# Infantry Automatic Rifle to replace M249



## 7point62 (Feb 1, 2009)

This is from the Marine Corps Times. What do you think?




Marines to test, evaluate 4 auto-rifle models

By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Feb 1, 2009 9:14:04 EST

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — Like it or not, it’s coming.

The Corps is moving forward with plans to test replacements for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and will receive initial deliveries this spring, Marine officials said.

The Infantry Automatic Rifle could be fielded as early as October 2010, said Maj. John Smith, the weapon’s project officer at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va. Testing is expected to begin in April on four finalists competing for the contract, with Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based 1st Marine Division involved in the process.

“It’ll be fleet Marines that are testing it,” Smith said. “We’ll be collecting data and getting feedback from Marines. All of [the weapons] could meet our needs, but we need to dig a little deeper and get the input on what the average Marine thinks.”

The push to include Marines in the process hasn’t stopped grumbling across the Corps. Many grunts question the wisdom of reducing the number of SAWs, light machine guns with a 5.56mm, 200-round belt that allows Marines to unleash a tremendous volume of fire when threatened. The IAR will employ the same 5.56mm, 30-round magazine used with the Corps’ main service weapons, the M16A4 rifle and M4 carbine.

“My big concern right now is that loss of fire,” said Staff Sgt. Craig Wilcox, an infantry unit leader who deployed to Afghanistan twice and Iraq once, and is now a combat instructor at the Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based School of Infantry-East. “We’re taught from day one that the SAW is the center of the squad itself. When you’re looking at dropping all those rounds, you’re going to lose your ability to maneuver and fire as quickly and efficiently as we have done in the past,” Wilcox said.

It’s a long-running debate in the Corps — even in the community that made the decision, said Patrick Cantwell, a former captain who serves as the Corps’ small arms capability officer.

Should the Corps cut weight to increase mobility? And if so, what should a new weapon offer?

A look at the finalists
The four finalists in the IAR competition, announced in December, stand in stark contrast to the SAW, which is more than 40 inches long and weighs about 16½ pounds empty. The weapon jumps to more than 22 pounds when loaded with the 200-round belt.

The lightest of the replacements under consideration is Heckler & Koch’s IAR, which weighs 7.9 pounds empty, with a 36.9-inch stock that collapses to 33 inches. The heaviest is FN Herstal’s entry, which weighs 11.2 pounds and has a 38.8-inch stock that collapses to 36.3 inches.

The other two finalists in the competition are made by Colt Defense, maker of the M4. Labeled the Colt 6940 and Colt 6940H, they weigh 10.1 pounds and 9.28 pounds, respectively, and vary because they have different heat sinks and upper receivers. Marine officials did not elaborate on the differences, but said the variations merited another look.

“They both performed very well, which is why they made the cut, but we needed to test them more to tell them apart,” Smith said.

Company officials at each of the three manufacturers remaining in the competition were tight-lipped about their products. HK and FNH, which makes the SAW, declined interviews, but provided specifications and photographs of their weapons, while Colt officials declined to be interviewed or release details about their products. The Corps released photographs and a basic description of each Colt weapon.

“Obviously we’re pleased to be included in the competition,” said retired Maj. Gen. James Battaglini, chief operating officer for Colt. “We’d rather let the results speak for themselves.”

The finalists diverge most clearly when it comes to their operating systems. Only FNH’s IAR fires from both the open- and closed-bolt positions, a requirement to keep the heat down when the Corps initially announced the competition. Cantwell said “that restriction went away” as officials surveyed their options.

“In a perfect world, we would like a [weapon firing from the] closed-bolt, because there are advantages to that, but we kind of took what we got and weighed the pros and cons, like the accuracy and the weight and the other elements,” Cantwell said.

Both of Colt’s weapons fire from the closed-bolt position using a direct gas impingement system, Marine officials said. HK’s IAR fires from the closed-bolt position using a gas-operated system.

The IAR finalists vary from the SAW in other ways, as well.

The SAW, first fielded in the 1980s, provides a sustained rate of fire of 85 rounds per minute. The sustained rate of fire available in the FNH and HK models is 12 to 15 rounds per minute, with a maximum effective rate of fire of 36 rounds per minute for 1,200 rounds or 75 rounds per minute for 600 rounds, company officials said.

At a cyclic rate, the SAW can fire more than 750 rounds per minute. FNH’s IAR fires from 560 to 640 rounds per minute at a cyclic rate, while HK’s fires 700 to 900.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't know... I'm a big fan of the SAW.  Especially the stubby-barrelled, collapsable-stock version.


----------



## Dirty Harry 375 (Feb 1, 2009)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk46.htm
The MK46.
Its a proven replacement to a SAW. Check it out.


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2009)

7point62 said:


> This is from the Marine Corps Times. What do you think?



I think it's a stupid idea, replacing a belt feed with a mag feed weapon!? ridiculous IMO

Add it the squad, replace a rifle with it but not an MG. :2c:

Mara, I cannot see the point of a short barreled MG, just doesn't make any sense to me. :2c:


----------



## Dirty Harry 375 (Feb 1, 2009)

The Mk46 is light weight, pretty durable, belt fed, and can still tear shit up... The light weight and ability to attach all the fun goodies to it makes it very versatile. Its a well designed weapon and is reliable... The only down side to it is what every machine gun faces is that since its belt fed and has an open port to discard brass and links it can get gunked up easy from a dust out from using air assets.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 1, 2009)

gunner's gotta be pretty fucked up for a SAW to only have an 85 RPM rate of fire...

nvm.. sustained rate.... 

it aint broke, lets fix it


----------



## 0699 (Feb 1, 2009)

Bring back the Johnson LMG and be done with all these new-fangled gadgets...


----------



## Poccington (Feb 1, 2009)

I'm not really seeing the logic in replacing an MG with a magazine fed weapon. It's a big chunk of firepower getting taken out of the equation.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't have to be infantry to see how this is a bad idea. Belt fed to mag fed is an improvement?


----------



## Crusader74 (Feb 1, 2009)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't know... I'm a big fan of the SAW.  Especially the stubby-barrelled, collapsable-stock version.




The Para 







                                         Minimi Para with bi pod unfolded, stock extended,  200 round ammo box fitted. 











I don't normally correct Ossifers


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 1, 2009)

pardus762 said:


> I....
> 
> Mara, I cannot see the point of a short barreled MG, just doesn't make any sense to me. :2c:




As a short-range area-suppression weapon against personnel, I don't think it can be beat.  The short barrel and stock ensure you can maneuver it in tight areas (like room clearing or in a vehicle).  Add  200 rounds in one box drum, and the capacity to take M4/M16 mags make it my favorite.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2009)

Here's what they need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_Shrike_5.56


----------



## pardus (Feb 1, 2009)

Thats the key, short range, MGs arent SMGs, they use a rifle round for a reason.
Room clearing isn't for MGers it's for riflemen, the whole short barrel thing even for rifles IMO is unwise, I'd rather take a full length rifle any day. 

Just my :2c:



Marauder06 said:


> As a short-range area-suppression weapon against personnel, I don't think it can be beat.  The short barrel and stock ensure you can maneuver it in tight areas (like room clearing or in a vehicle).  Add  200 rounds in one box drum, and the capacity to take M4/M16 mags make it my favorite.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2009)

You aren't seeing it, the SAW is a light machine gun employed in fire teams, not gun teams... it's a one man weapon, and Marauder is talking 600m being short range, because that's the POINT range...


----------



## shortbrownguy (Feb 2, 2009)

Ranger Psych said:


> You aren't seeing it, the SAW is a light machine gun employed in fire teams, not gun teams... it's a one man weapon, and Marauder is talking 600m being short range, because that's the POINT range...



Yup, and with the short barrel and collapsed buttsock, it makes for a formidable react to near ambush weapon.
Trust me...;);).


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2009)

I still miss playing around with my modified gas regulator at ranges :)  it'd throw people off the first time they would hear a burst. brrp... brrp... BRIIP  wtf?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2009)

I hate the SAW, I have always thought it was a shitty weapon. However, I would not replace it with a magazine fed automatic weapon. 

As for the para M249, the short barrel and stock makes employment easy in all A/O's.  Big and bulky vs. small and easy...


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Feb 2, 2009)

As a former SAW gunner, I'd also like to add that aside from the previously mentioned benefits of the short barrel, CQB is a hell of a lot easier with the para barrel.


Me and my baby on the left. On the right, the sad sad B team SAW gunner


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2009)

I had the luxury of having a SAW with no para barrel... Apparently a previous gunner had deadlined it due to overzealous use on intermediate support by fire lines


----------



## Centermass (Feb 2, 2009)

Well, if they're going to replace it, might as well replace it with something with original genetics. 

I just got a woddie. http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Feb 2, 2009)

I don't think that mag fed isn't necessarily a bad thing if you are lugging around the 100 round drums like the M4's are capable of carrying.  But, whatever the replacement may be, I think it should have *the option* of being able to use a mag (like the SAW has).


----------



## Dirty Harry 375 (Feb 2, 2009)

http://images.hobbytron.com/JG-STR-M249-MK46-lg.jpg

Thats a picture of a stripped down Mk 46... A Light machine gun that is a great replacement for the SAW.. Its proven and more powerful and easy to manouver with.


----------



## Looon (Feb 2, 2009)

I always thought the SAW was fucking garbage. Only a couple of pnds lighter than a 60 and about the same size.


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2009)

Given the choice I'd carry an M240. :2c:


----------



## Poccington (Feb 2, 2009)

pardus762 said:


> Given the choice I'd carry an M240. :2c:



Word.


----------



## Dirty Harry 375 (Feb 2, 2009)

A 240b is a solid weapon but you give a guy a MK 48 which is still 7.62 belt fed and you can have an effective gunner who could move as well as any SAW gunner could. A MK46 and MK48 are both effective, reliable, strong, and light weapon systems. Why hump an older heavy model of a machine gun up and down mountains or through city streets when you could cut the load of the weapon to toss on some extra rounds.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Feb 2, 2009)

You guys are comparing apples to oranges.  I loved the SAW, and it is not meant for the purposes the 240 is meant for.  As for carrying the pig, fuck that.  Shooting it works for me , however ;)


----------



## pardus (Feb 2, 2009)

I was just trying to find a particular photo of a Rhodesian Soldier who had removed the bipod from his M240, using it slung from the hip. 

Couldn't find it but found this one...


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 2, 2009)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> You guys are comparing apples to oranges.  I loved the SAW, and it is not meant for the purposes the 240 is meant for.  As for carrying the pig, fuck that.  Shooting it works for me , however ;)



Ditto.  I always thought the M60 was WAY heavier and WAY longer than than the M249... plus you had to tote a bipod and a T&E, and the only thing that could shoot M60 ammo in the platoon, were the M60s.


----------



## Looon (Feb 2, 2009)

Marauder06 said:


> Ditto.  I always thought the M60 was WAY heavier and WAY longer than than the M249... plus you had to tote a bipod and a T&E, and the only thing that could shoot M60 ammo in the platoon, were the M60s.


When I was in Panama for OJC, I threw the tripod and the T&E into the fucking jungle.:) They may have their uses, but not for anything we did mission wise.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2009)

60's lighter than the 240, lower rate of fire, no cam roller detent.... easier to change barrels on the 240 as well.

but once again, a 240 or a 60 are not 249's....  There's things you can do to make a SAW better than what it's current design is, but to be honest it does what it's used for extremely well.


----------



## Remrem (Feb 5, 2009)

Kind of odd. Back in WW !! the BAR was sort of a mag fed SAW...but a big 30.06 with a lot of range and crunch power. A machine gun with a 30 rd mag and a .22 cal bullet is hardly a boost from a full auto M16 and would seem less of a boost than a SAW with belt feed or some sort of M14 update.

A lot of modern conflicts the troops may not often be 100 yd from the Humvee,Striker or ? that brought them. It's not like humping ammo for 2 weeks in the hills.

Firing from a belt...you can make the hostiles hit the dirt,go to cover...NOT be aimming and shooting. That lets your team aim and shoot and heads as they pop up. You also don't wanna be 20 guys and have 200 hostiles running at you,guns blazing and you have to keep grabbing for magazines.

I'd probably rather see a 7.62 mag fed,added rather than the light SAW deleted. In recent years,the enemy has tended to be semi-pros with AK 47's,and that's a mix that's not too effective beyond 200 yd..if that.  If the squad has a weapon that's quite good at 300 yd.....well..that has to be a plus. You also get the ability to punch through whatever the enemy is behind. I would not suggest each squad has a full-on sniper with a bolt action shooting at 800m range, but there's a role for a mid-range marksman. The Russian's Dragunov wasn't designed to be a 800+ meter super sniper,was made to be accurate at 300-500 m. It seems that needs in Iraq have brought the M 14 back into service and some Knight's too.  A good aimed kill at 200 m + is handy if the other guys are spraying AK's with more volume than accuracy. It's also nice if one of the enemy has a Dragunov and a good location.


----------



## pardus (Feb 5, 2009)

Your'e talking through a hole in your ass, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Where did you get all this wonderful knowledge from?
Airsoft school?

Your'e out of your lane.



Remrem said:


> Kind of odd. Back in WW !! the BAR was sort of a mag fed SAW...but a big 30.06 with a lot of range and crunch power. A machine gun with a 30 rd mag and a .22 cal bullet is hardly a boost from a full auto M16 and would seem less of a boost than a SAW with belt feed or some sort of M14 update.
> 
> A lot of modern conflicts the troops may not often be 100 yd from the Humvee,Striker or ? that brought them. It's not like humping ammo for 2 weeks in the hills.
> 
> ...


----------

