They listed an advantage of the IAR over the M249 SAW being that it could accept a magazine from one of your teammates with an M4 should you run out yourself. Do they not know that the SAW can accept a standard M4 magazine as well? Belt fed with the option of being magazine fed seems to be an advantage over simply magazine fed to me. Guess they need something to make the IAR look like more than a Vietnam era M16A1 with a glorified open-bolt design. IAR doesn't fool me. I'll take the SAW please and thanks.
The IAR (and weapon concepts similar to it) have some distinct advantages over the M249. The first is weight. The SAW is a heavy sumagun. The second is that since the IAR looks like a regular rifle, the gunner does not stick out (same reason why DSM's use a weapon that looks like a standard rifle). Third, while the M249 definately can use regular magazines, it is not as reliable in that mode and the mags tend to get damaged, rendering them unusable for later. So mag feeding a SAW tends to be the last resort. Fourth, essentially being a modified AR, the majority of the spare parts and accessories are already in the inventory, reducing logistical issues.
However, where the SAW is better is at sustained fire. SAWs have quick change barrels, while the IAR does not. Also the belt fed option allows SAWs to essentially fire indefinately, while the max load a IAR can practically carry is 100rds.
So the question of which is better really boils down to what you need the gun for. If you are going to be sitting at a fixed position or on a vehicle, a M249 is a better choice. For huffing it on foot, I'd take the IAR.
And open bolt is more than a gimmick. You can do a true LMG sustained fire with magazines, the BREN and the Japanese Type 96 proved that, even if changing mags is a PITA. You eventually need a QC barrel, but overheating and cook-offs from a closed breach will stop you sooner.
I am pretty much guessing here, but I figure a sustained rate of fire for a closed bolt AR is about 20 rpm. Open bolt maybe 40, add a quick-change barrel and you get 100. So open bolt is significant, even if it is not the whole answer.
I am pretty much guessing here, but I figure a sustained rate of fire for a closed bolt AR is about 20 rpm. Open bolt maybe 40, add a quick-change barrel and you get 100. So open bolt is significant, even if it is not the whole answer.
Sustained rate for the 16 is 12 to 15 rpm. Rapid is 85 cyclic is around 800 IIRC.
Sustained rate for the SAW is 85. Rapid is 200 Cyclic is 650 to 1050 depending on what type of barrel you are using. The old barrels had a gas regulator that allowed you to increase or decrease the rate of fire. The new ones have one gas setting. with a cyclic of 950. The real new barrels are 1050.
The SAW has had some problems. But it is a good durn weapon.
To start off I spent 1 yr. carring the 249 in Iraq. Watching this debate mad me disgusted. In my weapons bag I had 2 buttstocks and 2 barrels. The original barrel and buttstock and a shorter barrel and buttstock. In the show you are comparring the IAR with the lenght and weight of the 249. The weight was still there but the length was a lot shorter. with the shorter barrel and buttstock it was a lot more manuverable inside buildings and wile dismounted. Also, if it was mounted on a bradly or out the air guard hatch of a stryker you could put the longer barrel on and have a longer effective range then the IRA. One point for the SAW. In the show you were showing that the M249 SAW is belt feld, and the IRA is magazine feed. The basic load of a riffleman carring a M4 is 210. ONE DRUM ON THE SAW HAS 200 ROUNDS! not a free hanging 100 round belt that would get snaged. Me being a saw gunner brought 800 rounds to the fight. The main idea of the saw is to lay supresive fire and gain fire supiriorty in a fire fight. How is that ganna be possible when you have to change out a "mag" every 30 rounds? Just like everyone else has said in the message boards you can also "use your buddy's mag" on the saw just like the IRA. Now if you have ever tried to fire a mag in a SAW you know that it dosen't really work. why? Because the SAW fires to fast and the spring in the MAG can't keep up. It jams! in my opinion, these two wepons are not in the same catagory. Most battalions classify the M249 SAW as a crewserve weapon. The IRA is just a modified M16A1.
i just got to say, the LWRC IAR is nothing more than just a standard m4 that a gas piston instead or just gas operated. its kinda miss leading when he shoots the standard M4 then poor water on the barrel the shoots the IAR and touches the bolt carrier. of course its going to be not hot, ITS A GAS PISTON. put some water on barrel it will sizzle too. also gas piston ARs are known to be alittle less accurate than the standard gas systems. he also says that the SAW fires a light bullet, the IAR fires the same round. he is so miss leading on the show. as far a support gunner give me a SAW over a IAR any day of the week or even better the FN MK46. at the very least use some Beta C mags in the IAR so it can have some sustained volume of fire.
The LWRS IAR has a finned barrel to dissipate heat, as well, but it is not as dramatic. Gas impingement does heat the bolt/bolt carrier enough to cause lubrication to breakdown, carbon accumulation, and can contribute to chamber cook-off. Also not visually dramatic for TV.
LWRS tappet system is as accurate as gas impingement (<2 moa) and more reliable. In semi-auto closed-bolt it can serve as a designated marksman rifle.
Open-bolt full auto (not 3rd burst) gives significantly more capability than a M4.
C-mag? Wash your mouth out with soap. SPECOPs used them early in the Sandbox and found them fatally unreliable (early promotional pictures for the IAR showed C-mags, and LWRS started apologizing immediately). The USMC wants a STANAG high capacity magazine and is developing at least three in the 50-100 rd range and will adopt the version that works best.
