M27 Replaces SAW - U.S. Marines

J

JustThisGuy

New member
I just read that the M249 SAW has just been replaced by the M27:

"For at least a decade, factions of the Marine Corps have pushed for replacement of the legendary 5.56mm M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in infantry fire teams.

Weighing more than 22 pounds with a 200-round drum, the belt-fed light machine gun slows down Marines while patrolling and maneuvering under fire, critics said. It isn’t accurate, it’s temperamental and takes too long to get working after jams, they added.

Beginning this year, the critics will get their way."
Click to expand...

http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-m27-infantry-automatic-rifle-062911w/

I'm sure that some will view the M249's demise as a relief, while others may miss the old horse.

Would anyone like to share a story about how they feel about its passing?
 
I think its a mistake to replace a SAW with an IAR. Machine guns are suppressive tools. As it said at the end of the article suppression will be much harder to achieve with the M27 vs. a belt-fed SAW. I do feel that there are some definite deficiencies in the M249 -- I would rather see it upgraded or replaced by a better LMG.
 
I am too old to comment intelligently about the SAW v. M27 issue. I can tell you we viewed replacement of the aging and malfunction prone M60 as good news. We did not view the LMG in 556 as good news, although being able to carry more ammunition is always good, I still think having that extra punch of 7.62 in the LMG for barriers etc. is a good thing.

I turn 50 tomorrow. Am I a dinosaur yet?
 
I hope you're right Bartholomew,

There are some obvious shortcomings the M27 has in my opinion. While it probably is way more accurate then ever Minimi ever will be, it misses the essential points to provide prolonged automatic fire, where an LMG is made for:
  • Interchangeable barrels
    Yes they sure make the overall MG a little less accurate, but MG's get hot while being fired continuously and judging by the look of the M27 it's barrel is already thinner than the Minimi too
  • Reliability
    The Minimi and almost every other MG in the world fires from an open bolt and uses the long stroke gas piston, decreasing the likelihood of cook-offs and jams by sacrificing more accurate full auto fire due to the increased recoil.
  • Belt fed munition
    This is the part where I really don't understand the M27. While it's obvious why the designers didn't want to modify the HK 416 too drastically and add weight, why is the USMC buying it? Belt feed systems are just more reliable in full automatic weapons that magazine feed systems. I now there are 100 rnd mags that will fit with the STANAG norms, but those are really bulky and more difficult to carry then an extra belt.

Apparently they are just getting another semi-auto carbine but with some added reliability in full-auto. So as a supplement, yes, as a primary LMG? No way...
 
Last edited:
While I'm not a combat soldier, I have to agree with everyone that it doesn't make much sense that they're switching to an AR style platform to replace what is essentially an infantry suppression tool.

I thought they had come out with a kit that allowed the SAW to be converted to the 7.62x39 caliber if needed or did that never go mainstream? I only read this in a magazine and magazines tend to over hype things, so I'm not sure, MK48 Mod 1 I think it was called.

I'm no expert, and I've never had to lay my life on the table while wielding the Minami so I guess I can't say I fully understand the reasons. At any rate, if it's supplementing the SAW I can see that as a benefit, for when more accurate automatic fire is needed.
 
Last edited:
The article left me a bit confused. At one point the barrel is described as free floating, but at another point the author refers to a piston mechanism. Do they just mean that the barrel is free of the stock?

I had understood one of the benefits of the direct impingment system (I am not a part of the DI v. gas piston debate) to be that it doesn't foul the harmonics of a barrel as much as a reciprocating piston. Is that advantage marginal when compared to free floating a barrel from a stock?

I just note that the 249 is described as inaccurate. I've had guys with otpics tell me they can reliably hit targets at 500m with single shots. This makes me wonder if the inaccuracy attributed to the 249 is an artifact of its design or an observation about very worn examples of the item.
 
allowed the SAW to be converted to the 7.62x39 caliber
Click to expand...

It was in fact a 7.62x51mm conversion, putting it in the GPMG class together with the M60, FN MAG, ... It is basically a lighter, more mobile version of the FN MAG the Army uses.

I had understood one of the benefits of the direct impingment system (I am not a part of the DI v. gas piston debate) to be that it doesn't foul the harmonics of a barrel as much as a reciprocating piston. Is that advantage marginal when compared to free floating a barrel from a stock?
Click to expand...

The "problem" with the piston is that a bigger mass is moving, above the muzzle line. This causes extra felt recoil when the piston reaches its furthest point and a little forward movement when the piston returns. This is particularly the case in long stroke gas pistons, where the piston moves together with the bolt. The HK416 is a short stroke gas piston, meaning that those effects would only be marginal.

But in the end, your question covers two different aspects, as you can see from my explanation, the effects of a piston only cause less controllability when unsupported, automatic firing. Free floating a barrel causes a consistent zero regardless of barrel temperature. As a LMG isn't meant to shoot automatic offhand, I'd say that the DI system doesn't have merits in them, especially considering the vast amounts of fouled gases that a LMG produces. A free floated barrel however is a must on a LMG.

I just note that the 249 is described as inaccurate.
Click to expand...

They are probably talking about full automatic accuracy. Just my thoughts...
 
Last edited:
Doh! Not sure how I mixed up te 7.62x51 with the 7.62x39. Thanks for the correction. I can see he benefits of the M27 in an urban environment where you'll be doing breech and clear, but it still doesn't change the fact that a belt fed LMG has more potential firepower than a magazine fed weapon. Guess we'll have to wait and see, hopefully the marines won't end up regretting this change of armament.

As for the Mk48 Mod-0, is the army the only branch currently fielding this modification to the SAW in quantity? From what I've read, reports from the field seem to be positive.
 
I was a SAW gunner for four years. It's more than accurate enough. I have also never had a malfunction with it with live ammunition... and a simple POPS procedure has cleared every jam with blanks I've ever had.

It is heavy and unwieldy, but the firepower it puts out at the team level is awesome.

The Marines can get away with pulling a SAW out of their squads, since they run with 11-man squads and had more firepower to start with, both suppressive and ranged.

The Army won't be taking a SAW away from their infantry squads, in part because an Army squad is only nine men, and the Army's M4s are effective over a shorter range than the Marine M16A4s.

The IAR's advantages are maneuverability and lighter weight. It cannot put out the same sustained firepower as a SAW, but the Marines seem to think that's a good tradeoff.
 
I was a SAW gunner before I was moved up to team leader. It is a good gun. Mine was accurate and reliable as long as you weren't using magazines. I think most of the problems with inaccuracy usually stem from Joes always shooting the gun with the same barrel so that it gets shot out and/or the spare barrel never getting sighted into the gun properly.

The SAW's front sight is adjustable, but it's not a unit level procedure. Zeroing the SAW is done by adjusting the rear sight. If the front sight is off and the gun is zeroed with the rear sight, the gun will be off when the spare barrel in installed.

The most frequent malfunction I've seen from SAWs occurred when the feed pawl springs fell out usually on older guns. Also, gas ports got clogged up and the regulators caked with copper and scale because lazy or poorly trained soldiers neglected to clean them. In 11B MOS-T the TSP didn't call for disassembly of the gas regulator from the barrel. I suspect that is due to the fact that the new SAWs don't even have a removable gas regulator.

I've never heard of or seen a 7.62 NATO version of the SAW.
 
I think, personally, an RPD-like weapon in 6.5 Grendel or MPC would be better, MPC being better due to all you need is a new barrel. An M249 in 6.5 MPC would definitely be a better choice. Since the M249 is mostly fired from a bipod and less often the shoulder the issue of gas piston vs no piston is a nonissue, although the piston system being somewhat cleaner could be more desirable in the field, because an M249 has many more parts to strip vs an M4 or AK and clearing a jam is not nearly as easy, plus a direct impingement system could deposit stuff all in the belt feed system, asking for trouble.

I think the M27 is not the worst solution, by any means because many mag-fed LMGs are in use, RPK, Bren (Limited use) and RPK-74, and the reliability problems stem from the fact that many guns have seen 20+ years of service.
 
My thoughts on it was WHY, if you HAD to keep with a STANAG magazine, would you not go to a Bren configuration? 40 round mags exist and would not be a problem in a Bren style gun and you could go with even larger sizes.
 
All weapon systems get replaced. They are all part of a design process that never stops. Refinements will always accumulate, resulting in a new overall design at some time or other, as better ways are discovered

I'm not sure how that means the M249 is anything but another link in the chain, just like the M27

But maybe a member of our military that sees this thread can answer some questions for me- in the practical sense, the USMC is exploring 100 round mags? Exploring? Isn't this another way of saying the USMC doesn't feel the higher capacity of the M249 is important? Or is this a way of saying that in the situations the USMC finds itself in right now, this is a better approach? Isn't one of the main advantages of a Squad Automatic Weapon the ability to offer sustained fire for a longer period? And doesn't removing that ability immediately change the squad's tactics?
 
Every squad is still going to get a M249 machine gun TEAM.

But at the fireteam level, the M27 IAR will take over.

The M249 is not disappearing for good. It will be used as a true 2-man light machine gun attached to each squad, and the M27 IAR will take over for the Automatic Rifleman role.

I don't know where people are getting this idea that the M249 is being taken away completely. It's not true.
 
I think the better choice would have been the Ultimax MKIII LMG, the Marines tested them a few years back and liked them. They are significantly lighter than the M249, and you still have the quick change
Barrel, and the ability to use a 30 rd M16 magazine tossed to you in a pinch. I have fired several thousand
Rounds through Ultimax's and would
Give my left nut to own one! It was designed by an American, and is very soft recoiling( the standard demo was the firer putting the buttplate against his nose and ripping off a 100 rd burst :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top