M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For once someone listened to the end user. The 249 is not being replaced by the IAW. The IAW was a waste of time and money. Past SAW type weapons failed due to magazine capacity and fixed barrels. Why the Corps wasted our limited budget on proving something that the basic grunt and SAW gunner already new is behond me. But I digress, the new SgtMaj of the Corps stopped by this week and infact said that the IAW is not replacing the saw, regardless of what the Marine Corps Times said.

But he then said that he was all for Females in Combat Arms....
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
Are you talking about the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle? If so, it was never intended to replace the SAW, it was only meant to be another tool in the tool box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
I hope you're right, I've seen articles as recent as June 14th saying that they still plan on moving to the M27. I expect them to get rid of the SAW because Airwing Amos has every sign of being a political puppet rather than a Marine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,637 Posts

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW.
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW.
That's what it looks like. The Army has been looking at the MK46, which I think is a better solution than the M27.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Ok some of you arent reading what I wrote. The Corps was planning to remove the SAW from front line grunt units. The 249 was going to stay with the support guys!! The belief was that it would ease the burden on the fire team, as it was thought that the SAW slowed them down. It was to be a 1/1 swap. That has changed AAR's have come back from Afghanistan, BC's want the SAW, the IAW isnt going to replace it now, might be an augment but not replacing as thought before. And remember we are small, no way near the size as the Army, a few thousand worth of M249s is about 1st and 2nd DIV worth of weapons! These are the words from the new SgtMaj of the Corps, the Marine Corps Times at best is eqaul to the enquire. Ive been keeping a close ear to this as it effects me greatly, I hope the word from the SgtMaj is true!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
I read one article where they make the point that the difference is in the size of the Army squad vs. the Marine Corps squad (9 vs. 13 and 2 fire teams vs. 3). Obviously they are looking at numbers and statistics rather than tactical reality.

One weapons planner for the Marine Corps stated that the 30 round mags for the M27 would allow for the same 600 RPM capability that the SAW has, as long as the temperature doesn't go over about 80 degrees. Since the barrels can't be switched out they have reduce the rate of fire when the air temps are higher. It seems to me that this would be a major concern considering where our fighters are today, most of the places are pretty hot.

The standard load for the M27 will be 20 or so mags. Each loaded mag is about a pound so the standard ammo load and weapon is about 28 pounds. Just about the same weight as the standard load for the 249 so there isn't any real advantage in weight savings. Some people talk about switching mags more often then having to switch belts being a problem but I'm not so sure I would agree. Switching a mag seems a lot easier and faster.

There might be an advantage in so far as maintainability, the M27 seems like a simpler weapon with less number of parts and less complex of an operating system. I've always liked the idea of the SAW but I was never impressed with their reliability, especially compared to the 240. The last time I saw a machine gun platoon train (back in the mid 1990s) I was amazed at how fast the SAWs fell out of their "talking guns" pattern of fire. Within minutes the 240Gs were the only guns firing.

Personally, I think that the ultimate decision should go to the field Marine. If he says that he has an advantage if we go with the M27 then so be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
Ok some of you arent reading what I wrote. The Corps was planning to remove the SAW from front line grunt units. The 249 was going to stay with the support guys!! The belief was that it would ease the burden on the fire team, as it was thought that the SAW slowed them down. It was to be a 1/1 swap. That has changed AAR's have come back from Afghanistan, BC's want the SAW, the IAW isnt going to replace it now, might be an augment but not replacing as thought before. And remember we are small, no way near the size as the Army, a few thousand worth of M249s is about 1st and 2nd DIV worth of weapons! These are the words from the new SgtMaj of the Corps, the Marine Corps Times at best is eqaul to the enquire. Ive been keeping a close ear to this as it effects me greatly, I hope the word from the SgtMaj is true!
I think that's what I said isn't it?
The bean counter's plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from squad level support. Each team will have one M27 instead of the SAW.
Maybe I should have been a little more clear and said "The bean counters plan is to make the SAW a company level support weapon and remove it from the squad. They want to exchange each fire team's SAW for a M27."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Sorry not to you RAMAAC but the intent and I have this from all involved WAS (past tense thank God) was to replace the SAW 1/1 completely from the grunts, not even in Weapons Co, yes the BC could request, but.

It wasnt a beans counter thing, it was a bunch of Generals and civs who thought they knew better. The theory was that well aimed shots were better than massive suppressing fire and that the ammo needed for suppressive fire was slowing down the Sqds (not the useless 50lb MTV!!!!).

But thank God for once someone listened, I dont mind the option of a IAW, I just dont like being told I cant have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Hey guys I should apologize I do not mean to be so confrontational, I love my SAW and as long as you replace the seer and ejector when there are signs of failure than its a great weapon that has enabled me to continue to breathe :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
There might be an advantage in so far as maintainability, the M27 seems like a simpler weapon with less number of parts and less complex of an operating system. I've always liked the idea of the SAW but I was never impressed with their reliability, especially compared to the 240. The last time I saw a machine gun platoon train (back in the mid 1990s) I was amazed at how fast the SAWs fell out of their "talking guns" pattern of fire. Within minutes the 240Gs were the only guns firing.
The biggest problem with the M249 is the Armorer who is supposed to "maintain" these weapons. From day 1 at SOI/MCT Marines are told M249s are "junk" and it gets ingrained into their heads....

The "reality" of it is "most" of the grunt unit SAWs are in dire need of maintenance. Mostly due to the fact the Armorer is clueless on preventative maintenance and proper inspection procedures......for that matter ALL Grunt weapons are in need of severe attention to detail when it comes to inspections. Unfortunately the (vast majority of) Armorers AND their SNCO'S (YES I SAID IT!) are "clueless" on how to get the Grunt weapons "properly" inspected and operating 100%. Most of them sit in their bays playing cards or texting instead of having their hands on ALL the weapons....most armorers don't even bother to make an effort to go to live fires "unless" a Co Gunny is smart enough to ask for one. Then when they show up...due to lack of proper training all they can usually do is say "yes its broken..tell the armorer when you get back" instead of fixing the weapons on the spot.

As for reliability the M249 is nothing more than an AK with beltfeed....from the oprod/piston to bolt design and extractor and even the semi-fixed ejector mimics the fixed on on the AK. The US has been using an AK design since the mid'80s when they adopted it......

Sorry for the long post but it really gets under my skin when I see/hear about weapons not working and it's the "weapons" fault.....sad truth is the Armorers are not properly LED and INSTRUCTED on how to perform their job!!

Rant off...gonna go take a nap....! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
407 Posts
Hey guys I should apologize I do not mean to be so confrontational, I love my SAW and as long as you replace the seer and ejector when there are signs of failure than its a great weapon that has enabled me to continue to breathe :)
The sear isn't the problem...it's the ejector as you stated AND the extractor....

Take your thumb and if you can wiggle the extractor easily it's time to get a new one. The extractor IS required to be replaced as a set which includes the extractor, spring, pin and retaining pin. ALL 4 WILL be replaced at the same time!

Next important is the gas cylinder and piston...keep them free of carbon so they can get a proper seal otherwise you will get gas leakage and suffer short stroking.

Those are the main points that are almost ALWAYS overlooked and never repaired and they are the KEY to keeping one running...

if you have any trouble with them just let me know.... "I can fix it!"
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
11,356 Posts
Just my own experience as a third echelon maintainer, SAW's most frequently need retaining clips/springs of all sorts, bipods, and carrying handles to be repaired/replaced. After more than half a dozen MWO's, most of the other problems have been solved. The receiver being spot welded instead of riveted sometimes causes deformation that leads to condemnation. I wouldn't rate M249's as robust as their bigger brother the M240 but I would agree with Jeremy2171 that much of their bad reputation was more attributable to poor maintenance than poor design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,760 Posts
I've heard a variety of comments about the SAW, a lot of users don't like them from a reliability perspective. The M240 is a whole different animal. It isn't a 5.56, it is a 7.62. In Armor the the M240 is a game changer against troops. The 240 is accurate & reliable.

My experience in SE Asia is not the sandbox. This is a case to listen to the troops in the current theaters. If I were their, the M1A would be something that would have gotten my attemtion, especially the M1A SOCOM 16.

Once again as we all know about opions.....
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top