Corps moves to replace M249

[JohnP]

Corps moves to replace M249

Staff report
Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 15:46:38 EST

The Corps has awarded four contracts to three companies to produce prototypes of the 5.56mm Infantry Automatic Rifle, which is slated to supplant the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, according a Dec. 26 Marine Corps Systems Command announcement.

The three firms will compete for a contract that could be worth up to $27 million. The firm selected will manufacture between 4,476 and 6,500 rifles.

The three companies are:

• FN Herstal of Herstal, Belgium.

• Heckler and Koch Defense of Ashburn, Va.

• Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn.

Colt received two contracts because it has two candidate weapons sufficiently different to warrant separate evaluations, according to SysCom.

“Each [company] will produce and deliver a minimum of 10 weapons. The Marine Corps will next evaluate these weapons and then intends to select one weapon system from one company to meet the IAR requirement,” Marine officials said in a news release.

The IAR is a lightweight, magazine-fed weapon. It will provide a one-for-one replacement of the M249 in Marine rifle squads within infantry battalions and in the scout teams in light armored reconnaissance battalions.

The weapons will be tested by infantry Marines as SysCom works to solicit input from throughout the operating forces, the release states.

[JohnP]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

I'm not a big fan of the .223 round. Though I spent my 20+ year career carrying this round, I find the knock down power lagging as compared to a .308 and the 30.06. Articles that I've read from the War on Terrorism from the line soldiers confirm what we old-timers have been saying for years. The little round does not stop the action.

As with the Negritos in the Philippines 100 years ago, the current opponent is not being stopped by a single shot from the current, primary rifle. When shot by a heavier bullet, the opponent stopped.

The next question, should the military contract strictly with a US company? I haven't heard arguments in recent times about this procedure. Is it time to bring up pros and cons about using companies outside the United States supplying our Armed Forces with primary weapons?

[PhilK]

While I am a fan of the SAW, I do wish it had more dropping power.

I do think that the we should look at a 7.62 alternative as opposed to going with a new type of round (ie. 6.8mm). The one thing I do like about the 5.56, 7.62 and the 9mm is that there are plenty of rounds to be found in all the different theaters because not only the US but pretty much all our allies carry the same rounds.

For me, if they could develop a weapon with the size and weight of a SAW, but with a 7.62 instead of a 5.56 round it would be the best of both worlds.

The other thing I want the researchers to keep in mind is that the SAW is an AREA weapon. I don't care if my SAW gunner can drop a dude at 300 meters with one shot...I want him sending rounds down range for the enemy to keep his head down. I'll let the other 7 guys in the Squad worry about picking off one target at a time. (Of course this is a whole other discussion.)

I am also not a fan of the fact that they are looking at a magazine fed weapon. While I realize belt fed weapons have drawbacks, I would rather have a 100 round drum of linked ammo as opposed to a 100 round magazine.

As for the US vs. Foerign venders, I would look at either a US vendor or a Foerign vendor with a US plant. Once these start coming off the assembly line, I don't want outside influences getting in the way of us getting the weapons.

[Billyd]

I am of the school that if it's for the United States Military, it should be produced by a United States entity. Not one with a presence in the United States.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by PhilK

While I am a fan of the SAW, I do wish it had more dropping power.

I do think that the we should look at a 7.62 alternative as opposed to going with a new type of round (ie. 6.8mm). The one thing I do like about the 5.56, 7.62 and the 9mm is that there are plenty of rounds to be found in all the different theaters because not only the US but pretty much all our allies carry the same rounds.

For me, if they could develop a weapon with the size and weight of a SAW, but with a 7.62 instead of a 5.56 round it would be the best of both worlds.

The other thing I want the researchers to keep in mind is that the SAW is an AREA weapon. I don't care if my SAW gunner can drop a dude at 300 meters with one shot...I want him sending rounds down range for the enemy to keep his head down. I'll let the other 7 guys in the Squad worry about picking off one target at a time. (Of course this is a whole other discussion.)

I am also not a fan of the fact that they are looking at a magazine fed weapon. While I realize belt fed weapons have drawbacks, I would rather have a 100 round drum of linked ammo as opposed to a 100 round magazine.

As for the US vs. Foerign venders, I would look at either a US vendor or a Foerign vendor with a US plant. Once these start coming off the assembly line, I don't want outside influences getting in the way of us getting the weapons.

I too, like the SAW for the ability to law down suppressive fire. The term SAW was not only the acronym for Squad Automatic Weapon, but it was synonymous with the "buzz-saw" effect of cutting down everything in front of it.

On of the biggest, progressive, positive attributes about this weapon was the ability to swap between different types of ammunition feeds. Drum, belt and magazine feed ability gave it a flexibility that hadn't been seen in many years. This ability should be taken into consideration when selecting the next weapon

[03_SHOOTER]

Having never carried or fired either of the new generation of weapons (M-240 or the M-249) but having tens, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds of experience with M-60, I say dump the 5.56 in ANY iteration as an area support weapon and go back to 7.62 for that purpose. The biggest drawback to 5.56 in that role, to my way of thinking, is the fact that you're sacrificing range and energy on target at that range. I'm aware of the fact that the newer 5.56 rounds are supposed to be good out to 600 meters, but the 7.62 is good out to over 1000, so why would you give the enemy that extra 400 meters? Also, the 7.62 can blow through light cover that the 5.56 simply bounces off of, so again, why would you give the enemy any edge?

Oh, and for something completely different, what's with this new frangible ammo? It may still work on personnel, but if you have to shoot through a vehicle to get to those personnel, it's not exactly going to do you much good if your rounds turn to powder when they hit the door panel!

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

Oh, and for something completely different, what's with this new frangible ammo? It may still work on personnel, but if you have to shoot through a vehicle to get to those personnel, it's not exactly going to do you much good if your rounds turn to powder when they hit the door panel!

Frangible? That's a term I've never heard before. It sounds like a piece of crap.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by JohnP

Frangible? That's a term I've never heard before. It sounds like a piece of crap.

Well, I tell ya pilgrim, IMNSHO, they are. They were originally envisioned by the tree-huggin' bunny-lovers because of all of the "evil lead" in conventional rounds. I caught a piece on them (History Channel I believe) and the enviro-whacko's have pushed this so hard that the military is being forced to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions by the time it's all over with, cleaning up their ranges to get rid of all of the "evil lead" because it's "killing the earth". I guess they don't know that the Earth is where we got the lead to begin with!

Anyway, here's part of a write up on them from GlobalSecurity.org with some commentary added, just for fun!

Frangible Ammunition

Frangible, or “soft,” rounds are designed to break apart when they hit walls or other hard surfaces to prevent ricochets during close-quarters combat. (and to allow the bad guys to safely hide behind those walls or other hard surfaces while tearing you to pieces with their NON-Earth friendly ammo) Frangible ammunition represents the first viable revolutionary change to firearms science in the past 100 years. (I thought the self loading main battle rifle was the first viable revolutionary change to firearms in the last 100 years ) Frangible ammunition is a relatively recent development in bullets, presenting a departure from the standard projectiles in use for both range shooting and personal protection. With the advent of modern hostage rescue tactics in the 1970s and 1980s, the military and police agencies began to look for ways to minimize overpenetration risks. One widely-accepted solution was the frangible round, also known as the AET (Advanced Energy Transfer) round. (You mean that it was accepted after the idiot politicians in Washington, bowing to pressure from the Enviro-whackos COMPELLED the military to "accept" them.)

Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible ammunition is much less effective in rifles. It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance in actual combat is dubious. (YA THINK?!?!?!?!?) There are two frangible rounds that have been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a 5.56. Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission requirements (the military necessity) for the round. (OH PUHLEEZE)

Frangible bullets are not made from a lead projectile covered with a copper jacket, but are composites of hybrid materials either pressed together at high pressure or glued together with adhesives. Frangible bullets are designed to break up into smaller pieces upon contact with harder objects or surfaces. (like the places the bad guys like to hide) The polymer-compound round produces no splashback and vastly decreased ricochets.

You can read the rest of it at the link provided, but needless to say, not only has the military in general become "kinder and gentler", but the limp-wristed, left-wing, cheese-eating, gutless, barking moonbat, surrender-monkeys are even trying to make the ammunition "kinder and gentler" too! The next thing ya know, we'll be fielding a military whose most deadly weapons are harsh looks and nasty words....never mind, I forgot that they already disapprove of the nasty words.

[HairyEyeball]

The frangible round is the b*st*rd child of two separate philosophies, neither of which has any place on the battlefield: First, many who trust in large caliber or high energy 'personal anti-assault tools' for home defense were faced with the need for a round to dissipate its energy in the 'gremlin', not continue through the walls and any innocents unfortunate enough to be in its path, as well as the relative handful of 'Sky Marshals' who had to deal with the irrational presumption that a hole in a fusilage, less than a half-inch in diameter, would somehow bring down an aircraft - and, of course, the same concern a 'through-and-through' might have on non-hostile passengers. Second, almost all frangible ammunition is lead-free, a major talking point of those convinced that a shark swallowing a lead sinker off Bermuda will cause the death of a dozen Alaskan eagles of lead poisoning, or that cupro-nickle TMJ rounds leave a permanent cloud of lead dust in the atmosphere.

Despite its astronomical cost (even as compared to the skyrocketing costs of 'standard' ammo), its 'home safety' factor and its performance on clay blocks has given it cachet - many have purchased it for 'home defense', but never practice with it. The rationale, despite its external ballistics differing greatly from 'standard' personal defense ammo, is that, aside from cost, the range at which it will be used - the length of a room - presumes that any difference between point of aim and point of impact will be negligible.

As to its adaptation for combat loads, this could only be attributed to advanced cranio-rectal inversion in the procurement process: Given 03's point as one factor, the price being approximately double that of 'standard' rounds another, the minimal possibility of a wounded enemy surviving long enough unattended to die of lead poisoning yet another, the practicality of frangible ammo on the battlefield is analogous tothe 'practicality' of inviting Mikey Moore-on, BaaBaa Streisand and Alec BaldFacedLiar to a 'celebrity shoot' (at least until we figure a way to keep them downrange).

[03_SHOOTER]

About the only "silver lining" to this incredible large, and very black cloud would be that you could simply throw a few thousand of these powder puff bullets at the enemy and they would surrender from CHOKING ON THE DUST!

The thing I'm waiting for are the long term studies that are going to conclude that breathing the dust from these "environmentally friendly" rounds causes CANCER and birth defects, and must therefore be discontinued, and the multi-BILLION dollars in judgements that are going to be handed down against everyone except the aforementioned idiot children who foisted this abortion on Police Departments and the military.