I carried a SAW and a M16 when I deployed to the box in a fire team. The saw will accept m-16/m4 magizines but you forgot to mention that. I never carried the saw without a 200 round drum. You also never mentioned the fire rate of the IAR. I don't think a front line troop would field a SAW with a suppressor attached to it.

Never used one myself, but I always heard that magazines don't feed reliably in the M249. And I thought the soft, 100 rd "nutsack" was now the preferred way to feed the SAW.

The IAR is a USMC concept and they will be replacing the M249s in the rifle squads. The LWRC version is competing against the Ultimax and at least one other gun. IIRC the LWRC has a cyclic rate of 600-700 rpm and a hammer forged, finned barrel to dissipate heat.

It will be provided with a high capacity magazine, being developed separately. The C-mag 100 rd "snail drum" is one option, but notoriously unreliable. There are rumors of a "quad stack" magazine that will hold 50-60 rd being developed by a couple of companies.

More troubling is the lack of a quick-change barrel for sustained fires, but the Marines aren't asking for one.

IIRC both the LWRC and the Ultimax have quick change barrels. I know the Ultimax does....

LWRC was developing one, but the USMC dropped it from the requirements so they stopped. The finned barrel (like the M1928 Thompson) should help.

I have carried the SAW since basic. I carried it in Iraq. I never had a problem firing from M-16 mags, but I cleaned my baby religiously. We never used bare belts except in fixed positions, so I don't really see the problem with snagging and breaking belts. I personally carried 8 200 round drums (1 in the weapon, 3 on my lbv, and 4 in a Blackhawk pack). My concern with the IAR is blowing through a mag in 5 seconds, and no barrel-change option. I also don't buy the argument that open-bolt weapons get more dirt in them. Maybe they do, but my baby never complained. I'm biased, but I love the SAW.

Reportedly,most of the USMC SAWs are shot-out/worn-out and will have to be replaced with new SAWs, if not IARS.

MPSAWGunner, you might have some pertinent info here. In the field, how often did you really have to change barrels during a firefight? Is giving up the QCB important?

quote:

Originally posted by boblyle:
Reportedly,most of the USMC SAWs are shot-out/worn-out and will have to be replaced...

This is true of most of the firearms in the military (excluding the brand new M4's and M16A4's) inventory. And also the reason why we have so many reported failures and maintenance problems....

I too never really had a problem with the SAW. I always like it.

Now there are SAWs in the Corps inventory that are worn out. But it is not as wide spread as people say. A greater majority of the infantry battalions actually are purchasing new SAWs as we speak.

A lot of this stems from much of the same stuff that spawned the bad word about the M16 series weapons. There were several batches that came out when the SAWs were first being produced, these SAWs had problems because of faulty parts, etc. But they were used for years and years before the problems were fixed.

All that being said. Do SAWs eventually wear out? Yup. But are they still a good weapon? Yes.

I carried a SAW in the Marine Reserve Infantry in the 90's. I never saw any saw gunner use it with the belt just hanging down. We used the 200 round drum. As far as using magazines, with live ammo, it seems to work as well as a M-16, with blanks, forget it. The limitation with a magazine is just the amount of ammo. You can burn through 30 rounds in no time. The drum will keep you going in a firefight to put down suppressive fire.

The original work (Gunner Eby) called for the M249s to be concentrated in one fire team/squad or one squad per platoon platoon for fire support, giving IARs to the other teams/squads. That made a lot of sense in the attack, not so much patrolling, as it puts most of the work on the "light" teams.

As I understand it now there is going to be a one-for-one swap of IAR for M249. I don't like that as well. The Brits had something similar with their L86A2 LSW, and they bought minimis after OIF.

IMHO,the IAR makes most sense,
a) To replace the M16A4 in the rifle squad
b) If the USMC wanted to switch to 6.8 SPC.
C) Both. I can dream, right?

quote:

Originally posted by boblyle:
IMHO,the IAR makes most sense,
a) To replace the M16A4 in the rifle squad
b) If the USMC wanted to switch to 6.8 SPC.
C) Both. I can dream, right?

The IAR makes sense if you use it the right way. Putting the SAW in fire team provides the firepower of a LMG that was typically reserved only for platoon size elements or larger. However, there were still some cons with the SAW (mostly weight).

No one (outside of SoF) is going to switch calibers without consensus and adoption from the other branches. It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough that all 4 services are wasting money on having their own unique battle dress uniform....

If one branch adopts a new firearm, you can pretty much bet the other 3 will follow.....

quote:

No one (outside of SoF) is going to switch calibers without consensus and adoption from the other branches. It would be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough that all 4 services are wasting money on having their own unique battle dress uniform....

Bing bing bing. Good post.

In addition to this. You will not see it U.S. Forces wide until several other countries in NATO adopt it as well.

One other thing I forgot to mention, a 30-round magazine would be useless when you are using talking guns (alternating fire with 2 or more machine guns). Could you imagine how many magazines a SAW Gunner and Assistant Gunner would have to carry to be effective, instead of just carrying a few drums? If they thought of using it to replace the M16A4, remember the spray and pray tactics of most units in Vietnam.
In defense of the IAR, though. It seems like an ideal weapon for MOUT operations, maybe with special forces units.

The ability to feed 30rd mags was built into the SAW as an emergency option if you run out of belts. Beyond that, no one really uses it that way if you have a choice.

While used in practially the same way, the SAW and IAR are actually 2 different classes of weapon. The SAW is a true LMG. The IAW more an automatic rifle like the RPK and BAR. If they were to replace some (but not all) of the SAW's that might not be a bad thing....although you will complicate the logistics chain.

Spray and pray is more a matter of training than equipment. They are developing high capacity magazines. And I don't see riflemen sticking with 30 rd magazines when reliable 50-100 rd mags become available.

I sure a shat don't want to put a weapon in my shoulder that has a five pound magazine attached to it. It takes me less than three seconds to do a dry reload with my M4. I think I will stick with the thirty round magazine.

Hey Everybody - HOT NEWS - I hear the Hollywood anti-military guys at Discovery have canned Future Weapons. After two or three of the new shows, that's gonna be it for Mack. I really loved all the cool stuff they did, what am I gonna watch on TV now!!

Does anybody know if Mack is going to a new show - I'd watch it.

This is just another cheap shot at our soldiers out there fighting for our nation. This is the only time we can feel good about what they are trying to do over there - we have the best weapons and soldiers - we should shout about it. Not hide and be ashamed.

I don't care about liberals being anti-war but dumping this show being the same as dumping on our men and women in uniform.

quote:

I hear the Hollywood anti-military guys at Discovery have canned Future Weapons.

Thats great!

Are they cancelling it altogether or moving it to the Military Channel where the reruns are? They own them both.

Now, I don't know if this is true or not, but let's not go believing everything we read on the internet without getting a "reliable" source. This "Mike Hunt" character (yeah, really creative screen name, guy) has exactly ONE post to his name and brings in news likely to shake-up everyone who would read this forum. How do we know this guy isn't just a "troll"?

quote:

Originally posted by Mikehunt:
Hey Everybody - HOT NEWS - I hear the Hollywood anti-military guys at Discovery have canned Future Weapons.

Yeah, these same "Hollywood anti-military" guys are the ones who also own and run The Military Channel.

quote:

After two or three of the new shows, that's gonna be it for Mack.

And where did you get all this "inside info" from? Are you "in" with the Hollywood anti-military types who make the decisions and apparently give you info before they release it to the public?

quote:

I really loved all the cool stuff they did, what am I gonna watch on TV now!!

How about the news? And I'm not talking about that "fair and balanced" channel. I'm talking about the real news, such as BBC or PBS. Oh, I know. They skew the news so that the current Administration looks bad.

quote:

Does anybody know if Mack is going to a new show - I'd watch it.

Wait... you don't know? So you know somehow that there will be two or three episodes of FutureWeapons aired before it's cancelled but you don't know if the ex-Navy SEAL host is going to get another hosting gig? I would think that his television job prospects are limited. Then again, that Hunter guy over at the History Channel managed to get himself two shows.

quote:

This is just another cheap shot at our soldiers out there fighting for our nation.

I'm sure that's exactly what this was. It's a jab at those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Hollywood anti-military types at Discovery Channel and The Military Channel have a hatred of! That'll show them. "No more sneak-peaks at weapons systems which lost out on military contracts for you!"

quote:

This is the only time we can feel good about what they are trying to do over there - we have the best weapons and soldiers - we should shout about it. Not hide and be ashamed.

And thank goodness true patriots like you are out there to opine about how we should feel good about our soldiers and Marines getting killed and maimed because at least they have some kick-@ss computerized hardware. Take that, Osama!

quote:

I don't care about liberals being anti-war but dumping this show being the same as dumping on our men and women in uniform.

Hillary and Obama probably had something to do with the decision to cancel FutureWeapons, I'm sure. If only we can elect Giuliani or Romney to office I'm sure we'll get quality entertainment like FutureWeapons back on the air for our fighting men and women!

Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how extremists can blame everything on "the other party". Grow up.