M27 Replaces SAW - U.S. Marines

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.

Unless they changed after I retired in '97, the Marines have 13 man squads. A squad leader and three 4 man fire teams.
 
Since casualties happen, units are sometimes understrength. Which weapons would they most likely give up first as they take casualties and which would they keep, assuming no weapons were lost?
 
Instead of larger drums, I've seen the army issue more of the small 100 rd "nutsack" soft drums. reloads were done with a standard 200rd drum, but the nutsacks were used on patrol missions until we settled into a position.

I agree with other statements that most of the SAWs we got that were pretty wore out had a much higher malfunction rate.
 
gunrunner1 said:
Unless they changed after I retired in '97, the Marines have 13 man squads. A squad leader and three 4 man fire teams.
Click to expand...

Oops, you are right.

Folks, the issue isn't just FA versus burst or SA. In order to provide sustained firepower, you need quick-switching barrels and either large magazines or belt-fed weapons. The SAW works well in its role.

As a former SAW gunner, the easiest solution to the problem is to give every SAW gunner an assistant gunner to carry whatever stuff I don't feel like carrying. Namely, 1,000 rounds of ammo.
 
But then the role of Automatic Rifleman would be a bit obsolete as it becomes a Machinegunner team... Making some other squad members carry more ammo could be a great idea though. And personally I think more Designated Marksmen should be added in a squad too. Focussing less on the rifleman and more on specialists.
 
let's throw in some Hand Gunners for precision .45 auto / 9mm fire and maybe a shotgun team... One to carry the boomstick one to carry the shells. Fire and maneuverability being the key of course!!
 
As a former SAW gunner, the easiest solution to the problem is to give every SAW gunner an assistant gunner to carry whatever stuff I don't feel like carrying. Namely, 1,000 rounds of ammo.
Click to expand...

You can't have an MG team at fireteam level. It destroys the autonomous nature of the soldiers. That's a step backwards.


Making some other squad members carry more ammo could be a great idea though
Click to expand...

Once again, such measures would destroy the individual soldiers autonomous capabilities.
 
Once again, such measures would destroy the individual soldiers autonomous capabilities.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but if the SAW gunner would have, say 400 rnds of ammo, and you spread 3 other 200 rnd boxes over the other fireteam members, the SAW gunner would remain largely independent, would have to carry less stuff, and the fireteam overall would have more ammunition.
 
In some armies, back when the squad had a magazine-fed light machine gun and everyone else had a bolt-action rifle except the squad leader, who had a submachine gun, the practice was for each squad member to carry (usually) two of the magazines for the light machine gun. Practices varied, of course, and there was usually also an assistant machine gunner who carried a spare barrel and even more ammunition. However, that was also when the standard caliber was a "full size" rifle caliber and a much smaller basic load was carried.

Curiously enough, in some cases the magazine-fed light machine gun was replaced with a belt-fed light machine gun and in all of these armies there was plenty of combat experience, sometimes all over the world, to base their decisions on. But the change was not always complete or enthusiastically accepted.
 
Evil Monkey said:
You can't have an MG team at fireteam level. It destroys the autonomous nature of the soldiers. That's a step backwards.
Click to expand...

It's not a step anywhere. Soldiers crossload ammo for heavier weapons all the time.

And there is no "autonomous nature of the soldiers." The fire team is the smallest maneuver unit in combat, so if there is any "autonomous nature," it's that of the infantry squad and fire team.

Moreover, it evens out the mobility of the SAW gunner and helps him keep up with the rest of his team. He needs that because his weapon weighs 2.5 times what everyone else's does, and he's carrying four times as much ammo or more. If you downloaded him to, say, two or three drums, and everyone else carried a drum, you'd have more ammo present at the team level anyway.
 
armed forces in the past decades have always worked towards the goal of having all infantry soldiers in the rifle platoon carry their own weapons and ammo. Nothing is supposed to be spread out.

It's not going to change just because the SAW and/or its ammo is heavy.

What you will see is a reduction in weapon+ammo weight through better weapon designs.
 
No, it was definately doctrinal in the British and French armies but not in any others. In French service, each soldier had a haversack that had pockets for two magazines for the new (at the time) 7.5mm light machine gun, while in British service, the new pattern web gear was introduced specifically so that Bren magazines could be carried. These were not the only methods used to carry additional ammo for the light machine guns, however.

In US service, only the BAR man carried magazines for the BAR but the tactical employment was different and there was a light machine gun further up in the organization in addition to a heavy (now called medium) .30 caliber machine gun even further up in the organization.

I do not mean to suggest that any particular method is better. But the standard basic load of ammunition in the past was relatively small and in some cases, only fifty rounds. But that was always supplemented with one or two bandoliers of additional ammo (and grenades) as an assault load.
 
M27 replaces SAW

I vote for a return to the BAR.Hated humping that beast but loved shooting it.All good things come to an end I guess.Before they-whoever the hell they is-they shoot consult with the guys using it on a daily basis.Not the American way though-go to foreign made stuff for politics much like "they" did when "they" replaced the M1911 .45 with the Beretta 9mm.Guess I'm just getting old and grumpy.Whatever ,lets support our boys in the field! Semper Fi
 
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.
Click to expand...

The Surefire quad-stacks won't work in the M27 due to HK's super smart proprietary mag well, or at least that's what the USMC NETT trainers are telling the people they're training to use them.
 
The Surefire quad-stacks won't work in the M27 due to HK's super smart proprietary mag well, or at least that's what the USMC NETT trainers are telling the people they're training to use them.
Click to expand...
If those quad stacks are as reliable as they seem it would have plenty of potential. Imagine a Bren configuration with a 100 round quad stack, no more complaining about sustained fire. Mag reliability would be improved as you have gravity working WITH you, not against you.
 
If those quad stacks are as reliable as they seem it would have plenty of potential. Imagine a Bren configuration with a 100 round quad stack, no more complaining about sustained fire. Mag reliability would be improved as you have gravity working WITH you, not against you.
Click to expand...

But they will still be heavy compared to belts and their plastic boxes.

Belts will always have the best weight/spave to ammo ratio. No mechanical magazine will ever come close, especially in 100rd+ capacities.

With some of these very lightweight belt feds available now, it's a heck of alot easier to put in a 200-300rd belt than to design a massively heavy and large machincal magazine/drum to hold 200-300rds.
 
But they will still be heavy compared to belts and their plastic boxes.
Click to expand...
What about the extra weight of the feed mechanism of the gun?

Belts will always have the best weight/spave to ammo ratio. No mechanical magazine will ever come close, especially in 100rd+ capacities.
Click to expand...
See above. In addition, if the mag gets messed up you throw it away and use another one. If the belt feed mechanism breaks you are SOL. Not sure how much of a problem that is, but it is a thought.

With some of these very lightweight belt feds available now, it's a heck of alot easier to put in a 200-300rd belt than to design a massively heavy and large machincal magazine/drum to hold 200-300rds.
Click to expand...
What designs are you referring to?

/Thanks for the good discussion.
 
Colt/Stoner built one in the 1960's

NO Interest!
Now that the patents have expired and Someone else can get a kickback BINGO! It's all Fresh,Hot and New! like something from Arbey's or McDonald's
Somebody will make a million in kick backs off this, just like somebody made a mint off the SAW (perfect weapon, HA!) which was only a few pounds lighter than the M-60 (a much better gun based on Proven Designs)
There has been a Rightous design for over 20 years, a smaller MG 42 in 5.56. belt or mag fed, quick change barrel and a OP system that was proven in WW2 as one of THE Best in the world.
We Wear Fritz helmets might as well have a Fritz gun!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top