M249 SAW as base of fire weapon

[akd]

Once you get out to very long range, you are simply comparing .22 caliber holes poked in a target versus .30 caliber holes poked in target. Unless either pokes a hole in a vital area, neither wound will be "severe." All FMJ ammunition loses velocity and terminal effectives over range. Fragmentation is not the only wounding mechanism of 5.56mm (unless you'd like claim that no human has ever been severely wounded by Russian 5.45mm), and is not even assured at any range or velocity. But even if it doesn't fragment, it can still yaw inside the target. And even if it doesn't yaw it can still do severe damage to any internal structure it meets (yes, a .22 can kill). 5.56mm doesn't turn into a BB that bounces off flesh at 800m.

[Sgt Joch]

Penetration may not be an issue, but accuracy should be. The chart linked above shows, at 500 yds, a 5.56 round is dropping rapidly, averaging 48" down in its flight path (if I read the chart correctly). It drops off very rapidly after 300 yards. How accurate would a SAW (or even M4 or M16) be past 300-500 yds?

[Apocal]

It drops off very rapidly after 300 yards. How accurate would a SAW (or even M4 or M16) be past 300-500 yds?

ACOG with BDC gets the job done out to about 600. YMMV. SAW is belt-fed. Burst-on-target makes the difficult easy.

[Destraex1]

Experience begs to differ on that point. Crew-serves are effective at isolating buildings and blocks by locking down the streets around them. Unless by MOUT assault, you mean actual doorkicking and contact so close you could spit on them.

Not all, although that probably varies unit-by-unit.

sorry i meant actual building clearance(door kicking).... often if its a small operation they can only provide area security from outside like you say... boring for the gunners and a waste of manpower.

With a minimi its not best practice to go in but you certainly can to make up numbers.

[JonS]

[isolating buildings is] a waste of manpower.

Experience begs to differ on that point.

[Destraex1]

i really have to be carefull in future to make sure that i am splitting hairs with my terminology in order to be understood. So abandoning the minimis offer a little more flexability in door kicking operations line than gpmgs.

But in essense by disagreeing with this point you guys are saying i am right about it not being a disadvantage to have a gpmg rather than a lmg in standard squads.

[JonS]

it not being a disadvantage to have a gpmg rather than a lmg in standard squads.

That depends.

[Destraex1]

whats your preference JonS?

[Apocal]

But in essense by disagreeing with this point you guys are saying i am right about it not being a disadvantage to have a gpmg rather than a lmg in standard squads.

It's situational. When you're talking about something like classical mechanized infantry, who aren't designed or built around operating independently from their vehicles, it doesn't make much sense. They have firepower on tap, but are short on dismount numbers.

If you're talking about a country which doesn't have anything light(er) for the squads, it makes sense. There's certainly a need for that kind of belt-fed firepower, at least historically and somethings better than nothing.

But the United States walked into Vietnam thinking it wasn't a huge disadvantage, walked out and promptly moved all it's machineguns to the platoon- or company-level. Granted, that was for a whole lot of reasons and maybe if we'd had war in Central Europe we'd have been singing the M60's praises at the squad level. On the other hand, relatively recent experience in Iraq has at least one service decrying the SAW as being too much at the team level and moving to get something more like a BAR (magazine-fed Interim Automatic Rifle) into the hands of it's troops. I suspect they've already recognized that as the pendelum swinging too far in one direction or at least that it may be the wrong weapon in other wars, but once again, I could be wrong.

[Destraex1]

Nice Apocal. Its a very interesting argument this BAR VS minimi vS gpmg vs hmg

[ScubaSam]

On the other hand, relatively recent experience in Iraq has at least one service decrying the SAW as being too much at the team level and moving to get something more like a BAR (magazine-fed Interim Automatic Rifle) into the hands of it's troops.

We already tried that with the L86 LSW. It really isn't such a great idea having to reload your squad support weapon every 10 seconds

As for the SAW accuracy in my test - they were firing an awful lot of bursts in order to achieve those kills. I'd say probably 90-95% of the shots fired whizzed harmlessly past their targets. The suppression achieved by that, however, led to the enemy slowing down enough that they began to take casualties.

Also note that every single one of those casualties was red (WIA) with the exception of one KIA.

[Apocal]

We already tried that with the L86 LSW. It really isn't such a great idea having to reload your squad support weapon every 10 seconds

The argument, as I understand it, is that in a environment where you're not going balls-out combined arms, but instead cordoning off blocks with relatively few crew-serves and going door-to-door with riflemen, you'd use the IAR vice the SAW. The belt-fed capability of fireteams would be retained under the arms room concept. You have either option going into a fight, METT-TC dependent.

As for the SAW accuracy in my test - they were firing an awful lot of bursts in order to achieve those kills. I'd say probably 90-95% of the shots fired whizzed harmlessly past their targets. The suppression achieved by that, however, led to the enemy slowing down enough that they began to take casualties.

That sounds about right.