.  They shaped it for that exact mag.

Until you do 7,000 repetitions, it's unlikely that Joe or even his junior leaders will default to well-aimed shots with their very quick sight picture CCOs.

Trained shooters will do it quickly.

There is a technological answer to this the Germans had with the first widely-fielded Intermediate Cartridge Service Carbine/Rifle that no other nation I'm aware of has used in their service rifles since.  I've been pounding that bell for years now, and some are finally taking notice of it, but I'm not seeing much evidence that it's taking hold in the Army small arms circles.

Since most units are never going to train 7,000 repetitions of anything but sweeping floors, post police call, and weapons cleaning, constant-recoil makes a lot of sense, and is why the Germans loved the MP44 so much.  Very low cyclic rate, almost no muzzle climb, very easy to gun down runners on auto and not expend too much ammunition.

Reliability more than anything, firing from an open bolt, with linked 5.56.

The SAWS and SAW solicitation and initial testing programs actually happened during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations.

Weapons Man: The SAWs that never WAS
The Belgian-manufactured FN Minimi had the best reliability and met the performance requirements better than the other entrants, coming late into the competition even, according to Hognose.

I don't know if they did ODT&E Platoons until a specific winner was selected back then, and US Army Infantry doctrine, MTO&E was much different at the time.

The SAW was intended to provide more firepower to the Infantry Squad as an internal base of fire platform to facilitate maneuver of the riflemen, so not really something you would see tested much as a Platoon GPMG role weapon, although they later tried to replace the M60 with it and use it in that role-and were quickly stopped from doing so.  There were articles in the 1980s at the time moaning about it, and I think rightfully so for several reasons, but that was well after the SAW had been adopted.

The only belt-fed I've had ca-chunk malfs with was the M60 garbage.

I don't ever recall a SAW FTFire first round, but I'm getting hazy.  My issued SAWs always ran when I was a SAW gunner, but I saw a lot of them go down enough around me.  It was also the most maintenance-intensive weapon in the Squad, and 2nd in the Platoon in terms of priority of maintenance both in the field and during re-fit.

When it's new and well-supported by higher levels of maintenance with a gunner who keeps it lubed, changes barrels at scheduled intervals, it runs all day long.

When left to a lazy unit, lazy/unmotivated/untrained unit armorer, and lazy PFC gunners who were assigned the SAW as more of a rite of passage for being a PFC than their technical competency, you would see more malfs.

I noticed a stark contrast in how Ranger Regiment issued SAWs, at least 2/75, where studs with brains earned their way onto the SAW.  Even more contrasting was the superb level of Battalion and Company-level armorer support, with spares for every single piece on the weapons but receivers.

I still don't see why they couldn't have just put the hardened steel penetrator underneath the copper jacket. It would solve the problem of a hardened steel tip scratching up and wearing out other parts of the gun, and I strongly doubt it would inhibit the armor penetration or terminal performance.

It's no longer an issue with the gen3 Pmags