Corps chooses H&K
- Thread starter LeRoy
- Start date
if the new rifle could stand up to sustained ammounts of automatic fire, and they developed a 100-150 round drum/snail/betaC type mag, then ok, i could get on board with the concept ..
The IAR I believe is supposed to be an improvement/replacement of the SAW.
With a magazine feed over a belt feed:
Pros:
It's easier to reload on the move.
Allows the top gunner on a vehicle to duck into the vehicle to reload or fix a jam unlike a M249 where the soldier has to get on top of the weapon to reload it properly or fix a jam.
Ammunition is not exposed to the elements (No or less mud, snow, ice, leaves, dirt or sand to cause malfunctions).
Less overheating due to less ammunition fired in long strings or bursts.
Cons:
Decreased amount of sustained fire
However while you can have almost "endless" belt of linked ammunition. A longer belt has a greater chance to twist and snag on something an cause a malfunction. The longer the belt the greater the weight causing the weapon to pull harder with the feed mechanism. As well as the increased chance of overheating with an untrained user.
I've heard (unconfirmed) that more soldiers are using the 100 round assault packs instead of the 200 round plastic boxes of linked ammunition for increased reliability. Using the 30 round AR mags was not very reliable as well I've heard (unconfirmed).
I don't think the M249 or IAR would be a good choice for a gun truck. I think it should at least by a 7.62 NATO (M240) or even better a .50 Browning (M2HB).
The question was do they want a SAW that also works as a rifle? Or a rifles that also works as a SAW?
Seeing they chose the HK, I think they chose the latter.
I thought they wanted the former and were favouring the Ultimax Mk4.
With a magazine feed over a belt feed:
Pros:
It's easier to reload on the move.
Allows the top gunner on a vehicle to duck into the vehicle to reload or fix a jam unlike a M249 where the soldier has to get on top of the weapon to reload it properly or fix a jam.
Ammunition is not exposed to the elements (No or less mud, snow, ice, leaves, dirt or sand to cause malfunctions).
Less overheating due to less ammunition fired in long strings or bursts.
Cons:
Decreased amount of sustained fire
However while you can have almost "endless" belt of linked ammunition. A longer belt has a greater chance to twist and snag on something an cause a malfunction. The longer the belt the greater the weight causing the weapon to pull harder with the feed mechanism. As well as the increased chance of overheating with an untrained user.
I've heard (unconfirmed) that more soldiers are using the 100 round assault packs instead of the 200 round plastic boxes of linked ammunition for increased reliability. Using the 30 round AR mags was not very reliable as well I've heard (unconfirmed).
I don't think the M249 or IAR would be a good choice for a gun truck. I think it should at least by a 7.62 NATO (M240) or even better a .50 Browning (M2HB).
The question was do they want a SAW that also works as a rifle? Or a rifles that also works as a SAW?
Seeing they chose the HK, I think they chose the latter.
I thought they wanted the former and were favouring the Ultimax Mk4.
I think the M249 is similar to the C9, which I used quite a bit in the reserves.
It takes mags and belts (in the 200 round box)
Using magazines sucked, not very fluid to change, they also jammed.
Loose belts did twist and snag, however from the box they were pretty problem free and it was relatively easy to handle. It isn't hard to relink partial belts and put them back in the box anyway.
The belts from the box were generally ok, you only had to worry about a few inches that are exposed, and not let it get filled with crap.
Misfeeds from the belt were very easy to clear, just ####, pop the top, sweep and relay the belt.
For it's role I thought the C9 was very good. Perhaps in some situations they might want to just have riflemen with more ammunition and higher capacity magazines than support machineguns.
The C9 is too big, heavy and awkward to be an assault rifle.
It takes mags and belts (in the 200 round box)
Using magazines sucked, not very fluid to change, they also jammed.
Loose belts did twist and snag, however from the box they were pretty problem free and it was relatively easy to handle. It isn't hard to relink partial belts and put them back in the box anyway.
The belts from the box were generally ok, you only had to worry about a few inches that are exposed, and not let it get filled with crap.
Misfeeds from the belt were very easy to clear, just ####, pop the top, sweep and relay the belt.
For it's role I thought the C9 was very good. Perhaps in some situations they might want to just have riflemen with more ammunition and higher capacity magazines than support machineguns.
The C9 is too big, heavy and awkward to be an assault rifle.
You know, I could buy that if they upped the 240's to 3-4 per Pl. Not necessarily 1 240 per squad, just available as necessary. Heavy weapons det type thing.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a platoon with just M16FOW/M203 along with one single M240.
But that's just my MP opinion.
Last edited:
From what I'm reading on LF this is a response to M249's being a ##### during Fallujah. The SAW too cumbersome in room to room, slagging behind, no maneuverability,etc.
And FNH and HK are developping some crazy drum type mag for it. apparently.
And FNH and HK are developping some crazy drum type mag for it. apparently.
The HK 416 bolt system runs cooler, that might be part of the issue they're trying to solve. Lot of the jamming was apparently because of the overheating in the gas system. They would surely need more to 30 rounds to effect the same roll as the M249 though. If they CAN come up with a STANAG mag system capable of holding ~150+ rounds. That would be more effective because I'm sure it can be reloaded faster than a belt fed system.
I think this article might be another example of bad imcomplete reporting just like most of the antigun articles out there.
I think this article might be another example of bad imcomplete reporting just like most of the antigun articles out there.
If house/building clearing is such a priority why wouldn't they consider the para version of the Minimi with the 100 rd. assault packs? Folding stock, short barrel length, and greater portability with the added benefit of having troops already trained and familiar with the basic platform.
I agree, they're going backwards not forward here.
I agree, they're going backwards not forward here.
they already have those.
marines are generally using the para version.. which is short barrell and collapsable stock
ht tp://www.murdoconline.net/2008/saw.jpg
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
It's not a machinegun, it's an automatic rifle. The M240 is the machinegun. The predecessor of the M249 was the BAR, the Corps moaned for years about not having a replacement for the BAR because the M14 couldn't stand up to the volume of fire and the M60 was too heavy.
However I always thought the main complaint about the M249 was the magazine feed, I have a friend in the British Army and he's issued an FN Minimi Para and that's his major complaint about it. It would have made more sense to ditch the magazine feed and go belt fed only, imo.
The short barrel/collapsible stock M249/C9 LMGs aren't as cumbersome as some say.
Some are indeed using first contact short belts and carry packs filled with belts prepackaged to feed the gun from the pack.
This takes quite a bit of practice to get it right otherwise one there is the risk of snags and breaking the belt.
