Armory Sponsor
Posted: 5/3/2008 6:52:19 PM EDT
|
is it possible to purchase a semi-auto version of the M249 saw? I love the saw, and would love to have one as a fun piece of gear. anyone know if its possible to buy a semi version, and know the price of one? |
id be ok with having a full auto version, but im hoping that a semi auto version is going to be cheaper. i saw one that was full auto just a little while ago that was $8500 ETA: forgot to mention I found that price on a law enforcement trader website. |
|
SAW? $8500? Full auto? LEO only. Closer to $50k for one us citizens can own indefinately. And by citizen I mean SOT holder. check subguns.com |
OK, apparently I was WWWAAAYYYY off. 50 K, huh? Dang....that would pay for a good chunk of my kids college.....think I'll pass. Doc |
no, your right. ive seen a couple sites now that have them for $8500, semi auto. ill try to post a couple of them. scroll down the page some again, scroll down some anyone have any ideas/opinions? |
| yeah there are some semi-auto SAW's out there, but they don't work well from what i've heard, and they run about the $8,500 area. Full-auto transferables for us civies are over $100K since there aren't many out there. Also what you posed for $50K is for dealers only. |
The first link you provided are post-86 samples. They can only be purchased by an appropriately licensed dealer. As for the second link, Urban Armory has had that listing for over 5 years now, and are essentially vaporware. I don't think they are going to be coming out anytime soon. |
| WHY THE F@#K would you want that piece of sh*t!? Not only is it over engineered, overly heavy, and un-ergonomic, it is un-reliable as a mother Fu*8er! I don't post often but when I see something that is absolutely rediculous I have to. Dude, let me tell you, that piece of garbage is better left well alone. If you really want to be a tool go ahead an pursue your unholy search for that garbage. However, if you want a perspective from someone who has fired thousands of rounds through them,carried them, had people under his charge use them, and had his life depend on them, then stay the hell away from them. They are so unrelieable that the ARMY has doctine that includes NOT using them as a first in / first fire weapon because more often than not they will go ka-chunk rather than fire, and then YOUR FU(3d! Now before all you non-combat SOB's chime in with some range bull-$h1t saying "oh they are great if you just maintain them" garbage, Please hold on to your worthless comments like they were gold fu(K1ng coins. And if you ARFCOM moderators cant handle some real $h1t like this post than you can go to hell too. The m249 is the worst thing to happen to America since the 3 rnd brst option on m16s and Barrack Obamma. If you want to dispute this, then bring it. However, chances are, anyone who has extensively used these turds of an excuse for a squad automatic weapon (infantry or SF) will not have much to dispute. |
|
I am not an M249 fan eiether, as I believe there are much better SAW type weapons availible. However, the OP isn't asking our opinion on the M249. Even if he were, there are probably WAY better ways to express yourself....Since this was probably your last post, I hope you enjoyed it. Anyways, semi-auto M249's are availible but they are few and far between. The last one I saw/knew about was around $10000.00. The last transferable M249/Minimi I saw was a pre-PIP M249 NIB for $85,000.00. Semi-auto beltfeds seem like alot of money, but consider that the M249 costs LE/.gov agencies around $6500.00+, depending on the model. The M240 is also expensive, making semi-MAG58's not seem like to bad of a deal. There was a rumor going around that FN was going to release/manufacture a semi-auto only M249 for civilian consumption, but that they recently decided not too. I have heard this from several places/people, so I find it credible. Semi-auto SAW's turn up every once in a while, but be prepared to pay 10k for one. ETA: Wasn't there someone that was building/starting to build semi-SAW's fairly recently? I thought I remembered seeing an add or something....Anyone know anything about this? |
Desert Ordnance has them up on their website, but I do not think anything has come of it. The info that they have posted says they will only make 60 of them. https://www.desertord.com/main/en/shop/productview?pid=17&id=042a07d9fac424d0776286a5f4c2c364 |
I think the lady doth protest too much. |
You sir are ignorant. The M-249 is not overly engineered, it does its job well. Now when you get some real time behind the M249 with real bullets not blanks which I admit it chokes on, you will see it is a good weapon. The paratrooper version is especially useful in CQB and urban enviroments. I will also point out at no point in you elequent post do you have any suggestions for a replacment, so please refrain from continuing your trollish antics here I am reporting you to the mods. As far as the rest of you ignorant comments they are unneeded in this thread about semi auto civilian legal M-249 clones. |
Having been issued a SAW that was as old as me, I can say that they are very reliable and about as simple as a beltfed weapon can get. The unreliability issue I beleive stems from old ass SAWs continuing to be issued (although mine worked fine). That is my experience though, and I suppose it is quite possible there are a few shitty M249s out there. The reason they are not used as a first fire weapon (the USMC has this doctrine also) is because it is an open bolt weapon. The USMC prefers not to have any open bolt weapon as first fire, simply because the user is more prone to screw something up (loading, other operation). The preferred weapon is an AT4, claymore, and at the least a M16. Now for wanting a semi-auto M249, I definately agree with you. It was designed as an open-bolt weapon, and any adaption is probably going to be crap. |
Actually that would be a pre-86 sample, hence the SOT reference. The dealer can keep it after their license expires, unlike a post-86 sample which must be sold and is a lot harder to obtain in the first place since you need a demo letter. |
|
Pre-1986 samples go for about $50,000. Transferables for well over $100,000. Rumor has it, Steven Tyler of Aerosmith owns one of the few civvie legal, ungimped M249s in this country. $8,500 is enough for a full blown select-fire M16 (non-Colt) if you look around. |
The link lists it under post-86 samples and mentions the need for a LE demo letter. I should have mentioned that. |
Dude, that's like the longest running sham on AR15.com... |
|
A semi-auto machine gun defeats the purpose, it's just an overly heavy rifle. I think you're on the right track now, it's much better to have a good semi-auto rifle, without the extra weight. Besides, pretty much the only thing full-auto is good for anyway is spraying bullets for suppressive fire. It's much better to aim each shot. That and our damn government has driven the price of full-auto's far beyond the price of any practical value full-autos have as a result of banning any new ones in '86. Unless you have money to throw away or are a serious collector, then the cost alone has made owning full-autos a waste. I think it's un-Constitutional, since the purpose of the people baring "Arms" was so that the people would have the power to form militias and wage war, maintain a balance of power between the government and the people, or fight an oppressive government - and you don't do that with hunting rifles, you do it with modern military Arms. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to hunt or own hunting rifles. But that's an issue for another thread... Personally, I don't care for .223 in a rifle though, .308 is much better all-around. |
|
Ahhh.... just as I suspected. Some people can't handle some real stuff being said on the forum. Look, Ryno_the_wyno, that was not my last post. And to actually adress your statement, I did enjoy that post. As for SD307, I am sure your mom would be proud of you for reporting me to the forum moderators, but I guess this is still an adults forum and as far as remember, people in this forum YEARS ago used to hold dearly the freedom to say what they felt was truth, especially when it came to experiance. NOW, as far as your comment posting to my actual content, you said that it chokes on blanks. Actually, in my experiance it chokes mostly on blanks AND live fired rounds from MAGAZINES (unless you hold the mag tight to the mag well with LIVE ROUNDS, blanks are roulette at best). I have had hit or miss with linked blanks from a saw. Usually it is dependant on the tightness of the BFA, not the blanks themselves. In adition, the saw only recieved rave reviews from officers and staff NCO's who had typically used them on ranges, or fired them at intervals during thier initial introduction, being new M249s. This brings me to my next point. M249s tend to work considerably better when they are brand spanking new! Suprise, right!? Well, here is the shoker, MANY of us grunts didn't get NEW SAWS! When we did, they were sure bullet hoses, not 100 percent as some would have you believe, but still bullet hoses. BUT this brings me to my final point. The ARMY started AAR weapons systems testing long before I deployed fro OEF for the first time in 04'. However, even at that time the weapon review ratings for all systems included an over-all dislike for m249's due to aged reliablity problems. They also knew about m9's being junk because of mags, penetration problems with 5.56 and even 7.62 for thick mud walls. Blah Blah blah. The point is, ......gentllemen, that the saw is not a great weapon system.I was not even a Marine and I give them points for being the first to look for it's need for replacement. Sure it is exotic and looks mean as hell, but it doesnt even hold a candle to the reliability of the m16 system that has caught so much flak, and yet we hear nothing about it. It was not until my second tour that my SAWs were seen by CIVILIAN, depot/contracted level maintance individuals (who the hell knows how much that costed the tax payer per hour) and they busted out issues that our armoreres were not briefed to deal with. NOW, You tell me........... what is the sense of having an individual carry a 16 pound weapon, 600 rounds MINIMUM combat load, per auto rifleman, when you can all be trained to fire full auto with your serivce rifles that weigh half as much. At that point you have 3 times the weapons, 3 times as many POI, and no one needs to rush to recover the dreaded casualty producing "auto rifle". In addition, 4 team members, can easily carry 300 rounds a-piece and make up an equally, if not more, devastating field of fire. All this can be acomplished with a little fire control discipline training, standard TO DATE COMBAT issued servie rifles that fire full auto, and well. nothing more! NOW, if you think that I "doth protest" then maybe that is because some of us have actually used SAWS and seen them to be the reality that they are: HEAVY, OVER ENGINEERED, UN-ERGONOMIC, AND UN------RELIABLE! Finally, to the comment about the SAWs CQB abilities.... c'mon.... are you serious?! I mean, Aside from the weapon's weight, unreliability, NOISE of anyone running with SAW drums, POLICY TO NOT USE THEM if possible executing EBCR because of the afore-mentioned ka-chunk comment, and simple reload/stoppage malfunction times, you must be reffering to it's laser like accuracy. Oh...that's right.... we zero M249s at less than half the distance as m16s and anyone who has tried both knows why. What, is it a new Millitary doctrine to poke your SAW barrel in a door/window and spray the SH1t out of a room before you enter? I am not saying I havent seen it done and that it isn't effective, just that it isn't exactly endorsed. You might as well issue troops with tommy guns and say, "well, it is the CQB value were after boys!" Look, Runs-N-Guns_66, I apologize for blowing up at your thread. If you wan't to buy a Semi-Saw go for it. I did't mean to offend you or a make you feel stuppid. I have said my peace and I am sorry for tainting your inquiry for a specific weapon type. |
I smell a gun-bunny. |
I do agree with Josh. It is a cool looking gun, however if you ever had a chance to deploy with one you will quickly not like it. The Marine Corps is actually looking for a replacement for it. I prefer the M16/M4 than an actual SAW. A semi auto one would be cool at the range but it is really not that practical. But if you can afford one buy it. It might scratch your itch. Max |
|
Armory Sponsor