Army eyes lightweight SAW replacement

[Balog]

m.military.com/news/article/army-news/soldiers-may-soon-have-lighter-machine-gun.html

Sounds like an interesting design. Plastic cased ammo, rotating chamber... Not sure what the feeding device is though.

I'm intrigued but skeptical. Great if it actually works, but there is also the ammo supply and commonality issue even if the gun itself functions well.

[AJ Dual]

An Ultimax 100 that made use of polymer/composites and aluminum wherever possible could be ready with in a year.

Darn thing already weighs almost 1/2 of the 249 as-is (10lbs vs. 17lbs), and is insanely controllable/accurate because of it's constant recoil spring system. Fab a lightweight composite drum, and make every non-stress part possible out of plastic, titanium, or aluminum, and you'd probably get it down to around 7lbs.

And no need for fancy ammo, but if you did rejigger the Ultimax for the Case-Telescoped polymer ammo, and then it's even lighter than the LSAT prototypes. (The Ultimax as-is is only a pound heavier than the LSAT as is.)

[Fitz]

If it aint broke...

[T.O.M.]

And just because it's lighter doesn't mean it's better...

Look at how many guys are choosing to carry the heavy M-14 instead of the much lighter M-4...

[Waitone]

Meanwhile, marines are going a different direction
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-m27-infantry-automatic-rifle-062911w/

[AJ Dual]

Oh yeah, I'd seen the IAR before. Open bolt on FA and closed bolt on Semi... Allows the Squad Automatic Rifleman to lay down suppressive fire, but then switch over to being a rifleman if there's door-kicking to be done etc. And you're not a special bullet magnet/priority target with a "different" looking weapon like the 249.

I wonder if they're evaluating the new SureFire quad-stack 60 and 100 round box magazines too.

[Balog]

If it aint broke...

I'd say the loads SAW gunners carry (often near 100lbs in my experience) are, in fact, broken. Remains to be seen whether or not this is a good solution, but it is a legitimate problem.

And just because it's lighter doesn't mean it's better...

Look at how many guys are choosing to carry the heavy M-14 instead of the much lighter M-4...

I agree that lighter != better, but there are functional differences between the M-14 and the M-4 that lead to it being chosen. For same caliber etc, one would often choose a lighter weapon all lelse being equal. Of course it remains to be seen if all else really is equal with this.

[Fitz]

I'd say the loads SAW gunners carry (often near 100lbs in my experience) are, in fact, broken. Remains to be seen whether or not this is a good solution, but it is a legitimate problem.

This is why smart squad leaders give their SAWs to big jokers like me, who can carry the load.

Hell, anyone who made it through Fort Benning's School for Wayward Boys should be able to do it, no sweat.

[seeker_two]

This may be a little OT....but.....has anyone seen the last few SONS OF GUNS where Will & Co. design the remote turret M16 and also design the water-cooled double-M16 mount?.....

I'm just wondering why he went through all that trouble to modify M16's for a sustained-fire supressive mode using beta-mags when the SAW is designed for that job while using 250-rd. belts.....and I'm wondering why the US military is looking to do the same thing...... 

[AJ Dual]

This may be a little OT....but.....has anyone seen the last few SONS OF GUNS where Will & Co. design the remote turret M16 and also design the water-cooled double-M16 mount?.....

I'm just wondering why he went through all that trouble to modify M16's for a sustained-fire supressive mode using beta-mags when the SAW is designed for that job while using 250-rd. belts.....and I'm wondering why the US military is looking to do the same thing...... 

That's because the show's producers come up with whatever oddball idea they think will impress a general audience of non-gun and er... mildly-gun people, and the owner of Red Jacket says "yes sir" and collects the checks. 

[Fitz]

..and I'm wondering why the US military is looking to do the same thing...... 

Because sometimes, officers need a "thinks outside the box" bullet on their OER. So they come up with an oddball, barely workable idea that proves they can be "unorthodox"


Then the *expletive deleted*it gets fielded.

[Balog]

Fitz: it's not a matter of proving how macho you are. Carrying so much weight reduces speed, manuverability, and endurance. Period, no matter how bad ass people want to be.

[Fitz]

I didn't say that.


Anyways, the SAW is not overly heavy or cumbersome, even with a combat load.

[AJ Dual]

If it aint broke...

Too true. Here's your BAR. 

[Fitz]

I'd be fine with that, although i question its utility for MOUT.

A Saw, conversely, is usualy fitted with a collapsable buttstock and short barrel.

[wmenorr67]

The M-14 most are now carrying is this, http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/M14_EBR .

It is being used by the Squad Designated Marksmen. 

As for the SAW, I remember lugging around the M-60, the Pig.  And I was by far not the biggest guy in our sections/units.

[AZRedhawk44]

Seems to me the SAW stays on target better than a lighter fully automatic rifle.  I've shot an M240-B and an M243.  There was a little bit of bounce on the tripod, but nothing bad as long as you haul that sucker into your shoulder.

I imagine that a half-weight rifle tasked with the same volume of fire would quickly fatigue the machinegunner, and targeted bursts would have a wider dispersion.

I also only shot those two guns from prone, and think it would be awful hard to get prone with this new IAR M27 the marines are looking at, unless running a 20rd magazine in your squad machine gun.

Overall, I think the Shrike belt-fed AR upper is the solution to the need of a light machine gun if the M243 is too large or cumbersome piece of equipment.  Rig a belt-fed drum that simply secures itself in place via the magazine catch but still operates via left-to-right belt feed through the receiver.

These 60 and 100 round mags might have a place in MOUT situations, but they sure do have a way of denying the most convenient form of cover or making yourself small while taking fire at intermediate or long range engagements, or of successfully sending accurate rounds to end a threat.  The beta-mag at least curls around and still allows for prone shooting.  These big sticks that surefire is producing are redonkulous.

[seeker_two]

Too true. Here's your BAR. 

The BAR was vastly inferior to the BREN....and top-loading was greatly appreciated by the prone soldier....

[Balog]

I didn't say that.


Anyways, the SAW is not overly heavy or cumbersome, even with a combat load.

I don't know your background, so this is an honest question. Have you personally humped a ~100lbish combat load in >120* heat for >10hours at a time? Do you think reducing that load would enable you to move faster and endure longer? Do you agree that fatigue significantly reduces effectiveness?

Edit: I should add that I wasn't a SAW gunner so I'd answer that question "No" myself. Again, not intended as a slight just trying to determine where you are coming from.

[Fitz]

I don't know your background, so this is an honest question. Have you personally humped a ~100lbish combat load in >120* heat? Do you think reducing that load would enable you to move faster and endure longer? Do you agree that fatigue significantly reduces effectiveness?

Yes, I have. Yes, reducing the load would help. yes, fatigue reduces effectiveness.

your numbers are misleading, however. It's not a huge increase from a normal infantryman's load, especially considering that most troops have a vehicle with extra saw drums (or the 100 rd saw packs) and don't carry more than a few on them.

Let me ask you this. What's the TOTAL increase from a rifleman with a basic load, and a saw gunner with a basic load.

I'll bet it's not that significant.

I dont have numbers in front of me, but what does 600 rounds linked weigh? versus 210 in mags.

Then the difference in weapons.

I'd bet it's about a 20 lbs difference. Which isn't really all that significant, when compared to the accuracy benefits of a heavier weapon, and the much better things the money could be spent on, like the new lighter more mobile body armor, etc

[Fitz]

Found it


on average, 63 lbs for a rifleman, 79 for a saw gunner. 71 for a grenadier


http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf


So, 16 lbs difference.


How much does each of those new weapons cost, and could you concievably think of anything MORE useful than a slight weight reduction?



Also, look at the list of *expletive deleted*it they're including in those numbers.... You think all that *expletive deleted*it is necessary? I submit much of that isn't carried out on patrol

[Balog]

Yeah, in my experience saw gunners run about #30 heavier than riflemen. And no, saving some weight wouldn't make a huge difference, but it'd certainly help.

And nowhere did I say that there are not better places to spend money. Those damn E-sapis and side sapis etc are freaking ridiculous, in both weight and bulk. But this article didn't say "The .mil has decided to stop funding research into better armor etc because they want to replace the saw." And I'd not support it if they did. But, if they are looking to replace the saw (and I'm assuming a lot of them are approaching the end of their service life) then hell yeah they should find a lighter replacement.

[Fitz]

I have no problem with replacement as the weapons approach the end of their service life ... however, there a whole lot of brand new or close to new saws in the inventory .


regarding the armor, I know that the article did not say that, it was merely an example. 

Veskimo.com for example.  if given the choice between a lighter saw and 1 of those puppies, I choose 1 of those.

your post and opinions are fully valid ,  and if I am coming across as attacking you, that is not my intention.

[Balog]

I have no problem with replacement as the weapons approach the end of their service life ... however, there a whole lot of brand new or close to new saws in the inventory .

Huh, ours were old and beat to s###. You darn Army guys and your fancy equipment. 

regarding the armor, I know that the article did not say that, it was merely an example. 

Veskimo.com for example.  if given the choice between a lighter saw and 1 of those puppies, I choose 1 of those.

Believe me, this is pretty far down on my list of "stuff I care about" too. But, if they are going to replace it anyway (and the article doesn't make it clear if this is a scheduled end of service life change or an upgrade for upgrade's sake) I endorse getting something lighter.

your post and opinions are fully valid ,  and if I am coming across as attacking you, that is not my intention.

DItto. Just a friendly chat. :)

[Fitz]

yeah, if it's going to be a gradual upgrade as weapons are removed from service , I am fine with it. but if they are planning on just willy nilly replacing a bunch of perfectly good weapons, then I'm not