M27 Replaces SAW - U.S. Marines

I would rather see the whole unit armed with M27s and no SAW at all. Use 150 round beta mags and full auto :).

A squad automatic weapon has been a concept that has only existed off and on during the history of military warfare in the 20th century.
 
Machine Guns, whether light, medium, or heavy, are designed to do one thing and one thing only in practice and design. That is to "suppress" the enemy by superior firepower. In other words you get so much lead downrange that the bad guy can't help getting hit by a bullet or he is too scared to show his head from cover for fear he will be shot.

The M249 SAW does an excellent job of being able to suppress the enemy. I clearly remember the first time I saw one fired, about '88 or '89 at a range in Alaska. I was absolutely impressed with the gun and its 200 round box of ammo capability.

Not sure what the real issue is here. But I strongly suspect that politics and payoffs have come in to play again. If its length only, there is the M249 Para model. I "know" it can't be the weight. Grunts nowadays carry so much unnecessary gear its crazy and the few extra pounds of the SAW are well offset by its increased firepower capability - certainly over the M27 which is absolutely nothing more than a glorified M16 that can shoot full auto instead of 3 rd bursts.
 
All but a few really know what truly motivates changes like these, I suspect politics as usual, but that's my personal government conspiracy paranoia kicking in. There is money and deals involved in every government transaction. If it benefits the effectiveness of the military it doesn't bother me AS much, but when it appears to takes steps backwards or sideways I get bent about it, especially as I work hard for my money and cannot comprehend some purchasing decisions.
Nevertheless, even though I have never been or never will be a fan of the 5.56 caliber, I have always admired the Steyr AUG rifle system, which can be quickly "adjusted" or "modified" with plug-and-play parts and barrels to meet the different roles expected for different scenarios.
I don't have any up-close and personal experience with that particular weapons system, but I've heard nothing but good things about it, the users seem to like it alot. If it were offered in a more significant caliber such as 6.8 it be darn near perfect, just my 2 cents.
 
THe H&K 416 ar ethe best M4 type rifles out there.
Click to expand...

Based on actual experience with HK416s, I don't have any problem stating that they absolutely are not the best M4 type rifle out there. It's a mediocre product with the HK propaganda machine backing it up, nothing more.

BTW, the figures quoted in the article for "40 rounds per minute" should give someone a good idea of the lack of suppressive ability of the M27 (only 28 if its over 100 deg). That's pathetic. Oh and have fun walking around with 600 rounds spread out in 30-round mags. Or is that "too much ammo" for an automatic rifleman now?
Click to expand...

It's just reinventing the unsuccessful wheel the British had with the L86 LSW. When the troops on the battlefield realized that weapon was not effective for base of fire and suppression, the UK MoD's solution was to purchase SAWs for use at the fire team level.

But I guess the USMC doesn't see any lessons to learn there . . .

Further illustrating how the doctrine for this weapon is to just throw away fire team level suppression, the current idea seems to be that they'll issue the gunner 20 or so magazines for this weapon, but they're urging local commanders to reduce that load of ammunition as necessary for mission requirements. End result is going to be a guy without a quick change barrel capability, a low ROF weapon, and a few extra mags than the riflemen around him being expected to be able to suppress and pin so other guys can maneuver.

I think the video game generation refers to this sort of thing as "epic fail."
 
End result is going to be a guy without a quick change barrel capability
Click to expand...

Based on my research, SAW gunners don't even carry spare barrels. That's more for a light machine gun team, not a fireteam automatic rifleman. They just have no use for them.

It has been recorded that initially, the Marine Corps didn't even want the spare barrel back when they adopted it, but took it as part of the FN package anyway.
 
When I joined the Army in the mid 80's we used the M16A1 which had semi and full auto capability. We soon changed to the M16A2. If your gonna replace the SAW with a full auto rifle why not just break out some old A1's then everybody can have the ability to put down suppresive fire. I think its a mistake.
 
I carried a SAW all over the world when I was in the Marines sometimes had it with me 24 hours a day depending on where we were. I was proud of my weapon and never complained about its weight. Its a great weapon and i would hate to see it go.
 
Based on my research, SAW gunners don't even carry spare barrels. That's more for a light machine gun team, not a fireteam automatic rifleman. They just have no use for them.
Click to expand...

I've got a goodly number of friends down through the years who'd have been very happy to know they didn't have to carry the spare barrel for the thing when they were loading rucksacks . . .

Having a spare barrel/quick change barrel capability gives you options that not having it takes away from you.
 
I think this news boils down to two salient points:

1. The USMC has decided to remove machine guns from the fire team (OK idea)

2. The USMC has figured out a way backdoor purchase 416s (stupid idea)
 
If I didn't know any better, it seems like the Marine Corps wants to copy the Russian squad organization.

The Russian fireteams have the RPK-74, and the M27 IAR is basically the same thing.

The Russians also tend to put a PKM in every squad, which Marines are also going to do with the M249.

Coincidence?

The Russians started using PKM's at one per squad after experiencing urban combat in Chechnya. The Marines are pursuing the same layout after urban combat in Iraq.
 
This just sounds like a plain stupid idea to me anyone else agree. Just give all GI's and Marines the full auto option along with semi. Start issuing the M16A4 more than the M4 out in Afgahnistan. We need something with more range and hitting power. That debate has been mangled so lets stay away from that. I think we should just use the extra 20" barrel M16's and have like 6-8 guys in the platoon with the full auto option and starting with 100rd drums and a ton of 40rd mags.
 
There have been several references to the BAR here and I was wondering exactly what the original concept behind the weapon was when it was introduced in 1918. That's pretty much where this whole idea starts with the squad automatic. Let's talk about that for a moment.

When introduced, it did not have a bipod. That came later. There was also a special version for the cavalry that they called a machine rifle, though the cavalry also had regular machine guns, too. The US Cavalry tended to use different names for things for some reason but "Peep" didn't take and "combat car" was an under the table name for a tank that the cavalry wasn't supposed to have. In the meantime, the BAR was actually quite a popular weapon for the next 30 years with FN selling them overseas in modified versions. The National Guard was still using them in the 1970s.

There was a bright idea to use a full auto M14, with a bipod and called the M15. I don't even think they made it to the field but a different version did and I do remember seeing a few while I was in the army. Unfortunately, the M14 was replaced by the M16, so the squad automatic disappeared for a while. The M60 machine gun filled in but somehow it wasn't perfect, even though the British did the same thing for a while. The British hung onto the Bren as long as possible, however, at least as long as they used the SLR, so there must be some need at squad level, however a squad is organized, for a magazine fed fully auto weapon. Some armies showed some creativity in squad or section organization and equipment, usually only apparent when they actually get up and go to war. I believe the Australians has a manuever team armed with M16s in Vietnam but also with a fire team with an M60 machine gun and SLRs in 7.62. Some armies used heavy barrel SLRs (and they weight about the same as a BAR, judging from the ones I've examined of each), which on the surface seems like a good idea. However, they are part of history now, along with the 7.62mm SLR. Remember, the SLR came out over 50 years ago--but so did the MAG.

So ultimately you wonder if there is such a need for an automatic weapon between the infantry rifle and a belt fed machine gun.
 
So ultimately you wonder if there is such a need for an automatic weapon between the infantry rifle and a belt fed machine gun
Click to expand...

I think what's needed is a lightweight belt fed that's not built like a "mini-GPMG".

The KAC LMG only weighs 10lb empty, and the Ares Shrike weighs 8lbs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDlMZmYGFU&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYw4tEGqtIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz1MIhJRpkY

If armed forces would adopt such weapons for the automatic rifleman role, they would satisfy their firepower requirements without having to rely on an over-built 16lb weapon like the M249.
 
Evil Monkey: Agree.

The desired state of affairs for both Army & USMC was always to have a designated automatic suppressive fire weapon at the fire team level (BAR replacement). During the Vietnam era, no such weapon was fielded for general issue, so the infantry made do with full auto M16A1s pivoting around a base of fire provided by M60 GPMGs.

When the SAW was finally fielded, we loved it for what (at the time) we considered its remarkably light weight. Having humped both M60 & M249, I can attest to the mobility improvement (and the increased ability to carry ammo).

The trouble is that our forces in the 1980s were tailored for a fight in Europe with woodland or open rural terrain dominating (at least in tacticians' minds). A lot of talk was given to urban combat in cities, towns, and villages, but the nuts and bolts of actual urban combat were not refined until we found ourselves actually at war on such terrain.

Although the SAW brings a lot to an urban fight, it is unwieldy in a fast moving interior battle. Using an M249 to suppress the next building, corner, block, vehicle, or rooftop is invaluable. So is the ability to hose down a room, wall, ceiling, stairway, or floor... but the gunner is still humping a load when the team needs to move smartly.

LOL: People who think SAWs are heavy should talk to those who have carried M240s or the old "Pig" (M60).

Nevertheless, there is a need for something lighter than the M249. The notion that that something is a 9 lb magazine fed 416 is, in my mind, not such a brilliant idea. It simply doesn't do anything that a standard rifleman's weapon isn't already capable of.

The Marines have been slow to get away from the full sized musket concept, having been partially responsible for foisting the M16A2 on DoD in the first place. The M16A4 is an overweight and over sized piece (for caliber), the A2 rear sight hasn't really played out well in combat (as few use its features), and three-rd burst is an unnecessary solution to a training problem.

Whatever replaces M249 needs to be significantly lighter but able to deliver sustained fire. That might be done with a heavier barrel/receiver and high capacity (50? 75? 100? round) magazines ala the RPK concept. Precision accuracy is not really desirable for automatic weapons as they are supposed to deliver a cone of fire into a beaten zone anyway...so who cares about a free-floated barrel? IMHO, the weapon should ideally have a single shot feature, but it's not necessary if the cyclic rate is held down to 500-600 rpm.

The modified 416 is just not what I envision as a good choice for the job.

Something like a short barreled Ultimax might be just the ticket.
 
I carried the SAW into combat and was VERY glad to have it. An automatic M4 just can't do what the SAW can. It's nice to be tactical and light, but when a firefight comes down, you'll wish you had a SAW. If this is a back door to replacing the M4, then I suppose its a good move, but I don't believe it. They're gaining some mobility but sacrificing too much fire power. I'm not a fan of this idea at all.
 
They've just returned to the Automatic rifle concept they used in WWII. A rifle that fires slowly enough that it can be accurate and avoid burning out barrels while shooting a bullet heavy enough to be used in penetrating vehicles and emplacements. Can anybody say BAR?
 
But they haven't really.

The BAR offered a firepower differential when compared to the Garand -- 20 rounds in the gun versus eight and fully automatic versus semi automatic. The M27 fires 5.56mm rounds from a standard USGI magazine; the M16A4 everyone else in the USMC uses (for the most part) fires 5.56mm rounds from a standard USGI magazine. There's no real firepower differential there with the M27 putting out more lead.
 
Ultimax 100...just sayin ;) It should have won the IAR competition.

Ultimax%20MK3.jpg


smglee-ausa-huge-dscn1084.jpg


Proven track record, light,and virtually zero recoil. Unlike the M16 you actually can fire it braced against your forehead ( not that I would want to try it). It was also designed by L. James Sullivan.

Of course they will always pick a newfangled home grown design if possible.
 
Why not a KAC LMG with a 300rd belt?

An M249 with 3x200rd boxes weighs at around 38lbs for the whole loadout, weapon plus 600rds.

A KAC LMG with 2x300rd boxes would weigh around 30lbs, and have one less reload to deal with.

an M27 IAR with 600rds in 30rd mags would have a total loadout weight of over 28lbs. If the mags were those surefire 60rd quad stack mags, then the loadout would weigh around 40lbs!!!! The surefire 60rd mags are said to weigh at 3.3lbs each.

If the M27 IAR was to use 6x100rd beta c-mags, the total loadout weight would be about 35lbs. Each drum weighs about 4.5lbs.

Clearly, going with a lightweight belt fed weapon like the KAC LMG would have the best effect on saving on total loadout weight and reload frequency.

It's also obvious that belts have a MUCH better weight/space to ammo ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top