Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calgunners in Service (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=154)
-   -   hey marines (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=148776)

dwa 01-26-2009 9:52 PM

hey marines
 
what is your guys opinion on the corps plan to move to the Infantry Automatic Rifle over the saw?

AaronHorrocks 01-27-2009 7:57 AM

I still don't understand why anyone wants a beltfed 5.56 to start with.

6172crew 01-27-2009 8:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks (Post 1954165)
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 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6172crew (Post 1954248)
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 12:17 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.

AaronHorrocks 01-27-2009 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepnosis (Post 1955036)
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 1:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepnosis (Post 1955036)
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 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks (Post 1955076)
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 2:10 PM

The SAW is an awsome weapon!! Nuff said!

MajorAR 01-27-2009 2:33 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 4:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwa (Post 1955335)
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 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepnosis (Post 1955036)
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 8:23 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 9:01 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 9:59 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 10:33 PM

And a beltfed .30 is kinda heavy, especially when you factor in all the ammo.

dwa 01-28-2009 10:33 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 10:46 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 1:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajorAR (Post 1955575)
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 4:30 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 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorscs (Post 1981975)
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 11:05 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 4:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. Brigade (Post 1985008)
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 8:04 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 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pryde (Post 1987390)
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 02-04-2009 12:46 AM

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 1:37 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 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleepnosis (Post 1990244)
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 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwa (Post 1982659)
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 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razorscs (Post 1998010)
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 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pryde (Post 1987390)
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 12:25 PM

Don't you guys spread the load among the entire squad??

dwa 02-08-2009 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick (Post 2008213)
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 9:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwa (Post 1955335)
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 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forumguy (Post 2010469)
Peanut butter jam, peanut butter jam...

haha yep

striker3 02-11-2009 9:28 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 2:15 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 10:03 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 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UncleSamsMisguidedChild (Post 2483114)
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.htm...=441034&page=1

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ewsaw_020109w/

scr83jp 05-15-2009 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronHorrocks (Post 1954165)
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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.