Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Futureweapons Open bolt M4

  1. #11
    ToddG Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by A62Rambler View Post
    And SuicideHZ,
    I fixed my location so it wouldn't bug you dude!
    You left out the word "jelly" though ...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by Failure2Stop; 02-01-08 at 12:00. Reason: it wasn't long enough already ;)
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  3. #13
    ToddG Guest
    F2S -- wow, that was incredibly informative. Thanks!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    110
    Feedback Score
    0
    F2S,
    That was the kind of information that I had hoped to get! Thanks! Once again this site scores.
    Better equipment doesn’t make you a better shot. Better practice makes you a better shot.

    I’m not impressed by a lifetime warranty. I’m impressed by something built to last a lifetime!

    American by birth, Veteran by choice!

    Eric

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Stuarts Draft, VA
    Posts
    930
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    F2S -- wow, that was incredibly informative. Thanks!

    Same here - thanks for taking the time to put all that down.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mmike87 View Post
    Same here - thanks for taking the time to put all that down.
    Hell, I'm just suprised that three people actually took the time to read it.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Herndon,VA
    Posts
    964
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Interesting post Failure2Stop. In 1988 I was training with the Chilean Naval Infantry. The Chileans were using HK33's and their SAW was a heavy barrel 33that I have never seen since. We traded weapons and did some cross training with them. I thought the heavy barrel HK was much more controlable than the M249's we had, but it was way heavier than a HBAR AR 15 that everyone complains about.

    I was trained to use 6 to 8 round bursts in ITS for the M60. Using magazines only with a SAW would be 4 or so trigger pulls before a reload. It would be nice to get something down to the slower rate of fire like the MK19's 300-400 rpm's.

    In an ambush situation or a Cold War type battle against advancing Armies, I could see where our volume of fire from the M249 with spare barrels was King, but in a CQB environment like Iraq it must be a challenge.
    David

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    460
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dwhitehorne View Post
    Interesting post Failure2Stop. In 1988 I was training with the Chilean Naval Infantry. The Chileans were using HK33's and their SAW was a heavy barrel 33that I have never seen since. We traded weapons and did some cross training with them. I thought the heavy barrel HK was much more controlable than the M249's we had, but it was way heavier than a HBAR AR 15 that everyone complains about.
    That HK 5.56 is similar to the Spanish 5.56mm copy of the MG-42 I am thinking of, as the operating systems are very similar. The advantage of the MG-42 design is in the incredibly quick barrel change allowing a sustained volume of fire not possible with any fixed barrel system.

    However, the issues surrounding the 249 listed above would affect ANY squad auto designed primarily as a belt fed gun.

    Thanks for the lengthy description F2stop - that puts the newer gun in a much more clear light and explains why it would make sense - filling a gap between the 249 and the M4.

    BTW, I lived in Chile one winter. Great country & terrific people.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,921
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Amazing post F2S! One thing, an open bolt WILL NOT prevent a cook-off, at least not in the M249. I have no doubt it greatly increases the number of rounds which can be fired from the weapon prior to as cook-off. I have personally seen an M249 cook-off and run away, needless to say it was ugly. It was the result of "If we don't burn off these 22,000 rounds by tomorrow (end of FY) we won't get as much ammo next year".

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    260
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm almost certain FN submitted a modified variation of the SCAR for the IAR trials.


    Tspeis

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •