Originally Posted by
Failure2Stop
The IAR is a purpose-driven requirement with the idea being increased accuracy/precision and usability for a platform intended to increase the flexability and effectiveness of the fireteam/squad. It is not a replacement for the SAW, as the SAW is a great LMG, but a poor automatic rifle.
There is no formal qualification requirement or plausable solution for sufficient training to correctly employ the M249, whereas the Marines have an excellent M16/M4 oriented training program. Building off the success of the training program by matching ergonomics and user-level skills of the current weapons system to the IAR makes sense.
Regardless of the training issues, the SAW is cumbersome and a hinderance to most operations for several reasons:
-Though the M249 utilizes standard NATO 5.56, it requires belted ammo for reliable function. Some magaine designs and follower upgrades reduce the magazine-feed problems that plagued SAWs for a long time, but cannot address the basic issues related to sub-optimal feeding sources. Since the primary feed method is by belt, the Squad/Team does not truly have ammunition interchangability. The belted ammo frequently gets snagged on vegetation, and tends to pick up foreign matter, causing stoppages that are usually not correctable by immediate action.
-The SAW is usually carried in Condition 3, as hard impact has caused many to AD (though the argument that those are old/worn SAWs is vaild). This reduces the reaction time for the most critical weapon in the team in the event of an actual direct-fire contact.
-Corrective action on the SAW takes far longer than an AR platform. As the SAW is the base of fire for team movement this is unacceptable. The SAW is more sensitive to maintenence and debris than the AR platform, often failing when needed most. Immediate action on the SAW rarely eliminates the stoppage cause, frequently requiring the user to go into remedial action, which takes quite some time, is difficult to accomplish from an actual fighting position, and is very difficult without visual focus on the operating parts.
-Mounting optics on the SAW is usually accomplished by attaching the optic to a 1913 rail on the feed-tray cover. The feed-tray cover is by no means a stable enough platform for anything approaching consistent shot placement. Further, the stocks on the M249 and Para-SAW are designed to align the shooter's eye with the low-mounted iron sights. Optics sit much higher, requiring the user to raise the head to a point that cheek-position is no longer solidly on the back of the buttstock hand, reducing the ability to control the burst cone of fire.
-The belted ammunition is noisy in drums. The patrol pouches are a bit better, but the rounds still clank against each other during movement, and are far noisier than standard M16 magazines. The drums also collect a lot of crap, especially during beach/water operations (this does also effect M16 magazines, but as they are ususally stored rounds-down, most of the crap drains right out) which is a little bit of a problem with an amphibious force.
-Controlled single-shots, while possible, are not intuitive to the bulk of users, and usually result in poor trigger-control for experienced shooters. Add to that the limitation of the operating system itself; there is a long delay between sear release and first shot, as well as a noticeable weight shift as the operating parts move forward.
-The weapon is only effective in bursts from the prone or a mounted position, even at close range.
-Conducting urban operations and CQB with a 20" M16A4 sucks. It is far worse with an M249. Add to this the utter uselessness of the SAW when shoulder-fired and you see very quickly why on most operations the SAWs are pulled from the assault force to act as the cordon or fire support. Once done, the strength of the original fireteam is reduced by 1/4, and high-volume fire fire from inside the objective/objective area is virtually eliminated.
-As the M249 is truly a LMG, it requires 2 men to effectively employ the weapon, just as with an M240G/B.
-Firing three to eight round bursts (different tests), the SAW has no greater probability of a single strike to a target as an M16A4 or M4 at distances out to 600 meters, with three to eight times the ammuniton consumption. Think of it this way- 8 round burst per target (highest chance of single strike per burst), 200 rounds per belt. That's 25 targets, assuming that the first burst strikes the target at least once.
-The SAW is no more caipable of intermediate barrier penetration than the M16/M4, except with concentrated fire to a specific point.
I could keep going on, but will stop here to prevent myself from a full dissertation on the issue.
The M249 will still be retained by the unit for use on vehicles or with the element(s) tasked with supporting the assault or as a base of fire. A 13 man squad with 6 M249s, each with a dedicated A-Gunner would be a nice thing to have for any assault. The M249 squad can maneuver on the objective under the cover of heavier supporting arms, and provide stand-off fire for the final assaulting elements from realistic engagement distances.
The IAR Concept is a weapon that essentially feels and works like a standard service rifle, with the same sighting capabilities, and the same single-shot precision. But the IAR is able to deliver a heavy volume of fire if needed at distances typical to small arms engagements (most at under 200 meters, with the majority of them at under 75 meters), from positions realistically usable at those distances (to include the standing), and is able to employ the sighting and identification technology of the service rifle. A closed bolt intial operation is preferable for precision shots, and the ability to switch over to an open-bolt operation for suppressive fire prevents cook-offs. The objective requirement was for a closed bolt weapon, but leeway was allowed to see what industry would deliver with current technology.
A quick-change barrel is not needed as the weapon is not intended to be employed as a continuous high volume delivery system, but as a rifle with enhanced ability to handle high-volume fire in conditions of need, to support the team/squad's advance on, and occupation of, the objective.
The LWRC is not "THE" IAR, it is one of the competitors, though a good one. There is no requirement that the IAR be an AR derivative, LWRC just went that way with their notably non-Stoner operating system. There are non-AR based platform IAR competitors as well, some of which are quite innovative and effective. FWIW- The Ultimax is not a top performer.
Apologies for the lengthy post. I just wanted to clarify the purpose behind the concept, as there was mention of it several times. If this would be better placed as it's own topic, I will delete and move.