Corps chooses H&K to make SAW replacement

[[R-DEV]Nosferatu]

Those C-mag things were in development since like 80s and they still don't ready to go?

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

...I see ninja is not to happy about this. Clearly he hasn't had experience with Marine corps SAWs. They are shit. As i said i would not bother me one bit if they gave us new SAWs, but this new weapon is better than nothing.

I thought the USMC used the same weapon, the PIP model? I am aware of issues in the past with the weapons not being maintained properly or issued weapons were the 1st-gen versions with basic cosmetic upgrades. But almost all of the 1st-gen models should have been moved on to either Reserve, NG, or foreign forces. The 2nd/3rd-gen (current) systems are much better, and don't fail like the old ones did.

Is the problem with the majority of USMC M249's due to improper unit maintenance? Improper soldier handling? Or just too many units still using 1st-gen?


I had heard a while back that they were considering giving the USMC the M249 SPW versions, and either 50- or 100-rd soft-bags. This would lighten the weapon and ammunition loads while still providing sufficient fire support. Wonder why that fell through?


Here's something from the MarineCorps Times that helps explain why the Army wouldn't make a similar move:

That’s why the Army, which also uses the M249, has ruled out a soldier version of the Marine IAR.

“We are not considering adopting an auto rifle for the infantry squad,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga.

Currently, Marine and Army infantry squads equip their fire teams with one M249 each. The difference, Radcliffe said, is that Marine squads have three fire teams, and Army squads have two fire teams.


“It’s really all about firepower. The Marine Corps has a 13-man squad; we have a nine-man squad — that’s a four-man difference.”

@Nos - The C-Mag is a failure, at least for military application. After repeated tests within the US Army and USMC, the majority have always agreed that they suck balls. They are used at times for training at the range, but even that is being viewed negatively. I'll post several references below:

DefendAmerica News - Article

TACOM issues Ground Precautionary Message GPM-02-017 "Commercial 100-Round Magazine for Use in M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)." During testing, rounds were sometimes left loose in the Beta C-Mag drums. Blank ammunition showed a very high stoppage rate. The message specifically recommends that the magazines not be used in an operational setting.

ATEC Test Record Number S-51340:

"The C-Mag is not suitable for use in training. The C-Mag demonstrated low reliability, poor durability, poor ergonomics, and resulted in a significant increase in weight for the same combat load."

I have used the C-Mag several times at the range, and didn't really like it. When used on a bench rest or in the prone with a bipod, it wasn't bad for plinking targets because you didn't have to reload as often. But generally, when I'm at the range for fun, I don't camp a specific weapon for an hour at a time either. I fire a couple mags from my pistol, then dump a few tubes from the shotty, then hop on the rifle, etc. I like to mix and match, have a good time, like a buffet. For practical use, I found the C-Mag a waste of time. There are only a few weapons that could benefit from it.

[[R-DEV]Gaz]

We've got lots of L86A2 LSWs we could sell you, cheap We just swapped them for FN Minimi Paras and are far happier with the superior firepower. Not to be antagonistic here, but in a 6 month period, I never once seen US forces (including those who were based/attached to us) clean their personal weapons :s

[Ironcomatose]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Gaz

We've got lots of L86A2 LSWs we could sell you, cheap We just swapped them for FN Minimi Paras and are far happier with the superior firepower. Not to be antagonistic here, but in a 6 month period, I never once seen US forces (including those who were based/attached to us) clean their personal weapons :s

Were they Marines? If they were Air Force or Navy or really anything other than infantry then im not surprised. I spend HOURS cleaning my weapon. In fact it is a requirement that I clean my weapons 30 days prior to taking leave, thats how anal we are about cleaning weapons.

@Ninja
Yeah a lot of them are still first gen. We do not have para SAWs. I have heard of units who do have them down in Hawaii and California but i can tell you that no units bases in camp Lejuene that i have seen have them. We even have SAWs that have no rails which means no PEQ-15 which means no night fighting capabilities.

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

@Ninja
Yeah a lot of them are still first gen. We do not have para SAWs. I have heard of units who do have them down in Hawaii and California but i can tell you that no units bases in camp Lejuene that i have seen have them. We even have SAWs that have no rails which means no PEQ-15 which means no night fighting capabilities.

That would be part of the problem then. The 1st-gen were the old fuckers with the tube-style stock. They also removed the adjustable gas cylinder, so some of the older weapons might "accidentally" be used on high. That alone will burn the hell out of the weapon system much faster. Some of the other differences were the rebuilding of the receiver, the old models were spot-welded and fell apart quicker.

The PIP weapons did a lot of major improvements, and are generally quickly distinguished by the newer plastic butt stocks. Some units were stuck with just modifying their 1st-gens by replacing a few external components to make them look like the PIP weapons, but sadly they still retained the 1st-gen receivers.

I was assuming that the USMC would have pushed the 1st-gen and even some 2nd-gen weaponss out into the Reserves or non-com units, or even better just selling them off to foreign military units. Any infantryman, either USA or USMC, should be using the M249 PIP or M249 Para depending on unit and mission. The 1st-gen shouldn't even be on vehicles in my opinion.

And I hate the Para models. Might be better for CQB, but I did just fine in MOUT training with my old SAW.

[Ironcomatose]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ninja2dan

That would be part of the problem then. The 1st-gen were the old fuckers with the tube-style stock. They also removed the adjustable gas cylinder, so some of the older weapons might "accidentally" be used on high. That alone will burn the hell out of the weapon system much faster. Some of the other differences were the rebuilding of the receiver, the old models were spot-welded and fell apart quicker.

The PIP weapons did a lot of major improvements, and are generally quickly distinguished by the newer plastic butt stocks. Some units were stuck with just modifying their 1st-gens by replacing a few external components to make them look like the PIP weapons, but sadly they still retained the 1st-gen receivers.

I was assuming that the USMC would have pushed the 1st-gen and even some 2nd-gen weaponss out into the Reserves or non-com units, or even better just selling them off to foreign military units. Any infantryman, either USA or USMC, should be using the M249 PIP or M249 Para depending on unit and mission. The 1st-gen shouldn't even be on vehicles in my opinion.

And I hate the Para models. Might be better for CQB, but I did just fine in MOUT training with my old SAW.

Not that it makes much difference but we are issued the 100 round bags and a shorter para barrel but the SAW itself is still trashy. I know of multiple weapons in my platoon that are incapable of firing on target no matter how many times you adjust the ironsights. My unit is not fitting the SAWs with ACOGs to try to combat this issue with many SAWs.

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

Not that it makes much difference but we are issued the 100 round bags and a shorter para barrel but the SAW itself is still trashy. I know of multiple weapons in my platoon that are incapable of firing on target no matter how many times you adjust the ironsights. My unit is not fitting the SAWs with ACOGs to try to combat this issue with many SAWs.

Wow, that sucks man. It kind of sounds like either your unit armorers aren't doing their jobs, or they aren't being supplied with the correct replacement parts to keep the weapons stable.

I used to rebuild M249's and M2HB's about one or two per day for a Battalion. And those weren't even Infantry units. We also did a lot of rebuilding on the M60's that were still in rotation, but because those were being phased out we mostly just replaced internals and let the external finish slowly fade away. By the time we got rid of our 60's, they looked like they were from WW2 or something. Maybe funding has been shifted in your unit, who knows. But it sounds like they need to correct what ever the problem is there before just moving to a new weapon system. If the problem persists, any new weapon will start showing flaws in time as well.


I can see the USMC switching to something like the IAR due to their unit composition, but as was stated in the MCT they aren't going to fully replace the M249. Those will still be around at Platoon level just in case they are needed. We'll see how trials go after the weapon's first combat deployment.

[Expendable Grunt]

So, does our ENORMOUS MILITARY BUDGET pay for nothing but fancy new aircraft? Seriously. You guys are still using crappy versions of weapons...the hell?

M.

[Excavus]

Exactly. The military needs to spend more money on making our soldier's lives easier and not creating new gimmicks for the Air Force and Navy.

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by Expendable Grunt

So, does our ENORMOUS MILITARY BUDGET pay for nothing but fancy new aircraft? Seriously. You guys are still using crappy versions of weapons...the hell?

M.

The problem is that some units get passed over while others get to live in luxury. Units that were deemed more likely to deploy would often get the better equipment. Before the current conflicts, the Army National Guard for example had the majority of their equipment as hand-me-downs from the Active Duty components. This meant that the "Weekend Warriors" were literally using second-hand crap most of the time. But the general opinion was that those units were quite unlikely to ever need "real" weapons because they weren't going to any wars.

After 9/11 things changed, and now a lot of the ARNG units are in constant rotation to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you are seeing ARNG units getting new equipment sometimes before certain AD units do.


There is also a lot of politics that can get in the way. While a Post/Base might need funding for weapon maintenance, the Post Commander might instead decide that funding should go to the motor pool or building a new firing range. I can still remember having several M-16's that were literally broken beyond repair, and our PC wouldn't authorize the parts to get them replaced because he felt the Post Museum needed new paint and windows. I had to scrounge around and make back-lot deals with other units to get the parts I needed.

Other times, it's simply a matter of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge. I've seen a lot of armorers who unfortunately hadn't been around long enough to understand the cause of some of the failures/damages they were repairing. And instead of correcting the problems, they sometimes contributed to making it worse. Human error and bad calls can lead to seriously jacked up equipment.


The point is that if the USMC has units with outdated equipment, or equipment that is failing due to lack of maintenance or refurbishing, then giving them a new weapon system isn't going to solve the problem. A few years after they get their new toy, those problems are only going to rear up again and bite them in the ass. Sooner or later they need to address the issue. And having to go out and find a whole new weapon system is more costly than just upgrading what they currently have. Not to mention the time required to train the soldiers on the new systems.