Lazy historical question to kill time while at work

[YankeeDog]

The US Marine Corps is replacing the M249 SAW with the M27, an automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine.

http://www.military.com/news/article/corps-to-replace-saw-with-automatic-rifle.html

As best as I can gather, the Marines are attracted to the automatic rifle's greater accuracy and reduced ammunition expenditure. There were also concerns about the difficulty of employing the heavy SAW in urban environments.

An interesting move... one wonders why they aren't just replacing both the M16A4 and the M249 with the M27 and going for a unified armament at the squad level. This would make logistics easier; the difference in weight between the two weapons is less than a pound. The M27/H&K 416 design has some advantages in terms of accuracy and reliability over the M16 family, and it's definitely in the Assault Rifle class. I suppose cost of a wholesale infantry rearmament might be the reason.

According to the article, the Marines are keeping 9 M249s at the Company level, which is the equivalent of one per rifle squad, so it's not like they're ditching belt-fed firepower at the lower levels of of organization. Curious to see how that will work out exactly in the TO&E -- whether the M249s are just going to be part of the "weapons locker" that the Company Commander can dole out when the tactical situation merits, or whether there are Marines in the Company that carry them as a default weapon.

[sgtstinky]

The M249 is a great system, I never had any issues with accuracy, weight or the amount of ammo since I could use a 300 round drum, 100 round bag, or a 30 round magazine. Expending ammunition is influenced by rate of fire and available rounds but is controlled by a disciplined gunner and his squad leader. All things come to an end and I will be sad to see the M249 go, just like the M60 which was a love hate relationship.

My X-father in law was young Marine in WWII and he carried a BAR in Okinawa, he related numerous close call banzai charges that were disrupted by his BAR. I can only imagine the pucker factor.

[sgtstinky]

The M249 is a great system, I never had any issues with accuracy, weight or the amount of ammo since I could use a 300 round drum, 100 round bag, or a 30 round magazine. Expending ammunition is influenced by rate of fire and available rounds but is controlled by a disciplined gunner and his squad leader. All things come to an end and I will be sad to see the M249 go, just like the M60 which was a love hate relationship.

My X-father in law was young Marine in WWII and he carried a BAR in Okinawa, he related numerous close call banzai charges that were disrupted by his BAR. I can only imagine the pucker factor.

200 round drum, dang it, old age is a bugger...

[MG TOW]

Virtualy every assault rifle today has an HB variant, or heavy barrel and Bipod. FN FAL had the 30 round clip with Bipod, FNC2 as the squad support weapon, Steyr Aug HBAR-T, Enfield with that L86 pictured above. Are these LMG's, Automatic rifles, or more commonly a squad support weapon. Difficult to label.

[Michael Emrys]

Gunners shooting the M27 have been getting first-round hits on targets beyond 300 meters much more consistently than they have in the past with the M249, Clark said.

"In the training, the Marines were employing it in the semi-auto mode until they closed within 100 meters or so of the enemy and then switch to full auto to provide very accurate high rates of fire," he added. "We don't lose the ability to gain fire superiority."

Sounds like the Marines are returning to the pre-WW II practice of emphasizing aimed fire (not that the USMC ever abandoned it to quite the same extent of other forces). It this catches on, it will represent an interesting reversal of trends over the last century.

Michael

[JasonC]

YankeeDog -thanks for the correction, you are quite right about the Chauchat and its feed mechanism. I was misled by photos of the rarer Hotchkiss M1909 LMG of the same era, which took belts or mags. Yes the Chauchat preceeded the BAR, and it is fair to say that keeping the weight and deployability features of the Chauchat withouts its jamming problems was the idea behind the BAR design. The Chauchat wasn't the first in its category, though - that goes to the Madsen LMG (Danish design, turn of the century, used by dozens of countries in several calibers but in limited numbers). It was much more extensively deployed though, that is true.

As for the comment from another poster than the US didn't even have an MMG at platoon level, um sure it did, the Browning 30 cal M1919A4.

As for the comment that automatic rifles as a concept proved a dead end, modern assault rifles replaced them, going to carbine calibers in most cases but definitely not in all, and have their own drawbacks in range, penetrating power vs cover, and these days vs body armor. There remains a lot to be said for the M14, FN-FAL, and G3 - which kept full rifle caliber with 20-30 round box magazines, while using modern tech advances to get them in a rifle two thirds to half the weight of the BAR. I'd hardly call that a dead end.

[YankeeDog]

The Masden... interesting. Never read up on that one.

It is interesting to see that deployment and use of automatic rifles amongst U.S. and many other first world militaries has crept upwards a bit over the last 10 years or so. I certainly don't think there's going to be a large movement back to full rifle-caliber weapons as the standard infantryman weapon anytime soon, but given the nature of current conflicts, and some recent advances in technology those who decide these things seem to have concluded that there is a call for limited deployment of automatic rifles on the modern battlefield, as a complement to the assault rifle, SAW and sniper rifle.

[Squatdog]

YankeeDog -thanks for the correction, you are quite right about the Chauchat and its feed mechanism. I was misled by photos of the rarer Hotchkiss M1909 LMG of the same era, which took belts or mags. Yes the Chauchat preceeded the BAR, and it is fair to say that keeping the weight and deployability features of the Chauchat withouts its jamming problems was the idea behind the BAR design. The Chauchat wasn't the first in its category, though - that goes to the Madsen LMG (Danish design, turn of the century, used by dozens of countries in several calibers but in limited numbers). It was much more extensively deployed though, that is true.

As for the comment from another poster than the US didn't even have an MMG at platoon level, um sure it did, the Browning 30 cal M1919A4.

As for the comment that automatic rifles as a concept proved a dead end, modern assault rifles replaced them, going to carbine calibers in most cases but definitely not in all, and have their own drawbacks in range, penetrating power vs cover, and these days vs body armor. There remains a lot to be said for the M14, FN-FAL, and G3 - which kept full rifle caliber with 20-30 round box magazines, while using modern tech advances to get them in a rifle two thirds to half the weight of the BAR. I'd hardly call that a dead end.

The 'Automatic Rifle' concept was an evolutionary dead end. The M14 was the natural progression of the Garand and had nothing to do with the BAR.

As of late 1944, the typical US Army rifle platoon didn't contain a single MMG.

[JasonC]

Both comments are semantic nonsense.

The M14 is an automatic rifle. So is the FN-FAL and so is the G3. That the weight of rifles and the automatic of LMGs met in the middle as tech advanced doesn't make the AR concept a dead end.

As for the MMG comment, the TOE put 3 30 cal M1919A4s in a company weapons platoon, but practice in the field frequently put one in each of that company's platoons.

The airborne meanwhile M1919A6s in each squad.

[Squatdog]

Once again, the 'Automatic Rifle' concept as employed by the BAR had no bearing on the M14 whatsoever, as it was basically an upgraded Garand variation with it's clip replaced by a 20-round magazine.

Number of MMG's in a typical US Army rifle platoon? ZERO. Three whole 30.Cal Brownings in an entire Infantry Company? Yay.

[Sakai007]

An M1919A4 per platoon seems good to me. You are providing tri-pod mounted MMG support for each and every platoon in the company. Not to mention the single BAR in each squad of that platoon. That's a lot of firepower for a platoon IMHO. Is that equal to the number of MG42 in a German platoon, no. However, just about every rifleman was armed with the semi-automatic M1 Garand. More then a match then the 98k armed squad when it comes to fire superiority. With the airborne we get much close to parity with the M1919A6 being deployed on the squad level.

Granted, the direct lineage of the M14 does not include the BAR. The concept is there, as in a full automatic rifle firing full rifle rounds. If anything, it's furthering the concept by placing one in the hand or each and every rifleman, instead on one per squad.

[akd]

Both comments are semantic nonsense.

The M14 is an automatic rifle. So is the FN-FAL and so is the G3. That the weight of rifles and the automatic of LMGs met in the middle as tech advanced doesn't make the AR concept a dead end.

They are not automatic rifles in the sense of the Browning Automatic Rifle and the role of Automatic Rifleman in the US squad. Turning these battle rifles into squad support weapons has generally proved a dead end. They never did really meet in the middle, as once the weight goes down the weapon becomes uncontrollable during automatic fire and if the barrel is not heavy enough it can't provide sustained fire support. Up the barrel weight and add features to help with controllability and you end up with a weapon that is no longer a good rifle, but isn't a very good LMG either.

Seeking a lightweight replacement for the M1 Garand and the M1918A2 BAR, The Army selected the M14 rifle in 1957. Production of the M14 rifle was halted in 1964, by which time 1,380,874 had been manufactured. The M14 7.62 mm rifle is a magazine-fed, gas operated shoulder weapon, designed primarily for semi-automatic fire. It was the standard service rifle until it was replaced in the late-1960s by the 5.56mm M16A1 rifle. At one time the standard issued rifle for Marines, the M14 is now used primarily in the Competition in Arms program, or for drill and ceremonial purposes. The M16 replaced the M14 as the Table of Organization rifle for the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War.

M14, basically a product improved M1 Garand, performed well as a infantry rifle. The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m). The M14 used a standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge in a 20-round magazine. The M14 was the standard Army infantry rifle, until replaced by the mass fielding of the M16 5.56mm rifle in 1966-1967. Some M14s were equipped with a bipod for use as a squad automatic weapons. However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle.

M14A1. The Army designed the model M14A1 to overcome these problems, but it was too light to become a truly successful replacement for the M1918 series BAR, and production was halted in 1963. The M14A1 featured a full pistol grip and a folding forward hand grip.

The Masden... interesting. Never read up on that one.

It is interesting to see that deployment and use of automatic rifles amongst U.S. and many other first world militaries has crept upwards a bit over the last 10 years or so. I certainly don't think there's going to be a large movement back to full rifle-caliber weapons as the standard infantryman weapon anytime soon, but given the nature of current conflicts, and some recent advances in technology those who decide these things seem to have concluded that there is a call for limited deployment of automatic rifles on the modern battlefield, as a complement to the assault rifle, SAW and sniper rifle.

The Marine's M27 is 5.56mm. The movement back toward rifle-caliber weapons has generally been for long-range reach, not automatic firepower, e.g. reissued M14s, the Brit L129A1, German G3s, etc.

[Sublime]

Interesting. I always overlooked the simple A4 to A6 difference in the M1919. Jasonc, akd, anyone - whats the difference between the A4 and A6? Is it just some simple change to make it more portable to jump out of an aircraft? or is it more significant? I dont see much difference between them.

BTW The browning .30 MMG isnt as bad as everyone says. I have a lot better luck with it than the 1917. It gets deployed fast. not a bad round. decent ROF.

[LukeFF]

The M1919A6 was an attempt to make the M1919 a light machine gun by attaching a buttstock and lighter barrel, but it ended up being heaving than the Lewis MG.

[YankeeDog]

The Marine's M27 is 5.56mm. The movement back toward rifle-caliber weapons has generally been for long-range reach, not automatic firepower, e.g. reissued M14s, the Brit L129A1, German G3s, etc.

No argument; I was not thinking of the M27 when I said that there is a modest movement back towards rifle-caliber weapons, but rather the M14, L129A1 etc. that you mention. These have definitely crept back into usage to provide supplemental, longer range aimed firepower at the squad and platoon level in current conflicts.

The M27/H&K 416 I would actually consider an Assault Rifle, albeit one with somewhat better long range performance than the M1916A4, which is why I'm not quite sure I understand why it's replacing the M249. Seems to me the M27 is basically a better, modernized M16. Figures vary a bit depending on which web source you look at, but as far as I can tell, the weight difference between the two weapons is less than 1/2 pound. Other than this very modest difference in weight, they of similar length, use exactly the same same magazine, use the same accessories, have similar ROF, etc...

[Peachy]

Interesting discussion.

I was always under the impression that the UK shifted from Rifle Caliber not only to align with its NATO allies but also because the infantrys job was to close with the enemy and high volume short range supressive fire was more effective to do that job than accurate long range fire. In order to get the volume of fire you need to supress you need a lot of ammo.

The one thing that hasnt been mentioned is the weight of the ammunition. My understanding certainly in the UK is that Rifle Calibre automatic weapons and high rate of fire automatic weapons require a lot of ammunition and it weighs a lot!

So to go back to the MG42 - its only real limitation was that it needed a lot of ammo and it ran out quickly - so every squad member had to carry lots of 7.62 LMG ammunition.

Likewise with the GPMG and the SLR in the UK - the size of the weapon was one issue but the weight of the ammunition was a bigger one.

I assume that despite being 5.56 the SAW has a similar problem with ammunition volume and weight.

I guess a balance between short range hight volume suppression and long range acccuracy is a hard one to achieve when you need to take into account the weight of the weapon and ammunition as well.

[TrailApe]

I was always under the impression that the UK shifted from Rifle Caliber not only to align with its NATO allies but also because the infantrys job was to close with the enemy and high volume short range supressive fire was more effective to do that job than accurate long range fire. In order to get the volume of fire you need to supress you need a lot of ammo.

Hello Peachy.

Way back in days of Yore – when I was a SAS warrior (Saturdays and Sundays) they took our SLR’s off us and gave us the SA80.

We were obviously given the usual training on it, maintenance, stoppages, immediate action drills and how to put the sling on - don’t laugh – it’s a right cats cradle, especially when compared to what we had before.

But apart from the training on the weapon itself, there was no revision of how it was to be used – ie aimed single round fire. Even on the section defence ranges (couple of trenches and waves of pop up targets) it was only on the support weapon that we flicked the switch and went to full auto – and that was only replacing (in our case) the L4 LMG, which had been used in the same way.

Now whether that was parsimony (ammo costs money) or safety concerns I don’t know, but the change from SLR to SA80 didn’t change the method of applying fire onto the target. We were aching to put these new gatts onto full rock and roll and bust some caps, but sadly never got the chance.

Now this was in the late 80’s (flaming hell – last century:eek:) and things might have changed, but at the time of the swap over it was not to use more ammo but to be able to carry more rounds.

If anybody knows different - especially a 'proper' soldier, please chip in.

[JasonC]

Peachy - the move to carbine ammo starts from analysis of typical combat ranges and then segues to ammo supply and weight, sure. The US favored the light .223 because about twice as many rounds can be carried for the same weight as full rifle ammo. The range drops to more like 250 yards from 500. The decision thus reflects a conscious prediction that longer range engagements would mostly be decided by much heavier weaponry and that small arms would be used mostly up close and personal, and that ammo load was more important than muzzle velocity, therefore.

Which was and is true enough as far as it goes - until the other guy is behind cover. Suddenly there is a lot more cover rather than concealment on the battlefield when you step down to carbine ammo - because a full rifle round just goes clean through lots of things.

And then comes modern body armor. And now the target is *wearing* cover, to a carbine - but not to a full rifle round.

And then comes low intensity warfare, where sure your side has 2000 lb bombs on F-16s and the guy on the ground has a radio - bully - but the target is a mud hut like any other on the side of a mountain the size of K2, surrounded by entirely similar mountains, and inside there is one HMG manned by all of 2 guys, and they are oh maybe 400 yards away - and whoops, the entire squad has nothing organic to deal with it, and gets to wait for that F-16 to get a bead and hope he's right and by the way, get really small for this one.

Hmm. When an ordinary rifle round from a century earlier would go right through those thin mud walls and let every rifleman suppress that MG. Men carried AT4s and tried to get up to 200 meters or less just to take out a mud hut.

So smarter officers decided maybe they actually did want a full 7.62mm belt fed MG organic - and several 7.62mm sniper rifles - and no, it wasn't always enough to have more bullets for all the .223s.

And that was our side. The enemy gets to face everyone in body armor, and only their poverty and stupidity still has them (thankfully) still using carbine caliber AKs. If I had to fight any army with modern body armor, the smallest stuff any of my guys would pack would be a full rifle round...

FWIW

[Pete Wenman]

Trailape - I was T/A as well and can remember the transition from SLR to SA80.

I also remember going through the FIBUA complex at Copehill Down for two weeks just after we converted, and we went fully auto from the start. Blanks in the village obviously, but live on the ranges.

It was great fun

And yes the SA80 sling was a nightmare, and I laugh out loud at remembering a couple of the lads going hand free, then watching in horror as the rifle crashed to the floor.

P

[TrailApe]

Pete - we were artillery, so I suppose they thought dopey gunners better be kept locked down when it came to small arms expenditure - I suppose the bullets we fired from our bigger pieces of kit were quite expensive.

As to JasonC's points - totally agree, 7.62/.303 can go through a lot of stuff (which perhaps generates the "why are my troops getting shot when in houses" discussions that pop up on this site) and that ability to reach out has been lost with the drop down to 5.56 - which Jason correctly points out is .22 calibre - that's the calibre my sons air rifles are!

Of course the plus side of that is that the 5.56 rounds are not going to go zooming through the target and crack on for another mile - doing who knows what damage - quite important in this asymmetrical warfare when the target is surrounded by non-combatants.

Not sure how the rest of NATO is dealing with this dilema in Afghanistan, but I know our lot are taking a pragmatic approach and buying in a few L129A1 (already mentioned earlier by Yankee Dog and akd) to issue to the better shots of the patrol, so you have a combination of weapons that should cover most eventualities.

[Sakai007]

The same is happening on this side of the pond Trail, as our boys go out packing an M14 or two for long range and heavy cover shooting. The Squad Designated Marksman. There are still some SDM M16s kicking around as well, but they don't solve the penetration problem.

Got to ask guys, anyone ever heard of or seen a bolt action version of the M14??? Buddy of mine was in Iraq 06 - 07 and swears up and down that their platoon had at least one issued. His was a sort of fire brigade platoon for the whole Batt. and had some ops as security for spec ops guys and I thought he might have mistaken the weapon he thought was in his squad to one those guys were using. He said no way, so I was wondering if any of you had heard of such a thing???

[Michael Emrys]

Got to ask guys, anyone ever heard of or seen a bolt action version of the M14??? Buddy of mine was in Iraq 06 - 07 and swears up and down that their platoon had at least one issued. His was a sort of fire brigade platoon for the whole Batt. and had some ops as security for spec ops guys and I thought he might have mistaken the weapon he thought was in his squad to one those guys were using. He said no way, so I was wondering if any of you had heard of such a thing???

No such thing as a bolt action M14 that I ever heard of. There are one or two 7.62 mm bolt action sniper rifles around and my guess is that it was one of those.

Michael

[JasonC]

Sakai007 - the standard US sniper rifle from Nam to the late 1980s was based on the M14 - the M21 sniper rifle. Later they transitioned to the M24, which is a bolt action rifle, some believing they get more precision with the bolt action than with a semi auto system (because it eliminates gas tube blowback and any - miniscule, frankly - kick of torque to the gun that may cause - does mean more time to get back on target for a second shot however).

The M24 is based on the civilian Remington 700 series, however, not on the M14.

The army continues to go back on forth on the subject - the latest sniper weapon is the M110, which is full rifle caliber but back to semi-auto - but looks more like an oversized M16 than either of the previous.

My guess is your report was actually about an M24, and the M14 connection just refers to the M21 predecessor in the role...

If someone was using an M21 they'd say it was a scoped M14; if the guy next to him used an M24 instead, he'd say it is the bolt action "version" of an army sniper rifle in full rifle caliber, etc...

[Bigduke6]

Sounds like the Marines are returning to the pre-WW II practice of emphasizing aimed fire (not that the USMC ever abandoned it to quite the same extent of other forces). It this catches on, it will represent an interesting reversal of trends over the last century.

Michael

Yeah, and it's a fine idea too as long as modern armies continue only to fight against outgunned opponents who can't hope to win firefights.

But pretty much every time the other side gets more firepower, the wealthy nation friendlies demand more for themselves. They eventually get it too but there can be some nasty results in the interim, I'm thinking Boer War for instance.

If for instance the US Marines go too far down the road of accurate individual fire and less massed automatic supression, you watch, some clever insurgent/bad guy is going to notice that and exploit it. Maybe set up an ambush with a whole ton of small arms firepower designed to wipe out a squad, or major supression preceding a quick assult on a checkpoint.

[Michael Emrys]

If for instance the US Marines go too far down the road of accurate individual fire and less massed automatic supression, you watch, some clever insurgent/bad guy is going to notice that and exploit it. Maybe set up an ambush with a whole ton of small arms firepower designed to wipe out a squad, or major supression preceding a quick assult on a checkpoint.

Frankly, I don't see the USMC giving up lots of full auto in the squad. I can see them having something available to the squad that puts out long range accurate fire in situations where that is needed. I can also see them having a riot gun available to the squad where that might be handy to have.

Michael