It is relevant because that's what the Army was buying. A Gun that was built to shoot around 24,000 rounds between stoppages. That is the standard they choose to go by.

The problems that SOME units have, and emphasis on SOME, is because of Stupid Big Army not taking care of their Guns. It has nothing to do with being a bad design. It's a awesome design.

Would I be justified in taking a truely 100% milspec A16, and shooting 100,000 rounds through it without any parts replacement, and then scream out loud at the range after it's failing to fire "Eugene Stoner! You are such a fucking idiot!"??

I was a SAW gunner for alittle while. One time at the range, I couldn't qualify because it was double feeding a like a mother fucker. I got hell from my Squad leader "AIV, you should be on top of this shit by now", for failing to qualify at the range. We went back and I handed my SAW in to the Armorer and said "I think there is something wrong with the extractor." He deadlined it, and when I got it back, to go and Qual again, fucking thing ran like a sowing machine. AND when I later put back as a Rifleman, the other guy got to shoot 800+ rounds, in Kuwait, in the Prone, IN MOON DUST conditions. Without a single stoppage.

It wasn't a bad design. When it was designed. In the early 70s. Forty something years later for belt feds there are much better designs than the FN Minimi. Meanwhile most of those in the US Army and USMC especially are beat to shit, worn out. They don't need to be replaced by new M249, because even if we kept the concept of an open bolt belt fed LMG in the squads we can do better than the M249. We can go with Ultimax, KAC LMG, and a myriad of better weapons that are lighter, recoil less, are more ergonomic and set up for optics, don't have zero issued because the optic is sitting on a feed tray cover that is lifted and smashed downward.

Or....

Or else we can accept that times have changed, warfare has changed, technlogy has changed. Tactical advancements with new tech learned in the GWOT have proven to be such capable force multipliers that we don't need to be constrained by pre-WW2 small arms doctrine anymore because one of our squads now could buttfuck a WW2 squad with ease, day or night. We don't need to reply on the fire volume of open bolt belt fed LMGs spraying bullets to suppress or kill enemy because we can do it better now with a hybrid DM/IAR rifle and more HE delivering weapons in the squad, and most of all, better comms and networked battle tracking with something like Nettwarrior.

Many emphasizes fully auto volume of fire largely because that's what the military taught them. I know, its what I was taught too and believed for years. I was a stickler about the SAW when I was a young TL and SL. I relied on it because everyone told me to rely on it. The same way though they told me .50 cal can't be used against people, and that it was fine to kill enemy wounded when assaulting through the objective, I just wasn't allowed to turn back and then finish them. Some things commonly repeated in the military simply didn't turn out to be true. Remember all the business from back in the day about how optics wouldn't hold up, and then they did and proved a massive force multiplier. But then they still needed BUIS, because they weren't reliable, and then the optics proved more reliable than the BUIS themselves. This is the same thing.

For those who did infantry training in the peacetime of 80-90s, even into the GWOT, doing all the battle drills, and the lanes, live fires, force on force, and were told that the team's SAW gunner was the primary casualty producing weapon and the only means to reliably suppress targets for maneuver because the other option was an M16A2 with iron sights and the Mark I eyeball. How many times during live fire training were M203 used? Almost never, right? Just bullet launchers, because most ranges wouldn't allow maneuver and HE on them. And commanders didn't want the risk of including HE. How many M203 gunners did anything besides fire rifle rounds, blank or live, unless they were on a grenade range or when in combat and all of sudden it dawned on them to use it, mostly not even bothering to use sights.

If you're a veteran and you can remember all the different drills, missions, and operations you performed as an 11B or 0311, picture doing it without M249s and without M203 instead with everyone with an accurized M4A1 with quality magnified day optic and laser IR for night, and NODs, and a more efficient full auto selector and outstanding trigger, free float rail, an issued bipod, and 60 rd PMags, and the training for effective full auto fire, and let's toss in suppressors, peltors, ICOM, and netwarrior for everyone too. Instead of the one M249 and one M203 each team carries two M320 delivering a deadlier 40mm HE round not constrained by the existing fuse which limits its power. Plus we add an organic Carl Gustaf MAAW to the platoon, maybe even the squad, that annihilates basically everything a fire team or even squad could possibly want to maneuver on to assault through, destroyed with a single shot that hits. Knockout a bunker needs to have dudes crawling up to toss grenades inside? Nope, bunker doesn't exist after a MAAW hits it. Assault an enemy OP with the lead fireteam suppressing and the trail flanking? Nope, by the time the trail element flanks them they're find nothing but bodies because inside the first minute the HE greased the enemy that 5.56 never could touch. Need a squad to suppress a building for a fire team to enter and establish a foothold? How about one dude in the squad just blows a couple of big fucking holes in the building with the hand held equivalent to a 105mm artillery round that is precise accurate and also has the capability to easily adjust to air burst fragmentation to render those hiding in dead space into dead men. Then that hole gets tagged with repeated 40mm grenades. Wouldn't that be interesting?

With the tech available now, with a little bit of initiative and creative thinking, and some money we normally waste on dumb shit anyway, we can reorganize the infantry squad to be oh so much deadlier than it stands right now, let alone a couple decades ago which was the time period all the doctrine used to today was created and implemented. We're still operating using doctrine based on a time period when almost nobody had night vision, when nobody could see much during the day besides the LT or an NCO with their set of binos, when the M16A2 was considered the pinnacle of a non-combloc service rifle, when a basic iron sighted non-modular M4 was orgasm inducing, when the M249 was pronounced by every NCO and junior officer as  the that it was the best weapon in the squad . We know now that was a bit true back in the day, its not true anymore. Times have changed. Change with them or be surpassed by those who do. Russians have the AGS-40 GL, Chinese have the Type 87, the Swedes have had Carl Gustaf forever, and we're talking about the effectiveness of the fucking 5.56 belt fed as if it wins firefights compared to HE, which we KNOW wins fire fights.

we got materials,heat treating techniques,and coatings to enhance our rifles as well as better brass,primers,bullets,and powder mixes.

only the feed tray in the saw is complex, the rest is very simple.

You are bitching about the rifle when the problem is maint and trainining issue. A in spec 249 with decent maint will run and run, any MGs that is not taken care of will be a POS

After you get some rounds on the m27, I bet you will have a shit load more problems than any m4 variant will have, and guess what-you wont have the parts to replace it.

We are at a point in time where the usefulness of 800rds dumped full auto through a cloud of dust has passed.

Aimed accurate fire, with near first round hits are now a possibility for all riflemen, and that should be exploited.

That doesn't mean something like an Ultimax or Negev is not useful, nor that the M27 is the answer, just that the M249 is far down the list.

what happens when you cant see the enemy

now you have to rely on suppression of a m27, that will "miss worse" than a saw would

beat me to it.

Yes, the 249 is a good belt-fed LMG as designed and originally issued. A properly-maintained example will be reliable, no dispute there. I see two problems:

1) Big Army has a problem taking care of its weapons, leading to the reliability issues we're seeing. I doubt that an MRBS of 24,000 rounds is anywhere close to current operational reality.

2) The 249 is an LMG, but expected to be used as an automatic rifle by troops who are not trained in the care and maintenance of an LMG. Problems result.

Improved maintenance and training would likely do wonders for reliability, but that is not the only issue we're looking at.

Simply, the utility of an LMG in the fireteam is being called into question. Any such weapon, even a highly reliable one, is not ideal. The 249 itself isn't really the issue, the issue is a 20lb open-bolt LMG being shoehorned into fireteams that cannot use it effectively. I'll defer to your experience with the 249, but I suspect that it impaired your mobility and could not perform quite a few tasks as well as your squad's rifles. There is a place for the belt-fed LMG, but it is not in the fireteam.

As a TL, I'd much rather have an M16 or M4 altered for heavier volume of fire than a 249. A bipod, heavy barrel, and good optic is about perfect. The 249 will slow my team down and reduce its effectiveness in CQB. An IAR or LSW is a much more appropriate weapon in a fireteam, provided I have access to proper MGs at platoon.

What is the basis of your experience?

What did the USMC do with their M249s? Consolidate them at the PLT level?

Honestly, doing squad-level field problems and battle drills on the weekend for the past couple years. All of us are civilians, with quite a few vets (mostly engineers), but we try and get out, really use our gear, and figure out what works and what doesn't.

Company level, to be issued as mission-specific equipment. It looks to be a good approach, when coupled with the 240s in the company weapons platoon.

Thank you for your service.

Didn't you read his post?

That's unpossible. Never again will our military face a foe we cannot see, ever. Well never face a foe that would require us to need belt feds.

Every foe we will ever face again will always be dirt farmers in Afghanistan. Our times of ever fighting a modern military is over. We have attained world Peace!

Just ignore the fact that a bipoded M27 is off target at 80M by the fourth round, never mind that fact. Well never need to fire it in full auto anyways! What was it the chief proponent for the M27 IAR said......use aggressive semi auto fire, not faull auto........

Best Infantry Automatic Rifle ever!!!!!

I probably saw the dirt farmers of Afghanistan shooting at me maybe 30% of the time.

Impossible!!!!!

Everyone knows you can always see combatants.

Delete.

Lots of great discussion here. I love the debate.

As a former SAW gunner (and a 60 gunner before that) I have a fondness for the 249. But never in a million years would have wanted one for room clearing in MOUT.

But lets not make the mistake of picking the best weapon for THE LAST WAR. We may not be kicking in doors in the next war...

If facing hoards of norks or more likely Chinese, there will be people wanting belt feds for every member of a fire team.

For pure volume of fire, be it for just suppression or aimed fire, nothing beats a belt fed with a quick change barrel.

We just went over this. About troops not using their optics in combat......

And still, very rarely can see you the enemy on the battlefield. Most ammo is going to "the suspected" and "most likely". And to suppress, you kinda want that spread pattern or better cone of fire. Which will do more to suppress and/or have a higher hit percentage. There is something to be said for the "800 meter shotgun".

The British who have been famous for having well trained Infantry in the past. Even THEY did studies that showed it was hard to get Infantry to hit anything past 200meters.

You guys need to stop swallowing the BS about "oh if we put this new Optic on, we'll pick the enemy off one-by-one!"

I guess I should have read this, before writing the above, long post. lol

Go to 1:54

How is the M27 better at suppression than the M249 when it can't even stay on target for a 3rnd burst at 80M?

This is a good example of why the IAR concept is dumb.

This really doesn't make sense. I stay on target at 100m no problem.

call out?

Full disclosure, I don't have my own M27.  I do shoot a lot of simulated auto, and generally have no problem staying on a 100m body size target when shooting from a bipod.  Maybe 5-10 shots off the silhouette out of 100.  I do tend to think a 3rd burst is coming up on max dispersion.  After that your settling back into the black.

I have done a 3rd burst with a suppressed M16A4 on a body size target @100m offhand.  It stitched the target left to right and up very nicely. All impacts visible through my ACOG. The weight of the HALO on the end seemed to keep it pretty settled.  It wasn't my suppressor and I had hand it back to Marine who checked it out of the armory.  It was pretty unwieldy on the end of an A4 anyways.

Watching the video, they need to load the bipod more.  Then extend the burst and drive it back on target.  I also prefer my support hand over the stock.

IDK, both guys were off target by 3 rounds at 80M, one of them is CWO5 Wade.

But muh spendex...

Then again high speed breach and clear tactics borrowed from high speed units that use them for hostage rescue aren't ideal for combat where there is no need to save a hostage life. See also: CAG at Saddam's sons hideout. So both can be correct.

It's an interesting discussion. I think we are just debating for debating sake at this point.

I am not an arrogant shithead who thinks he knows it all, and if you disagree, well you MUST be wrong. I think there are good arguments for either way.

I will watch, but I think I'm finished putting out my POV.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I've seen where people cut off the outside end of foam ear plugs and discard the rest. They use the wafer they cut off to put in their ears to fool their boss into thinking they are wearing earpro becasue they find earpro 'uncomfortable'. Every time it's so stupid someone wouldn't do it, they make a better idiot.

Come on dude, get the fuck out of here.

Life is a popularity contest. Truth is subjective and rarely popular.

So what you're saying is... they need more training.... But that's the point of the M27... you can just get by with bare minimal and still make some hits...

Pfft, what would CWO5 Christian Wade, 2nd Marine Division Gunner, and Cpl Gerald Tredo, 3/6 infantryman know about shooting. Clearly both need significantly more training to use the M27.

They do.

Those videos are absolutely cringe worthy, and damn near pointless at times.

S/F

GTFO with that shit.

You honestly don't think it's misleading saying "reliability issues we're seeing" "issue we're looking at" "as a TL" "I have access to MGs at platoon"?

You sneak "when I was in the sandbox" into conversations, don't you?

And that is why you get sucked into so many of your wrong assumptions based of of the internet... I have nothing against the good Gunner and his Cpl.... But just because it was those two demonstrating on a video designed for other Gyrenes, you automatically assume that they are the best two M27 gunners in the fleet...

Well following that logic, Every BN Commander in a tank Battalion should be qualifying his tank and crew on Table 8 with the highest score in the battalion...

And it says "Expert" on my DD214 for handgun, there for, I should be able to whup up on Brian Enos at the next Bianchi cup...

Perception very often does not match up to reality.

My Daughter... can shoot an "Aggressive Semi Auto" group like that at 80m.... just saying...

Not saying they're the best M27 gunners, just pointing out that the whole deal with the M27 was it's ease of use and familiarity over the M249 yet it appears to require significant training to keep 3 rounds on target at 80M. I believe it was Larry Vickers himself who said the fact that the M27 runs at nearly 1,000RPM was a huge advantage as the gun runs so fast that it makes the rifle more accurate and easier to control in full auto.

On the other hand you have people with the argument that if Gunner Wade says the M27 is the greatest thing ever, it's fact.

I'd like to see how it performs in an automatic rifle role in the hands of someone it is issued to. Probably not much different than those two and probably not much different than how an M4A1 with a Harris bipod would do.

... you're a knowledgeable SOB, I'd drink a beer with you!

And there you have it... full circle.....
Which begs the question.. Why did the Corps have to drink the Mega Gulp H&K in the first place???

M4A1 with a Harris ought to perform pretty similar at 100.  I would take an M27 over the M4A1 any day though.

Of course I would take a nicely built free float DI with an accurate barrel over the M27.

Why?

Primarily the more accurate barrel and free floating slightly longer hand guard. Trigger should also feel slightly nicer, but I would prefer an SSF.

I've always felt our issue rifles should be more accurate.  Free float is also important as loading a bipod can change impact.  Sling tension (if you choose to use it) also affects impact.

Half the Corps can't use the extra accuracy, but I think  at least 10-20% could.

Imagine a rifle based on the M4A1 with a .980" before the gas block, .865" or even .740" after the gas block barrel, Geissele rail, SSF, 90 degree full auto selector, better bipod, and a D60 as an IAR. That I could get behind.

I wouldn't go .865 out front, too much extra weight. G rail might work pretty well, make sure to keep the weight down.  I would add a better gas tube and bolt. Barrel should be around 1moa capable.  Everyone should get the SSF and 90 deg selectors. Bipods and D60's to IAR gunners.

Apparently, the French did a very extensive test of full auto controllability a few decades ago, and they concluded that optimum controllability occurs with ROF either 600rpm or below, or 1200rpm or higher.

"During the development of the FAMAS, there was a huge work in France dedicated to optimizing stability during automatic firing, using modified 7.62 mm rifles, multibarreled 5.56 mm rifles, and other devices to study the reaction of the human body to high energy vibrations.

Accelerations and movements of shooter wrist, shoulder, torso and head were measured, and it was found that the "natural" oscillating frequencies of those body parts were all between 10 Hz and 20 Hz (depending on body part and shooter morphology), so if the rate of fire of the rifle was contained between those two limits, then resonance could occurs between the rifle movements and the shooter movements.

The conclusion was that automatic rifles should have a RoF below 600 rpm (10 Hz), or higher than 1200 rpm (20 Hz), for "optimum" controllability."
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=7125.4

The 900-1000rpm of the 416 is actually one of the least controllable zones for ROF. As can be seen with the Gunner Wade video, where the 416 is going off target at 80m by the 3rd round.

Very interesting and very believable.

That RPM range is where I do most of my shooting.  3rd round is normally where you start compensating for auto fire and bringing it back on target.