New IAR vs. SAW M249

[9mm+]

I have been reading with great interest the competition between FN, HK, and Colt for the USMC's Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR), namely because I hope that Colt wins it. The IAR is due to replace the M249 SAW, but the SAW is not completely going away (the unit commanders will still have a reserve of them and will deploy them when larger sustained fire is needed).

The need for the IAR is controversial. Some argue that a 13-man squad with the IAR will be more mobile and effective while others feel that the SAW is indispensible. The reason the Army is not signing up for the IAR is that they really DO need the SAW since they have 9-man squads and not 13 like the Marines.

I think the Colt design for the IAR is great and I hope they win the contract. All of the bidders are in IDIQ status for testing and evaluation.

The Colt IAR is shown below:

 

[HorseSoldier]

I don't think they'll ultimately get an effective base of fire weapon for their trouble. Beta C-mags aren't all they're cracked up to be, and the British tried the 30-round magazine driven automatic rifle and found it so effective . . . they replaced them with SAWs. We'll see how the USMC attempt goes.

 

[Deanimator]

I believe that the Ultimax from Singapore is also a candidate.

I'd stick with the M249 or the Spanish Ameli.

 

[essayons21]

I'm not a fan of the M249, I've found them to be fragile and unreliable.

I think the USMC and the rest of the military would be better served by putting this funding into finding a replacement for the SAW that is more reliable and based off a modular platform. That way, it could be set up as a IAR for long walks and entering buildings, or a LMG when vehicle mounted or the need for sustained firepower is expected.

 

[LeonCarr]

Still don't see how a magzine fed weapon is better than a belt fed weapon for that appilication. Didn't the M14/M14E2 try to do the same thing and fail?

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[9mm+]

I see the wisdom in the IAR but also believe that a replacement for the SAW is necessary, too. The Marines made it clear that they're not getting rid of the SAW but are largely augmenting with the IAR for lighter mobility. For several missions, an IAR would be preferable for more sustained firepower than a rifle can provide but where a SAW may be an encumbrance. Ultimately, I see the Marines fielding both the IAR and the SAW (M249 replacement).

 

[bennyboy311]

SAW all the way

The SAW and the FN IAR are different beasts and I would not trade a SAW for 3 IARs. I was an infantry man for 8 years and I machine gunner (M240B and M2) for 5 of those and the most basic thing that the IAR can not do that the SAW can is put rounds down range. The sustained rate of fire for the IAR is 12-15 round per minute the SAW is 100 rounds per minute. Basic ammo capacity is won by the SAW as well. You are looking at 30 round mags vs a 200 round drum for the SAW. The SAW also works with the 30 round mag, albeit not a well as we would all like. Can you even do a barrel change on the IAR under fire?

I do not believe we will be making a move from a belt fed to a mag fed system any time soon. A IAR gunner would have to care 30 plus mags to keep up with what our gunner were carring over seas. And those that complain about not having a reliable system need to do a better job cleaning or take it the armorer that what they are there for.

my two cents.

 

[Jeremy2171]

M249 all the way....not fragile or unreliable....unless its not been maintained. Course every weapon fits that criteria as well.

I've got plenty of time on the M249 and there is no reason to replace it...however this IAR concept does give the arms industry a chance to put the design teams to work again and "maybe" think outside the box for once....

 

[9mm+]

I think the IAR has its place. Again, the Marines see it as supplemental to, and not a direct replacement for, the SAW. Every Marine Battalion will have access to M249's once the IAR is in full production. The Marines want to have the option of more firepower than a rifle but less than a SAW for certain operations. When you need to direct sustained firepower, only a SAW will do. A squad with 3-4 IAR's, possibly a SAW, and the rest with M14/16's would make for a flexible assault mix.

 

[essayons21]

And those that complain about not having a reliable system need to do a better job cleaning or take it the armorer that what they are there for.

Tough to clean a weapon while its riding on top of a vehicle for 48 hours in a dust storm. No armorers out on patrol either.

M249 all the way....not fragile or unreliable....unless its not been maintained.

I've seen multiple instances of:

Safeties falling out

Rear sights falling off

Hand guards and the new collapsible rear stock get destroyed.

Also, cleaned and lightly lubed SAWs have a tendency to double feed after about 200 rounds in a dusty environment.

I realize that those who carry a weapon without problems throughout a tour of duty get a certain affection for that weapon.

However, in a company sized element with M4s, M16s, M240s, M2s, and Mk19s that all were exposed to the same conditions and round counts, the failure rate of m249s is way above the rest.

ETA: Also, a design feature of the SAW is its ability to accept M16 magazines. Anyone with experience with the weapons knows that this is a joke. Not very funny if you were to ever run out of linked ammo tho.

A non-functional feature of the weapon is unacceptable IMHO.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree with horsesoldier.

It's interesting enough, to think about, and that gun-whisperer tool on Futureweapons test fired it, but there's nothing new here. It's a heavy-is barreled AR with full-auto. This has been done before, with a belt-fed option. If the whole idea is to make it harder to ID because it looks like a regular rifle, I think the beta mag hanging out of it will be a dead giveaway.

I spent some range time with a marine rifle company this summer, and they really like the two-man SAW crew and use it well. I MIGHT see them using a bit of both, but no, I don't see them dropping the SAW for this one.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Without getting my hands on your SAWs I can't tell you what the problem was. But safeties just don't "fall out" or rear sights "fall off" without serious lack of any PM at both echelons of maintenance.

Handguards and stocks destroyed....ok ?? M16 buttstocks and handguards get destroyed all the time, put a new one on no big deal.

How does a belt fed weapon double feed? There is only enough room in the feed tray for a single round to chamber....it sounds like you area describing a case that failed to extract with the next live round jamming in behind it. This is a very common problem that is easily fixed by an armorer by replacing the whole extractor assembly. It's also a good idea to replace the ejector as they are often overlooked as well.

RE: the mag feed..I've never had any issues with shooting the SAW with mags, this includes blanks or ball.

I'd be happy to look at your SAWs to see whats wrong if you are anywhere near me.

 

[mljdeckard]

My experience, and what I've been told by those who have shot it a LOT more than me, NEW SAWs feed from M-16 mags well. When they're a little worn out it doesn't work as well.

 

[essayons21]

This is a very common problem that is easily fixed by an armorer by replacing the whole extractor assembly

That's my point. If a weapon needs repeated attention of an armorer it is unreliable and fragile in my book. Even with most units being based on massive FOBs, the units that tend to use their weapons the most often go months without access to an armorer. It is a royal PITA to get a new weapon shipped out to a combat outpost.

 

[Edmond]

Also, a design feature of the SAW is its ability to accept M16 magazines. Anyone with experience with the weapons knows that this is a joke. Not very funny if you were to ever run out of linked ammo tho.

Trying to use mags in the SAW is a joke. You might get a shot or two off before it will fail to feed.

Personally, I like the SAW but that's probably because I can't stand carrying the M240B. I can carry the SAW quite easily.

I just don't see a magazine fed weapon achieving effective cyclic fire. You run through the 30 rounds and then change the magazine, which means that you have a weapon down. With the SAW, you have a 200 round drum magazine and probably an AG to prep the next drum for reload.

 

[Jeremy2171]

That's my point. If a weapon needs repeated attention of an armorer it is unreliable and fragile in my book. Even with most units being based on massive FOBs, the units that tend to use their weapons the most often go months without access to an armorer. It is a royal PITA to get a new weapon shipped out to a combat outpost.

Right but my point was that the armorers often overlooked this one part which is the main point of concern. It's simple to check...if you can wiggle the extractor with light finger pressure then replace the whole thing. "Most" armorers are completely "reactive" in nature and don't take the time to go out and do scheduled checks on the weapons. "IF" you put a new extractor on a SAW today it should last 10,000 rounds or more without even starting to be a concern. The armorers today are like if it ain't broke then it's fine....they are to put it bluntly..."lazy".

The weapon isn't at fault...it's the maintainers are the blame. Don't forget the greatest rifle ever designed has been known to shed extractors, freeze up in the rain when lubed with the wrong grease or even drop the trigger housing when the stock is worn. Just because the SAWs are having problems doesn't meant the design is flawed, just that your weapons likely need a little TLC.

 

[DougW]

My son carried an M249 for about 4 months in the sandbox. He loved it. Never had any issues. He was switched to the M240B for 2 or 3 months, and he loved that too, except that he had to carry an M4 with the 240B.

He told me that with his M249 and M16 mags, the M249 he had was totally reliable. Mind you that he would use the weapon in sigle shot or quick 2 or 3 round bursts. He carried 3 M16 mags with his M249 in addition to the 600 rounds on belts.

He found that the biggest problem with the M249 and the M240B was having a linked round a bit un-linked or twisted. That was the primary cause (for him) for stoppages. He learned to check all his links before each patrol. After he figured that out, all the gunners in the company were required to check ammo before a patrol.

 

[PandaBearBG]

I really don't understand why you would replace a belt fed machine gun with another rifle. A light machine gun is an integral part of a squads tactics. A beta mag seems more likely to break/double feed/jam opposed to a belt fed weapon. If I had to choose a rifle or a MG to lay down suppressive fire, MG all the way.

This arguement makes no sense, compare a 249 to another light machine gun, not a full auto rifle (I don't care who makes it or what "attachement super mags you put in it, a rifle is a rifle and a machine gun is a machine gun)

And why criticize the SAW's performance with 30 rnd mags? The gunner has 2-3 200rnd drums and his A-gunner probably carrying more. If this IAR had 600 rnds thats like 20 mags, who wants to wait for a mag change during a rush or assault.

These 2 weapons are nothing alike, different beasts. FN's MK46 is a better comparison.

 

[smithmax]

Can someone explain to a layman how these IAR's are more similar to the m249 than to an M4? It looks to me like they are replacing the LMG with a rifle...which doesn't make any sense.

 

[9mm+]

I really don't understand why you would replace a belt fed machine gun with another rifle. A light machine gun is an integral part of a squads tactics. A beta mag seems more likely to break/double feed/jam opposed to a belt fed weapon. If I had to choose a rifle or a MG to lay down suppressive fire, MG all the way.

The Marines' strategy is not to completely replace the M249 but to augment it with the IAR. Per the Wikipedia page: The Marine Corps is looking for a lighter rifle to supplement and partially replace the M249 and has accepted test submissions for this Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) concept. The Marine Corps plans to buy up to 4,100 IARs to complement and partially replace its 10,000 M249s, of which 8,000 will remain in service for when more firepower is required.

 

[bennyboy311]

Why are you going to WIKIPEKIA for information? Anyone can edit that date with whatever they want. Trust me that weapon will never replace a belt fed MG.

As for a dusty 249 on top of a turret is a rare sight these days unless paired with a MK19. Even then you dont see that to often. Also I am not sure what unit would be able to move mounted for 48 hours without some kind of rest period. In addition infantry 101 is that you clean and maintain your weapons before eating or sleeping. Also if you state your freaking safty is falling off... either you have never touched a M249 and are just posting BS on the fourm or your definintion of cleaning your weapon is hitting it with a hammer repeatly. We always rolled with extra MGs in the rear of one of our trucks if we were going on more than a day patrol.

 

[9mm+]

Why are you going to WIKIPEKIA for information? Anyone can edit that date with whatever they want. Trust me that weapon will never replace a belt fed MG.

It's Wikipedia and not Wikipekia. That particular section on the Wikipedia page was cited to Matthew Cox from Marine Corps Times and source-corroborated by USMC PMO. There were 31 references listed in this entry from credible government and industry sources. Please re-read what was stated earlier. Only 2,000 of the 10,000 M249's will be replaced with 4,100 IAR's, leaving 8,000 SAW's in the inventory.

 

[LaEscopeta]

I think what is driving the Marines to pursue the IAR is they have found over the last several years in two wars they often don’t need light machine guns. In two different countries on different types of battles fields they are facing small groups of lightly armed insurgents who mostly use ambush-and-run and hit-and-run tactics. They are usually not digging trenches nor building sandbagged fighting positions. The advantages of a light machinegun (suppressive fire, firing enfilade, etc) are not a big use to the Marines in many of their engagements.

I’ve read the Marines have found what they need and don’t have is true automatic fire (not the sub-gun type auto from their M16/M4s) that they can quickly maneuver around to pin down the insurgents before they can escape and melt into the population. A true automatic rifle one Marine can run up stairs with to fire from a rooftop, or run to a flanking position to fire along the gully the enemy is taking cover in. I understand with the weight the current SAW gunners have to carry, they are bringing up the rear in combat maneuvers, and the bad guys are gone before the SAW can be set up in an effective position.

They also need the longer effective range true automatic fire provides, to keep the enemy engaged for a longer distance/time as they are trying to break contact. Same reason the Marines developed and deployed the designated marksman rifles.

The Marines are keeping their SAWs and are continuing to train with them, for the next war when they might need light machine guns again more than they need them now. They are also trying to add a new weapon that they need now.

 

[Blakenzy]

From: http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg68-e.htm

Colt company build a variety of heavy barreled “automatic rifles” (machine rifles, light machine guns) based on most versions of the M16 assault rifle, starting from early XM16E1 (which also unsuccessfully were converted to belt feed) and up to latest M16A4 assault rifles. These weapons were sold abroad, and a small number of such rifles were used by US Marine Corps in the Squad Automatic weapon role during late 1970s and 1980s, before adoption of the M249 light machine gun.

...and now they want them back again... make up your minds jarheads

So, what's the hang up?!?, they want to add heavier barrels to some of their M16s, install a full auto switch, maybe a bipod and voila!, the IAR.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

My SAW and I have a love/hate relationship. It's hard to match for sustained firepower... when it works. The prevailing thought among SAW gunners in my company is that they are evil bitches that you must be careful with.

I would rather have something lighter and a bit easier to maneuver with myself. Or an AG. I carry all my ammo myself, and my minimum load is 800, and I will end up with at least 1,000 in Afghanistan.

600 rounds? What SAW gunner gets away with that?