New automatic rifle for USMC and possible doctrine change

[akd]

Very interesting story:

Corps testing lighter alternatives to belt-fed M249

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer

Posted : Saturday Sep 13, 2008 7:31:52 EDT

Marine infantry units soon may replace their light machine guns with new automatic rifles designed to help gunners move faster on assaults.

Weapons officials at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., are testing magazine-fed weapons from at least six gun makers in a search for a lighter alternative to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which weighs close to 17 pounds unloaded.

At the squad level, “the biggest hindrance to being able to effectively fire and maneuver is the weight of the SAW,” said Patrick Cantwell, capability integration officer for the Infantry Automatic Rifle program at SysCom.

The winning IAR design — which the Corps wants to weigh no more than 12.5 pounds — could begin replacing the SAW in infantry squads as early as next year.

“We see this being the automatic rifleman’s primary weapon,” Cantwell said. “We obviously want it as soon as possible, but we are looking at sometime in 2009.”

The M249 has been in service with the Corps since the mid-1980s. The standard model weighs about 22 pounds when loaded with a 200-round belt of 5.56mm ammunition.

Despite its weight, the weapon spits out up to 750 rounds per minute, providing small units with a tremendous rate of sustained automatic fire.

Why the Army says no thanks

That’s why the Army, which also uses the M249, has ruled out a soldier version of the Marine IAR.

“We are not considering adopting an auto rifle for the infantry squad,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga.

Currently, Marine and Army infantry squads equip their fire teams with one M249 each. The difference, Radcliffe said, is that Marine squads have three fire teams, and Army squads have two fire teams.

“It’s really all about firepower. The Marine Corps has a 13-man squad; we have a nine-man squad — that’s a four-man difference.”

Army infantry officials, however, do want to find a replacement for the M249.

Since 2003, Army Materiel Command has stood up a robust refurbishing program that rebuilds worn-out SAWs to nearly new condition. But heavy operational use continues to take its toll on the M249’s performance, Radcliffe said.

“We recognize that we need to find another solution for the light machine gun in the squad,” Radcliffe said.

One option for replacing the SAW could be the MK46 — a newer version of the M249, redesigned for reduced weight and adopted by U.S. Special Operations Command in 2000. FNH USA makes the M249 and the MK46.

The MK46 has a fixed stock and 16.3-inch barrel. FNH removed features such as the magazine-feeding well, the tripod mount and the gas regulator, reducing the weight to 15.4 pounds unloaded.

The current M249 comes in two versions. The standard model features a fixed stock and a 20.5-inch barrel, and weighs in at 16.8 pounds unloaded. The paratrooper model has a collapsible stock and a 14.5-inch barrel, and weighs in at 15.95 pounds unloaded.

Like the M249, the MK46 has the same cyclic rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute.

“We are interested in the MK46,” said Army Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small-arms division at Benning, describing his brief impressions after shooting the MK46 there Aug. 6. “It does feel lighter than the SAW.”

Benning officials were quick to point out, though, that no decisions have been made on the MK46, and they offered no timeline for future testing.

Not going away completely

Marine officials are adamant the SAW is not going away. The M249 will remain in use by the rest of the Corps and will be available to Marine infantry commanders if they feel they need more firepower, Cantwell said.

The plan is to buy 4,100 IARs and reduce the number of SAWs in the Corps from 10,000 to 8,000, Cantwell said.

“We are still going to maintain SAWs in the company,” he said. “Only 2,000 SAWs will be replaced. The reminder will be kept as an organizational weapon for when commanders need them.”

The Marine Corps has been talking about the need for a lightweight IAR since 2001. But the program picked up momentum in early summer when Marine weapons officials began testing prototypes from several gun makers.

Corps officials would not say which companies are participating in the program.

But so far, officials from FNH USA, the current maker of the M249; General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products; Heckler & Koch; LWRC International LLC; and Patriot Ordnance Factory Inc. have confirmed they are competing for the contract.

Weapons sources also confirmed that Colt Defense LLC is participating in the IAR competition, but Colt officials would neither confirm nor deny the company’s participation.

One of the biggest changes Marine gunners will notice about the IAR is that it’s magazine-fed only, compared with the M249’s belted ammunition. The M249 also can fire standard-issue magazines.

Early on in the program, the requirement called for the IAR to use detachable, 100-round magazines. Now, Marine weapons officials are requiring only that it be able to run on the same 30-round magazines infantrymen use in their M16A4 rifles and M4 carbines.

Large-capacity magazines are not being ruled out for the future, but “we wanted everybody to have the same ammo and the same magazine,” Cantwell said, explaining that is easier to redistribute ammo when all the magazines are the same.

Army infantry officials maintain that switching from a 200-round belt to a 30-round magazine would cause Army squads to lose the high rate of fire they have with the M249.

“Volume of fire is important,” Radcliffe said. “The Marine Corps thinks it can get that out of a magazine-fed weapon. We don’t think the Army can.”

The M249’s sustained rate of fire is 85 rounds per minute. The requirement for the IAR calls for the weapon to fire 36 rounds per minute for 16 minutes, 40 seconds. The IAR also will be able to fire at a higher rate of 75 rounds per minute for eight minutes, Cantwell said.

Unlike the M249 — which relies on a quick-change, spare barrel to keep the heat down — the IAR will have no spare barrel, Cantwell said. It will rely on the slower rate of fire and other features to manage the heat, such as the requirement that it fire from both the open- and close-bolt position.

An open-bolt operation allows more air into the receiver and reduces the chance of a round cooking off in an overheated chamber, Cantwell said. The close-bolt mode offers more accurate fire and lowers the risk of a negligent discharge from the bolt slipping forward as a gunner maneuvers, he said.

Cantwell conceded that “there is a sacrifice of the volume of fire,” but the ability to move fast and fire accurately outweighs it. With the IAR, “you have a more maneuverable weapon that, we hope, allows the Marine [gunner] to be more effective.”

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/09/marine_iar_091308/

Savvy poster at mp.net says FN (modified SCAR) and GD (Ultimax) designs are currently leading the pack.

[Berlichtingen]

I'm not surprised to see this. The original automatic rifleman carried a BAR, then an auto version of the M14, then the M16 (the rest of the team tended to keep the 16 on semi auto) and now the M249. I remember when we first got the M249 (then manufactured by FN) and they were nice, but a bit on the heavy side for our standard tactics. When we got the Colt manufactured ones... well, they were pieces of ****

[John Kettler]

akd,

I think going lighter is a good thing, but I have serious doubts about the wisdom of going to a standard 30-round magazine for such a critical weapon. Would say 100-round magazine would be about as low as I'd want to go. You don't get any kind of sustained fire from a 30-round magazine.

Regards,

John Kettler

[19Kyle72]

I've never been up close to a M249, but one of my friends who participated in the invasion of Iraq hated them, and I do mean HATE.

His chief reasons were that it only fired the 5.56, which meant that it did not have the penetrating power of the M60 (which he only had praise for), and that it was difficult to keep clean.

He'd take an M60 any day over a SAW.

But reading the description of what's now being sought for, I think that I'd rather have a weapon that could deliver a sustainable barrage of fire over a weapon that couldn't, and I can't imagine how that's even possible with a 30 round magazine limitation.

Weird.

[The_Red_Rage]

I carried SAW (C9) for 3 years - nice little toy, and i don't get the hate. Yes it is abit of a bitch to maintain, but it is a SECTION weapon so everyone has to put out (but i admit to throwing boxes of blank rounds away to avoid extensive cleaning )

I've had 1 bad stoppage in 3 years, and that was due to the ****ty bolt. Weight was only and issue when entering windows during FIBUA, and it wasnt the so much of a weapon but rather all the ammo boxes that got caught up (i had up to 7 on me, looking like a christmas tree). Firepower seemed adequate enough... it's no C6 (m240) but I pity the guy who has to carry that thing (or guyS, if there is tripod involved).

With regards to 30 rnd mag limitation - I still don't get why there are no 45 rounders for NATO standard weapons (similar to AK ones). Looks like the new concept is similar to the RPK series.

[Flanker15]

Where's this 30 round limit coming from? The Mk4 has 100 round drums and the FN SCAR creation doesn't seem to have any information?

[luderbamsen]

Much of the negativity towards the M249 comes from the fact that many are so worn out they're practically falling apart (the article mentions this). When in full working condition, it's an excellent light machinegun. Not perfect, but very good, and much better than many alternatives.

Large capacity magazines are notoriously unreliable. In Denmark, they tried introducing 100rd twin-dum C-mags to their C7A1 LSW's (Canadian M16 with longer barrel and bipod): The 100rd mags malfunctioned on average every 30 rounds, so they just went for standard 30rd mags.

[MikeyD]

It almost sounds like the Marines want to return to an equivalent to the old BAR! That is strange, very strange. I did have a nephew in the Marines who absolutely despised the SAW, though. You do (did) see a lot of Iraq photos of soldiers carrying an old 7.62mm M14 on patrol, I assume because they preferred penetration ability to volume of fire.

[Guinnessman]

I have to say I'm really surprised at this, as it sounds as though the USMC are going to repeat the mistake the British Army made when they introduced the L86 LSW.

Nowadays the LSW has been effectively usurped from the automatic rifle role by the SAW. The army has retained the LSW, but it's usually used in a DMR-type role for precision fire at longer ranges than an L85 can manage. It just can't put down the volume of fire that a SAW can. I spoke with a Royal Marine who took part in the initial invasion of Iraq, and he thought the SAW a big improvement over the LSW.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yeah, immediately thought of the LSW too. I don't think it's too smart a move.

[Lampshade111]

I don't believe the Marine Corp plans on replacing all of their M249s, and I think this may be a good idea for some squads in a platoon or two of the fireteams in each squad. Yet I believe they should only go ahead with this if they get a reliable high capacity magazine. The current Beta C-Mag is not it.

[MikeyD]

I had a thought. We're talking about SAW's volume of fire. But Marines are also carting around the M32 grenade launcher in considerable numbers. If they are using that as an area supression weapon instead of the LMG the squad weapon role could switch to long range hole puncher in the BAR tradition. It all depends on if SAW and M32 roles are overlapping sufficiently. They definitely have VERY different capabilities.

[MikeyD]

Ah, they didn't spell it out so I Googled the weapon. The new-style 'BAR' is to be a 5.56 weapon! I knew it had a tarted-up M16 look about it but so does that new Army sniper rifle in the game, the 7.62 M110. I (mistakenly) assumed the "IAR" was going for a big bullet too. So that would give the Marines the M4 carbine, the M16A4 rifle, the M249 SAW, and a heavy-barreled IAR all using the same 5.56 round! Curiouser and curiouser.

[flamingknives]

5.56mm does the job, if you can hit the target.

[Lee]

flamingknives: Only if nothing gets in the way and the range isn't too far...

This sounds like a bad idea, they are going to be giving up a lot of volume of fire, which is the reason you have a SAW in the first place supplementing the M240's. They should just use the MK46 and call it a day. Or if they are determined to use a magazine for whatever strange reason, then go with a .308 weapon, so you at least have some solid penetration capability to compensate for the lack of ammo capacity.

[flamingknives]

7.62 x 51 mm ammunition is very good at penetration of obstacles (SS109 will go through more armour at most ranges) but that increases the risk of fratricide in urban areas.

[MikeyD]

One thing that may be affecting the issue. I read somewhere the latest Marine M16A4 has either a single shot or three round burst capability. They no doubt had their reasons for dumping the original full auto on the M16 (if they did indeed dump it). It sounds like they're thinking of the new weapon as a revived 'heavy' full auto M16 version.

[Lampshade111]

Yeah both the M16A2 and M16A4 have single shot and three round burst. The M16A1 (a few might still be in service) and the M16A3 have full auto.

[SASCAT]

Guys, I had to laugh when I read that the ammo vs kill ratio in Iraq is between 250,000 - 300,000 rounds per kill....and then came across this post.

Maybe the logic behind this move is a simple cost-cutting execise...lower the rate of fire and people tend to focus on where the rounds are going.

Just kidding.

Anyway, as an ex-NZ Army soldier with experience in weapon repair in my early career then 'usage' later in the game, I was always disappointed in the life of the C9 Minimi (M249, SAW, C9)...but when in good condition it was a great weapon.

I say bring back the SLR for riflemen and the GPMG for decent suppression....lol

[Lampshade111]

Guys, I had to laugh when I read that the ammo vs kill ratio in Iraq is between 250,000 - 300,000 rounds per kill....and then came across this post.

Maybe the logic behind this move is a simple cost-cutting execise...lower the rate of fire and people tend to focus on where the rounds are going.

Just kidding.

Anyway, as an ex-NZ Army soldier with experience in weapon repair in my early career then 'usage' later in the game, I was always disappointed in the life of the C9 Minimi (M249, SAW, C9)...but when in good condition it was a great weapon.

I say bring back the SLR for riflemen and the GPMG for decent suppression....lol

I think your numbers are wrong there (it was closer to what it was in Vietnam.) However those numbers are not what it takes to kill an enemy (they would be literally torn to shreds), and most of that number is not even direct fire. The vast majority of that ammunition is used to suppress at rather long ranges.

[Secondbrooks]

I'm in middle of arguement in other forum about samekind subject... And found this.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc? AD=ADA225438&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Might explain a bit about USMC's point of view... It's Army study which is against viewpoint which is saying that squad can't fight as well if another it's M249 is taken away.

Is short:

Based on data from both combat experience and peacetime

testing, the author suggests that eliminating one of the

squad's two M249 Squad Automatic Weapons, and M203 Grenade

Launchers, would improve the nine man squad's overall effectiveness.

I dont' know how much Army studied this, but it seems that alteast 2 major tests (after Korea and Vietnam) and 1 summit of officers after ww2 are backing writers thoughts: Firepower has got too great, closecombat ability of squad has got weaker (expacely after casualities, then there are less and less pure riflemen left).

SAW isn't traditional LMG. I know that our LMG is far too big and bulky to be handled properly in close combat (i've lost couple fo times because i just can't move and aim LMG i carried as fast as opponent with rifle, luckly this was in exercises)... but... Well... I don't know. Intresting thing to read and happened to back my opinion (partially) on this kind matter.

[The_Red_Rage]

I would object to SAW's inability to be useful in close combat. I was using it during FIBUA clearing rooms quite successfully (with Miles gear on, further adding to the weight). You can't really aim with it using iron signts (or x3.5 scope on our C9s) while on the move, but from the hip this bad boy puts alot of fire downrange very quick and in close combat i'd take it over rifle any day. But i'm abit biased towards machine guns - after carrying one for a while i strted to think that our regular C7s were pea shooters as it is quite a pathetic feeling to shoot a rifle after an MG

[SASCAT]

Lampshade,

Among many other websites (actually a lot more than I care to read) the following:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

But your point is correct. Also this number factors in training rounds etc....

From personal experience...yes our Army did fight occasionally....I know that the GPMG was used for target supression with great effect, and that a crapload of rounds were used (and barrels also...lol).

All I know is that the US guys are lucky not to be stuck with the P.O.S. Steyr Aug...now that is a crap weapon.

[Imperial Grunt]

I would object to SAW's inability to be useful in close combat. I was using it during FIBUA clearing rooms quite successfully (with Miles gear on, further adding to the weight). You can't really aim with it using iron signts (or x3.5 scope on our C9s) while on the move, but from the hip this bad boy puts alot of fire downrange very quick and in close combat i'd take it over rifle any day. But i'm abit biased towards machine guns - after carrying one for a while i strted to think that our regular C7s were pea shooters as it is quite a pathetic feeling to shoot a rifle after an MG

There is a big difference in firing a SAW effectively inside a room when you are shooting blanks as to compared to live-rounds. Live fire is more difficult to keep on target and the muzzle climb in much more pronounced.

[MikeyD]

I can't help but wonder, they way they're describing the weapon's use does that mean the guy assigned the IAR (or whatever the rifle's going to be called) would be the first guy in the pileup into the room on every mission? Gee, some guys get all the fun jobs.