OPFOR

The M249 didn't replace the M60 - it replaced the M16A1 on full auto as the squad automatic weapon. The M240G and M240B replaced the M60 as the general purpose machine gun, and guess what?! The M240 is heavier, and it's "soft mount" is MUCH heavier than the pintle mount of the "Pig."

And Randy - as a Marine grunt, I'm sure you did your fair share of humping the boonies. I know we might be able to sneak a pound or two in on our guys to give them a more powerful weapon, but it seems we have given them all they can take (and then some) in armor. Seriously, we are so loaded down now that every ounce matters...not that I'd give up my IBA, but I cursed that thing more than any other piece of kit I've ever had...

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

randytulsa2

I thought the SAW replaced the BAR. Speaking of which, THAT was a heavy sucka. Not as heavy as a '60, but heavy enough, 'specially when you switched back and forth between it and an M16. Difference between a whiffle ball and a bowling ball.

__________________
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

randytulsa2

Which brings to mind my next question (totally off topic, to boot): they're issuing M14's, I hear.

What about those BAR's? THOSE would get the attention of the Hajis, folks...Gear-On-Teed.

__________________
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

OPFOR

The M-14 is in limited issue - I procured them for my spotters. Getting ammo and good mags was the hard part - we had to de-link belted ammo because 7.62 "Special Ball" and 7.62 "Long Range" were in short supply, and that all went to my snipers. And the aftermarket mags we got were utter crap - completely worthless. Eventually we got some "factory" mags, and they worked fine...

As for the BAR - as far as I know, that was loooooong out of service when the SAW was type classified in the early '80s. Today, I'd imagine you'd be very hard pressed to keep a BAR fed and maintained... Plus, we have enough 7.62N weapons in/entering service to fill the "battle rifle" role. :)

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

randytulsa2

OPFOR:

You really do know your stuff. You've been there, and how.


We got issued BAR's, believe it or not, in the mid-1980's, (one for each 12 of us IIRC- temporarily, too). I had the distinct impression that they weren't widely issued, and that they were some kind of a stop-gap deal until the SAWs were available/fully distributed/something.

Don't know what would have filled the gap immediately before them, though...M14's? M16's on full auto? It was about the same time they were starting to phase out the M16A1 with something (M16A2?)that gave a three-round burst instead of a magazine-clearing full auto.

They were r-o-u-g-h, too.

But those suckers worked, I kid you not.

And you've got to be right about the ammo thing, too. Not much '06 left lying about, and IIRC, the BAR's were NOT .308-shooters.

Too long for close quarters, too.

__________________
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

Colin

We had the FNC2 as our squad automatic weapon, a heavy barreled FN with a bipod and 30 rd mag. Carried another four mags in a bra across the Chest.

We also have this as our support weapon which is the same design as the M249
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Engl...asp?product=93

Our GPMG

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Engl...asp?product=91


And for you BHP guys.....
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Engl...asp?product=97

Made in 1944 by Inglis, some of the current issue have Chinese writing on them, but never delivered.

OPFOR

Randy, you guys had to be the only troops in the US carrying those bad boys around in the 80s...the BAR had pretty much gone the way of the do-do by the beginning of Vietnam. Yes, the M-14 was supposed to fill the squad automatic weapon role, with designated troops using it full auto while the majority of the squad stayed on semi. Of course, the M14 is a beast in full, and it never really filled this role well. Then the M16 was supposed to be employed the same way, and, while it is controllable in full auto, it suffered from many of the same problems as the BAR and M14 - small magazine, light barrel that overheated quickly, lack of a quick-change barrel capability, etc.

The M249 came into service around the same time as the M16A2. The A2 has no full auto capability, so the squad needed a different weapon if it was to maintain that capability. Enter the M249, full auto, big ammo capacity (200rd belt in an attached drum), quick change barrel, heavier 5.56N round, improved tracer for 900m of tracer burn, and not incredibly heavy...all in all it sounds like a pretty dang good SAW.

In practice, the SAW has mixed reviews. When it works, it works well, and can put a lot of lead down range quickly and pretty accurately. It does, however, have a reputarion for being maintenance heavy, and for failing when not in pristine condition. I know a few armorers who HATE them, because when they break they seem to break the most difficult parts in the most difficult places to repair.

By and large, I have a pretty good opinion of them, though I have seen a few that were problematic. There's not much out there that can compete in that size/firepower combo, though, so I don't know what might replace it...

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

Sig 210

The BAR was replaced by the M-14E2 in the early 1960s as the squad automatic weapon. Most have never heard of it because it was not in service very long. The M14E2 had a heavy barrel, a full auto selector, a straight stock and a bipod. It was very controllable on full automatic, the M-14 is not.

The M-14E2 was a good concept. Everyone in the squad had magazines that would fit the squad automatic weapon.

As the M-16 came into service, the M-14E2 was replaced by the M-60 machine gun.

Some US units had BARs issued much later. Improved versions of the BAR were still in service around the world in the 1990s. Was the Senior Firing Range Advisor to the Saudi National Guard for several years. Their non-modernized units had a quick change barrel version of the BAR in 7.92 mm as late as 1991-probably much later.

Steve48

You bet!! I did in Vietnam!! Steve48

dwolsten

Isn't JHP a bad choice against enemies with body armor? Also, isn't ball ammo better for shooting people in vehicles, or behind other obstructions?

JHP makes perfect sense in the civilian world of self-defense. The likelihood of an intruder in your home or thug on the street wearing body armor is quite slim, so JHP is best for taking these unarmored people out quickly. Overpenetration is also an important issue for us civilians; it's not often we're going to be worried about shooting through things to hit our targets.

War involving armored soldiers, vehicles, shooting in and around buildings, etc. is different, so there may be an actual benefit to FMJ ammo here. I can't say for sure, since I'm not in the military myself, but I think this is something the civvies here aren't thinking about.

After all, the US Military doesn't seem to care much about other countries' opinions when it comes to weapons like land mines or cluster bombs, which are universally condemned by the "let's make war friendlier and safer" crowd. Why would they care about their opinion on bullets?

I'd like to hear the opinion of Iraq vets here on this, but personally I think there's probably two good reasons they're using FMJ instead of JHP: the reasons I stated above, and (probably more importantly) cost. The JHP self-defense rounds I buy are certainly a LOT more expensive than the cheap FMJ ammo I use for practice.