Corps to Replace SAW With Automatic Rifle
 

Not new news,, but anyone want to opine???

:munchin

Updated: I was not a fan-boy of the M249.
A 5.56 SAW never gave me a tingle.
Given the M60 & ammo weight,, to me it was worth is..

:(

So... essentially they are going back to a 5.56 version of the BAR? Mag changes are going to be a bitch if it's the auto support for ops... SRF will drop... Getting rid of the medium weapons might not be a good idea.

Just my .02 as a washed up 18B turned 18D

5.56 BAR
 

WTF!!!! Guess Marines don't need supressive fire. Since they are going this way though they need to increase the weapon's weight so it can be referred to as the "pig" and guys can bitch about humping the damn thing.

MVP

So best case scenario for rate of fire is 100-150 round drums?

I wonder if HK has a belt fed 416 upper in the works at all.

Who misses the (pig), M60, and should it come back?

to make sure I am reading this correctly...

giving up a belt fed 5.56 in the auto-rifle role (which accepts magazines)

adoptng a magazine fed 5.56 in the auto rifle mode


makes sense to me

Must have appeared to cost less than refurbishing the shot-out 249s. Wait until they have to buy a basic load of hi-cap magazines for them. And what will be the basic load? I'm speculating three magazines will cost about the same as one weapon (ideal gov't prices - no guesses for inevitable price gouging!). What happens when standard issue of (ultimately disposable) magazines is 7-8 each? I still prefer belt-fed. And NO! - I do not want to see a return of the M-60.

When the M60 started barking, everybody got a good feeling and got uprange. I don't see why they did away with it in the first place.

It was a bear to hump at first, but I got used to it.

Spanish Ameli
 

They should have looked at this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...NJGtgQfgzvyMDA

I heard about this in episode of Future Weapons, I guess it's good for mixing an M16 and a SAW and there roles in battle (since many think that the future of war is urban combat) but what if you need some serious firepower?

Personally I think they should just modernize the M60:lifter

Please elaborate on your PERSONAL experience with M60s.

Dusty - You're suffering misplaced nostalgia!:p I'll stick with a 240; the MRBF is MUCH higher.

And when was the last time you humped that pig?

From what I've seen, Unqualified remarks aren't taken very seriously here.

lol Sometimes qualified ones aren't, either. :D

The Dustmeister won the Individual Championship Trophy for the M60 from the MTU at Ft. Campbell, KY in '78 or '79. :lifter

You're a young man with absolutely NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in carrying a M60,commenting about a weapon you've never used in your life........:rolleyes::eek:

Big Teddy :munchin

Hey, Bro, I could hit the V-ring at 600 meters. Can you do that with a .22? :D

Once upon a time; no shit, there I was - yes. It's a lot easier now with the 77 and 80 gr match ammo. :D

Wow, sorry I brought up the ol' M60 thing, but I'm with Dusty, the M60 rocked. It sounded great, created confidence in the squad, and meant the "enemy was engaged." I had no problem carry the pig or relieving another who was. Also, anyone, (and it was expected too), could carry another 200 rds., giving 2000 additional rds available aside from the basic load of gunner and AG.

Same can be said of other systems, but the M60 kicked ass. My dad talked about the 30 -.06 in the BAR and how it sounded, it made many get up and advance in battle. You knew someone was having a real bad day on the receiving end of BAR fire.

Who would like too have seen a M1917 water cooled machine guns in action?

Now, that's another example of a weapons system you'd prolly wanna be uprange of...:D

Here's a little range action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nSnUGIBA4

Pat

I kinda liked the PKM. I shot one on the range one time and that thing didn't malfunction once.

When I was in Santa Ana, ES the quartel had an arms room full of ancient FMS weapons including M1s, 1917s, and 1919A6s. We rehab'd six (? this happened in 1986 so my memory is failing) of the 1919s because we couldn't get enough M60s for patrolling and we still had several fixed security sites that needed crew served weapons. With several hundred thousand rounds of 30-06 in tins there was considerable sense in recycling the old "warhorses". We kept the 1917 WC to play with at the Cuartel. Sweet toy; a true joy to shoot, even without the water reservoir. We had to improvise the packing around the barrel to keep water in the jacket but a series of 50 round bursts just left it "gently steaming", reminiscent of WWI stories of heating the water for afternoon tea. With the T&E (and a lot of sandbags on the tripod) cutting silhouette targets in half was child's play. To this day I still have fond memories of "the Brownings of Santa Ana".

I humped the pig for several years too. I much prefer the MAG 58/M240. MOO but mean rounds between stoppages more than made up for its lack of a forearm. Personally, I think the USMC will eventually regret getting away from the SAW. Magazines just can't beat belts.

Based on what?

I want to see how well these replacement weapons run when they have as many rounds through them as the M249s do.

I had eight M-60s in my Scout Platoon. Most were usually in maintenance and those that were not were fine examples of the world's heaviest single shot 7.62 rifle. The M240 is a vast improvement, if slightly heavier, and the MG3 would have been a better substitute as well, if politically acceptable.

TR

M60=23 pound deer rifle. I hated that thing. I hated how undependable they were, hated how heavy they were, hated the spare barrel bag. The MAG58/M240 is light years ahead.

We tried to help out the Puerto Rican National Guard with their M60s. We took their 60s to a range. I lost count of how many of their guns we deadlined in one day. Pieces were breaking like it was going out of style.

Sweet.

PSM, thanks for the link.

Just talked to a friend who carried a M60 in RVN (67-68). I did not carry one but was trained in the M60 (Ontos Crewman). By the time I was in-country the Ontos was gone so I walked for a living. I don't remember any real complaints with the M60, yes it was heavy but so where our packs. Loads where shared among other Marines. My friend, who retired after 29 years as a Sgt Maj was gunner in the battle of Dai Do, so I think it safe to say he put a lot of rounds down range through a M60. With my recollection and his comment was something I have always heard. Cleanliness of your fire arm was important. Only problem that he had was a few times with the feed paws.

As far as the poor quality of the M60, I wonder if they were old used up ones? I just can not remember anything bad being said about the M60. Hearing, "Guns up" was nice sound. We did feel that Mr. Charlies AK was better than our M16s

Also he said this is a pretty heated issue. He stated that it is felt that NATO may have something to do with this.

Personally, Belt fed should not be dropped. But, I am working on old information.

I was a pig gunner in basic and they were still at my first unit when I reported in. As a matter of fact the M240 didn't show up until I was out. The only M240's we had were the ones for use in the Bradley (about 2 years later).

I believe that there is a company that has a much improved M60 (E4 variation) and they claim that it is robust and more reliable than it's predecessor. If FN can produce an M240L with a titanium receiver I wonder why they can't do the same with the M60? I believe that another one of the improvements was with the gas piston. The new design will not allow it to be installed backwards.

As for this upgraded HK416. I was under the impression from the guys I spoke with that it was going to supplement, but not completely replace the M249.

IN 1970, my platoon carried 2 M60's. We did not have problems with the mechanics nor ammo. Daily cleaning of all our weapons kept the dirt and rust to a minimum. Contact was a couple time a week..

When we were rotated into the FB,, maybe every 4-5 weeks(??), we would have Mad Minutes at night where we would fire everything into the wood-line to discourage Charley. The guys would link 4 or 5 belts together, in a neat pile, and sandbag the barrel and let it rip. There were mini-contest to see who could fire the longest belt. We also did the same with the M16, They would truly glow after 10-12 20 rd mags.

No Problemo..

Now it was heavy and mechanically complicated so I would vote for something like the MG3/MG-43,,, belt fed,, 7.62x51..

Belt fed and 7.62 cal,, the bar the 5.56 can't reach..

:munchin

Problem with M60's was that they had to be regularly cleaned and PMCS'd. Don't know about the 240's.

I'm pretty sure that my platoon had those same two M60's in 1992.

You can't beat a 7.62 belt fed machine gun. As many with more experience than me have pointed out, the sound of a M-60 firing drowned out the SAW's, letting everybody know that some serious lead was going downrange. You also can't beat the improved penetration and damage a 7.62 round does.

All that said, the M60's we had, although well loved, had a a bad habit of shooting themselves to pieces. The buttstocks would vibrate off, leaf springs constantly falling out (although tied down), etc. It was not uncommon to start off a company SBF position with six M60's firing and end up with one or two left trying to shoot through everyone else's ammo.

I've never fired a new M60, but the M240 sure seems to me like a better weapon.

They did.
We call it the M-240b

If the USMC wanted an improvement to the M-249 maybe they should have gone to the MK48 instead.
All they did was buy a new battle rifle that fires full auto.
They could have pulled a bunch of old M-16A1's out of mothballs and would have nearly the exact same capability.

If the claim against an M-16/M-4 on full auto is a poor gas system, then they should have just stuck with the SAW, or traded up to the MK48.

Frivolous expenditure of taxpayer money.
...just my two cents.

my mistake...
 

I'm sorry QP's I didn't mean personally as in I had PERSONAL experience with the weapon it was just my personal opinon (in hind sight maybe not the best choice of wording) but everyone I have talked to seems to speak very highly of it anyway....I'm sorry if there were any mix up:(

I hung on to an M60D for five years and it is probably one of my favorite weapons. We had problems with a few of them and I actually broke an op rod in half on one shoot. Never figured that one out. However, once I found a good one, I wouldn't fly with anything but that particular weapon, and it fired like a dream.

With that being said, I never understood how it ramped up from 100 to 200 to 550 rounds per minute ie. sustained/rapid/cyclic. Can anyone help me with this? Being an ops guy, we mainly shot them then cleaned them, that's it. The major work was performed by our squadron AO's, so I never found out.

I cant comment with a straight face as to how heavy it gets. The farthest I had to hump it was the flightline to the helo. :D

From FM 3.22-68

BLUF: You can fire your weapon as fast and as long as you want until (a) it blows up in your face, (b) the barrel melts and warps, (c) you run out of ammo, or (d) until Charlie overtakes your position...

Rate of Fire

5-29. Use sustained, rapid, and cyclic rates of fire with the machine gun (Table 5‑2). These rates enable leaders to control and sustain your fire and to help you avoid destroying your barrel. More than anything else, the size of the target and ammunition supply dictate your rate of fire.

Sustained Fire
5-30. This is the normal rate of fire for the gunner. Sustained fire for the M249 is 50 rounds per minute in bursts of 3 to 5 rounds, with 4 to 5 second intervals between bursts. The M60 and M240B are 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds. The gunner pauses 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at sustained rate for 10 minutes.

Rapid Fire

5-31. For all three weapons, the barrel should be changed after firing at a rapid rate for 2 minutes. This allows an exceptionally high volume of fire, but for only a short period of time. Specifics for each weapon follow:

M249

5-32. Rapid fire for the M249 is 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 8 to 10 with an interval of 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.

M60 and M240B

5-33. For the M60 and M240B, rapid fire is 200 rounds per minute in bursts of 10 to 12 rounds again with an interval of 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.

Cyclic Fire

5-34. Cyclic fire uses the most ammunition that can be used in 1 minute. The cyclic rate of fire with the machine gun is achieved when the trigger is held to the rear and ammunition is fed into the weapon uninterrupted for one minute. Normal cyclic rate of fire for the M249 is 850 rounds, M60 is 550 rounds, and for the M240B it is 650 to 950 rounds. Always change the barrel after firing at cyclic rate for 1 minute. This procedure provides the highest volume of fire that the machine gun can fire, but this adversely affects the machine gun, and should only be fired in combat under emergency purposes only.

Sustained Rate of Fire Application:
This is the gunner's normal rate of fire.

Rate:
· M249 50 rounds per minute,
in 3- to 5-round bursts.


· M60, M240B 100 rounds per minute,
in 6‑ to 9-round bursts.

Maintenance:
Gunner pauses for 4 to 5 seconds between bursts.

Barrel:
Gunner changes barrel after 10 minutes sustained rate.

Rapid Rate of Fire Application:
This rate of fire works best when the gunner is trying to establish fire superiority.

Rate:
100 rounds per minute M249 in bursts of 6 to 8 rounds
200 rounds per minute M240 or M60 in bursts of 10 to 12 rounds

Maintenance:
Pause for 2 to 3 seconds between bursts.

Barrel:
Change after firing 2 minutes at rapid rate.

Advantage:
Exceptionally high volume of fire.

Disadvantages:
Feasible only for short periods of time
Requires frequent barrel changes.

Cyclic Rate of Fire Application:
This rate of fire should only be used in combat emergencies.

Method:
Hold trigger to the rear; feed ammunition uninterrupted for 1 minute.

Normal Rate:
· M249
850 rounds per minute.


· M60
550 rounds per minute.


· M240B
650 to 950 rounds per minute.

Advantage:
Places the most possible rounds on the enemy in one minute.

Disadvantage:
Damaging to barrel.

Barrel:
Change after firing 1 minute at cyclic rate.


Table 5‑2. Rates of fire.

Lots of great info in there, thank you sir.

But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).

You missed the point.

The point is, that without personal experience your comments on this subject are nothing more than noise and add nothing to the discussion.

A number of years back our team had a debate on whether or not SAWs were needed for a series of air assaults that we were doing. One set of guys wanted the 249's (2 for a 10 man ODA), and the other felt that everyone was accurate enough with their M4s to make it a moot point, at least in the terrain we were operating in. Luckily the 249 crowd won the argument on that one.

One operation saw a hot LZ with a downed team mate. The SAW gunners both went cyclic into suspected enemy postitions and it made a huge difference. Fire superiorty, not slow aimed fire, allowed guys to start maneuvering and eliminate the threat. Having to change mags every 30 rounds or so might not have made them as effective.

I think that some marines somewhere might regret this decision in the future, but thats just my opinion. YMMV.

You are kidding, right?:rolleyes:

TR

LMG
 

Was with WPNS in USMC in the 90's (between times only paper targets). Carried the SAW and the M60 no 240's yet. The only thing i liked about saw was that it was lighter, but it jamed more. If i ever was in combat i would of wanted a belt fed (not counting the M2) 30 cal gun. Whats the point of a 30 rnd 22 cal mg?

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Knight: But actually, I was hoping for HOW it accomplishes the automatic change in rates. You can hear the weapon kick into the higher rate almost as if its changing gears. I'm not sure if its a heat thing, lever thing, or psychic thing (ie. give me more lead now damnit!).

Quote:

Reponded to by The Reaper: You are kidding, right? :rolleyes:

TR,

I do not think that he is kidding? I think that he is really serious! :eek:



Black Knight,

Go back to BKKMAN's very informative post and reread it. Pay particular attention to the "Maintenance" portion for both the "Sustained and Rapid Rate of Fire" sections and to "Method" under "Cyclic Rate of Fire".

I will even offer you a hint. The M60 does not automatically change its rate of fire. Got it figured out now? ;)

Thomas