Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: M249 Muzzle Velocity vs. BBL Length vs. Effective Range

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,196
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    The SAW is an great weapon, but throw an ACOG on it and it's an awesome weapon. The M4 and the 249 shorty barrel (Para Model) are about the same length so the RCO M4 model is perfect match. I really didn't like the M145 on it, too bulky and heavy and not as user friendly as the ACOG. Throw on a folding stock, 100 round nut sack, PEQ-15, and a 2 point good sling on and you're GTG.
    Last edited by kaltesherz; 05-20-11 at 01:01.
    PRAISE THE FALLEN
    SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08
    1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08
    Cpl Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08
    Spc Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09
    PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,458
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Effective range means getting a hit a certain % of the time. This is based off mechanical accuracy, not being able to pick out and engage a target on the battlefield.

    A burst from the SAW will produce a hit at longer distance than a single shot from the M16.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    720
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd.K View Post
    Effective range means getting a hit a certain % of the time. This is based off mechanical accuracy, not being able to pick out and engage a target on the battlefield.

    A burst from the SAW will produce a hit at longer distance than a single shot from the M16.
    This being said and i do agree, would it be safe to say that an m16 on burst or full auto would have a further max effective range than it does now?
    "Courage is being scared to death ,but saddling up anyways" John wayne

    NO BETTER FRIEND NO WORSE ENEMY

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,808
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns-up.50 View Post
    This being said and i do agree, would it be safe to say that an m16 on burst or full auto would have a further max effective range than it does now?
    Maybe if fired from a bipod.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,738
    Feedback Score
    46 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns-up.50 View Post
    This being said and i do agree, would it be safe to say that an m16 on burst or full auto would have a further max effective range than it does now?
    If anything, it would have a shorter max effective range.

    The only reason the SAW is considered "effective" at 800m and 1000m is because it's employed in a more stable firing position than a conventional rifle. An M16, even in a prone supported position, is still not as stable as an M249 locked in to a tripod and T&E. Even a bipod on the M249 is good enough for the role it's serving.

    For anything beyond 600m, it's my opinion that type of engagement is reserved for your crew served weapons. They have both the manpower and equipment necessary to accurately and continuously reach out and touch.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,196
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GTF425 View Post
    If anything, it would have a shorter max effective range.

    The only reason the SAW is considered "effective" at 800m and 1000m is because it's employed in a more stable firing position than a conventional rifle. An M16, even in a prone supported position, is still not as stable as an M249 locked in to a tripod and T&E. Even a bipod on the M249 is good enough for the role it's serving.

    For anything beyond 600m, it's my opinion that type of engagement is reserved for your crew served weapons. They have both the manpower and equipment necessary to accurately and continuously reach out and touch.
    +1
    M249 is fired from a bipod in a "locked in"position, nice and tight, in the prone firing a 7-9 round burst. Not only is it from a solid bipod, but it's a lot heavier and stable. An M16 fired from a bipod on burst would fire a much larger and therefor less effective group.

    Great, now I want to dig out my 249 FM...
    PRAISE THE FALLEN
    SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08
    1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08
    Cpl Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08
    Spc Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09
    PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    460
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kaltesherz View Post
    The SAW is an great weapon, but throw an ACOG on it and it's an awesome weapon.
    For what it's worth, the ones we get to play with have SDOs on them. We spent an hour talking to a pretty salty gunner about the IAR. He was pretty excited about it. The USMC is really buying into the "accuracy IS suppression" thing.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,196
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    What's an SDO? I still can't see how the IAR and match a belt-fed for suppression, especially in Afghanistan. Had he deployed with it yet? I have yet to hear any AARs of how it does in reality and not just in theory.
    PRAISE THE FALLEN
    SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08
    1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08
    Cpl Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08
    Spc Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09
    PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    460
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kaltesherz View Post
    What's an SDO? I still can't see how the IAR and match a belt-fed for suppression, especially in Afghanistan. Had he deployed with it yet? I have yet to hear any AARs of how it does in reality and not just in theory.
    An SDO is basically an ACOG for the SAW.

    The gunner's take on the IAR vs the belt-fed SAW was the following:

    • When you start factoring in time spent reloading, over the course of a few hundred rounds, the IAR was able to keep up with and, in fact, surpass the M249. He stated (but all I have is his word on the matter) that when they tested it, even their best SAW gunner could not keep up with the IAR after a reload or two. Is that realistic? I dunno, I've never tried reloading a SAW, I hear it takes a while.

    • You've also got the issue of accuracy. 100 rounds of ineffective fire impacting in a broad area around my head is worth 5 rounds of accurate snaps a few feet from my head. What we're being taught is that volume of fire does not equal fire superiority. If you can keep his head down with 1 shot every 30 seconds, that's good enough. He seemed confident that doing just that would be much easier with the IAR.

    • And then you have the magazine issue. If your automatic rifleman can feed his gun from any magazine the squad is carrying without having to worry about reliability issues, then that's worth something too.

    • And finally you have the weight benefits from the IAR. Self-explanatory.


    Now, do I agree with any or all of that? I have no idea. I have no experience with MGs (I get that this week). But it seems plausible, at least.
    Last edited by Complication; 05-22-11 at 20:39.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,196
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Thanks, I'd never knew they had an ACOG just for the SAW...

    I just don't see realistically being able to keep up that volume of fire... the SAW is not that slow to reload, esp when you've practiced and after the first 100 round nutsack you switch to 200 round boxes. While I'm sure the IAR is accurate, it's not like the SAW is known for being a blunderbuss. Oh, and SAWs run fantastic on Pmags, which seem to be issued by quite a few units now (including my last), so now every rifleman can cough up extras. While a SAW gunner can't convert 5.56 belts into mags without de-linking, the only time a crew serve should be coughing up rounds is if the weapon is down.

    I'm just curious to see how their power-point theory of the IAR does in a balls out ambush. But maybe I got so used to big Army FU's that every time there's a major doctrine change that can get people killed I'm a little cynical.

    The IAR does solve the biggest SAW complaint which is it weighs the same as a PKM, heavy mo' fo'...

    Not to turn this into an IAR vs 249 thread... lo ciento...
    Last edited by kaltesherz; 05-22-11 at 21:16.
    PRAISE THE FALLEN
    SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08
    1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08
    Cpl Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08
    Spc Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09
    PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

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
  •