Replacing the SAW

[Maddog5150]

weren't there reliability issues the Beta Mags, especially full atuo...maybe i don't have all the info

They worked flawlessley in the second blade movie

[sb_pete]

Wow, lot of missing info here.
The Marines are looking to retire 2,000 out of 10,000 SAW's and replace them with 4000 IAR weapons. There will still be plenty of SAWs, and plenty of fireteams will still have M249s. I am guessing this will probably end up playing out more like two IAR fireteams in a squad and one M249 or Mk48 fireteam instead of three M249 fireteams. We'll see, and that is a total uneducated wild-a** f'n guess, but the Marines have never been talking about replacing all SAWs with the new IAR or replacing all fireteams' SAW's with IAR's

There were many other contenders for the IAR, these are the four finalists as of now. Also in the running was:
- a new variant of the GE/Chartered Industries of Singapore Ultimax
- The very cool LWRC IAR
- The Patriot Ordinance entry (more pics here)
- I think some others as well

Here is a wikipedia entry on the IAR program. The basic idea was/is to have a rifle which can perform the light machine gun role to some degree, while allowing the operator to function at the front of the stack when clearing a room. IIRC, the Marine requirements were:
1. Able to fire from a closed bolt
2. Magazine fed with a reliable 100rd magazine option
3. Quick changeable barrel
4. less than ~10lbs unloaded (IIRC, not sure here, and yes I know most of them came in over that number *shrug*)

All of the designs are either closed bolt, or Open/closed bolt. The FN design actually fires from a closed bolt until it gets hot at which point it mechanically switches to open bolt. I think the design was something about a piece of metal expanding under heat causing it to be open bolt when hot and closed bolt when cool. The LWRC design fired closed bolt in semi, open bolt in what it called OBA (Open Bolt Automatic). What this meant was that you could close the bolt and the gun would fire from a closed bolt, but all subsequent rounds would be OB and when you let off the trigger, the bolt would remain open. You could then manually close the bolt and do it all again if you wanted to. The upper would fit on std M16/AR15 lowers. The bbl also had cool looking radial fluting like an old-school Thompson.

The Beta C mags do have reliability issues. There are many new drum mags being played around with though. We'll see if any of them work out. Even if they do, they will take up ALOT more space and a little more weight than a 100rd pack of linked 5.56.

TheFirearmBlog has been covering the story pretty well:
Colt IAR story #1, #2, #3;
Ultimax entry;
The FN entry

Hope that clears it up some,
-Pete

[Manong0369]

The M249 SAW will not disappear from the Marine Corps inventory for some time. The SAW will still be used for other support units. However, the plan would be having the infantry squad's automatic rifleman( Assitant Fire Team Leader) use the IARs instead of the SAW. This is not to say that the SAW will not be used for suppressive fire. In fact, for suppression during an attack on an objective will fall to M240Gs and a few M249 SAWs. I'm not sure, but I think the MK48 is a bigger version of the SAW but in a 7.62 NATO variant. +1 on the added info.

[Wombat25]

Wow, lot of missing info here.
The Marines are looking to retire 2,000 out of 10,000 SAW's and replace them with 4000 IAR weapons. There will still be plenty of SAWs, and plenty of fireteams will still have M249s. I am guessing this will probably end up playing out more like two IAR fireteams in a squad and one M249 or Mk48 fireteam instead of three M249 fireteams. We'll see, and that is a total uneducated wild-a** f'n guess, but the Marines have never been talking about replacing all SAWs with the new IAR or replacing all fireteams' SAW's with IAR's

There were many other contenders for the IAR, these are the four finalists as of now. Also in the running was:
- a new variant of the GE/Chartered Industries of Singapore Ultimax
- The very cool LWRC IAR
- The Patriot Ordinance entry (more pics here)
- I think some others as well

Here is a wikipedia entry on the IAR program. The basic idea was/is to have a rifle which can perform the light machine gun role to some degree, while allowing the operator to function at the front of the stack when clearing a room. IIRC, the Marine requirements were:
1. Able to fire from a closed bolt
2. Magazine fed with a reliable 100rd magazine option
3. Quick changeable barrel
4. less than ~10lbs unloaded (IIRC, not sure here, and yes I know most of them came in over that number *shrug*)

All of the designs are either closed bolt, or Open/closed bolt. The FN design actually fires from a closed bolt until it gets hot at which point it mechanically switches to open bolt. I think the design was something about a piece of metal expanding under heat causing it to be open bolt when hot and closed bolt when cool. The LWRC design fired closed bolt in semi, open bolt in what it called OBA (Open Bolt Automatic). What this meant was that you could close the bolt and the gun would fire from a closed bolt, but all subsequent rounds would be OB and when you let off the trigger, the bolt would remain open. You could then manually close the bolt and do it all again if you wanted to. The upper would fit on std M16/AR15 lowers. The bbl also had cool looking radial fluting like an old-school Thompson.

The Beta C mags do have reliability issues. There are many new drum mags being played around with though. We'll see if any of them work out. Even if they do, they will take up ALOT more space and a little more weight than a 100rd pack of linked 5.56.

TheFirearmBlog has been covering the story pretty well:
Colt IAR story #1, #2, #3;
Ultimax entry;
The FN entry

Hope that clears it up some,
-Pete

Not much more to say. This is a fantastic post. Good work and kudos to you, Pete.

[dwa]

theyre playing with the idea of mobility over firepower. its an interesting experiment but im more in the firepower camp in this one. im not really a fan of the 249 but it should be replaced by a belt fed if replaced. the para 249 is only a different buttstock and a short barrel, the army has been using them for years i would assume the marines have as well. the weight savings and mobility gained will need to outweigh the loss of firepower transitioning from a belt fed true light machine to a select fire rifle for this to a success. i preferred the ultimax as it is proven and from all accounts ive heard well liked. my money for the next big thing is a spinout of this http://www.defensereview.com/aai-lig...splay-at-ausa/

[Tillers_Rule]

My opinion none of those are a suitable replacement for the SAW. I know everyone likes to have toys and the military is no exception, but is it really necessary right now?

[Requiem]

My opinion none of those are a suitable replacement for the SAW. I know everyone likes to have toys and the military is no exception, but is it really necessary right now?

not with the DOD's recent budget cuts...

[Flogger23m]

theyre playing with the idea of mobility over firepower.

This is true, but I still think a M249 para would be a better option. Does anyone know how much it weighs?

[Requiem]

This is true, but I still think a M249 para would be a better option. Does anyone know how much it weighs?

I've heard there isn't that much of a difference in weight actually. Maybe a few ounces or a pound or so.

[Manong0369]

The new belief is that the squad needs to able to place well fired shots at the enemy instead of just "spray and pray" fire. Even the automatic rifle can shot more accurately with the IAR. Training, going back to Field Weapons Training Battalion in boot camp, we were taught that rushes should not take longer than 3 to 5 seconds or "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down." Doing this with a saw and getting effective hits well be difficult. While a direct attack, there are three sections that is provided. One to block the position, support the attack and the attack section itself. Before, we would take one or two SAWs out of the assault section to bolster the support section, making it harder to have a full element for the attack.

[dwa]

This is true, but I still think a M249 para would be a better option. Does anyone know how much it weighs?

not much less

I've heard there isn't that much of a difference in weight actually. Maybe a few ounces or a pound or so.

you are correct the difference is negilible. the gain is ergonomic
the collapsible butt stock probably weighs more it just folds and the new thing as of 2006/2007 was an m4 type butt stock but metal. then there's the short barrel. the term para saw is kinda comical because you can convert between one and the other in seconds. its simply a short quick change barrel and a butt stock.

[dwa]

The new belief is that the squad needs to able to place well fired shots at the enemy instead of just "spray and pray" fire. Even the automatic rifle can shot more accurately with the IAR. Training, going back to Field Weapons Training Battalion in boot camp, we were taught that rushes should not take longer than 3 to 5 seconds or "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down." Doing this with a saw and getting effective hits well be difficult. While a direct attack, there are three sections that is provided. One to block the position, support the attack and the attack section itself. Before, we would take one or two SAWs out of the assault section to bolster the support section, making it harder to have a full element for the attack.

i think the iar will be really popular in movements and light contact and will face its real test when a squad armed with them needs to gain fire superiority.
there's a difference in spray and pray and fire superiority volume of fire and suppressive fire. the brits tried something like this with this http://www.militaryfactory.com/small...allarms_id=207 a stoner lmg is beltfed and also weights about as much as the other entries do http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

[Tillers_Rule]

Looking at those new rifles, if they're going to *downsize* to what is essentially an M16 with a 30 round magazine, why not just issue the M16's to everyone. What's the benefit of having these new, slightly different in the cosmetic and ergonomics department rifles? Is automatic fire the only real difference, and if so, why couldn't a new selector switch be installed in the existing M16, make it an A5 or something?

[Manong0369]

i think the iar will be really popular in movements and light contact and will face its real test when a squad armed with them needs to gain fire superiority.
there's a difference in spray and pray and fire superiority volume of fire and suppressive fire. the brits tried something like this with this http://www.militaryfactory.com/small...allarms_id=207 a stoner lmg is beltfed and also weights about as much as the other entries do http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

Good point on the British military using the Enfield L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon). I think that is the way that the Marine Corps is headed. I am a big fan of the feld fed weapon. I carried the M60 in the CA National Guard as an 11B and the SAW as a Marine rifleman and loved the amount of fire that it can bring to the fight. As a unit leader, "talking guns" were a reasuring sound during a direct/deliberate assault. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "spray and pray." It was just a phrased that I used for having fire that is not very accurate. IIRC the SAW is more an area weapon than a point weapon. That said, the need for accurate fire from the Marines that are firing while the rest are rushing should be more precise. I understand that contact during a patrol is totally different in having a "support section." The unit in contact relies on fire and movement learned through Immediate Action drills. The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

[dwa]

Good point on the British military using the Enfield L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon). I think that is the way that the Marine Corps is headed. I am a big fan of the feld fed weapon. I carried the M60 in the CA National Guard as an 11B and the SAW as a Marine rifleman and loved the amount of fire that it can bring to the fight. As a unit leader, "talking guns" were a reasuring sound during a direct/deliberate assault. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "spray and pray." It was just a phrased that I used for having fire that is not very accurate. IIRC the SAW is more an area weapon than a point weapon. That said, the need for accurate fire from the Marines that are firing while the rest are rushing should be more precise. I understand that contact during a patrol is totally different in having a "support section." The unit in contact relies on fire and movement learned through Immediate Action drills. The Stoner LMG looks sweet. IMHO, this would have been a better choice for the automatic role than the M249.

the 249 is both a point an area effect weapon. im doubting the ability of a mag fed rifle creating much of a beaten zone. a mag fed base of fire for the fire team is somewhat of a step backward there was the bar and hbar m14 previously and the 249 was the improvement the brits also dumped the lsw for the minimi (saw) in the base of fire role. my squad in iraq went only m4s but we were doing mostly entries and it worked fine. with the loss in firepower it will make it difficult for fireteams to bound and be mutually supportive. im curious to see how the iar pans out but it goes against everything ive been taught.