Replacement for the SAW?

[F-15 Eagle]

Does anybody know any news about the Infantry Automatic Rifle(IAR)? It is supposed to replace the M249 SAW in the U.S. Military. It is basicly a M4 but with a heaveir barrel, it is magazine feed not belt feed using M16 mags. I saw it on a show called Future Weapons as anyone who has saw the show knows it is only a advertising show to show off the latest weapons designed by defense companies. Maybe there really is not a replacement for the SAW. If anyone knows anything that would be nice. In my own opinion I don't think they should replace the SAW with its 200 round belts with a upgraded M4 that only has 30 round mags. Its like replacing a LMG with a assualt rifle. But I don't know.

[SuperSLime]

In my own opinion I don't think they should replace the SAW with its 200 round belts with a upgraded M4 that only has 30 round mags. Its like replacing a LMG with a assualt rifle. But I don't know.

We replaced the section light-role GPMG with the L86 LSW, which is an SA80 rifle with a longer, heavier barrel and a bipod.

It was a disaster.

We have now adopted the Minimi Para as the section LMG, with the L86A2s retained as Designated Marksman's Rifles which they are actually rather good at. Magazine-fed 5.56mm LMGs are pretty rubbish. They just can't generate enough fire.

Also, heavy barrelled rifle-type LMGs don't have a barrel change mechanism and aren't really robust enough to put out a lot of fire. I once put 6-700 rounds through an L86A1 in less than an hour and it seized up solid through fouling and heating. I had to use a rod, stuck down the barrel and whacked with a hammer, to get the bolt open.

[F-15 Eagle]

We replaced the section light-role GPMG with the L86 LSW, which is an SA80 rifle with a longer, heavier barrel and a bipod.

It was a disaster.

We have now adopted the Minimi Para as the section LMG, with the L86A2s retained as Designated Marksman's Rifles which they are actually rather good at. Magazine-fed 5.56mm LMGs are pretty rubbish. They just can't generate enough fire.

Also, heavy barrelled rifle-type LMGs don't have a barrel change mechanism and aren't really robust enough to put out a lot of fire. I once put 6-700 rounds through an L86A1 in less than an hour and it seized up solid through fouling and heating. I had to use a rod, stuck down the barrel and whacked with a hammer, to get the bolt open.

Nice another horrible weapon designed to replace a well proven weapon. You'd think the U.S. Military would have learned from experience that the M16A1 and the L86 don't produce enough fire, that you don't use a automatic rifle for a job that was meant for a LMG. But I guess we have to learn the hard way a second time around....no surprise.

[Cutaway]

Does anybody know any news about the Infantry Automatic Rifle(IAR)? It is supposed to replace the M249 SAW in the U.S. Military. It is basicly a M4 but with a heaveir barrel, it is magazine feed not belt feed using M16 mags. I saw it on a show called Future Weapons as anyone who has saw the show knows it is only a advertising show to show off the latest weapons designed by defense companies. Maybe there really is not a replacement for the SAW. If anyone knows anything that would be nice. In my own opinion I don't think they should replace the SAW with its 200 round belts with a upgraded M4 that only has 30 round mags. Its like replacing a LMG with a assualt rifle. But I don't know.

It would be a stupid move if they did switch over to it from the Minimi. Its possible the ARES Shrike would replace it though as its lighter and could share parts with the M16. Really the Shrike is more of a 'Device' than a LMG as it is an upper reciever designed to be compatible with the M16 series.

[SuperSLime]

It would be a stupid move if they did switch over to it from the Minimi. Its possible the ARES Shrike would replace it though as its lighter and could share parts with the M16. Really the Shrike is more of a 'Device' than a LMG as it is an upper reciever designed to be compatible with the M16 series.

The ARES Shrike? In lever-delayed blowback perhaps? Never mind the fact that the company only ever managed to deliver ten of them; it's too light for full-auto fire and doesn't have a single advantage over the Minimi. The only viable replacements for the Minimi are the HK MG4 or, in a proper calibre, the MAG-58 GPMG or MG3. But why bother; the Minimi is fine.

[Cutaway]

The HK MG4 would be good but it lacks the mag insert of the Minimi therefore slightly limiting its uses.

I know the M60's are kak but i admit they have the best ergonomics for a GPMG, I held a deac one at an airshow some time ago and was nice to handle but performance is more important at the end of the day.

I came up with the greatest idea: Keep the bloody Minimi and make use of it.

[SuperSLime]

The HK MG4 would be good but it lacks the mag insert of the Minimi therefore slightly limiting its uses.

The mag well is useless and is being deleted from some new Minimi versions. If HK thought it was a good idea they'd have included one.

I know the M60's are kak but i admit they have the best ergonomics for a GPMG

You're kidding, right? The GPMG has much better ergonomics; all the controls are right where they want to be and it's a good steady gun. The M60 is a bastard abortion that should never have seen the light of day.

I came up with the greatest idea: Keep the bloody Minimi and make use of it.

Er yes, that's what I said.

[Aussie Digger]

The mag well is useless and is being deleted from some new Minimi versions. If HK thought it was a good idea they'd have included one.



You're kidding, right? The GPMG has much better ergonomics; all the controls are right where they want to be and it's a good steady gun. The M60 is a bastard abortion that should never have seen the light of day.



Er yes, that's what I said.

I'd go one step slightly further. Keep the Minimi, yes, but introduce this as well:

http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm

Er, scroll down a bit, select "new 7.62mm Minimi" button then go in and "click here to find out more" and you'll see what I was referring to...

Along with the FN SCAR, neatly helps solve those "range/lethality" issues that apparently are a problem... :D

[SuperSLime]

I'd go one step slightly further. Keep the Minimi, yes, but introduce this as well:

http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm

Along with the FN SCAR, neatly helps solve those "range/lethality" issues that apparently are a problem... :D

Hmmm... yes, I've seen that. Probably best for SF though; it looks a bit light for normal infantry use if you were going to bring back 7.62 at Section level (PLEASE!!!!!:D), whereas the GPMG can double as an SF gun.

Me, I'd have been quite happy to keep my old L1A1 but I wouldn't say no to a SCAR-H :)

[Aussie Digger]

Hmmm... yes, I've seen that. Probably best for SF though; it looks a bit light for normal infantry use if you were going to bring back 7.62 at Section level (PLEASE!!!!!:D), whereas the GPMG can double as an SF gun.

Me, I'd have been quite happy to keep my old L1A1 but I wouldn't say no to a SCAR-H :)

I think it's the "duck's guts" meeself. It would certainly beat lugging a 13kg MAG-58 over the scrub any day of the week. At 8.6kg's, it's about the same as an L2A1 and I know what I'd rather...

I agree that the normal Minimi isn't well suited to the sustained fire role, but this features a longer heavier barrel and (I believe) a slightly heavier (aka "meatier") receiver, so perhaps it handles the rapid fire a bit better?

I know what you mean about the SCAR's though. They are indeed a gucci bit of kit. On looks alone, they are my favourite rifle at present...

[Chino]

The Minimi, Negev, etc, are scaled down GPMGs.

The RPK, LSW etc are scaled up assault rifles.

At this point, the mag-fed Ultimax 100 is the only weapon that best fit the job description of SAW.

If the US had adopted the Ultimax 100 instead of the Minimi, maybe the USMC won't be wasting time and money now looking for a "IAR".:p:

[F-15 Eagle]

I highly doubt that the U.S. military will just give up the 200 round SAW for the 30 round IAR. I mean they already have M4/M4A1s and M16A4s for the so called 30 round automatic weapon. The IAR is not even a machine gun, just a rifle like the M4.

[kotay]

I highly doubt that the U.S. military will just give up the 200 round SAW for the 30 round IAR. I mean they already have M4/M4A1s and M16A4s for the so called 30 round automatic weapon. The IAR is not even a machine gun, just a rifle like the M4.

Will it sound better if it's rephrased as "The USMC is looking for a 30/100 round magazine IAR"?

ie. ability to use standard 30 round mags as well as a 100 mag (either dum like U100 or C-Mag)

[Cutaway]

The Vektor SS-77 is 7.62 but also comes in 5.56.

Quote from http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg13-e.htm:

It should be noted that according to some experts the SS-77 is one of the words best universal machinegus, along with Belgian MAG-58, Russian PKM and German MG-3.

[F-15 Eagle]

Will it sound better if it's rephrased as "The USMC is looking for a 30/100 round magazine IAR"?

ie. ability to use standard 30 round mags as well as a 100 mag (either dum like U100 or C-Mag)

Yeah but even then, 100 rounds is still only half that of the SAW which carries 200 rounds. Thats still only half the volume of fire that the SAW does. In my opinion its not even worth it, just keep the SAW.

[Chino]

Yeah but even then, 100 rounds is still only half that of the SAW which carries 200 rounds. Thats still only half the volume of fire that the SAW does. In my opinion its not even worth it, just keep the SAW.

Why not 300rd?

Why not 500rd?

Why is 200rd belt better than a 100rd drum?

Don't just throw numbers around. Please share your thinking.

[lobbie111]

Why not 300rd?

Why not 500rd?

Why is 200rd belt better than a 100rd drum?

Don't just throw numbers around. Please share your thinking.

to me 200 rounds is the best balance between weight and ammo capacity, plus you don't have to reload as often. Although does anyone have the dimensions of the box compared with the dimensions of that of the Ultimax magazine?

[playtime]

to me 200 rounds is the best balance between weight and ammo capacity, plus you don't have to reload as often. Although does anyone have the dimensions of the box compared with the dimensions of that of the Ultimax magazine?



btw.. I would assume its much easier to reload a drum on the run than a belt.

[kato]

btw.. I would assume its much easier to reload a drum on the run than a belt.

No... not really. In particular with the right tools (belt loader / linker).

Drums can be a real bitch to load - unless they're belt drums. :D

[playtime]

No... not really. In particular with the right tools (belt loader / linker).

Drums can be a real bitch to load - unless they're belt drums. :D

what i meant was reloading the weapon, not the drum or belt per se.
I can reload a drum fed weapon (say U100 saw) on the run with no problem, reloading a a belt fed is another matter.

[F-15 Eagle]

Why not 300rd?

Why not 500rd?

Why is 200rd belt better than a 100rd drum?

Don't just throw numbers around. Please share your thinking.

Because if you replace the 200 round SAW with a 100 round IAR that is a down-grade in capability. You have half the volume of fire and you will have to reload twice as often. I also thought I'd throw out the fact that belts are much more reliable then drums. Drums tend to jam way to much. There is a reason why the U.S. Military went for the 200 round belt feed SAW.

[Chino]

Because if you replace the 200 round SAW with a 100 round IAR that is a down-grade in capability. You have half the volume of fire and you will have to reload twice as often.
Have you ever tried clearing rooms with 7kg M249? Plus 200rds of ammo that should make it around 9 to 10kg in your hands, maybe more.

That's why the USMC is searching for a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" - not another SAW.

Nor, for that matter, are they saying that the IAR will replace ALL the SAWs.


I also thought I'd throw out the fact that belts are much more reliable then drums. Drums tend to jam way to much. There is a reason why the U.S. Military went for the 200 round belt feed SAW.
Please show proof instead of "throwing out" so-called facts. Or perhaps you have fired many drums from other SAWs and they jammed on you?

[F-15 Eagle]

Have you ever tried clearing rooms with 7kg M249? Plus 200rds of ammo that should make it around 9 to 10kg in your hands, maybe more.

That's why the USMC is searching for a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" - not another SAW.

Nor, for that matter, are they saying that the IAR will replace ALL the SAWs.


Please show proof instead of "throwing out" so-called facts. Or perhaps you have fired many drums from other SAWs and they jammed on you?

Whats your sources? Do you have any sources about the IAR having 100 round mags?

They already have M4s for room clearing. Whats next, make a shorter sniper rifle for room clearing.:rolleyes:

[Chino]

Whats your sources? Do you have any sources about the IAR having 100 round mags?

They already have M4s for room clearing. Whats next, make a shorter sniper rifle for room clearing.:rolleyes:

OK, I can see where this is going...

It is quite obvious that I am talking to someone who is just shouting out numbers without really understanding anything.

Have a good day.

[F-15 Eagle]

OK, I can see where this is going...

It is quite obvious that I am talking to someone who is just shouting out numbers without really understanding anything.

Have a good day.

You just completely ignored my question. I just wanted to know if you had any sources. And I'm not just saying random numbers or blank facts, I'm saying what I have read and heard before. Since you don't have any sources I guess that means your also shouting out random numbers as well.

[kotay]

Whats your sources? Do you have any sources about the IAR having 100 round mags?

They already have M4s for room clearing. Whats next, make a shorter sniper rifle for room clearing.:rolleyes:

Request for Tender Document (http://www.fedbizopps.gov//spg/DON/USMC/M67854/ARRFI/SynopsisR.html) ... I understand it's not cast in stone yet but ... quote:

Magazine.
The IAR shall utilize a magazine with a capacity of 100 rounds (Threshold).
The magazine shall permit rapid visual determination of the number of rounds remaining (Objective).

Magazine Compatibility.
The IAR shall accept and function with the current Marine Corps service rifle (the M16A4) 30 round magazines

In brief, the USMC, is looking for something that ...

* Weighs no more than 12.5 pounds empty
* Has MIL-STD-1913 rail interface
* Min. 36rpm sustained rate of fire -- 75rpm desired
* Feed from a detachable 100 round magazine
* Accepts standard M16 magazines
* Capable of both semi and full auto fire (select fire)
* Has folding collapsible stock
* Has magazine with visible round count
* Can be operated by an individual Marine

SO ... are we going to discuss if the USMC is smart/dumb to seek such a weapon for it's squad mix. Or are we going to discuss which weapon fits the bill best?

[sgtgunn]

Because if you replace the 200 round SAW with a 100 round IAR that is a down-grade in capability. You have half the volume of fire and you will have to reload twice as often. I also thought I'd throw out the fact that belts are much more reliable then drums. Drums tend to jam way to much. There is a reason why the U.S. Military went for the 200 round belt feed SAW.

The 200 round box for the M249 was actually one of it's greatest flaws.

The belt tends to rattle in the box (especially once you've fire the weapon, and you have less than a full belt inside) making noise discipline a problem. A field expedient solution has been to open the box and stuff pieces of carboard along side the belt, which helps but is hardly an ideal solution.

The spring loaded plastic tab on the box that attaches to the M249 is weak. Boxes have a annoying tendency to become detached at the least opportune moments. They are easily snagged when moving through heavy vegetation or crawling on the ground. Anyone who as carried a M249 for any length of time in the field has learn to dread the sound of the belt zipping out of the box as it falls to the ground or gets hung up on something. Putting the belt back in (correctly so with will feed back out smoothly) is, not suprinsingly, a pain in the ass.

Carrying the 200 round boxes can be a pain as well. Originally, the were left in the cloth "bandoliers" that they are shipped in and slung across the body. These of course bang around, rattle, and generally get in the way. Later the Army began to field saw box pouches for the LCE and later LBV which helped, but again the boxes still rattled in thier pouches, and having two full saw box pouches attached to the front of your LCE/LBV was hardly comfortable.

The US Army has come up with an excellent solution to these issues, a 100 round, soft cloth belt "bag" refered to (if you'll excuse my vulgarity) as a "ball bag" or "nut sack". Being made of nylon cloth, it is silent, it has a zipper on the bottom for ease of access, and a metal clip for more secure mounting on the weapon. They have been in use for several years, and are very popular. Odds are, if you see a photo of a US Soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan with an M249 it will have the 100 round soft pouch on it. The 200 round boxes are more commonly used when the M249 is mounted on a vehicle, or employed in a static, defensive role, such as in a tower or at a check point.

So I think the argument that the 100 round drum is "a down-grade" is really a moot point. 100 belts are the most common load out for the M249 these days anyways.

I'm not really sure of the value of an IAR per the USMC requirement. I'd be interested to see how they would integrate the weapon into thier infantry squad TO&E. As a 1 for 1 replacement for the M249, I think it would be a mistake. An IAR with a fixed barrel simply lacks the kind of sustained fire capability of a SAW for suppressive fires. If the IAR would be an addition to, rather than a replacement of the M249 - to provide the squad with added fire power in circumstances where using an M249 is less desireable, such as CQB, then I could see the utility of the weapon - though I'm not sure it justifies the expense of adding another weapon system to the inventory.

I'd like to see the M249 replaced with the lighter MK 46 Mod 1 - similar capabilities, less weight.

FYI - I've been in the Army & Army NG for 14 years, primarily as an infantryman, and have used the M249 extensively in many different enviornments. Overall good system - and IMHO most of its flaws are remedied by the MK 46.

Adrian

[sgtgunn]

Oh, one difference bewteen the Army and USMC regarding the M249 - the USMC regards the M249 as a crew served weapon, while the US Army treats it as an individual weapon. While the M249 can be mounted on a tripod with a traversing and elevating mechanism, I have never seen this done in the Army, whereas I understand that the USMC use M249 tripods (though how frequently, I'm not sure). This doctrinal difference may be why the USMC sees a need for an IAR, where (as far as I know) the Army does not.

Adrian

[buglerbilly]

A short/lightweight LMG is what the USMC is talking about and Knight Armaments are one company who appear to be going down that path along with Herstal Inc..............KAC call it the Stoner LMG which may be a bit of arrogance on their part...........they must have got permission to do so..........it sure looks the business. NOT in service yet but...........;)

http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

[lobbie111]

A short/lightweight LMG is what the USMC is talking about and Knight Armaments are one company who appear to be going down that path along with Herstal Inc..............KAC call it the Stoner LMG which may be a bit of arrogance on their part...........they must have got permission to do so..........it sure looks the business. NOT in service yet but...........;)

http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html

Looks great to me but can someone tell me why there are not side mounted boxes? so as to free up the bottom for placing it flush with cover? Can this accept M16 magazines although I wonder why one would need the capability to do that considering that the other members of the team who always use their M16s and are used to firing accurate bursts would give up their precious magazine to their spray and pray partners in crime?

Well another thing I have noticed which I hope no-one will take as an insult is that Americans tend to shoot like they are surrounded on all sides and keep shooting until nothing shoots back. example Vietnam American snipers have a kill ratio of 6500 rounds to one kill or something ridiculous and Australians had two kills to three shots don't quote me on this it came up in general conversation not a source.

[merocaine]

Well another thing I have noticed which I hope no-one will take as an insult is that Americans tend to shoot like they are surrounded on all sides and keep shooting until nothing shoots back. example Vietnam American snipers have a kill ratio of 6500 rounds to one kill or something ridiculous and Australians had two kills to three shots don't quote me on this it came up in general conversation not a source.

You got that backwards, american snipers had a kill rate of 1/2 rounds per badybag.
The grunts had a 5000 rounds per body bag average.
At the end of the day in a combat situation most of the killing is done with crew seviced weapons, tanks, arti, HMG, air support, in vietnam all those bullets were used to pin the enemy down while a fire mission was called in. Not because the grunts were blazing away. Added to that the number of engagements that took place at night lended to the high ammo expenditure, for obvious reasons.

Money played a part also, the US army in vietnam was'ent short of cash, ammo was cheap, there was'ent the same bullet counting that went on in other armies that perhaps did'ent have the same financial latitude the americans did.

Other than your one example (wrong) what do you base your observations on?

[lobbie111]

Well, the Australian RAR used semi auto (or self loading) rifles and lost less men in direct combat than americans and only used machine guns to pin down the enemy now can you say that the Americans had to use their entire amount of ammo to pin the enemy down, maybe this is a tactics issue not one of the american soldiers themselves, my apologies.

Plus Americans were said to have attracted the enemy because they liked to smell pretty...

[merocaine]

I sense a little bit of "our boys are better than there boys" in your post.

The americans were conscipts for the most part, were the Aussie's professionals?
Perhaps this could explain why the Aussie's proformed better.

There defiantly are doctrinal difference between the Americans and other western countries. Mostly as a result of the Americans wealth of resources.

Plus Americans were said to have attracted the enemy because they liked to smell pretty...

Ah do I detect strain of Aussie chauvinism.

Yes the VC could track an American over about 20 miles by the scent of his cologne.... Actually this was how most engagements occured, rather than intelligence and staff work, as might be assumed.
In Alfred J poofrock's monumental study "Scent and Warfare" the US's use of Cologne was sighted as one of the most important factors in the eventually American defeat.
The US did try to to close the "scent gap" with the use of full blooded native american trackers who detected their enemies by the distinctive aroma of Nam yum sauce, but alas this was to little to late.
A fascinating subject to be sure.

[Chino]

....example Vietnam American snipers have a kill ratio of 6500 rounds to one kill or something ridiculous and Australians had two kills to three shots don't quote me on this it came up in general conversation not a source.

I read a couple of books of Aussies in Vietnam and they, too, emphasise firepower. They too, had to pour great volumes of fire at an enemy they couldn't see due to low light and vegetation etc. The author mentioned that firepower volume was itself a determining factor in firefights.

You can't see the enemy - but the enemy also can't see you.

So if you can pour out great volume of fire, the enemy might think they are facing great odds and retreat or take less aggressive initiatives.

The best illustration of this doctrine is the illegal but rather popular trick of wedging a bit of matchstick in the sear of the SLR and turning it into a full-auto weapon.

[SuperSLime]

Money played a part also, the US army in vietnam was'ent short of cash, ammo was cheap, there was'ent the same bullet counting that went on in other armies that perhaps did'ent have the same financial latitude the americans did.

That's very bad reasoning. The problem isn't how much the ammunition costs; the problem is that it has to be carried at every step of the logistics chain, from the factory in the US to someone's ammo pouches on patrol.

[SuperSLime]

what i meant was reloading the weapon, not the drum or belt per se.
I can reload a drum fed weapon (say U100 saw) on the run with no problem, reloading a a belt fed is another matter.

Why would you want to reload a support weapon on the run?

MGs are meant to be set up and fired; using them on the run is a waste of ammunition and a waste of the weapon's potential.

[SuperSLime]

Have you ever tried clearing rooms with 7kg M249?

Er, why would you WANT to? The Minimi is a support weapon; it should be set up outside to suppress enemy fire positions, block retreat or reinforcement etc. Room clearing is done with personal weapons and grenades; to use a fully-automatic weapon capable of shooting through walls which your mates might be hiding behind is utter madness.

[SuperSLime]

It is quite obvious that I am talking to someone who is just shouting out numbers without really understanding anything.

No, he has a point. What is the IAR FOR??

It's not a support weapon; it's magazine fed, too light and has a fixed barrel.

It's not a personal weapon; it's too heavy and would basically just be an awkward, large-magazined rifle.

I can't see any need for it. You don't need anything larger than a rifle and a bag of grenades for CQB, and anything smaller than a Minimi or HK MG4 is useless as a support weapon. The IAR sounds to me like a self-licking lollipop.

[merocaine]

That's very bad reasoning. The problem isn't how much the ammunition costs; the problem is that it has to be carried at every step of the logistics chain, from the factory in the US to someone's ammo pouches on patrol.

And their logistical chain was better any at that time or since, if they had short comings it was'ent in logistics. In Vietnam they could put more rounds on target because they knew resupply was only a chopper away.
Unless they were involved in a platoon action which involved patrolling a long way without the benift of resupply then they didn't have to conserve ammo, there was never any question of supplies being short.

The French a decade earlier did'ent have that luxury, although doctrinally not to different. The difference is a matter of cash in the most part, if they had the logistical supply chain (and airforce) that would have allowed them to bring more bullets to the party, then they surely would have.

[SuperSLime]

And their logistical chain was better any at that time or since, if they had short comings it was'ent in logistics. In Vietnam they could put more rounds on target because they knew resupply was only a chopper away.

The problem was, they DIDN'T put more rounds on target; they put the same number of rounds on target and countless thousands of rounds into trees.

If I had a soldier who needed 5,000 rounds to hit one target I'd shoot the bastard myself and save the enemy the trouble.

[Chino]

Carrying the 200 round boxes can be a pain as well.


Thank you for sharing your valuable experience. I want to add that carrying the Ultimax drums don't look like a picnic either. See attached pic.


I'm not really sure of the value of an IAR per the USMC requirement.
I think the years of fighting in Iraq speeded the requirement for a different kind of weapon and deployment.

Since for the past few years US military had been fighting insurgents in (still deadly) smaller scale urban actions, moving in/out and around buildings a lot...

You won't be digging in and fending off human wave attacks.

In these situations you would want more mobility in firepower than sustainability. So you're gonna be carrying your auto-fire platform into battle more than using it in a bipod role.

Besides, the role of sustained fire MG is well provided for by the platoon's M240s or from the mounted weapons of the accompanying Humvees or other AFVs.

Jim Sullivan's Ultimax is the perfect example for this role of highly mobile firepower. The 100rd drum still gives a good account, and while no picnic, should be easier to change than belts. It is extremely controllable and highly accurate and has QCB if you do need to burn brass.

And even the short gunners (we're all asians) in my reservist section had no problem climbing through windows etc with the Ultimax cos it is so damn light.

[SuperSLime]

In these situations you would want more mobility in firepower than sustainability. So you're gonna be carrying your auto-fire platform into battle more than using it in a bipod role.

Yes, but that's what assault rifles are for. I really don't see where this requirement has come from. At CQB ranges, any target can be dealt with by two or three rifle rounds; there is no point in delivering higher volumes of automatic fire unless the weapon is on at least a bipod to make the fire controllable. UNcontrolled automatic fire is a menace to your own troops, who could be unseen behind light cover.

[Cutaway]

Would the CETME Ameli be a good replacement for the SAW if it had to?, Its just a watered down MG3 in 5.56 calibre, has good ergonomics, weighs lighter than the FN Minimi. The other users of it outside Spain are Italy, Portugal & Mexico.

http://www.gdsbs.com/web/productos/galeria/fotos/ameli02.jpg

http://www.gdsbs.com/web/productos/galeria/fotos/ameli01.jpg

[lobbie111]

Actually I meant conscript v conscript Australia sent in conscripts too if i'm not mistaken, IMO I think that if the army was dumb enough to replace the SAW they should replace it with the Stoner LMG from KAC although I would recomend that it be modified to accept different calibres like newer weapon systems that are apearing are. Would it be hand to to be able to change from 5.56 NATO to 7.62x39 Belts? or the chinese round, no-one has thought of that, once the AK finally has its day I think chineese weaponry will be the most prolific

[playtime]

Why would you want to reload a support weapon on the run?

MGs are meant to be set up and fired; using them on the run is a waste of ammunition and a waste of the weapon's potential.

well cos every second counts, unless it a flat desert with open views, you have to move often even if you are the MG (7.62) gunner.
anyway, the SAW is a 5.56 meant to move with the section in most applications.

[Aussie Digger]

Er, why would you WANT to? The Minimi is a support weapon; it should be set up outside to suppress enemy fire positions, block retreat or reinforcement etc. Room clearing is done with personal weapons and grenades; to use a fully-automatic weapon capable of shooting through walls which your mates might be hiding behind is utter madness.

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq

[LazerLordz]

Because if there is a chance in an urban setting to set up a small, temporary firebase even for a few minutes to say, let the team cross the hallways or some sort of passageway, the SAW will come in handy.

And having a magazine fed SAW with a shot burst selector will ensure that there's lesser chance for blue on blue while retaining the ability to lay down a higher rate of cover fire away from your mates.

[SuperSLime]

Would the CETME Ameli be a good replacement for the SAW if it had to?

It would do, but again, why bother?? The Ameli has no advantages and on top of that its ROF is too high. It can't do anything the Minimi can't. It also uses an obsolete mechanism that has proven less successful than the Minimi's gas system.

[SuperSLime]

And having a magazine fed SAW with a shot burst selector will ensure that there's lesser chance for blue on blue while retaining the ability to lay down a higher rate of cover fire away from your mates.

Magazine-fed support weapons are not a good thing; the only one that was ever popular, really, was the Bren. Every time a nation adopts one it is eventually replaced by a proper belt-fed LMG.

A properly trained gunner will fire short, 3-5 round bursts most of the time, with longer bursts being reserved for ambushes etc. Burst settings are a lazy substitute for proper training. If someone needs a burst selector to prevent him from firing long, wild bursts then he shouldn't have been issued a weapon in the first place.

[SuperSLime]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

That's a fair point, but it turns around quite neatly. As your video shows, the Minimi can be used for CQB if necessary. The IAR, however, wouldn't make an adequate support weapon. As the Minimi can do both jobs it is, therefore, the better choice.

[SuperSLime]

Because if there is a chance in an urban setting to set up a small, temporary firebase even for a few minutes to say, let the team cross the hallways or some sort of passageway, the SAW will come in handy.

Hmmm no, I don't buy that. Indoors, as I said before, you don't need anything heavier than a rifle and grenades. Support weapons are meant for laying down area fire at longer ranges, not shooting down the length of a hallway.

In urban CQB you don't suppress the enemy to cross a hallway; you enter the building, secure and hold the hallway on the floor you entered, clear each room one at a time then move on to the next floor. There's no role for a support weapon indoors; as Aussie Digger said, you might need to use a Minimi if it's the only weapon you had, but I personally would switch it to semi and use it as a (big, clumsy) rifle.

[Chino]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ahe81VMK6AI)

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

Yes, the Minimi can be used in CQB as you say, but a lightweight and very controllable Ultimax can do the same job, perhaps better. An Ultimax will easily out-hit a M249 due to its controllability and accuracy whether on bipod or handheld.

Changing a drum is fast. And in an emergency you can slap in a 30rd from your section mates.

[SuperSLime]

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

Not really. It's called a Fire Support Group or Gun Group.

A Section should fight as two mutually supporting groups - fire teams or rifle group/gun group. And the Section support weapons are better employed controlling the approaches to a house than creating a huge blue on blue hazard inside.

An Ultimax will easily out-hit a M249 due to its controllability and accuracy whether on bipod or handheld.

But when fired from the bipod as a support weapon, which is what it's there for in the first place, it is less stable due to its light weight.

If all you intend to do is house clearing, don't take the gunners in with you. That's not what they're for. But when you have a contact in open ground you want proper LMGs there, not some bastard offspring of the M-16.

The Ultimax is OK, and would be fine for CQB as it can be used as a rifle, but as an LMG it has no advantages over the Minimi.

[kotay]

And also for the simple fact that a section should fight as a section. Especially in small 7-men sections like SAF, it is unthinkable to leave your 2 SAW gunners somehwere else.

You really should be paying more attention to what the rest of your platoon guys are doing out in the field ... maybe it's just too hard to look up when you're humping a PRC77 ;)

A 7 man section is, nominally, organised as 2 groups in the TO&E. In practice, I've seen them reassign the groups as needs dictate. eg. a couple of SAWs and the Designated Marksman as a support group while the rest of the section went flanking.


But when fired from the bipod as a support weapon, which is what it's there for in the first place, it is less stable due to its light weight.

Try firing the U-100 first. It's light weight has no implications at all on it's ability to fire accurately or stably in automatic.

There was a link a while back in Defense Review (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=776) to a Marine Corp Gazette article about a shootoff between the M249, the U100 and some other weapons. Unfortunately, the USMC link is dead, but the gist of the article is that ...

"the ST Kinetics Ultimax was preferred by U.S. Marine Corps test shooters over the FN M249 SAW and rest of the weapons in the test, and downright outperformed the FN M249 SAW--even though the Ultimax used in the test didn't even have workable sights! (Someone must have damaged the factory sights prior to the test.)"

The U100 out-performed the M249 by a significant figure in offhand shooting and by a lesser margin firing prone from bipod (but outperformed the M249 still).

I'm not holding out the above article as a gospel truth ... just that your impression of the U100 as a bum auto weapon because of it's light weight is unfounded. Try reading up on it's constant-recoil system.

If all you intend to do is house clearing, don't take the gunners in with you. That's not what they're for. But when you have a contact in open ground you want proper LMGs there, not some bastard offspring of the M-16.

The Ultimax is OK, and would be fine for CQB as it can be used as a rifle, but as an LMG it has no advantages over the Minimi.

There is no sense in comparing the U100 and the M249 as is. One is a strictly magazine fed weapon and the other belt fed. They each have different strengths and are suited for different applications. Undoubtedly in a fixed defensive position, the M249 will outperform the U100.

From what I understand, the USMC IAR is not going to totally replace the SAW within the section but to beef up the automatic fire capability of the section by up-arming a couple of rifleman. There may be a consequent reduction in the number of SAWs in the section ... I'm not too clear on this.

[edit for typo]

[lobbie111]

Because the tactical situation demands it and you've no other weapon?

AS can be seen in this video, a Minimi can be used quite effectively in CQB operations, apart from the obvious fire support applications it was intended for...

YouTube - Australian Infantry Training Before Iraq (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ahe81VMK6AI)

I have a few questions about that video, were they using the minimi's as if they were just long assault rifles most of the time and what was the song :D

[Aussie Digger]

I have a few questions about that video, were they using the minimi's as if they were just long assault rifles most of the time and what was the song :D

One by One by the Foo Fighters.

Yes, the F-89 Minimi's were being used as "rifles", which takes a bit of strength to keep that up for any period of time...

However as shown, the Minimi is perfectly capable of being employed within CQB environments and "Para-Saw" variants with foregrips build on this...

http://world.guns.ru/machine/fn_minimi_spw.jpg

[Chino]

You really should be paying more attention to what the rest of your platoon guys are doing out in the field ... maybe it's just too hard to look up when you're humping a PRC77 ;)

A 7 man section is, nominally, organised as 2 groups in the TO&E. In practice, I've seen them reassign the groups as needs dictate. eg. a couple of SAWs and the Designated Marksman as a support group while the rest of the section went flanking.


Ahem... I see very well with the PRC77, thank you.

And as a corporal, I have led sections when attached to other units for ICT that didn't have enough NCOs.

In a SAF 7-man section, one group (fire-team) is only TWO guys. So if you say there is a SAW and a Sharpshooter, man... that's one complete group.

So when the section's groups leapfrog towards objective, the Sect Cmdr may leave one group with the SAW to provide the support fire.

...

This is not to say that leaving BOTH SAWs behind cannot happen. But in SAF where the SAW is so light, including the SAW in the assault groups is no problem. And in fact is what usually happens.

So no real ground for disagreements either way.

...

Besides, I was replying in the context of groundless suggestions that the SAW is ONLY for the support role and not included in the assault role by certain member of this forum (not Aussie Digger).

In fact, in SAF, our instructors used to refer to SAW as "Section Assault Weapon" instead of (the US's) "Squad Automatic Weapon". To this day, I don't know if they were wrong of if this is how SAF terms it. Maybe you can clarify.

[Cutaway]

It would do, but again, why bother?? The Ameli has no advantages and on top of that its ROF is too high. It can't do anything the Minimi can't. It also uses an obsolete mechanism that has proven less successful than the Minimi's gas system.

The ROF could be sorted out with a slightly heavier bolt/different springs(thats if you wanted to). Besides that SuperSLime, I always thought you were a big fan of the MG42 & derivatives. The Ameli may be a 5.56 weapon but at least its better than these pointless magazine fed support weapons.

[Chino]

The Ameli may be a 5.56 weapon but at least its better than these pointless magazine fed support weapons.
How many "pointless" mag fed support weapons have you used before arriving at this conclusion?

[kotay]

In a SAF 7-man section, one group (fire-team) is only TWO guys. So if you say there is a SAW and a Sharpshooter, man... that's one complete group.

So when the section's groups leapfrog towards objective, the Sect Cmdr may leave one group with the SAW to provide the support fire.

...

This is not to say that leaving BOTH SAWs behind cannot happen. But in SAF where the SAW is so light, including the SAW in the assault groups is no problem. And in fact is what usually happens.

Oops ... thought I fixed the typo :confused: You're right ... it's 3 groups.

In any case, I guess your unit has a different SOP then mine. We used to strip away "support" elements into ad hoc groupings all the time.

[Chino]

Oops ... thought I fixed the typo :confused: You're right ... it's 3 groups.

In any case, I guess your unit has a different SOP then mine. We used to strip away "support" elements into ad hoc groupings all the time.

In SOP it is always 3 groups - Gp 1, 2 & 3. But there's no reason why you can't split it into just 2 groups depending on requirement.

If you ask me, 2-man groupings is not ideal. There is simply not enough eyes, ears and firepower in a 2-man group. A 3-man group makes more sense. And in weaponry also make more sense:
- SAW gunner
- M203 gunner
- LAW gunner

In most situations esp CQB you need the 3rd man to cover the rear while the other 2 do the deeds that need doing.

But I guess it is easier to split them into 3 groups for flexibility of deployment and combine them into 2 when needed.

Most likely, the 3-group-per-section structure is a leftover from the old days of 9-men sections. SAF reduce the number of men per section but kept the 3-group structure.

So what type of unit were you from that always detach the SAW gunners? Because to me, that dangerously depletes the firepower of the assaulting elements.

[F-15 Eagle]

I think the Ultimax 100 MK4 is the best choice for the IAR to replace the SAW. I'm impressed with the capability that the Ultrimax provides and I think its better than anything else competing for the IAR competition.

Here is a link with more details: http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/Ultimax%20vs.%20M-249.html

Also does anybody have any word on the latest news with the program? Are they still testing?

[lobbie111]

In order to properly asses the matter I think we need to determine section (or squad) compositions, can people who know that a country uses a multi weapon squad structure post up their numbers, weapons and structure (I know this varies but a typical squad).

The four we are currently assesing are

South Africa
Australia
United States (both Army and USMC)
Singapore

This will probably help everyone in determining a hypothetical replacement for the SAW

[Cutaway]

Why dot they just stick with using the SAW?, Its a reliable weapon system and still has potential in the battlefield.

[SuperSLime]

In order to properly asses the matter I think we need to determine section (or squad) compositions, can people who know that a country uses a multi weapon squad structure post up their numbers, weapons and structure

The UK Infantry section ORBAT is as follows:

Charlie Fire Team:

Section Comd (Cpl) - L85A2 rifle
Grenadier - L85A2 with 40mm UGL
LMG Gunner - Minimi Para
Rifleman/Marksman - L86A2 LSW

Delta Fire Team:

Section 2I/C (LCpl) - L85A2 rifle
Grenadier - L85A2 with 40mm UGL
LMG Gunner - Minimi Para
Rifleman/Marksman - L86A2 LSW

[sgtgunn]

The US Army Infantry Squad TO&E is pretty much the same:

Squad Leader (SSG) - M4/M16A4

Alpha Fire Team:

Team Leader (SGT or CPL) - M4/M16A4
Grenadier - M4/M16A4 w/M203 40mm GL
Automatic Rifleman - M249 SAW
Rifleman/Designated Marksman - M4/M16A4 w/ACOG or SDM-R or M-14 etc...

Bravo Fire Team:

Team Leader (SGT or CPL) - M4/M16A4
Grenadier - M4/M16A4 w/M203 40mm GL
Automatic Rifleman - M249 SAW
Rifleman/Designated Marksman - M4/M16A4 w/ACOG or SDM-R or M-14 etc...

There are a number of unit variations to this. Some units like giving the M203s to the Team Leaders. DM may be present in either team, both or occasionally none. DM weapons vary as well. Eventually all rifle caliber sniper (M24 & M21) and DM rifles will be replaced with the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System which is a modified version of the Knight's Armament SR-25 7.62mm. Not sure how that will work within the rifle squad for the DM as it will mean carrying a 2 types of rifle ammo - 5.56mm and 7.62mm. IMHO we should just switch back to 7.62mm and dump the 5.56mm weapons. Or switch to an intermediate caliber like 6.8mm or 6.5mm. 6.8mm would be easy as they could simply swap the upper receivers of existing M4/M16 weapons and the M249 can be converted with a change of bolt, barrel and feed tray. Once we start running into bad guys who wear body armor - 5.56mm is just not going to cut the mustard any longer.

Adrian

The UK Infantry section ORBAT is as follows:

Charlie Fire Team:

Section Comd (Cpl) - L85A2 rifle
Grenadier - L85A2 with 40mm UGL
LMG Gunner - Minimi Para
Rifleman/Marksman - L86A2 LSW

Delta Fire Team:

Section 2I/C (LCpl) - L85A2 rifle
Grenadier - L85A2 with 40mm UGL
LMG Gunner - Minimi Para
Rifleman/Marksman - L86A2 LSW

[lobbie111]

So in short what I think everyone is saying in this thread is the SAW does not need to be replaced but the caliber needs to be replaced, this is the ideal situation I think we need,

ALPHA TEAM

Section Commander - Bushmaster ACR (Magpul Masada) Chambered for 7.62
Grenadier - Bushmaster ACR 7.62 With M203 (or Equivalent)
LMG Gunner - Minimi 7.62mm Variant
Rifleman/Marksman - M110/M25

BRAVO TEAM

Section 2I/C - Bushmaster ACR
Grenadier - Bushmaster ACR with M203
LMG Gunner - Minimi 7.62
Rifleman/Marksman - M110/M25

Btw Australia is similar with the addition of one more section member, three teams of three (deleting the designated marksman) Like the Alpha and Bravo Teams with the addition of a Charlie Team Consisting of scouts with LAW66's and Steyr Aug/M203. (Just update the weapons with the steyr)

[F-15 Eagle]

Why dot they just stick with using the SAW?, Its a reliable weapon system and still has potential in the battlefield.

Becasue the USMC wants a new magazine feed automatic rifle that is more reliable than the SAW. Below is the requirements for the IAR.

In brief, the USMC, is looking for something that ...

* Weighs no more than 12.5 pounds empty
* Has MIL-STD-1913 rail interface
* Min. 36rpm sustained rate of fire -- 75rpm desired
* Feed from a detachable 100 round Drum magazine or Beta C Mag
* Accepts standard M16A4 30 round magazines
* Capable of both semi and full auto fire, with open bolt for full-auto and closed bolt for semi-auto (select fire)
* Has folding collapsible stock
* Has magazine with visible round count
* Has a bipod
* Can be operated by an individual Marine

[SuperSLime]

So in short what I think everyone is saying in this thread is the SAW does not need to be replaced but the caliber needs to be replaced, this is the ideal situation I think we need,

ALPHA TEAM

Section Commander - Bushmaster ACR (Magpul Masada) Chambered for 7.62
Grenadier - Bushmaster ACR 7.62 With M203 (or Equivalent)
LMG Gunner - Minimi 7.62mm Variant
Rifleman/Marksman - M110/M25

BRAVO TEAM

Section 2I/C - Bushmaster ACR
Grenadier - Bushmaster ACR with M203
LMG Gunner - Minimi 7.62
Rifleman/Marksman - M110/M25

Btw Australia is similar with the addition of one more section member, three teams of three (deleting the designated marksman) Like the Alpha and Bravo Teams with the addition of a Charlie Team Consisting of scouts with LAW66's and Steyr Aug/M203. (Just update the weapons with the steyr)

Why the Bushmaster ACR? It's an unproven design, largely cobbled together from parts of other weapons, and isn't available in 7.62 NATO which means ammo incompatibility with the other Section weapons. The SCAR isn't a general service rifle, so I would go with the HK417 or DSA58; these are mature 7.62 NATO designs with RIS etc well integrated. I would even consider (I know! Ammo issues) keeping 5.56mm as the standard infantry calibre but 7.62mm for at least one of the MGs and the DMRs. The two rifles I named would all make good DMRs; a DMR doesn't need a full-on sniper rifle. The M110 would also do, but it seems a bit heavy for a DMR.

[lobbie111]

Actually the rifle is avaliable in every calibre, the rifle was designed from the outset to have multiple calibres, by changing three parts (barrel, magazine, Firing Mechanism) you can use the AK or the 7.62 Nato and its very easy to do so, on youtube there is a video of the rifle being customised to suit the situation, you can build the rifle up with custom parts with only a few standard parts remaining.

I agree that it is untested, but if the quility of their "PMAGs" are anything to go by this should be a great wepaons system...

Btw, if you have used any of the M16 series this rifle is very familiar, also it has ambidextrous controls which is a major plus as I'm a lefty...

You dont have to agree with me on the ACR it was just a rifle that came to mind when writing that post

[SuperSLime]

Actually the rifle is avaliable in every calibre

No it isn't; it's available in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62x39. The mag well is too small to accept 7.62mm NATO.

I agree that it is untested, but if the quility of their "PMAGs" are anything to go by this should be a great wepaons system...

But what advantages does it have over the HK416 or C-7? Basically none.

[Cutaway]

If the USMC want a new 5.56mm SAW, I say they go for the Ameli, SS-77 or a magazine fed version of the weapons i just mentioned.

[F-15 Eagle]

If the USMC want a new 5.56mm SAW, I say they go for the Ameli, SS-77 or a magazine fed version of the weapons i just mentioned.

Nah the Ultimax 100 MK4 would be a better move on their part.

[Chino]

If the USMC want a new 5.56mm SAW, I say they go for the Ameli, SS-77 or a magazine fed version of the weapons i just mentioned.

The USMC is NOT looking for a new SAW.

They are looking for a IAR.

That's the issue where a lot of people on this thread is not on the same understanding.

[SuperSLime]

If the USMC want a new 5.56mm SAW, I say they go for the Ameli, SS-77 or a magazine fed version of the weapons i just mentioned.

But that's apparently not what they're looking for; they want an automatic rifle.

Why take a perfectly sound belt-fed MG and fuck it up by converting it to magazine fed? The SS-77 in particular is a full-size GPMG (therefore about a million miles away from what the USMC want); making it magazine-fed would be the act of a moron.

The Ameli is nothing special; it's certainly not as good as the Minimi or MG-4.

[lobbie111]

Why not put a Beta C-mag on the US M249 Saw (in the existing magazine port), it would achive the same goals and keep the same capability. I think what is needed is to lighten the minimi at best, although I have no clue how to do this.

[SuperSLime]

Why not put a Beta C-mag on the US M249 Saw (in the existing magazine port), it would achive the same goals and keep the same capability. I think what is needed is to lighten the minimi at best, although I have no clue how to do this.

Nope. The magazine port on the Minimi is located diagonally at the lower side of the weapon; I doubt a C-Mag would fit and, if it did, it would be as clumsy as a very clumsy thing; anyway, the mag port isn't very reliable and the ROF is too high when magazine fed. This combination would have no advantages over a Minimi with a 100-rd belt bag and would be a LOT clumsier and bulkier.

As a SAW the Minimi is just fine; any lighter and stability would start to suffer. What the USMC are after is NOT a new SAW; it's an automatic rifle. I, personally, am not sure where they got this requirement from but I think it's a mistake. Maybe it's a phase everyone has to go through; we did it with the L86 and the Russians did it with the RPK. Both of these weapons were less than successful and are slowly losing ground to 7.62mm GPMGs as Section support weapons.

[F-15 Eagle]

Thats why they should go for the Ultimax 100 MK4. Its has good rates of fire and has both 30 and 100 round magazines.

[F-15 Eagle]

As a SAW the Minimi is just fine; any lighter and stability would start to suffer. What the USMC are after is NOT a new SAW; it's an automatic rifle. I, personally, am not sure where they got this requirement from but I think it's a mistake.

They got the requirement becasue the SAW is more of a burden than a valuable asset and they want a weapon that can be reloaded much faster and be more durable and reliable than the SAW. They want a automatic rifle that can use 100 round large capacity magazines for the sustained fire role plus it has to be able to use 30 round M16 mags.

As for belt feed machine guns that role will be used by the M240 7.62mm weapon as it has always should have been done. The SAW is used to be both a down-graded GPMG and squad support weapon but it not really good at ether one. The M240 and IAR will have two different roles in combat, the way it should be done.

[SuperSLime]

They got the requirement becasue the SAW is more of a burden than a valuable asset

That's weird, because our SAS have been using the Minimi for nearly 20 years and they love it. It became general infantry issue not long before Gulf War 2; the infantry love it too, and think it's MUCH better than the 12lb magazine-fed automatic rifle it replaced as the Section LMG.

[F-15 Eagle]

That's weird, because our SAS have been using the Minimi for nearly 20 years and they love it. It became general infantry issue not long before Gulf War 2; the infantry love it too, and think it's MUCH better than the 12lb magazine-fed automatic rifle it replaced as the Section LMG.

Well the U.S. military fells differently, and they feel strongly about replacing the SAW and I have to agree with them.

[SuperSLime]

Well the U.S. military fells differently

We felt strongly about replacing a belt-fed LMG with an automatic rifle back in the early 80s. We were very, very wrong.

[SuperSLime]

Well the U.S. military fells differently, and they feel strongly about replacing the SAW and I have to agree with them.

And anyway, you're not seriously comparing the US military with the SAS, are you?

[F-15 Eagle]

And anyway, you're not seriously comparing the US military with the SAS, are you?

No why would I? I never said anything about that.

[SuperSLime]

No why would I? I never said anything about that.

Well, if the SAS think the Minimi is a good piece of kit then I, for one, am more than willing to take their word for it.

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, if the SAS think the Minimi is a good piece of kit then I, for one, am more than willing to take their word for it.

Well if the USMC says the IAR is better then I will take their word for it. Simple as that.

[SuperSLime]

Well if the USMC says the IAR is better then I will take their word for it. Simple as that.

Oh come on. The two units are hardly in the same class, are they?

Also, the SAS have had the opportunity to use the L86 - a weapon in the general class of the IAR (which the USMC can't say is better because they don't have one yet) - and they weren't impressed.

[LazerLordz]

Lads, cool down.

SAS vs USMC? Different wars, different doctrines and different loadout of men/weps mix.

Let's not get into a pissing contest over whose word we shall take as the gospel truth yeah.:D

[F-15 Eagle]

Oh come on. The two units are hardly in the same class, are they?

Also, the SAS have had the opportunity to use the L86 - a weapon in the general class of the IAR (which the USMC can't say is better because they don't have one yet) - and they weren't impressed.

Thats becasue the L86 could only use 30 round mags. The IAR can use 30 and 100 round mags.

[SuperSLime]

Thats becasue the L86 could only use 30 round mags. The IAR can use 30 and 100 round mags.

The L86 is capable of using any STANAG magazine, and the SAS are quite happy to use non-issue mags. Nevertheless, they rejected the L86/C-Mag combination in favour of the Minimi.

Every major army so far that has adopted an automatic rifle as a Section support weapon has realised its mistake and gone back to using a proper LMG. The UK recycled the L86A2s as DMRs, but the USMC has already filled that requirement.

The automatic rifle is a dead end.

[F-15 Eagle]

Sorry double post.