ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Log in or Sign up

OMFG, the USMC want the LSW to replace their SAW

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Mr Happy, Jan 12, 2009.

» register to remove ad » advertise here

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

Current Affairs, News and Analysis
The Int Cell (Gossip)
The NAAFI Bar (not for the faint hearted)
Clothing and Equipment
» we have our own encyclopaedia; the ARRSEPedia
» our reviews section - book and other reviews
» register a user (and see less advertising)

Join ARRSE (free) to join in and remove this advertising

Page 1 of 10

Mr Happy Moderator

OK, not quite butâ¦

DID says: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/IAR-What-IAR-The-USMCs-SAW-Substitution-05240/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink

The US Marines are looking to replace their M249 5.56mm light machine guns in their infantry and Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) battalions. Many have become worn from use, and can be more hindrance than help in some of the close-quarters urban warfare situations dominating current battlefields. They also have a reputation for jamming, and at 15 pounds empty, these belt-fed weapons are rather heavy.
In its initial 2005 FedBizOps.com solicitation for an âInfantry Automatic Rifleâ (IAR), the Marines wanted two big things. First, the gun had to fire from either the open or closed bolt position. This would give it the single-shot and âfirst through the doorâ capabilities that the M249 lacks, while allowing for more sustained fire than an M16 can handle without risking ammunition âcook offâ in a heated barrel. It also had to be considerably lighter than the M249, at just 12.5 pounds maximum and 10.5 pounds desired weight. In exchange, the Marines decided they were willing to trade the SAWâs belt-fed design for switchable 30 round magazines, which are used up much more quickly but can also be changed in battle much more quickly.
The result is not a true light machine gun, but something in between an LMG and an assault rifle. That shift in the 13-man Marine squad has its advocates and detractors. December 2008 saw the initial set of awards for IAR designs, which will eventually be narrowed down to a single winner. DID offers more background concerning the USMCâs IAR contenders and contracts â 2 of which have a US SOCOM backgroundâ¦
â¢ The Contenders
â¢ IAR What IAR: The Choice
â¢ Contracts and Key Events
â¢ Additional Readings

SUCCESSFUL
The winning bids went to a set of long-established competitors.
Colt.

The current manufacturer of the M4 carbine, who also makes some of the Marinesâ M16 rifles. Colt publicly touts a variant of its CAR design, which is basically an M16 with some modifications to fit the IARâs requirements, including a new hydraulic buffer assembly plus a heavier barrel. Elsewhere, Defense Review has a complete review of the Colt IAR, which appears to be a different design than the CAR. It uses a direct gas impingement system rather than a gas piston system, and adds a large heat sink to the front which makes the 9.5 pound weapon a bit front-heavy.
Interestingly, Colt won 2 contracts for the IARâs development and testing phase. It is not yet clear if this represents CAR and IAR awards, or if the twin contracts have a different rationale. DID readers with information are urged to email tips@, here at our web domain.
FN USA.

The US Marines are already a customer beyond the M249 SAW, as FN USA manufactures many of the Marinesâ M16 rifles. For the IAR competition, the firm is entering a version of the SCAR Mk16 rifle that has become US Special Operation Commandâs weapon of choice. FNâs SCAR family of rifles has a wide set of innovative features developed with SOCOMâs assistance over the last several years, and a 10-year production contract was awarded in November 2007. FN USAâs IAR entry is interesting, in that it retains the accuracy and performance of closed-bolt firing until the barrel reaches a certain temperature, whereupon it automatically switches to safer open-bolt firing.
With MARSOC operating as part of SOCOM, a number of Marines may already be familiar with this weapon. Since the Marines plan to rotate personnel back to regular Marine units after MARSOC, a rifle thatâs shared with SOCOM offers certain advantages to the force.
Heckler & Koch.

The HK416 is an M16/M4 with a modified upper receiver. US SOCOM and other special forces around the world have been using them for several years now, after the standard Colt M4 design proved itself unable to meet SOCOMâs needs. See âThe USAâs M4 Carbine Controversyâ for more background.
H&K replaced Coltâs âgas-tubeâ system with a short-stroke piston system that eliminates carbon blow-back into the chamber, and also reduces the heat problem created by the super-hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were made to the magazine, barrel, et. al. The final product was an M4 with a new upper receiver and magazine, plus H&Kâs 4-rail system of standard âPicatinny Railsâ on the top, bottom, and both sides for easy addition of anything a Special Operator might require. In exhaustive tests with the help of the USAâs Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds â fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies. The H&K 416 was declared ready in 2004.

UNSUCCESSFUL
General Dynamics. The firm had partnered with Singaporeâs ST Kinetics to offer a Mk5 version version of the Ultimax 100 5.56mm light machine gun, whose accuracy and control have deeply impressed many military observers and analysts [watch video â AVI format]. Part of the weaponâs secret is that it was originally designed for Singaporeâs smaller soldiers, and the 11 pound Ultimax LMGs (when empty) now serves with a number of militaries around the world.
The Ultimax was not ready in time to dislodge FNâs M249 in the original SAW competition, but the Marines had maintained a simmering interest in the weapon ever since. General Dynamics hoped that this time will be different, but the IARâs specifications and focus appear to have handicapped this entry, and it was not selected for the IAR development contracts.
LWRC This firm has done a lot of work refining and improving the M16/M4 for military, law enforcement, and personal use. This includes the introduction of more reliable mechanisms, designated marksman weapons, and even different calibers like the superior but magazine-compatible 6.8mm. Their 5.56mm âM6A4 IARâ candidate was not selected for additional development and testing.

IAR
The larger questions around these weapons boil down to doctrine. Light Machine Guns can be used for sustained âsuppressive fire,â but often pay a price for doing so. Until recently, the Ultimax 100 has been the closest thing to an LMG that could comfortably switch over into âheavy assault rifleâ mode, without losing its basic function. The IAR is that magazine-fed heavy assault rifle, but its 30 round magazine can make sustained suppressive fire difficult unless several IAR operators are on hand.
Drum magazines can be used to increase the number of available rounds, but loading them is difficult, many drum magazines have reliability issues, and carrying multiple drum magazines is a lot bulkier than carrying multiple 30-round âflatâ magazines. In practice, therefore, the IAR is likely to be a 30 round weapon that depends on accuracy for suppression.
A recent USMC battle at Shewan, Afghanistan indicates that this may be possible. In addition, marksmanship and the ability to bring a weapon to bear very quickly are hallmark requirements of the urban battlefield, where the Marines and militaries around the world expect to do a lot of their fighting over the next few decades.
In the military world, as in the world of finance, options have value. The Marinesâ decisions to date have indicated the priority they place on more optimized IAR designs, which may not be true LMGs but offer other advantages in compensation.
Click to expand...

Mr Happy, Jan 12, 2009

#1
Dandy-Angus

They can have it ! Useless fkn weapon, spent more time as the new guy in the platoon un-jamming the fkr grrrrrrr

Dandy-Angus, Jan 12, 2009

#2
PartTimePongo

I'm surprised HK didn't submit the LSW A2 for this actually..

PartTimePongo, Jan 12, 2009

#3
sc_obvious

PartTimePongo said:

I'm surprised HK didn't submit the LSW A2 for this actually..
Click to expand...

Far too much baggage associated with this weapon I think.

sc_obvious, Jan 12, 2009

#4
Biped Book Reviewer

Political as well as historic.

Biped, Jan 12, 2009

#5
Mr Happy Moderator

I was thinking from the tactics side of thing... the whole "belt fed avoids the 30 rounds stoppage" issue that the LSW got slagged for 20 years appears to have been turned on its head for the sakes of quicker reloads and reliability and - of course - less jamming.

I wonder if our experiences arrive at the same solution?

I note the USMC 13 man section too..

Mr Happy, Jan 12, 2009

#6
sc_obvious

Surely there must have been a study into this already (LSW v Minimi) ? I believe we are procurring a longer barrel for the Minimi (Sp ?) to enhance the accuracy ?

sc_obvious, Jan 12, 2009

#7
Mr Happy Moderator

sc_obvious said:

Surely there must have been a study into this already (LSW v Minimi) ? I believe we are procurring a longer barrel for the Minimi (Sp ?) to enhance the accuracy ?
Click to expand...

Studies only answer questions that are asked, it would be a brave man that stood up and said "actually, the LSW A2 is cracking, we should bin these Minimi's".

Mr Happy, Jan 12, 2009

#8
Dr_Nick_Riviera

I thought there was a move to the 7.62mm Mk48 to replace the SAW (I could be talking complete bollocks though). This featured in an item on "Future Weapons".

Mk48 vs Mk46

Anything but the LSW though, surely!

Dr_Nick_Riviera, Jan 12, 2009

#9
Noodles

Mr Happy said:

...<snip>I note the USMC 13 man section too..<snip>
Click to expand...

I think this was experimented on in the Trenches in 1916-1918. Traditionally, the platoon would hold four sections of 9 pax -a bomber, a gunner, a rifle and a rifle/bomb/GD section. I remember reading in a memoir ( I think it was Sassoon's Memoirs of an Infantry Officer ) that when the trench stalemate was on they used 13 man sections made up of a mix of Lewis gunners, bombers and riflemen.

When the war of manoeuvre began in earnest in 1918 these 13 man sections were found to be a little unwieldy and they reverted. I don't know when the structure changed to 8 man sections though.

Noodles, Jan 12, 2009

#10
chocolate_frog

What is actually wrong with much the maligned LSW A2?

It does what it was designed to do, does it not? And a lot more besides.

It may not be belt fed, but it can offer sustained fire to long distance. IÂ´d imagine it fits right in with the spam request.

Although, not sure of ANY weapons that fire from BOTH closed and open breaches thoguh.

chocolate_frog, Jan 12, 2009

#11
SmithsRail

This topic was done ages ago.

SmithsRail, Jan 12, 2009

#12
ugly Moderator

Noodles said:

Mr Happy said:

...<snip>I note the USMC 13 man section too..<snip>
Click to expand...

I think this was experimented on in the Trenches in 1916-1918. Traditionally, the platoon would hold four sections of 9 pax -a bomber, a gunner, a rifle and a rifle/bomb/GD section. I remember reading in a memoir ( I think it was Sassoon's Memoirs of an Infantry Officer ) that when the trench stalemate was on they used 13 man sections made up of a mix of Lewis gunners, bombers and riflemen.

When the war of manoeuvre began in earnest in 1918 these 13 man sections were found to be a little unwieldy and they reverted. I don't know when the structure changed to 8 man sections though.
Click to expand...

I do, 1983 we officially took the two fire team principle on board in UK Infantry Bns. Additional GPMGs were sourced and the 3 man gun group, 5-8 man rifle group ceased to exist! We got to work out recently approved tactics from brecon during that autumns field firing season. As a Bn we had been still deploying under the old orbat on Active edge up until April 1983!

ugly, Jan 12, 2009

#13
ironrations

chocolate_frog said:

Although, not sure of ANY weapons that fire from BOTH closed and open breaches thoguh.
Click to expand...

The Spams are knocking out a few versions of the M16 with heavy barrels and the ability to fire open/closed bolt dependent on the type of fire selected.

ironrations, Jan 12, 2009

#14
woody

chocolate_frog said:

What is actually wrong with much the maligned LSW A2?

It does what it was designed to do, does it not? And a lot more besides.

It may not be belt fed, but it can offer sustained fire to long distance. IÂ´d imagine it fits right in with the spam request.

Although, not sure of ANY weapons that fire from BOTH closed and open breaches thoguh.
Click to expand...

A2 LSW isn't maligined A1 lsw is so hated that the LSW a2 suffers as well .
Its awkward and heavier and doesn't do anything the rifle cant do .

woody, Jan 12, 2009

#15

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 10