Marines ditch SAW for new auto rifle

Marines ditch SAW for new auto rifle

Marine infantry squads are getting rid of their big, heavy M249 machine guns in favor of a new, lightweight automatic rifle, Matt Cox reports for Military​.com, in a bet that grunts will do better firing fewer rounds more accurately than they did spraying bullets with the Squad Automatic Weapon. The Marines’ new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle uses a magazine with only 30 rounds, as compared to the belt-fed SAW, but as Cox writes, the IAR could be twice as accurate as the Marines’ existing rifles. So theoretically, if Marines are hitting their targets with their first few shots, they won’t need a smothering volume of fire.

As you can imagine, this is controversial. Cox breaks it down:

Former [Marine] commandant Gen. James Conway had concerns about replacing the M249 with a magazine-fed automatic rifle. His main worry was how the M27 would make up for the loss of suppressive firepower Marine gunners would give up when they went into battle without the belt-fed M249 machine gun.
Program officials acknowledge that a 30-round magazine cannot produce the high volume of fire the M249 is capable of when loaded with a 200-round belt. And because gunners cannot change out over-heating barrels on the M27, they will likely keep sustained rates of fire at nearly 40 rounds per minute for 600 rounds on days with mild temperatures. They will have to reduce that to 28 rounds when the temps climb past 100 degrees.

But accuracy seems to be the key to the M27’s effectiveness, [Marine infantry weapons development chief Charles] Clark said. The auto rifle is already showing signs that it could to be twice as accurate as the Marine M16A4.


Gunners shooting the M27 have been getting first-round hits on targets beyond 300 meters much more consistently than they have in the past with the M249, Clark said.

“In the training, the Marines were employing it in the semi-auto mode until they closed within 100 meters or so of the enemy and then switch to full auto to provide very accurate high rates of fire,” he added. “We don’t lose the ability to gain fire superiority.”

But time will tell.

Quite so. Cox goes on to write that service officials aren’t ruling out the possibility of a higher capacity magazine for the M27, but for now, they seem satisfied with the existing 30-round mag.

Join the Conversation

I thought thought the SAW’s purpose was to keep the enemy’s head down. Accuracy is what the individual weapon is for?!

My main problem with this concept is that automatic weapons are meant to put SUPPRESSIVE FIRE on a target area, or multiple targets. While the Rifleman’s Prayer teaches us that it’s the hits that count, let’s not forget that quantity has a quality all it’s own. So we’d have this and the Golf only for suppressive fire? That thing is great, but it’s a BEAST. I gotta give this a pretty strong thumbs down for ideas.

The whole point of the change was to reduce the weight carried by the AR man and reduce his profile to look less like a machinegunner. Better accuracy is always a good thing; it reduces the chances of innocent bystanders being injured, fewer rounds being expended per engagement , because hits count and misses are wasted ammo. This also mean the Fireteam/Squad can move faster and more aggressively in action. Now lets see what can be done about the heat problem.

Why not replace the M16 with the M27 instead? I think this was the Marines idea to accept a new battle rifle, only they pretty much removed their squad automatic weapon for an other long gun.

Here we go again.… Once again we are at the mercy of a Integrator or Company, selling their weapons… just like JSF. The M27 with a 30 Rounds will give SUPPRESSIVE FIRE in close combat to allow offensive or defense moves and will allow the enemy instead to envelop, or flank the Marines in numerous situations. Difficult to justify yet another stupid weapon fighting in a city or at ranges under 300 meters. Hell a AK-47 is very inaccurate at 300 meters. Stopping a car or truck with this new weapon would also be difficult with the low rate of fire. More wasted Money…

Why don’t we just go back to the good old BAR, the Browning Automatic Rifle. 19 1/2 pounds, 20 round 30 caliber mag. I am sure it could be made lighter and maybe use 7.62 ammo. in a 30 round mag.
Two BAR’s per squad.

The old BAR had a maxium effective reange of 1500 yards, with a maxium range of 4500 yards.

@John Cogswell perfect Commie quote for this topic The Marines are proud that they all train to be riflemen, Lenon was right. TheM27 is an odd duck, because it fills the requirement for designated marksman and limite supressive fire. I’ve heard elsewherethat the SAW is quietly NOT being completely removed from service. I see the SAw coming back “officially” as the PAW (Platoon Automatic Weapon) or S-PAW.

BUT Lenin was right.

seagoat 49
“The auto rifle is already showing signs that it could to be twice as accurate as the Marine M16A4.“
Give one to the squad leader, one to the rifleman, one to the assistant SAW, one to the SAW. There are already mags out there with 150 round cap. Looks like a new carbine for the Marines.

With a bipod (monopod), ones cone of fire is tighter than an unsupported A4 on 3 rd burst. The good ole days in the Corp, we were issued a bipod for the A1 equiped AR man in the squad. I’ve always like the SAW, make it lighter, dump the magazine capability — where most feed problems happen — how about issuing Mk46 in para configuration.

M27 is an updated Automatic Rife (AR). I have carried the Browning Automatic Rife (BAR), a very good weapon even with shortcoming such as too heavy, too long, only 20 round magazine; however it could be fired after leaving it in a mud puddle. Even with 20 round magazines a good BAR gunner provided suppressive fire during both World Wars and Korea.

With a newer, lighter weapon, such as the M27, and its 30 round magazine, it should get the job done, seems like it is being accepted by the guys that will carry it in combat; lets listen to them for a change!

In fact. Instead of firing for 7 seconds straight before reloading, now the Marines will only be able to shoot for 1,5 seconds each time before reloading.

And – ONCE AGAIN – in the wrong calibre…

Good point, the M27 is already here.
However…I feel that an improved version of the XM-8 would be better in the long run.

The already make multiple 100 round drum designs for the AR platform that are reliable. Get that perfected for this weapon , carry 2 or 3 per SAW, and when they run out you can switch to regular mags and continue a support roll. I don’t see the problem here, just instruct anyone firing that you can’t run it 100 rounds at a time or you’ll light the thing on fire and carry an extra barrel just in case.

the reason they like it so much is because it is a heavy barrel version of the H&K416 with a gas piston system and different barrel twist which is why it is also more accurate. Never been a fan of 5.56mm but this rifle is a vast improvement over the old direct gas M16/M4 design from the 60’s. I just wish they had gone with the 417 instead (very light recoil for a 7.62mm rifle).

While I agree with the concept of having an automatic rifle with excellent accuracy and a good ROF in the arsenal, I don’t agree with the concept of having it replace a belt-fed infantry machine gun. The SAW’s purpose is to keep the enemy’s head down and push them back. The IAR’s purpose is to put down rounds accurately at a fast rate. There should be BOTH in use in the field.

The old ways of laying downspray fire have been gone for a while — even the 60 and m240 gunners now shoulder fire and do 2 to 5 rd burst. gone are the days of full belts from the hip so it stands to say that the same can be accomplished with a mag fed weapon which is the reason we see more M14’s and m110’s in rifle squads also. The 249 was an anchor from the start — should had gone with a improved version of the M63 modular system considering that is what they were trying to duplicate from the start.

Seems like we are forgetting some lessons we should have already learned. The BAR was a good weapon but it did not have the magazine capacity to make it a truly effective squad automatic. And we had automatic M-16s in Vietnam this was a problem in terms of ammo capacity per individual rifleman. Without a quick change barrel and the ability to be belt fed we are giving up massive amounts of suppressive fire here. It is easier to cary large amounts of belted ammunition and there is a definite pyshcological adavantage to a true light machine gun. I doubt we will see the the SAW truly go away. However there may be some newer and better designs that could be fielded in the light MG category.

Well put! And 100% correct. We were using the M-14 when I went through basic in 1966 and part of our qualification was on targets out 450 yards using open sights. There was an emphasis on marksmanship; so many of us were pretty good shots. That being said; in an ambush you don’t look to the snipers or sharpshooters. You want (in those m-60’s) the high rate/high volume of fire that only a belt feed weapon can provide.

uk army already shoots 2–3 round bursts from their minimi to preserve ammo.

No good reason for the M27. Problems with the SAW, No, the problem is using the SAW for what it was never intented for. This appears to be another in the endless string of USMC innovations that are intended to make them different. Having commanded Soldiers and Marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know that the SAW’s problems appear very quickly when maintenance and cleaning are not pushed very hard by NCOs in the field. Army units have comparitively few SAW problems when compared with their Marine counterparts. A little more time on the weapons cleaning station instead of the weightroom is the solution.
The reason a infantry squad has a automatic weapon in the first place is to suppress the enemy. Light is not always right. The M-60 was too heavy and uncomfortable, nobody wanted it. Except EVERYONE in a fire-fight.

No good reason for the M27. Problems with the SAW, No, the problem is using the SAW for what it was never intented for. This appears to be another in the endless string of USMC innovations that are intended to make them, different? Having commanded Soldiers and Marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know that the SAW’s problems appear very quickly when maintenance and cleaning are not pushed very hard by NCOs in the field. Army units have comparitively few SAW problems when compared with their Marine counterparts. A little more time on the weapons cleaning station instead of the weightroom is the solution.
The reason a infantry squad has a automatic weapon in the first place is to suppress the enemy. Light is not always right. The M-60 was too heavy and uncomfortable, nobody wanted it. Except EVERYONE in a fire-fight.

This is a very poor decision made with either a military industrial complex debt being paid off or pure folly. Somewhere along the line this will be regretted dearly when we face an enemy like China and or North Korea. Needed is a directed energy weapon with a self regenerating power source and or a new generation projectile weapon the employs magnetism differently then the rail gun/ Why is it that the troop in harms way must always bear the the tragic results for the whore on high time after time no matter how many times exposed. God be with you brave men and women.

Interesting propositions, but I suspect that even you will concede that your two innovative weapons require an excessive amount of that illusive and very expensive “unobtainium” raw material. Gotta make do with the technology that we have in hand or at least in sight on the horizon.

My big but simple minded concern would be the 30 round mag. RARELY indeed is raw accuracy an issue with an automatic weapon. The issue is number of rounds sent downrange with the rather simple intent of keeping all those bad guys inspecting the insides of their spider holes instead of carefully aiming their own rifles back at you and yours. Belt feed just seems to equate to more rounds downrange and less often having to reload! :-)

The BAR’s max effective range was NOT 1500 yards you dumbass. More like 400 or 500 yards. Just cause a .30–06 can fly 1500 yards does not make the weapon “effective” to that distance.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement