PDA

View Full Version : hey marines


dwa
01-26-2009, 8:52 PM
what is your guys opinion on the corps plan to move to the Infantry Automatic Rifle over the saw?

AaronHorrocks
01-27-2009, 6:57 AM
I still don't understand why anyone wants a beltfed 5.56 to start with.

6172crew
01-27-2009, 7:30 AM
I still don't understand why anyone wants a beltfed 5.56 to start with.

Keeps heads down, the SAW shot very fast and had 200 round mags. My only issue with the SAW was the gas that burned the eyes, you need to wear goggles to see what your target looks like after a short burst.

Seems to me the HK21E would be the way to go, I have family who has one and they dont seem to be as Marine proof but the fact that they can be used out to long range and in a few calibers is a great idea imo.

dwa
01-27-2009, 10:47 AM
Keeps heads down, the SAW shot very fast and had 200 round mags. My only issue with the SAW was the gas that burned the eyes, you need to wear goggles to see what your target looks like after a short burst.

Seems to me the HK21E would be the way to go, I have family who has one and they dont seem to be as Marine proof but the fact that they can be used out to long range and in a few calibers is a great idea imo.

ya i like the hk 21 also, have you followed the iar program at all it seens its down to 2 colts an hk and an fn. lwrc and the ultimax got dropped but i was rooting for them but i kinda figured it would be one of the bigs boys. id like to see what magpul could put together if you asked them to enter the contract

Sleepnosis
01-27-2009, 11:17 AM
If you've never had to lay down suppression, or rely on suppression to make movement, you may not understand the positives of any belt fed weapon.

28-30 rds of 5.56 will cut a man in half. 100 is good but 200 is even better. All without a magazine/drum change. And its capable of accepting any M16 magazine.

The SAW is a fine weapon and will definitely stay in use for a while.

AaronHorrocks
01-27-2009, 11:29 AM
If you've never had to lay down suppression, or rely on suppression to make movement, you may not understand the positives of any belt fed weapon.

I hope that's not directed at me. I own several beltfeds! :mad:
5.56 is fine for a rifleman... I just think beltfeds should stick to the long trusted thirty-caliber range. It 'F's more 'S' up!

dwa
01-27-2009, 12:41 PM
If you've never had to lay down suppression, or rely on suppression to make movement, you may not understand the positives of any belt fed weapon.

28-30 rds of 5.56 will cut a man in half. 100 is good but 200 is even better. All without a magazine/drum change. And its capable of accepting any M16 magazine.

The SAW is a fine weapon and will definitely stay in use for a while.

have you ever put a mag in a saw it makes sure you do 3 rd bursts

MrSlippyFist
01-27-2009, 12:42 PM
I hope that's not directed at me. I own several beltfeds! :mad:
5.56 is fine for a rifleman... I just think beltfeds should stick to the long trusted thirty-caliber range. It 'F's more 'S' up!

+1!

stphnman20
01-27-2009, 1:10 PM
The SAW is an awsome weapon!! Nuff said!

MajorAR
01-27-2009, 1:33 PM
Moving away from a belt fed weapon is a move in the wrong direction....yes, i'm in the corps and in the infantry.

Sleepnosis
01-27-2009, 3:56 PM
have you ever put a mag in a saw it makes sure you do 3 rd bursts

Its for the sake of noting advantages.

Belt-fed or magazine vs magazine.

28 round magazine from a IAR vs 28 rounds from a belt in a SAW. Same effect.

Yes you will have malfunctions caused by USGI's if you try to dump the magazine. It usually hiccuped on the 5th or 6th round.

p7m8jg
01-27-2009, 3:58 PM
If you've never had to lay down suppression, or rely on suppression to make movement, you may not understand the positives of any belt fed weapon.

28-30 rds of 5.56 will cut a man in half. 100 is good but 200 is even better. All without a magazine/drum change. And its capable of accepting any M16 magazine.

The SAW is a fine weapon and will definitely stay in use for a while.

My son sure swears by his........

The Soup Nazi
01-27-2009, 7:23 PM
The SAW is good to go once you have to run a 240B w/tripod back and forth from the parade deck and armory. :43:

usp45
01-28-2009, 8:01 PM
the saw is fine for post or maybe a vehicle but i'd take the iar anyday. saw can supress but if you just kill the target instead you don't need all those extra rounds. it gets heavy after carrying it for 8 hours.

11Z50
01-28-2009, 8:59 PM
One must understand the theory of maneuver combat to understand the value of suppressive fire. The basic idea is that half of your force shoots, while the other half moves. The half that is shooting needs to put out the most massive amount of firepower that they can, since being shot at is a definite degrader of marksmanship for the bad guys. This may cause them to miss me and my boys while moving forward towards them. Once we get within hand grenade range, with enough of us left, we will win.

Ergo, if my buddy can put a 200 round belt in the face of my enemy, I am much more likely to succeed in my maneuver than if all he had to shoot was a few 30 rd mags. Believe me, a SAW can put 200 rds in your face out to 400 meters with no problem.

nick
01-28-2009, 9:33 PM
And a beltfed .30 is kinda heavy, especially when you factor in all the ammo.

dwa
01-28-2009, 9:33 PM
good points all around and im not sure where i feel on this what i was thinking is what if you could make a dm/iar that could be active in both roles. personally i dont like the m249 as a weapon but i fully understand what it is and agree with the concept

nick
01-28-2009, 9:46 PM
Hey, my personal preference is an M24, but I don't think outfitting everybody with it would be a good idea. To each his own.

By which, of course, I meant that M40A3 is my weapon of choice. When in Rome...

MiniFan
01-29-2009, 12:27 PM
Moving away from a belt fed weapon is a move in the wrong direction....yes, i'm in the corps and in the infantry.

+1 for that

Although I never really cared for the saw mainly becuase of reliability. They need to replace it with a shorter version of the 240 or maybe even give them an m60.

razorscs
02-02-2009, 3:30 PM
I like the saw because you can't have a faulty or crappy magazine mess with it and cause it to jam like I have had too many experiences with in my M16. But as it has been said before, good luck getting a SAW to shoot flawlessly with a m16 mag, but then again that should only be when **** really hits the fan.

dwa
02-02-2009, 6:21 PM
I like the saw because you can't have a faulty or crappy magazine mess with it and cause it to jam like I have had too many experiences with in my M16. But as it has been said before, good luck getting a SAW to shoot flawlessly with a m16 mag, but then again that should only be when **** really hits the fan.

i don't really see an advantage to being able to fire mags through a saw. if your saw gunner is dry then most likely everyone else is black on ammo or near too it, the last thing you'd want to do is burn your remaining ammo through a high rate of fire weapon.

L.A. Brigade
02-03-2009, 10:05 AM
I'd stick with the SAW. We already have the 249E3 if people wanna get all wa-zoo and ninja about it.

Just because the douchebags at futureweapons did a show on it, doesn't mean the IAR is a better weapon.

http://www.fastclips.com/videos/FKZJfx5RumQ4

I love the "expert" analysis...:rofl2:

dwa
02-03-2009, 3:20 PM
I'd stick with the SAW. We already have the 249E3 if people wanna get all wa-zoo and ninja about it.

Just because the douchebags at futureweapons did a show on it, doesn't mean the IAR is a better weapon.

http://www.fastclips.com/videos/FKZJfx5RumQ4

I love the "expert" analysis...:rofl2:

lwrc isnt in the final four :rofl2:

Pryde
02-03-2009, 7:04 PM
The IAR idea is f**kin retarded.

The whole concept is to switch the SAWs out with the IAR at the squad/fireteam level and keep the M16s/M4s. The SAWs will still be retained in the armory and issued on demand.

What I can see happening as the most likely result of this ill planned idea is that the SAW gunners will still retain his SAWs and the rifleman will opt to drop the 16s and M4s and pick up the IAR for perceived additional firepower. What you will end up with is a whole sh*tload of rounds going downrange and not much being hit.

What needs to happen is to replace the aging SAW inventory with the FN Mk46 or Mk48 which is basically the SAW lightened and improved, but the Marine Corps in its infinite wisdom has chosen to go it alone and spend untold amounts of money on an unproven weapon system. Just like how we are still using the old M2 instead of the updated M2 that the Belgians have had for nearly 20 years which doesn't require complex headspacing and timing procedures.

dwa
02-03-2009, 10:09 PM
The IAR idea is f**kin retarded.

The whole concept is to switch the SAWs out with the IAR at the squad/fireteam level and keep the M16s/M4s. The SAWs will still be retained in the armory and issued on demand.

What I can see happening as the most likely result of this ill planned idea is that the SAW gunners will still retain his SAWs and the rifleman will opt to drop the 16s and M4s and pick up the IAR for perceived additional firepower. What you will end up with is a whole sh*tload of rounds going downrange and not much being hit.

What needs to happen is to replace the aging SAW inventory with the FN Mk46 or Mk48 which is basically the SAW lightened and improved, but the Marine Corps in its infinite wisdom has chosen to go it alone and spend untold amounts of money on an unproven weapon system. Just like how we are still using the old M2 instead of the updated M2 that the Belgians have had for nearly 20 years which doesn't require complex headspacing and timing procedures.

lol i was wondering. i read the requirement and it sounded promising but the final four candidates are rifles

zeus45c
02-03-2009, 11:46 PM
Is having a round cook off in the chamber a normal occurrence and something that needs to be worried about in an automatic weapon? Mack mentioned that as one of the pro's in the video.

Sleepnosis
02-04-2009, 12:37 PM
Zeus that is a great point. Cook off's in belt feds can be common, DO happen and are more dangerous.

My buddy lost the tip of his finger in training that way. Lifted the feed tray during a cook off. Tough lesson to learn.

dwa
02-04-2009, 3:06 PM
Zeus that is a great point. Cook off's in belt feds can be common, DO happen and are more dangerous.

My buddy lost the tip of his finger in training that way. Lifted the feed tray during a cook off. Tough lesson to learn.

i believe they happen at a greater rate and are more severe in a closed bolt

razorscs
02-05-2009, 8:38 PM
i don't really see an advantage to being able to fire mags through a saw. if your saw gunner is dry then most likely everyone else is black on ammo or near too it, the last thing you'd want to do is burn your remaining ammo through a high rate of fire weapon.

I didn't say there was an advantage to being able to do so. I said that the reason I like the saw is because it doesn't take mags that can cause jams due to faulty ones. A belt is very unlikely to have a flaw that will cause a jam.

dwa
02-06-2009, 7:12 PM
I didn't say there was an advantage to being able to do so. I said that the reason I like the saw is because it doesn't take mags that can cause jams due to faulty ones. A belt is very unlikely to have a flaw that will cause a jam.

i know i was talking about the theory of keeping you base of fire weapon rocking at all costs ie the ability to fire mags through the 249

gunsmithcats
02-08-2009, 10:25 AM
The IAR idea is f**kin retarded.

The whole concept is to switch the SAWs out with the IAR at the squad/fireteam level and keep the M16s/M4s. The SAWs will still be retained in the armory and issued on demand.

What I can see happening as the most likely result of this ill planned idea is that the SAW gunners will still retain his SAWs and the rifleman will opt to drop the 16s and M4s and pick up the IAR for perceived additional firepower. What you will end up with is a whole sh*tload of rounds going downrange and not much being hit.

What needs to happen is to replace the aging SAW inventory with the FN Mk46 or Mk48 which is basically the SAW lightened and improved, but the Marine Corps in its infinite wisdom has chosen to go it alone and spend untold amounts of money on an unproven weapon system. Just like how we are still using the old M2 instead of the updated M2 that the Belgians have had for nearly 20 years which doesn't require complex headspacing and timing procedures.

Jesus,
Thank you Pryde.

There are better versions of the 5.56 beltfed platform. Theres no need for a freaking IAR. Once again it's *******s sitting in front of the desk all day thinking of stupid ways to improve the Marine Corps.

Anyone whose never humped a beltfed for days in the hot hadji sun needs to really stfu. Yea, it'd be great if we had beltfed bigger caliber everything, but lets be realistic here. We already carry enough crap as it is with the overweight flaks. 7.62 is HEAVY, 240g's are HEAVY. I am by no means a grunt but have had to carry the SAW a few times. I was lucky and only had to carry 400 rounds. I have pity for the bubbas that carry much more.

In an ideal world, we'd all have pulse rifles with 100 round magazines of 10mm caseless explosive tipped ammunition.

nick
02-08-2009, 11:25 AM
Don't you guys spread the load among the entire squad??

dwa
02-08-2009, 3:57 PM
Don't you guys spread the load among the entire squad??

on saws we didnt 240s we did i like the stoner lmg http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

RRangel
02-08-2009, 8:17 PM
have you ever put a mag in a saw it makes sure you do 3 rd bursts

Peanut butter jam, peanut butter jam...

dwa
02-09-2009, 3:02 PM
Peanut butter jam, peanut butter jam...

haha yep

striker3
02-11-2009, 8:28 PM
We tried magazine fed squad automatic weapons in both WW2 and Korea. We went to belt-fed for a reason. Some idiot with shiny stuff on his collar is glory hunting. That is all there is to this idea.

BeirutMarine83
05-14-2009, 1:15 PM
5.56 is OK considering "we settled" for this round back at the end of Vietnam...and it's all our current troops "know" - 7.62 would be a much better round. Same with losing the .45 ACP round to the much lighter-in-the-*** 9mm round. Just an opinion...

UncleSamsMisguidedChild
05-15-2009, 9:03 AM
You can argue back and forth till your blue in the face, simple fact of the matter is the MC has used beltfed weapons for as long as they have been around. And unless they make a drastic change in the SOP for infantry assaults(I HIGHLY doubt that). Then the Corps will always have a need and use of a beltfed weapon, be it the 249,240,M2,or MK19, it would be nice to update the SAW with a MK46 or 48. Now with that said, since the MC is the smallest branch they probably wont see anything to replace the saw until 2015 if they actually decide to do so, and even then I doubt it wont be anything but a beltfed weapon replacing a beltfed weapon!!

Manong0369
05-15-2009, 11:29 AM
You can argue back and forth till your blue in the face, simple fact of the matter is the MC has used beltfed weapons for as long as they have been around. And unless they make a drastic change in the SOP for infantry assaults(I HIGHLY doubt that). Then the Corps will always have a need and use of a beltfed weapon, be it the 249,240,M2,or MK19, it would be nice to update the SAW with a MK46 or 48. Now with that said, since the MC is the smallest branch they probably wont see anything to replace the saw until 2015 if they actually decide to do so, and even then I doubt it wont be anything but a beltfed weapon replacing a beltfed weapon!!

The tactics used for an assault does not really have to be drastically changed. The principle is that the automatic rifleman (usually the assistant team leader) is to be armed with a magazine fed automatic rifle to make accurate fire and more mobility. As the assisatant team leader, he will have to take over if/when the TL goes down. This would be more difficult if he is handling the SAW. Lugging around the SAW doing individual rushes is an arse kicker making it harder to get accurate fire on target. Suppresive fire will be provided by the support element, usually Weapons Platoon's machine gunners, so having a SAW with the assualt element is really not necessary. The belt fed weapon will be around for a long time to come. Here are some links that talk about the SAW and the IAR.


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=441034&page=1

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

scr83jp
05-15-2009, 7:46 PM
I still don't understand why anyone wants a beltfed 5.56 to start with. Has anyone been using www.rwhart.com tactical rifles? A friend of ours told us the rifles are really accurate.

UncleSamsMisguidedChild
05-19-2009, 2:06 AM
The tactics used for an assault does not really have to be drastically changed. The principle is that the automatic rifleman (usually the assistant team leader) is to be armed with a magazine fed automatic rifle to make accurate fire and more mobility. As the assisatant team leader, he will have to take over if/when the TL goes down. This would be more difficult if he is handling the SAW. Lugging around the SAW doing individual rushes is an arse kicker making it harder to get accurate fire on target. Suppresive fire will be provided by the support element, usually Weapons Platoon's machine gunners, so having a SAW with the assualt element is really not necessary. The belt fed weapon will be around for a long time to come.

I wouldnt expect the ATL to lug around the SAW if his TL went down. Its like that infamous quote "chit rolls downhill" and so would that SAW if the TL went down and the ATL took over his roll. The next guy in line would become the new ATL and eventually one guy would be lugging around 2 M16's. I understand that the situation in Iraq is not ideal for Fire Teams to lug around a SAW through all those close quarters, but I wouldnt want to rely on just 30 round mags if things get hairy and you need to put lots of rounds down range to get into cover or perform a tactical retreat. I agree that you may not need the SAW for all missions and could use weapons platoon for suppressive fire if needed. But not all battlefields are the same and this is why the Corps will not get rid of the beltfed weapons from its aresenal or infantry squads

Manong0369
05-19-2009, 7:00 PM
I wouldnt expect the ATL to lug around the SAW if his TL went down. Its like that infamous quote "chit rolls downhill" and so would that SAW if the TL went down and the ATL took over his roll. The next guy in line would become the new ATL and eventually one guy would be lugging around 2 M16's. I understand that the situation in Iraq is not ideal for Fire Teams to lug around a SAW through all those close quarters, but I wouldnt want to rely on just 30 round mags if things get hairy and you need to put lots of rounds down range to get into cover or perform a tactical retreat. I agree that you may not need the SAW for all missions and could use weapons platoon for suppressive fire if needed. But not all battlefields are the same and this is why the Corps will not get rid of the beltfed weapons from its aresenal or infantry squads

From my experience as an infantryman, we had the Team Leader armed with an M16A2/M203, the Assistant Team Leader with the automatic weapon, the assistant automatic rifleman and rifleman using M16A4's. This was done when I was a LCpl (SAW gunner), a CPL (team leader), a Sgt (squad leader) and SSgt (platoon Sgt). This is how I was brought up in the infantry community. There are probably Marines that were not taught to do this. I know that the battlefield is dynamic, so we have to be able to adapt to any situation. I believe that the Corps doesn't plan on taking the M249 completely out of the infantry squad. How they're going to do this, I couldn't tell ya. In fact, in the recent Marine Corps Times, they are looking for optics for the SAW. I agree with you in that belt fed weapons will be in the Marine Corps for a very long time, but the Corps is trying to make this change. Marines, young and old, will adapt and overcome as they have done for so long. Semper!

mcclungmh
05-19-2009, 7:24 PM
I agree from my time in the Marines I beleive a belt fed weapon is the way to go. I remember before we got the SAW in the mid 80s the automatice rifleman in the fire teams had nothing more than a M16A1 with extra mags and a sloppy bi-pod. Keeping the enemies heads down when establishing a base of was severly lacking until the M249 was introduces. There were less malfunctions with the belt fed weapon vise the magazine ones. I will admit using the saw with mags leaves a little to be desired.

UncleSamsMisguidedChild
05-21-2009, 1:15 AM
From my experience as an infantryman, we had the Team Leader armed with an M16A2/M203, the Assistant Team Leader with the automatic weapon, the assistant automatic rifleman and rifleman using M16A4's. This was done when I was a LCpl (SAW gunner), a CPL (team leader), a Sgt (squad leader) and SSgt (platoon Sgt). This is how I was brought up in the infantry community. There are probably Marines that were not taught to do this. I know that the battlefield is dynamic, so we have to be able to adapt to any situation. I believe that the Corps doesn't plan on taking the M249 completely out of the infantry squad. How they're going to do this, I couldn't tell ya. In fact, in the recent Marine Corps Times, they are looking for optics for the SAW. I agree with you in that belt fed weapons will be in the Marine Corps for a very long time, but the Corps is trying to make this change. Marines, young and old, will adapt and overcome as they have done for so long. Semper!

Thats how I was instructed in MCT how you described the infantry squad would operate. I would observe the tactics used of the infantry guys we worked with while training on Pendleton and deployments, and it was very similar but they would change things up a little depending on the mission or scenario they were doing. I'm very interested in how the Corps will implement this new weapon into a squad and see if it lasts or the guys want to lug that SAW around again. I'd put my money on the SAW!! It might be great at first with the reduced weight, but the first few firefights without the SAW and yelling over the COMM to get suppressive fire would probably put an end to that real quick(In my opinion). But then again, like you said the Corps has adapted and overcome for many many years and this could be the case with the new IAR. Semper Fi