Has anyone every heard of the stoner machine gun? Stop trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

Posted by: stump at November 18, 2008 09:51 PM

What is it about US Army and USMC bureaucrat generals that make them prejudiced against light machine guns. Although over whelming evidence that light machine guns with a rate of fire that at least matches the rate of fire of the MG42, is essential for tactical war winning, they always opt for a 500 rounds a minute, or less, BAR clone?
The constant elimination of squad machine guns for slow rates of fire automatic weapons is the earmark of military amateurism.
Now that the communist Obama has been "elected" to run the Union of Soviet Socialist States (of America) the USSS will be the chief servo-mechanism of military and political handouts to tribal Africa. Within a few years professional soldiers, not bureacratic leftist "nation builders" will have to chose whether they will work for communists or not. Like Gates, they will embrace new American Soviet "peace making" as their profession. Africanized bureacrats will rule and the infantry will carry BARs.It's ironic.
Military professional who are not ideologically inspired will sell their technical-bureacratic orientation to whatever petty bcommunist dictator takes over. Now it is here in America.
Will you fight or submit to communist domestic rule?

Posted by: Jack Martin at November 18, 2008 05:19 AM

There is a better weopond to replace the Saw-M249. Get from the Spanish firm called Santa Bárbara Sistemas.The wepond called CETME Ameli. At 11 pounds Belt fed 800-1200 rounds a minute over all length of 38.2 inches It would fit the bill for a efficent replacement of the FN-249. The design comes from a updating of the German MG-42 of WWII fame.

Posted by: Pappy063 at November 18, 2008 01:39 AM

The IAR seems to be a step backwards. Besides the weight of the BAR, the big objection to it was that it was magazine fed. There is no doubt a basic load of 30 round magazines loaded with 5.56 NATO ammunition is either lighter than the basic load of 30-06 ammunition loaded in 20 round magazines or you are carrying far more magazines and ammunition.

That having been said, the fact remains that you will be changing magazines every 30 rounds or less as opposed to every 200 rounds per belt. That will be a distractor at best and an interference in suppressive/support by fire missions at worst.

What I can see is the IAR with a redesigned lower receiver that accommodates the present or a similar design bandoleer box of 5.56 belted ammunition.

Posted by: Jeff at November 17, 2008 03:43 PM

Thanks for the info, Matthew. A great point about the L86 LSW's.

Yeah, Christian, ufck the haters.

Posted by: Mang at October 14, 2008 03:27 AM

Christian, don't sweat the personal attacks from blog input. You're doing a fine job, and your coverage of the IAR is excellent. Keep providing us with more update on this subject. My input on the IAR: 30-round magazines are not good enough. A rotary magazine with greater capacity that is compatable with the IAR's magazine well is the obvious solution. The M4/M16-style 30-round magazines should be considered as a backup option; not the primary source of feeding ammo.

Posted by: P.J. Busche at October 13, 2008 08:44 AM

Been there - done that!

If the US government has a look, Britain has already been down this route, except we've gone the other way. We adopted the L86 LSW as a machine gun replacement but soon understood that rate of fire was important in suppressing the enmy, and adopted the minimi like you guys. We still kept the 7.62 GPMG for heavier fire-support, and yes people use it very successfully with naked belts (it being easy to add additions on to).
The LSW is retained as a sort of section sniper weapon, having much greater accuracy that the individual rifle, but it is held back by using a 30 rd magazine.
Stick with the SAW, it's a good bit of kit.

Posted by: Matthew at October 9, 2008 08:29 AM

@Christian:

My few comments here are not entirely friendly because I still remember the level of this blog when Noah was here.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at October 9, 2008 07:45 AM

Another thing about this video: is anybody really walking around with naked belts in their M249? I've never seen a picture of a soldier with a bare .223 belt just hanging out of the weapon. Don't people keep in the belts in the 250-round cans or the 100-round bags? Seems like the dude is just sort of pulling the problem with belts snagging on things out of his hat.

Posted by: Mang at October 9, 2008 03:31 AM

@tontochoc: I have no idea where you got the idea that the Ultimax wasn't in service with the Singapore Armed Forces. Since it was introduced as a SAW in the SAF, the Ultimax has been the primary infantry section-level fire support weapon till this day.

Posted by: ZH Wong at October 9, 2008 02:51 AM

Christian: Be careful with thoseAirsoft guns we wouldn't want you to violate your parole for your mattress tag indiscretion back in 95.

Posted by: steve at October 8, 2008 06:52 PM

Kayaker: If you hate Christian so much, what the hell are you still doing here? I'm also curious as to when you were put in charge of what everybody does or says, or did I miss a special report on CNN? Or did the ownership of this website change hands without an announcement?

Am I understanding the story correctly? These new automatic rifles are to supplement the SAWs? This doesn't sound like too bad an idea. It sure beats the old Army theory of "strap a really cheap bipod on an M16 and TADA, it's an automatic rifle".

Posted by: steve at October 8, 2008 06:22 PM

tontochoc, where did you hear that Singapore Armed Forces did not put the Ultimax 100 in frontline use? I am from Singapore and I can assure you that when I was in service, we did use that weapon as SAW. 2 in each section and a total of 6 in the Platoon.

Posted by: Yibin at October 8, 2008 04:40 PM

Kayaker,

You're making me cry like a little girl...I'm going to go do an airsoft reenactment or something and lick my wounds.

Posted by: Christian at October 8, 2008 03:32 PM

Ok I'm not the greatest fan of Future Weapons as it more pro than con as mentioned by JD.

However as I see it the USMC has got its act together.

They are looking at Urban COIN and are making the adjustments. Main stream Press will report a SAW as a Heavy machine gun; bit like an M113 is a TANK.

So like the Brits, they used an L4A2 aka Bren, they want a 'rifle' to use for fire suppression. In the Urban COIN scenario a 30 rd Mag isn't a handicap, as you rarely get into an extended firefight.

Posted by: Russ at October 8, 2008 03:31 PM

The Ultimax was a piece of shit from the day it was produced. The Singapore Armed Forces did not even put it in front line service and it was designed in Singapore. A heavy barelled open-bolt M16 was trialled decades ago and would easily and cheaply fit the bill. A squad doesn't need another fucking different weapon to look after.

The M249 is really no more than a belt fed assault rifle. Go the cut down lightened M240 with the titanium reciever when its replacement is due.

Kayaker see your counsellor as you are having issues son.

Posted by: tontochoc at October 8, 2008 03:12 PM

[i]But its a supplement to the SAW, NOT a replacement. Take heart in that.

Krag
[/i]

[b]THANK GOD!!![/b]

Posted by: PacerX at October 8, 2008 02:45 PM

Hey Christian....

Please do everyone a favor and don't report on anything dealing with the Armed Forces. After your embarassment yesterday dealing with your rants and BS, you carry no credibility with any of us who are veterans. Go play with your camera lenses or something out in the sand box.

Posted by: Kayaker at October 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Prior to "Urgent Fury" I worked with a few folks interested in the SAW program. Foolish us; we looked at a BAR-like weapon instead of a 5.56mm M-60 analog. We borrowed the Johnson LMG trigger for open/closed bolt on a beefed up AR 180 action w/quick change barrel. One option was flipping the barrel/short stroke gas system to have the barrel higher. The design never got past the design stage one we realized that it didn't meet design specs. At that time there were 75 rd drums available; the drums almost presented a problem in that we wanted to keep the shooter's profile as low as possible. The sketches showed that the bipod was too low to allow use of the M-16 30 rd magazine. After considering a separate angled magazine port (sound familiar?) the team just raised the profile a tad. We also played with cartridges other than 5.56x45. Our version of the 6.8 SPC was 6.5mm by .30 Remington (short). Our tests showed decent accuracy out to 600m. We also played with 6x45, 6.5x45 and 6.5x39 modified by reducing case taper. The cartridges were primarily tested in bolt action rifles. DoD, of course, wasn't interested in new cartridges either.
The gentleman who stated that the SAW AG slot would go away is probably wrong. 200 rds in drum magazines weigh more than 200 rds in the assault pack for the SAW. I don't know what the basic load is for a Marine SAW team but one suspects that the load would be similar for the AR gunner/AG. Reloading the drums from stripper clips is certainly better than trying to string a belt together in the field but emptying the drums certainly takes much less time than loading them. It will be interesting to see what the Corps decides.

Posted by: NV_Smith at October 8, 2008 10:00 AM

This sound more like a suplement to the SAW rather then a replacement. Like how the BAR was suppose to be used to support the M1919 .30 Cal. Also relatively low capacity box mags come on? At least the Russians made a 45 round mag for the RPK. And why not use the Beta C-Mag like the Germans do in the MG-36. I saw one of these IARs on Future Weapons, but even a civilian like me can say that I'd rather have a guy with a belt fed weapon suppressing the enemy. If they want more hitting power why not upgrade to the Mk 48 Mod 0 SAW in 7.62 17% lighter and 8.4% shorter than the M240.

Posted by: Justin at October 8, 2008 09:50 AM

6.8 lacks some range doesn't it?

Posted by: pHilo at October 8, 2008 08:50 AM

I seems to me the primary criterion in making this choice should be improved reliability (or at least maximized.) The fact that they're holding onto so many SAWs indicates there's a disconnect between the design and the purpose of the weapon. The new one should ultimately replace the old one, not supplement it. Spending a-lot of money on research...
Speaking of the BAR, it also seems that someone in the squad should still be carrying a 7.62mm, (not to be a party-crasher) or perhaps something in new?. Perhaps a semi-auto for the loader, since he won't be needed for 30 round mags. It appears they're just thinking Suppressive Fire, and not about actually hitting anything, but that's what high volume fire is about isn't it?
And where's that case-less ammo? Nothing like leaving Brass for the Enemy.

Posted by: pHilo at October 8, 2008 08:49 AM

WHen I first heard about this over a year ago, the design specs the USMC put out matched exactly with the ULTIMAX 100 from singapore, including the 100 round double drum mag.

Posted by: STB at October 8, 2008 07:43 AM

Looks like they went and designed a Browing Automatic Rifle (BAR, without all the moving parts inside. Even has the extended rear sight.

Posted by: Rick at October 8, 2008 07:01 AM

how about the iwi comando negev?

Posted by: jj at October 8, 2008 06:40 AM

Thanks for the input Krag...As I said in my post, I just got a little bit of gouge on this (and yes, I knew about the MCT story) but wanted to put out there what I knew for those who might not have read the MCT piece. I'll post everything SysCom gave me on the subject in a few hours. My understanding is that the IAR was meant to be a SAW replacement, but i figured 4K was too few...

Sven:

Again, why the attitude? I'm just putting out there what I know...no need to be snippy...

Posted by: Christian at October 8, 2008 05:51 AM

Krag, you knew what I meant. My point was that over 4k weapons replacing only 2000 SAWs leaves over 2k more which will be integrated somehow. I don't see the USMC buying a ton of weapons just to put them in storage.

Maybe the idea is that the gunner and assist can both carry IARs, since the assist won't need to carry ammo for the SAW.

Posted by: Kaltes at October 8, 2008 04:23 AM

any else notice that firepower tend to adjust that facts to make certain weapons seems better. case in point in the video the guy shoot a few rounds with the m-4 then to prove how hot it get her pours water on the barrel which turns to steam. BUT for the new rifle he doesnt pour any water on the barrel, but touches the bolt. Of course the bolt may be cold but i bet that barrel would be just as hot as the m-4

Posted by: david at October 8, 2008 04:08 AM

I still don't get the fascination with the 6.8. Sure, it makes sense out of a short barrel when clearing rooms, and at moderate ranges, say 300-400 yds. But after that, it drops fast. With a SAW, you can put more rounds out farther, and somewhat more accurately. I'd rather hit somebody with several 5.56 rounds directly, then have to use my 6.8 rifle as an indirect fire weapon and drop rounds on somebody's head like artillery.

(obviously I'm being a little sarcastic, but the 5.56 will be around for a long time anyway.)

Posted by: Will at October 7, 2008 10:48 PM

RE: "...replacing a lot more M4s..."

What are you talking about?

The Marine contract is for a supplemental weapon for the automatic rifleman in the fire teams, currently armed with M249 SAWs. There are no M4s in a Marine Rifle Squad. The Marines use the M16A4 w/ACOG for riflemen, a-gunner, and team leader (w/M203 attached).

Posted by: KragCulloden at October 7, 2008 10:36 PM

did anyone else notice that the m249 in the futureweapons video had a suppressor...

Posted by: stempel at October 7, 2008 10:16 PM

Matt:
open bolt and heavier barrel.

I suppose this isnt a step backward since the new weapon is replacing a lot more M4s than SAWs, but still, they need more ammo because they will burn through the 30 round clips in a matter of seconds.

SAW with 200 rounds at 85 per minute gets you something like 2 min 20 sec, the new weapon with 30 rounds at 36 (isn't that lower than the m4?) to 75 per minute gets you 24 seconds between reloads. Lame.

Posted by: Kaltes at October 7, 2008 10:15 PM

I do not get it. What is the difference between this "new" rifle and the old M-16 that could be shot on full auto? I am sorry, but a 30 round magazine just does not make sense for a fire suppression weapon. It looks like this is a step back to me.

Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2008 08:35 PM

From the Marine Corps Times:

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.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70685

Posted by: KragCulloden at October 7, 2008 08:19 PM

RE: Round - The requirement is that it HAS to use the same magazines as the riflemen, hence the same bullet as well.

Should be kinda obvious....

Posted by: KragCulloden at October 7, 2008 08:18 PM

"fires a relativly light round"

If its not 6.8mm why replace it with a gun that probably fires the same 5.56mm round? Now this is just me speaking, but I would adopt the Bushmaster ACR in 6.8mm, and give it three fire select modes, single, burst, and full auto.

Posted by: JH at October 7, 2008 07:41 PM

RE: Drums - no the contract specifically states the weapon HAS to use magazines common to the service rifle. They want the teams equipped with this AR to be fully capable of swapping mags upon consolidation. That means no c-mags, drums, bel-feeding, etc...strictly 30 round magazines that the riflemen already carry.

Again, they are aren't replacing the SAW, this is a different weapon that will be available as an option for platoon leaders to use.

Posted by: KragCulloden at October 7, 2008 07:27 PM

The Marine Corps isn't replacing the SAW. This is an additional buy that platoon commanders will the *option* of swapping out fireteam SAWs for the new AR, for situations where the teams are assaulting and require the fire support to keep pace.

Hence the requirement for lighter weight, better accuracy in offhand firing, etc...

The SAW is NOT being replaced. This is an optionally weapon for situations the SAW is not suited for.

I imagine its use more being more like two of the three teams carrying the AR, one team keeping the SAW, per squad. The SAW team does base of fire, the AR teams are the assault/rush elements.

I question the ultimate value of *any* 30 round "automatice rifle", and Britain just got done replacing its AR with para SAWs, so this would seem to be a backwards move....

But its a supplement to the SAW, NOT a replacement. Take heart in that.

Krag

Posted by: KragCulloden at October 7, 2008 07:23 PM

I would take a saw with a 250 round drum anyday. They need to make a drum for that weapon or it's not going to do.

Posted by: tom at October 7, 2008 07:06 PM

I would take a saw with a 250 round drum anyday. Thet seriously need to develop a drum mag. for this new rifle or it's not going to work.

Posted by: tom at October 7, 2008 07:04 PM

No need for sleeky Discovery Channel presentation to be impressive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2yJeeyn5A

Posted by: Vitor at October 7, 2008 06:49 PM

How is the SAW currently? When I was in they were very new and the armorers really didn't seem to like them from a repair and maintenance point of view. Were these early glitches? How are they now?

Posted by: steve at October 7, 2008 06:46 PM

Frankly, the Ultimax looks the best by far. Its basically the only one that isnt a refurbished AR. And the constant recoil seems to really work.

Posted by: Vitor at October 7, 2008 06:45 PM

Seriously, fuck giving Colt another contract.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=853

^^Here's a Defense Review writeup on the Ultimax Mk4, including summaries of a Charlie Cutshaw article. Apparently the guy who designed the C-Mag also designed the Ultimax and its drum.

Posted by: Mang at October 7, 2008 05:58 PM

So now that I watched the clip:

The new weapon is markedly inferior in the suppression role. It is basically a m4 which has been modified for full auto by using a heavier barrel and a breech which stays open for full auto. It is not belt fed.

The whole reason the SAW was belt fed as a design choice was to allow for greater ammo capacity. Using drums won't allow a soldier to carry as much ammo, and since suppression is all a matter of endurance (not rate of fire) and burning a lot of ammo to keep the enemy in a fixed position with their heads down, a lower ammo capacity is a major disadvantage.

And since when is a SAW any worse at clearing houses? Are you kidding me? Instead of taking the time to carefully aim and pick out targets, you can hose the whole room or hallway, which means quicker reaction times. With the SAW you can begin to fire while you are bringing the weapon on target, instead of after, because ammo is not a factor.

Posted by: Kaltes at October 7, 2008 05:13 PM

You didn't really do any research, did you?

1)
There's no company called "Ultimax" - the team is probably called like that, but it's really the name of the weapon. The company from Singapore is ST Kinetics and the Ultimax is a light machine gun with excellent controllability that was originally designed by a Mr. Sullivan.
2)
There's no need to develop a drum for each - many drum designs are available. The Ultimax has its own 100 rds drum design, and Beta-C double drum mags are known for their compatibility to standard 30 rds magazine slots.
3)
The USMC had a comparison trial between several light machine gun designs years ago (I think in '99), Ultimax participated and scored well except for the sights.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at October 7, 2008 05:08 PM

The Beta-C 100rd Drum is in the inventory and has had a NSN: for sometime now. The 5.56mm round will stay here for now but a bullet weight of 75gr to 77gr, Special Ops have used to great effect. At the squad level this type of weapon is always needed to support their fire and maneuver!

Posted by: MSG W at October 7, 2008 05:04 PM

"I'm sure there's a drum being developed for each, but then it's going to be obvious who the automatic rifleman is."

SO WHAT?

It is obvious who the AR is the moment he pulls the trigger, and it is not like he is some kind of achilles heel that has to be concealed. The only people who need to be protected from being singled out are command and control.

The enemy is going to target the AR anyway because he is putting the most rounds on them, and this is a good thing, because it means the rest of the squad is free to maneuver for the kill.

Using that logic, we would never issue rockets, because, oh noes! we wouldn't want to make the guys carrying the disposable launchers targets!

I don't even know why the USMC is replacing the SAW, it is a magnificent weapon, and if the military can't bring itself to replace the M4 rifle because the improvement would be too small, I can't imagine the improvement with the SAW would be any better.

Posted by: Kaltes at October 7, 2008 04:54 PM

However, as I recall the competitioin for a new general infantry rifle did not stipulate caliber. Perhaps everyone may be using 6.8. I doubt that however, considering nato stockpiles.

Posted by: Assbestos at October 7, 2008 04:33 PM

Yeah, the interchangability of mags implies 5.56. I agree with the article author that a drum mag would be needed. 30 round mags dissapear in a few seconds of automatic fire.

Posted by: Assbestos at October 7, 2008 04:31 PM

That's an awful video - in fact, this Future Weapons program is horrible overall; there's hardly ever any criticism (as in, pros and cons).
In this case, they're not even mentioning the reduced ammo capacity - let alone its implications.

Posted by: J.D. at October 7, 2008 04:23 PM

Maybe I missed it, but did they say what caliber the IAR is? I'm guessing since it's LWRC its gotta be 6.8mm.

Posted by: JH at October 7, 2008 03:28 PM