Army infantry officials say the squad machine gun developed under the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program has matured enough to become a serious contender to replace the venerable M249 squad automatic weapon. It’s nearly half the weight of the M249, and its “cased-telescoped” ammunition is significantly lighter than standard linked ammo, according to Col. Daniel Barnett, director the Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.
“It’s actually progressed pretty well; I have fired it a couple of times,” Barnett said. The current version of LSAT, developed by AAI Corporation with government funding, weighs 9.4 pounds compared to the M249 squad automatic weapon, which weighs in at roughly 17 pounds.
LSAT’s cased-telescoped 5.56mm ammunition that relies on a plastic case rather than a brass one to hold the propellant and the projectile, like a conventional shotgun shell. It weighs 37 percent less than standard belted 5.56mm.
Small Arms experts don’t argue that LSAT is extremely impressive, but they doubt big Army anywhere near ready to dump brass-cased ammo. Huge stockpiles of ammunition and shrinking defense budgets will likely convince the top brass to shelve the program until the next war.
Benning officials recently told Military.com that it’s time for the Army to decide if it wants to send LSAT down range for an operational assessment. Aside from the current LMG version, the materials and some of the technology LSAT uses could spin off into other small arms programs, Barnett said: “It has a lot of potential.”
The Army has come a long way in its effort to lighten the soldier’s combat load, but it seems like that effort is at a stand still until it finds a way to make bullets, mortar rounds and other munitions significantly lighter.
So what do you think? Is it time to really think about dumping brass-cased ammo or is LSAT just another “leap-ahead technology” that’s destined to fail?
{ 107 comments… read them below or add one }
composites ammo casings.
It’s an extremely impressive weapon, I’ll give them that, M249 firepower + volume of fire in an M27 package. I’m not sure what the costs are, but I’m guessing that, at the moment, they’re more than the officials are willing to pay for the increase in firepower.
Lighter guns and ammo means you carry more ammo.
I see no problem with that…..
Brass can be recycled, plastic is a scourge that uses oil to be left for 5 or 6 generations!
If they want to do something for our soldiers come up with light weight body protection as mobility is a soldiers best friend! We no longer fight to win, instead our CIC’s call it a win but a win starts when all the Enemy are dead or have surrendered!
My grandson is a small weapons repair man and he is willing to go to another country to buy a M14 that was produced by Spring Field Arms! I know that if we ever fight another Vietnam I would want a weapon strong enough for a Bayonet to be used without destroying the barrell and a 7.62 round that will KILL my enemy soldier!
What is with the crazies on this post? Any military rifle, or really any rifle for that matter, has a barrel more than strong enough to be used as a weapon. 7.62 NATO is ridiculously overpowered for the job of killing human beings and you can’t carry that much of it. The most powerful cartridge in the world is worthless if you’re out of it. 5.56x45mm is more than capable of killing people, it’s killed a lot of people as it was designed for. I don’t know where this “5.56 is designed to wound” ridiculousness came from, but it’s just that; ridiculous.
You do know that there is a big difference between the wars we fight today and the wars we fought 70 years ago, right? Apparently not. This is not conventional war. You cannot win it by conventional means. Tactical victory on the battlefield does not equal a strategic political victory. We killed 2 million Vietnamese from the early 1960s until the end of our involvement in the war and failed to secure a victory. War is a political undertaking. Anyone with a vague familiarity with military operations should be painfully aware of this fact, but sadly few are.
Oh, and plastic can be recycled too. Welcome to 1990.
Three points:
1. There is a reason people are having trouble getting that killing effect with the 5.56. Most of the infantry soldiers out there now carry the M4, which is a good weapon, but was designed for use as a CQB rifle. It utilizes a 14.5″ barrel, verses the M16 which uses a 20″ barrel. The 5.56x45mm ammo is designed, like the .223, to break apart and tumble once it hits whatever it is shot at, but this can only be accomplished if the bullet reaches the proper velocity it was designed for. Because the M4 has a shorter barrel, the bullet leaves the weapon at a slower velocity, which in turn greatly decreases the maximum efficient range, which is around 100-150m, verses the M16 which is about 300m. Do not mistake these distances for maximum effective range of the weapons themselves, as both can be very accurate out past 300m.
2. All M4/M16s have a 1/7″ rifling, which is best used with bullets in the 77 grains and higher. It doesn’t properly stablize the lighter weight rounds that everyone gets. The reason they have this rifling is so that the tracer rounds, which are 77 grains, can be shot out of them without greatly degrading the barrel life. So with most troops using the M4, you would get much greater accuracy using a slingshot at times.
3. 5.56x45mm ammo is produced at such a high production rate that you cannot possibly rate it even in the same realm as the cheapest ammo you can buy at any gun store.
With all of these stacked up, it’s easy to see why people are saying that the round isn’t sufficent. But before you post things you should educate yourself better. Any person who works as a 91F (or 45B which is what it was when I first enlisted) should have a better understanding of weapons other then “This broke, me fix with new part”.
I wish them the best of luck, this has been a long time coming and offers a true improvement over the M249 if they can get the kinks worked out.
Really need that many bullets to kill an enemy?
The SAW is often used for suppressive fire.
Most machineguns are used in an overwatch or suppression fire manner meaning you don’t need a lot of bullets to “kill” an enemy, rather you need a lot of bullets to suppress an enemy. This will in turn allow your other fireteam members to take up a better position on the enemy combatant and allow them to effectively eliminate the enemy without allowing the enemy to effectively return fire. Try to imagine being an enemy combatant hiding behind cover while hearing hundreds of bullets whizzing by and impacting all around you… Then imagine exposing yourself to that gunfire and trying take aim on where it is coming from in order to return fire. Needless to say your return fire isn’t very effective once you’ve been suppressed. The new lighter system will make the fireteams more mobile and responsive than they already are and will greatly enhance their abilities in my opinion. I really hope they get adopted! A side note, there are a lot of effective techniques and methodologies that employ the use of LMG’s I was just giving one scenario…
You did a better job of explaining this. It’s been a while since I served in the infantry but I seem to remember the ratio of fire should be around 3 to 1.
3 – 1 is ratio of forces. Fire superiority is more a subjective measure. How well do you keep the enemy from returning accurate fire or moving.
“Really need that many bullets to kill an enemy?”
The world becomes a very small place when out of ammo.. fyi .. not every one drops dead when hit, that’s why you strive for two or more taps. so yes the more the better..
VM 71-72
Are you kidding me? Obviously, you’ve never been in action.
If I have many bullets, I will have the opportunity for more enemy kills.
Look at the Moon. All those millions of craters? Not from meteorites, They’re from all the billions of rounds we’ve shot at our enemies over the years. MOST bullets missed, some just happened to hit the Moon. Yes, we need THAT MANY bullets to kill the enemy.
The M249 is large, bulky, heavy and lacks consistency in it’s firing (it misfires often). I’ve seen M249′s get reduced to nothing more than heavy, single-shot, bolt-action rifles, because of jamming. That is not what you want to be carrying to fight the enemy with. I’m fairly familiar with the M249. It was my personal weapon in Iraq. It’s capable of delivering mass firepower rather accurately but it suffers tremendously in reliability. The use of a rotating locking bolt seems to be one of it’s problems. The bolt is similar to the M4 and M16. All of the other fully automatic weapon systems in the Army’s arsenal lack this bolt design, the M240B, M2 and MK19. The M240B functions very smoothly in harsh, dusty environments. The M249 requires a high degree of maintenance to function properly. I’m no gunsmith or anything but commonsense tells me that more moving parts means more surface area for fouling to accumulate and eventually lead to bogging of the weapon system, especially in a gas operated weapons. Well to put it short, my experience with the SAW’s inferior design leads me to support a replacement. The M249 is not as awesome as some believe it is.
Jeff, it might be your personal experience. Depending on your individual weapon as an example of all SAWs might not be fair. CNA did a study that cited some reliability issues but not overwhelming IMO. It’s interesting that SOCOM adopted the M249 and basically replicated its operation in the Mk48. Recently the rangers have stopped procuring the Mk46 and have returned to the M249 because the Army made changes the the M249 that made it as reliable as the Mk46.
On a separate not dropping weight is a big deal as this was the number one M249 complaint from troops in the field in the study I mentioned.
most issues with the M249 come from them being old.
just like the M4 and M16, we keep rifles in service far longer than we should. we also have horrible inspection methods, if any so alot of parts are way beyond replacement but still get used.
Ah yes, the M240G is one of the most reliable, indestructible weapon systems ever made. I have literally picked on up off of a burm after a sand storm burried it, racked the charging handle and went to town. Not one time did mine ever jam, missfire or give me any trouble. And believe me, I have been known to be pretty rough on my equipment at times.
The M240 is a replacement for the M60, and in my professional opinion, it is an upgrade. The only draw back is the fact that it is not a hip/shoulder fired weapon as the M60 is.
I’ve had experience with the M240 and the M60. Given new machineguns the M60 is lighter and has a lower rate of fire. Those are key advanteges in the dismounted role.
You must not be talking about the same M-60 I had in nam, that sucker was around 26 pounds. The 308 round was leathal at longer distances. I liked the quick change barrel. Of course we could carry more ammo because we didn’t have all that body armor and stuff you guys carry today. Flacket jackets don’t stop bullets.
I would argue that the M240 is not able to be shoulder-fired, as I have done it successfully and rather accurately……both stateside and while in Afghanistan.
The rotating locking bolt isn’t the issue. The PKM uses a rotating bolt and it’s very reliable. I think the problem with the 249 is that a lot of weapons have been pushed far past their service life.
yes, the gun looks very cool but, does the ammo work…?
how dirty does it burn? how does it stand up to varied environments in storage and in the field? in short, does it match or exceed the expectations our soldiers place on the old fashioned rounds.
Just as importantly, how expensive is it to manufacture?
Expense correlates roughly with difficulty, and from a whole-force perspective it makes a lot more sense to stick with a lower-tech round if it costs an order of magnitude less to produce in quantity.
I note that the AAI brochure boasts of 10,000 rounds having been fired in tests so far. If I’m doing the math right, that’s less than the basic load of SAW ammo for a single line infantry company. Color me a tad skeptical that anybody can use that data to make any predictions about costs and potential QC issues for a multi-million-round production run.
9.4 pounds? That’s as much as my Noveske AR… I think the biggest hurdle (aside from cost) will be proving that the ammo is at least just as effective as belted 5.56.
The LSAT ammunition offers a 37% weight reduction, the new PCP polymer cases for standard 5.56 weapons offer a 25-30% weight reduction. Is the additional 10% in weight reduction really worth the cost of replacing 1 million 5.56 weapons and replacing the ammunition stockpiles? I don’t think so… The caseless LSAT perhaps is a better solution, the polymer LSAT is not cost worthy
An extra 10% ammunition weight reduction? Maybe not. But an extra 10% ammunition weight reduction PLUS a 45% reduction in Weapon weight? Plus the ability to design a new bullet, without the constraints of the 5.56mm case dimensions, with better ballistics and lethality? WORTH IT.
By the way, the company UCC has been offering caseless and polymer cased ammo many years before the LSAT program.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/09/crane-using-lightweight-50-cal-ammo.html
The link isn’t UCC, but the MK323 has been used for the last 2 or 3 years.
Im stunned they didn’t mention the LSAT rifle which is a M-4 to shoot telescopic ammo like this LMG. Over all I think this has potential but is still another several years before Id but it in war-fighters hands this is truly revolutionary technology but has kinks to be worked out. Heat problems and some telescopic case issue must be studied and looked at before this is on the battlefields other than that this looks good.
Who makes this LMG anyway??
It’s made by AAI Corporation. They have been working on it for nearly a decade.
Now get that chambered in a more powerful intermediary catridge, so we can replace the m240 as well and you have a winner.
Without specifics one can’t weigh in on if this is ready for an operational test. Sounds like a great idea but only if it works.
Nice tidbit Matthew. Thanks for the article.
I never did like the M249, I was disapointed when the Army quit using the M60. It
was a very soldier friendly weapon and I never had any problems with it. I hope the
replacement for the 249 is a good weapon. The soldiers deserve the best.
I had plenty of issues with the M60s as they wore out — everything from rounded sears causing ADs and runaway guns to having the buttstock fly off while firing.
I alsways thought that the MG82 would have been a better choice than the Minimi for a squad automatic.
I had plenty of issue with the Vietnam-era M60s — everything from rounded sears causing ADs and runaway guns to having the buttstock and buffer come off in mid-burst.
I always thought that it was a shame that the Army settled on the Minimi before CETME brought out the MG82.
The army also has a bad habit of messing with good designs. The original M60 ammo came in plastic boxes. Some idiot desided that it would be more cost effective to put them in paper boxes. When the rounds were exposed to a wet environment the boxes disintegrated and paper was dragged into the breech caause jams. Even though the box caused lots of problems AMC refused to change the design.
I am currently serving in Afghanistan, and my opinion on the m249 is that it lacks the range and stopping power. the Taliban know how we operate. every engagement iv been through so far has been on their terms, not ours. they open fire with linked 7.62 at 800 to 1400 meters away, which is well out of the limits of the 249. after our first go around, we only pack EBR, 240b, and 50 caliber machine guns now. im willing to bet even this new 249 is a waste of money.
I agree 5.56mm NATO is OK for rifle and carbine ammo for Jungle and urban combat but lacks for a GPMG the M-60 and M-240 are much better suited for the task. The SAW was advertise in the 80s to shoot same ammo as M-16s so there was no difference in caliber and so solders all can use each other ammo. However the ammo being linked meant no M-16 could shoot SAW ammo and the mag feed device on the SAW jammed every time you looked at it. There is a reason SEALs keep the M-60E3s in service: firepower! And weight its lighter than a M-240. .30 lasted this long because it kills and rips flesh and machines apart. 5.56mm dont cut it. For rifles and carbines it dose the job for machine guns goto big boy calibers.
Look back at history to see why there is a problem now. The M-16 was procurred because we wanted an automatic rifle just like the soviet forces had. Because of the woods in europe and the increasingly mechenized methodes of modern warfare long range shooting was concidered a thing of the past. Now we are in a war where long range shooting is the norm and the rifle/bullet is not up to the task. Back in the mid 80′s the army sent out a message directing everyone to check all of our magizines to locate steel ones because the alluminum mags that the army had been procuring would not work with 249′s. And you are wrong about rifles not being able to fire the linked ammo for the 249. As long as you have an M-16A2 or new weapon all you have to do is delink it.
Buzz, “all you have to do is delink it”? Have you ever delinked any significant number of rounds by hand? It’s not easy, and it’s definitely not quick.
I was looking for someone to bring up the points you made concerning the lack of range and stopping power problem. In the open spaces of the desert, a 7.62 round is needed. We called the old M-60 the “Pig” but it did its job. You just can’t beat a 7.62 round for disitance, penatration and knock down power.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s introduce a third, completely different, type of ammunitition to the Army supply chain.
There are already several different variants of 5.56 ammo in service and several different variants of 7.62 x 51 in service. What’s the big deal about several more types? A logisitcal nightmare. The Nazis did the same thing. They adopted the weapons of every country the conquered, pretty soon, things were a mess.
Yet they never really ran out of ammo…Just look at the Lybian revolution. People with no training were able to make it work with all kind of cartridges and weapons from all over the place. Logistics are way overrated in US millitary. A lot of good programs have been killed off because of the logistics freaks running the show.
This LSAT technology, if done right, could replace both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, with a single intermediate cartridge. No more need for two sets of rifles and machine guns. How could you get a new cartridge in, to test it, if you fear you’ll instantly run out of ammo?
the Libyan revolutionaries were also not millions strong like the US military was or, comparatively, Nazi Germany. A myriad of different platforms, vehicles, and calibers does create a nightmare and reduces the effectiveness of combat units.
Logistics are never overrated. In fact, the Us military needs more logistics freaks.
“An army marches on its stomach”
“Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.”
– General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
noted in 1980
gotta get that weight down, its gotta be female friendly,”extremly impressive weapon” what’s he gonna say? its a dog?
Am I just that old? Is this a new plastic? After A LOT of rounds in a combat shotgun, the plastic would begin to leave plastic residue while in battery from the plastic melting due to the heat. The rifle barrel would seem to me to be a lot hotter after hundreds of rounds. I’m guessing they’ve figured out a way to toughen up this plastic. Can anyone update this for me.
The shells are some type of poly-type plastic which is fairly thin. But I think that you’re really not going to shoot that many rounds to have any effect. With the telescoped rounds, the plastic part (containing the primer) would be ejected as brass is. The plastic is probably designed to resist high heat.
I wonder if the swinging chamber of the gun has any positive effect on cooling. I’m sure that the barrel will stay cooler as it’s main source of heat (the chamber itself) is swung away from it every cycle. I don’t know what positive or negative thermal effects, if any, this would have on the chamber itself.
On one hand, we continue to develop robot tracked vehicles to carry their rucks and ammo, yet we spend time and money to develop ammo that weighs 37% less. The logistics trail is not what it used to be. One way or the other, ammo will get to the warfighter in the field before he runs out. Stay with the brass.
I am skeptical until it is proven to actually work. The saw was a new weapon system when I came through basic and they were alreaady well know to be jammers and PMS ****** then. The system was and is needed in the squads. Having the same cal ammo is helpful but not absolutly needed. Range knock down and rate of fire for suppression are most important. this could well be just another example of the military industrial complex at work. Everybody wants to make a buck. I’m all for anything that works though if it is going to keep the soldiers winning the fight and not constantly needing to be fixed by the armorer.
Let the stockpiles of brass casings drop to a point where the new plastic rounds get introduced into mass production. End of argument.
A carbon fiber Jacket 5.56,much lighter and 50 times stronger than most plastics out there,and a all carbon fiber weapon other than the bolt/breach/barrel ect,anything that does not have to be steel can be be carbon fiber.Plastic or carbon fiber clips and even springs in the clips,copper jacket bullets filled with light but hard concrete,i dreamed of this on patrol in vietnam in 66-67 packing a 10 pound M-14 with steel 20 rnd clips of 7.62
full jacket Nato ammo,full pack.grenades,rations an alot of other things i didn`t need,i was 19years old,5ft7 and weighed 155lbs.Later they gave us the Mattel Toy m-16 which
jammed all the time and had no hitting power like the 7.62.I didn`t have to have a direct hit to kill the enemy all i had to do was shoot at the Bamboo tree`s and the splinters would take care of the job.
vietnam vet 1/10 cav..66-67
lets grow plants that can be melted in to casings. Renewable form of punishment.
Give me the M14 anytime not the plastic m16 Mac and his boys sent me while in Nam!
Shorten the barrell, put the lighter stock on it but 7.62 all the way, Throw away the Body Armor (to dam heavy) and if I can reach out a 1/4 mile I dont need that weight, just as a lot of us did with flack vests that wouldn’t stop a 22 long rifle and left a mess inside you if hit! You could fill the M14 with sand and knock it out and fire not like the M-4, M16 that a grain of sand would jam!
My son just came back from Af’stan and he said where he was other than rocks you could see a mile away! He was stuck with M-4/203 and it wasn’t much lighter than the M-14.
Brass all the way as I am still shooting ammo from the 60′s that some has been wet but still fires!
FYI the M-14 is still in limited use and it has been updated with the things you mentioned and some. Its called the SOCOM Mod14 and its used by mostly special operation units and selective other units. Also SOCOM has an assault rifle called the SCAR Mk7 which is one of the best assault rifles in the world and its 7.62×51 and its above and beyond any M14. look it up online and youtube, but even better go down to a well equiped gun store and see it for yourself.
So you’d rather have a heavier, less reliable, less adaptable rifle? I’ve seen more M14/M1As malfunction than pretty much any other semi-automatic rifle. You drag one though the mud, it’s probably not going to cycle. You get sand in it, it’s probably not going to cycle. You just can’t seal them up very well. Dust cover closed, you could bury an M16 in sand, shake it off, and fire a combat load through it without issue. Same goes for mud. You definitely can’t buy an M14 in mud and expect it to work without issue.
1/4 of a mile is 440m, well within the engagement envelope of the 5.56x45mm round (Mk 262 mod 0/1 can reach out twice as far or more). Then again, judging from the non-sense you’re spouted, I doubt you have any experience with it.
The M-14 is a reliable weapon like any it must be cleaned and maintained but I have seen M-14s shoot w/o flaw in desert environments and work fine. The Mk-17 is good for CQB but lacks in long range accuracy the M-14 EBR fills in. I talked to GIs who’s M-14s shoot w/o flaw in rain and mud the Grande System its based on works fine. The BIG reason SOCOM units refuse to ditch it.
The Mk-17 is more accurate than the M14. Out of the box, the 17 is a 1.5 MOA rifle. An EBR is usually double that. The standard Mk 17 has a 16″ barrel which has proven to have adequate velocity out to 1000m and beyond. The 17 has a free floated barrel, you can easily use any optic with it, you can use a grenade launcher with it. Any M14 variant? Not so much. SOCOM has by and large ditched the M14. It’s the Mk 17 and the SR-25 variants that are in use. The EBR is still in use in non-SOF units because it’s all they have. The EBR is probably the worst M14 variant of them all, the Sage chassis is a god awful design.
Tell that to my grandson that mos is small arms repairman as he plans to go to Canada and purchase the M14 for personal use, as for myself Nam 66/67 used M14 and both styles of M16 both were terrible and werent worth a *** for bayonets. If you happened to see a soldier with the M16 cutting grass while holding it up and his head down you would know what I mean.
Why would he have to go to Canada to purchase the M14 for personal use? Assuming you’re telling the truth, you got the M16 when the ammunition manufacturers were using a propellant that was both very susceptible to moisture which caused the case to swell in the chamber when left over night. It was also highly corrosive without any cleaning kits being issued. It also pumped the cyclic rate up to 1100 rounds per minute, far beyond the design specification of the magazines.
Once the DoD started deploying the rifle as it should have been deployed from the start, it was highly regarded. It still is highly regarded today. Not just by the United States but by practically every Western SOF unit in the world. I guess you know more about choosing the right rifle for the job than the most professional soldiers in the world.
The M14, or any other rifle, would have failed just as much under similar conditions. The M14′s barrel is very thin, thinner than even the M16A1. The M14′s barrel diameter is around .575″. The M16A1, in comparison, has a barrel that tapers in diameter from .675″ to .575″. Being 2″ shorter than the M14′s barrel, is definitely stronger. Not to mention that the suitability of a military rifle’s barrel for use with a bayonet should not be of primary concern this day and age or even sixty years ago.
regardless of what legend says, the M14 jams. the problem is older magazines. The design is very open, which attracts dust and grime.
It is also heavy as **** and is a 3 MOA weapon, at best (unless you extensively modify it and adjust its harmonics at a expensive price). I would prefer a SCAR H simply because it is more reliable, 1-1.5 MOA with match ammunition, lighter, and more modular (with AR15 ergonomics). The M14′s best days are behind it.
Simple have Magpul design some new mags, but I think this is probably taken way out of context. Doubt Seals or other in SOCOM would of went to this system if the magazines were easily compromised, they are steel. All 7.62 mags were open pretty much the same, from G3 to the FN/FAL. Love how everyone takes M14 data with M80 ball ammo then compares to their rifle shooting match grade ammo. Once again shoot M118 instead of M80 and your under 3MOA. M14 at Camp Perry shoot consistently under 1MOA usually under .05.
SCAR’s only real advantage is weight, while the M14′s is price. Which is why it is still here.
nobody is talking about different match grade ammo. I am talking about a SCAR using the same ammo as a M14. the SCAR, take it or leave it, is more accurate. To attain the level of match grade accuracy, the M14 requires bedding and its barrel is not free floating.
and the M14 at camp perry? it is my knowledge that the M14s in military service have been refurbished. refurbishment costs money. Smith enterprises takes this lovely endeavor. The cost of a refurbished, “modernized” m14 is equivalent to a SCAR H in the long run.
The fact is that a 1960s GI spec M14 is not 1 MOA accurate. I would even like to see a smith enterprises attain 1 MOA or under.
The SCAR H’s other advantages include:
1.) 83% parts commonality with the “L” variant
2.) free float barrel; enhances accuracy
3.) Quad rail system designed with rifle (M14 requires aftermarket)
Where to begin: How about the version the Seals had built, Mk 14 Mod 0 used a medium heavy weight 18.0″ barrel. Not all barrels on all version are thin. Some are heavy barrels like Krieger’s.
Since we like dragging things through the mud as an example, I would say the M14 is no slouch. Another reason the Seals probably picked it. The action works just like a it’s predecessor the M1 Grand and I don’t recall my Uncles complaining about it or any GI in WWII. Damn the poster child for mud is the AK and it doesn’t need that little dust cover either. Provided you had the time to put it up before you dropped it in said mud. Oh and how well does that M16′s gas tube do when it gets crap in it.
Oh and if you want to compare the M16 with Mk 262 ammo do the same. Your accuracy rating for the M14 is with M80 ball, not the M118 ammo. That will take care of your accuracy issue. Plus your effective range what about 700 yards (roughly), The 7.62 going out another couple hundred easy.
Granted a little heavier but it does include; scope, bipod, picatinny rails in 4 axis. So don’t forget to add all that weight to your M16 or strip it off my Mk14.
So you’d rather have a heavier, less reliable, less adaptable rifle? I’ve seen more M14/M1As malfunction than pretty much any other semi-automatic rifle. You drag one though the mud, it’s probably not going to cycle. You get sand in it, it’s probably not going to cycle. You just can’t seal them up very well. Dust cover closed, you could bury an M16 in sand, shake it off, and fire a combat load through it without issue. Same goes for mud. You definitely can’t buy an M14 in mud and expect it to work without issue.
1/4 of a mile is 440m, well within the engagement envelope of the 5.56x45mm round (Mk 262 mod 0/1 can reach out twice as far or more). Then again, judging from the non-sense you’re spouted, I doubt you have any experience with it.
Sorry the M-14 is more reliable than a crappy G-3 and is near as good as a FAL. GI swear by it and ive shot one in wet muddy conditions and it worked just fine.I like AR based weapons too and for closer ranges they do great but for DMRs the M-14 EBR is one good long range rifle to pick Islamo Fascist off with. If it sucked GI wouldn’t have brought them back in to use in 2001.
This is based upon what? The G3 is probably the most durable of any battle rifle, SCAR-H included. The operating mechanism makes the AK look complex. There is no gas system to mess with. The HK roller locked guns are about as reliable as you could ask any firearm to be. There are military rifles that have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds and still function without issue. They’re also pretty accurate compared to the M14 and FAL because the barrels are free floated, a pretty forward looking idea in the early days of the Cold War.
The M14 was brought back because it was all there was. Simple as that. If better systems had been more prevalent, they would have been used. The military needed 7.62 NATO rifles, they had a bunch of old M14s sitting around. Don’t assume because the big Army uses something because it is good. The Marines are slightly less stupid about things like this, they’ve dropped their M14-based DMR rifles for SR-25-type weapons.
Free floating barrel not needed on a weapon with aluminum bedding. Also Marines dropped the their M14 DMR for your Mk 11 and wait for it … the M39 another M14 variant.
The M39 will also be replaced by a SR25 variant. I cannot say if it will be the M110 or not.
The fact is that the M14 will be replaced and it is obsolete. the military kept it in service and refielded it as a DMR because it was available. It is not of technical superiority.
The real answer here is to get rid of the 5.56, once we done that it should also make the 7.62 obsolete. Then choose one decent sniper round say 300 win Mag or 338 Lapua. Keep 50 BMG for both heavy Mg and sniper (anti-material). So something between 6.5-6.8 in either that cased-telescoped or caseless design. Then build something with some true innovation. Let us face it, the M14 been around since 1959 and the AR-10 1955. After sixty years something better should be ready to go.
Sorry ,but when our own GOV won’t sell you or even the National shooting teams a true M14 just a MIAI (there is a difference)
The difference in a M14 versus either M4/16 is the round and what it does to the enemy! A 5.62 will change direction because of a small twig while the 7.62 goes to target.
Uh huh. I really shouldn’t feed trolls, but I can’t help it some times. The main difference between an M14 and an M1A is the latter is select fire. Not that it’s of much use. I believe select fire and fully automatic weapons are even more tightly controlled in Canada than they are here. He’d also be bringing back an illegal machine gun into the United States. Not a smart move.
There are differences in the manufacturing of the receiver between some (most) M1As and the M14. LRB makes hot hammer forged M1A receivers, there bolts are also mil-spec as far as I know, so that argument is moot. You can buy Norinco “M14s” in Canada, but I doubt they adhere to the M14 TDP. The LRB is the closest you can get to a real M14 without going to NFA route.
A 5.62? Funny, I’ve never heard of a 5.62mm cartridge in US/NATO service. Yes, 7.62 is better against intermediate barriers than 5.56 but there are very good performing barrier blind 5.56 rounds. These rounds will easily outperform standard 7.62x51mm NATO ball (M80) against intermediate barriers and will also cause more damage in flesh. The projectile itself is far more important than the caliber.
Not to mention that if we’re talking about 7.62x51mm NATO and battle rifles, the M14 is the bottom of the barrel. The SCAR-17S is the one to have, without question. After that, I’d go with a high-end SR-25 pattern rifle like the Knight’s Armament SR-25 ECC or Larue PredatOBR with a 16″ barrel. The HK 91 would come next, but unfortunately you can’t buy them new anymore. Same for number four, a legit FN FAL with an 18″ barrel and full length gas system. The M14/M1A would be last on my list and should be on anyone else’s, there are better weapons to be had.
You really need to learn what you’re talking about before making buffoonish comments, even if it’s on the semi-anonymous internet.
Sorry your the troll on this the M-14 is the longest service rifle in SOCOM and regular military the Navy used them for decades and they are reliable I trust men who carried them into battle not someone who has a Crush on a G-3 which is almost history and is a cheap made pressed metal P.O.C.. FAL was good But the M-14 was good too. Almost every GI I talked to from pre-Vietnam to today all says the same.
A bit thick, aren’t we? The M14 was used for so long because it was the only 7.62x51mm battle rifle in US inventories. It’s as simple as that. Why buy new weapons for what was for decades a niche roll when you can dust off the old M14s?
Your profound ignorance on the G3 is not surprising, considering how little you seem to actually know about guns. But facts are facts. It will usually cycle when the gas operated M14 and FAL will not. The basic action is suitable for use in everything from 9mm sub guns to belt-fed GPMGs. They’re very accurate weapons. The HK 21, even with it’s quick change barrel, shoots 2 MOA out to 500m.
As for the “cheap POS stampings”, there are G3s that have shot 150,000 rounds on full auto and still run. Find me an M14 that’ll do that. I doubt many AKs would still be in one piece and functioning after that many rounds.
I don’t care what “most GIs you’ve talked to” like. At the very best that’s a subjective measure. Most GIs liked the M1 carbine, does that make it an effective battle implement in 2012? I care about objective, verifiable, facts. You talk to anyone intimately familiar with the older generation of battle rifles and they’ll tell you the G3 was the most reliable and most accurate out of the bunch. They’re still being used and will continue to be used for some time to come.
Sorry Nmate your wrong the M-14 wasn’t the only weapon in US inventory AR-10s and even some G-3s where in SOCOM service but they where dumped in favor of M-14s in 2001. Ive known of M-14s used since 1966 and still shoot well today a crappy G-3 wont do that.
The M14 is a 1930′s design that was eclipsed by the FAL and G3 because those rifles were more ergonomic, lighter, less expensive and easier to produce in large numbers. The M14 became popular by default and large numbers were stored.
the G3 is anything but a POS. It is rugged, reliable, and lightweight. It attained far more popularity around the world than the M14…i wonder why. Same can be said for the FN “right arm of the free world” FAL.
Actually like FN/FAL, tad shorter than M-14. One of the reason it became so prolific is simply because it was first to the party. After 7.62X51 set as standard, FN/FAL out the gate first. The G3 does have some innovation to it. The delayed roller system , added to metal stampings, made a very economical rifle. Not quite as accurate as the other two. Did serve as base for MG, which it did very well.
Interesting, but the USMC’s take on replacing the M240 makes more sense. They’re taking M16 lowers and mating them with HK416 style uppers (a gas piston driven military upper for standard AR style lowers) capable of full-auto fire and Surefire 100 rd mags to make an LMG in the sub 7.5lb range (less magazine). More cost effective, AND it uses existing ammunition stockpiles. Accomplishes more at lower cost. Better answer than unproven higher technology ammo. Less logistical problems since it uses the same ammo as the current M16/M4 family of ARs.
Yes but that surefire 100rd mag is pretty long and you can’t get into a prone postion with it and that dam magazine is not without its faults and its been known to have failures.
LTC – You need to check your sources. The M27 is replacing /augmenting the SAW not the M240. Secondly the USMC has not purchased surefire mags and has no plans to. Al the fanboys mention it but it hasn’t happened, makes you wonder why?
Why would they replace the M240 with an assault rifle? You sure you’re not talking about the M27 replacing the M249? If so, that was hardly a replacement. If anything, it was likely a ruse to equip Marines with a better assault rifle than the M4 without going through Congress.
**** if u cannot kill them u can keep them ducking. wish we had something like this in viet-nam. i believe in the more the better
I think this is an opportunity for the military to adopt a better round and weapon system. Everyone always talks about adding something else into the logistics line but we’ve gotten pretty good at getting stuff to the troops. ****, I remember rolling up on convoys that got hit and looking at the junk being transported that people risked their lives over…like sodas, frozen pizza, mattresses, etc. Stuff that the standard infantryman doesn’t need. But, I digress.
If they went with caseless ammo versus case telescoped ammo they’d save even more weight:
600 rounds
brass (20.8 lbs)
case telescoped (12.7 lbs)
caseless (10.1 lbs)
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/ThursdayLandmarkBKoriPhillips.pdf
The weight savings will allow the average soldier/marine to carry more rounds compared to similar weight brass cased ammunition. Range control will clear ranges easier because there will be no brass to police up or turn in. Caseless ammunition is not new and untried technology. As far as I know, it has been around since the 70′s. Their popularity never really took off though.
If they go with heavy for caliber bullets like 120-140 grain 6.5 mm bullets, they will extend the effective range of the average grunt out to 1200 meters. That allows the snipers to transition to 300 WM, 338 LM, 408 Chey-Tac, 416 Barrett, and 50 BMG for extreme range engagements.
The heavier and larger bullets (compared to 5.56) will have more lethality at closer distances also. Then we can stop practicing stupid drills like controlled pairs (double taps) because we’d only need one round to kill the bad guy. That also improves the rounds per kill ratio from 2-3 rounds per kill with 5.56 to 1 round per kill with 6.5 mm. That would help save hard earned American taxpayer money! And who hates saving money?
A 9.4 pound squad auto weapon is amazing! That weighs as much as the M4s with all the crap (PEQ-15s, ACOGs, chow hall kick stands, force protection magazine, and Surefire) attached to it! That weight savings is huge! Especially since we’ve been steadily weighted down with protective armor. It would be very comforting to have that firepower while ******* up some hill on a dismounted patrol in Goatfu*k province, **************.
Naysayers may talk about the additional time it would take to train up on a new weapon system…yup. But they wouldn’t have to train and qualify on the M249. And we do additional train ups prior to deployments anyway. Write it into the training schedule.
We tend to spend massive funds on cool gear programs because it has velcro and the “chicks dig it” factor, but not on things that matter. Too many people talk about how difficult it would be to incorporate a new weapon into the military but I think they’re just afraid of change. This weapon and round combination has the potential to give us a huge ballistic advantage in combat.
6.5mm Grendel’s data is mostly collected from the company that makes it and one guy in Afghanistan, likely a PMC. In other words, don’t trust what you hear about it.
6.8mm SPC is better.
And the M855A1 variant of 5.56mm NATO performs on par with 7.62mm NATO.
Of course, .280 British was the best…
No Brass! No Ammo!
In the the new kinder, gentler Army, we shouldn’t worry about better ways to kill the enemy. What about being green? Brass gets turned in for re-cycling; plastic – off to the landfill. Come on let’s get our priorities straight.
dude, plastic can also be recycled… JC
Great idea…what is the life of the barrel? Is it reduced based on the fact that the round is launched from outside of the rifling? What happens when the SAW gunner runs out of ammuntion, he can no longer fire M4 magazines of standard 5.56 ammo through his weapon. I think this is a great step forward, but pretty much becomes a niche weapon.
Well, the M249 didn’t really work too well with STANAG magazines anyway. A lot of the variants have the box magazine feed deleted. You do have a point, however. If you’re going to replace the LMG, might as well replace the rifles as well. Why the Army is wasting money on the ICC when they have this sitting in the closet I have no idea. Someone is trying to get another star I would assume.
Looks like we are talking a squad equipped with 4 7.62mm M4 Assault Rifles, 4 G3 7.62mm Assault Rifles, and a MG-3 LMG. 2 German 40mm under barrel GL. Semi-auto and 3-round burst for all of the rifles.
Options:
Combat Shotguns instead of G3 for combat in built-up areas.
Substitute purpose built 7.62mm sniper rifle for 1 G3.
MG ammo carrier carries one M4 Assault Rifle. These are M4/16 with new uppers. Other three distributed to SL/TL or if Squad organized for building clearing assign shorter barreled M4 to that team. Would recommend all squad members quality with both rifles and be familiar or quality with the MG as well.
Have you ever been deployed? Just because you go into an urban environment doesn’t mean you no longer have the need for range or penetration of an assault rifle. Where are all these extra weapons getting secured when you go out on patrol? How can you be sure that a contingency isn’t going to happen while you’re out that requires a change of mission?
Combat is not like the video games. You don’t know what you are going to need when you go outside the wire.
I don’t know if anyone already said this, but doesn’t that look like the Johnson LMG?
No, it doesn’t. The buttstock is different. The front sight is way different. The heat shield around the rear of the barrel is different. The gas cylinder under the barrel isn’t way different (Johnson used a long-recoil mechanism as I recall).
In short, no. It doesn’t look anything like the Johnson, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it had the same outstanding level of reliability which the Johnson was so renowned for.
Hope they do extended testing on the ammo regarding temperature/moisture contrasts:
Hot ammo (simulated 8 hours under desert sun) going into cold weapon
Hot ammo (8 hours/desert sun) going into hot (100+ rounds fired) weapon
Repeat, with damp ammo
Repeat, simulating extended exposure to monsoon rains
Cold ammo (8 hours in the snow) going into cold weapon
Cold ammo (8 hours in the snow) going into hot (100+ rounds fired) weapon
Repeat, with damp ammo
Repeat, with cold rain, snow, and ice storms
Chamber a round, cycle weapon over -30 F – +160F multiple times for extended period
Repeat, with damp ammo
I.e., ensure that testing simulates ALL microclimates that exists on this planet because they’re ALL likely combat environments particularly as resource wars start heating up; the only variable is the when.
And the soldier needs to know the behavior of the ammo under/after exposure to fire. Does it start cooking off – or even burn – at a lower temperature? How does its reliability compare to brass after being superheated? I.e., is an ammo box briefly exposed to fire in a APV going to be more or less reliable/dangerous than brassed ammo? Likewise what is a hazard to the ammo? Can a soldier wipe JP4, diesel, or gasoline off the new ammo and still fire it? There are solvents which brass will shrug off that I wouldn’t necessarily expect plastic to be resistant to.
My point being don’t make soldiers beta testers under combat conditions this time.
One other thing: The U.S. became a net refined petroleum product exporter for the first time since the 1940s last year. If we start making ammo out of petroleum products, is somebody going to ask Big Oil to pretty please leave some in the U.S. of A. to make the ammo required for the protection of their profits?
I’ve been paying attention to the LSAT for a while now. Interesting concept, interesting implementation, and now it looks like it will perform even better than the M249.
Now here’s hoping they don’t go through with the LSAT Assault Rifle. That thing’s hideous.
I carried an m60e3 my first year or so in the USMC as a line company combat engineer. Liked the caliber, hated the weight, loved being able to shoulder fire it. Hated the m249 at the time, mostly because of the limitations of 5.56. 1992-1996. They shoved an m240g in my hands during my last year. Heavy, no pistol grip, very exciting but not horribly accurate to shoulder fire. There was a 6’8″ guy, Lcpl Watson that could shoulder fire it rather well though. I remember a place called camp Muddy. Someone said we were in former Yugoslavia at the time. I never got a medal for that. Turned out to be a 3 year air campaign, so I guess i didn’t miss anything.
It’s more than a decade ago since I was an active duty Marine…**** closer to 2 decades. Since the first time I heard about the g3 in the early 1980′s I knew it was a matter of time before caseless ammo would be fielded and it should be. The weight reduction and production costs if adopted would be significant in the long run. 5.56 is ineffective, it never should have been developed. The ideal bullet according to engineers would be between 6mm-7mm. We’ve known that since before NATO was formed. The Brits wanted to run .280 caliber, unfortunately they lost that battle. Now we waste tons of resources and money fielding 5.56 and 7.62. That’s been going on for years. Bill Alexander and the 6.5 grendel round outperform them both. I have a hope and a prayer that the LSAT rifle and LMG are designed around this bullet. It’s as close to perfection as it comes. About the same amount of powder (although you can bump up a .284 winmag with more… it’s not necessary) and a whole lot more punch. It’s has better flight characteristics than 6mm match ammo, and more stopping power than 7.62. Sectional density and velocity are the reasons for this. It may require a 20 inch barrel, but **** i carried the m16a2 with no problems and it was a 20″ barrel.
Honestly after studying and designing weapons, weapon systems, aircraft, and all so many things I couldn’t even list them… I really hope they chamber this in 6.5 and eventually phase 5.56 and 7.62 out of NATO.
It’s one thing to spam out 5.56 and 7.62 for suppressive fire while depending on indirect fire support or air support to produce the killing mechanism, but the infantry doesn’t always have those. It makes perfect sense now that the telescoping round has made it’s debut, to do it right the first time we produce them. Feb 15, 2012 the Grendel 6.5 was publicly released (The release of the trademark removes the requirement of manufacturers to seek the permission of the trademark holder to use the mark.) Even Molot of Russia began production of 6.5mm Grendel AK rifles in their Vepr line in Feb 2012. I truly hope NATO wakes up and smells the coffee. Time to change the bullets!
When I first started to put what’s now called the FN SCAR on paper in 1996 I wanted to make it 6.5mm. I wrestled with this for a long time. Simply put… to make a requirement for our military that a private contractor will produce… there has to be an ammunition supply for such a requirement. There wasn’t any at the time other than 5.56 7.62 and .50. Now that 6.5 Grendel is fair game, I really hope they can use this bullet with the LSAT technology. Obviously the cased powder varies from the LSAT’s smokeless powder, but that bullet has a longer effective range than 5.56 and 7.62. If it can be managed into the new LSAT rounds, it needs to be.
Got my fingers crossed.
I meant to say G11 not G3.
If they go with a 20″ barrel, 6.5 or 6.8mm caseless ammunition, a common caliber LMG/SAW/rifle I would hope someone looks at a bullpup rifle. That will shorten the weapon without sacrificing range, punch, or accuracy. The SAW might remove the need for a LMG version although a LMG version might be needed for use on AFV – coax MG for one. Quick change barrel, belt feed (can you belt feed caseless ammo?), or a larger top loaded magazine (like the BREN with rimless ammo) for the SAW/LMG.
SA-80 in 6.8, SA-85 in 6.8, LSAT in 6.8 with a 40mm GL for the SA-80 type rifle. Tripod and scope for the LSAT.
I enjoyed this article, please allow me to add… Avoid checking on your stocks every day.
Making wise stock market investments not only requires company research,
it also requires you to maintain a good degree of emotional distance.
By nature, the stock market moves up and down.
If you let yourself get caught up in every rise and fall,
you will soon become emotionally exhausted. Additionally, investing for
the long run will bring more rewards than short-term strategies or day trading, unless you are a very experienced stock trader.
Hello to every body, it’s my first go to see of this web site; this weblog includes awesome and truly excellent material for visitors.