This is the standard version of AAI Corp.'s Lightweight Small Arms Technology LMG. The latest version features a much shorter barrel and folding stock.
AAI Corp., displayed the latest version of its Lightweight Small Arms Technology at Modern Day Marine 2012. Program officials cut four inches off LSAT’s 16.5 inch barrel and added a folding, telescoping stock.
The Army program is intended to cut the weight of its light machine gun by as much as 50 percent. The weapon itself weighs about nine pounds compared to a 17-pound M249 squad automatic weapon.
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 about 37 percent less than standard belted 5.56mm.
The Army continues to show interest in the program, but it will be interesting if weapons officials can convince the top brass to move away from traditional brass-cased ammunition.
Here’s a video showing AAI officials showing off the new version of LSAT.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Overall promising but many years away from completion a bit too much hype right now.
2015 isn’t all that far away
Your jumping the gun Moosey. There is not date and no one has adopted it pal. Overall this is still a unproven system which is only used in safe test environments, not proven. Overall all other branches want caseless ammo so this telescoping ammo is a waste of time.
10 to 15 years before caseless is ready and could be adopted.
Caseless could be done in less than 10 years, their major remaining hurdles are related to cost, but I was referring to polymer Cased-Telescoped ammunition. LSAT’s CT ammo and the pivoting chamber action are TRL 7 and have been passing their evals with flying colors. AAI says two years from greenlight to a production-ready weapon and ammunition, all they need is someone to give them the go.
Moose. No emnity at you dude. I haven’t seen you here before (welcome). Lance has HUGE credibility issues and jspouts off with half baked stuff all the time.
Don’t know your background but am interested in your caseless point. I spoke at length to the guys with the LSAT a week ago and they couldn’t give a date. What do you base 10 years on?
When I worked in the Infantry battlelab caseless was like the holy grail mentioned in low whispers because of the dfficulties to translate it to small arms from larger weapons. I talked about some issues below but if you heard of some breakthrough I’d love to hear about it if you can.
The folks at ATK were singing the “before the end of the decade” tune at JAC 2010, which is what I based my CL comment on. Have no direct knowledge of the particulars, though, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the picture looks worse now than it did then, or if they were just blowing smoke.
CT, however, is almost ready to go.
WHERE do you get your info Lance? Have you even picked up an LSAT SAW or spoken to someone who has? What do you KNOW about the testing of the weapon?
WHO told you the branches want caseless? ON WHAT do you predict a 10-15 year ready date for caseless?
No problem with opinion but in your desperate attempt to sound like some kind of expert you put out speculation masquerading as fact. This is why you get overwhelming negative votes and feedback on DoDBuzz.
I doubt we will ever see caseless, it’s a nice concept but there are just so many issues with it that I honestly am not sure can ever be fixed.
Reed Knight has had the Stoner LMG for years weighing in at 10 lbs. Runs like a raped ape, just can’t get the interest. With this case less ammo weapon, it could be a tough road to get enough interest in it also to break “tradition”.
really now? have you actually held one and used it?
Although I have little experience with small arms both using and developing/building them I am glad to see such innovation go so far in recent years.
Given all the advancements in chemistry, physics, biology/medicine, engineering, electronics, aviation, etc and etc I think it’s about time firearms got some more love. Not to detract from all current makers and developers however.
exelent work now accessorize it for missions testing and brief day and night ops on result,s.
Why not just switch to the Marine’s M27 IAR? Put a Surefire High Capacity Mag and you are good to go.
uhhhhh, no. Not even close.
No, that’s the complete opposite of what you want. The best course for replacing the M249 SAW is getting new ones from FN; granted I’ve never used one, or you could use MK 48′s if you want more bang for your weight slugging buck, so to speak. (opinion from a civi)
The IAR concept is really only good for Marines, you wont see the Army adopting that. It dates back to the BAR days and works for them but not much else.
Old Navy – Historically fixed barrel automatic weapons have done poorly in the light machine gun role because of overheated barrels and pausing to change magazines. We learned this with the BAR, Full Auto M14 and Full Auto M16 equipped squad automatic gunner. Repeatedly we’ve replaced those weapons with belt fed, removeable barrel machineguns.
The M27 will reteach this lesson or it was a seaky way to get the HK416 in Marine’s hands. Note, doctrinally the Marines say the SAW and M27 complement each other, SAWs have not been removed from formations (though some units have reportedly turned some in. BTW, the Marines have NOT purchased high capacity mags for their M27 gunners.
Joshua – why does the IAR only work for Marines?
The M27 was not a sneaky way to get the HK416 in service. I have the sheets about how its doing and it has had some issues but is now performing on par with the M16A4, while being more accurate and a better trigger.
That said it was an answer to an issue the Marines were having, that issue I have not seen come up in the Army so it would not make much sense IMO. It is a nice rifle though and now thay the initial issues have been fixed is performing well. Reliability wise its between the M16 and M4 as far as stoppages which is good. So it does exactly what the Marines need.
Joshua – Glad it’s doing as well as the M16A4. Problem is why would the Corps want a redundant rifle especially with its reputation of frugal use of resources? The RFP specifically requested a magazine fed rifle to fill the role of the SAW. IAR=Infantry Automatic Rifle? https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a8698386e4300ceee7bc1067a71dab5c&tab=core&_cview=0
Considering our historical experience with the BAR, Auto M14 and Auto M16 in the auto rifleman role this is a very curious decision. I’ve read articles supporting its development, the arguments about accuracy and lightness (forgetting the historical lessons we learned in WWII, Korea, Nam). There were also complaints about SAW reliability (the Army invested in new SAWs) which still hasn’t been addressed. Curious if it was as big a problem as described. Time will tell if the lesson will be relearned again or M27 is a steppingstone to a larger issue of HK416s.
You have to remember the IAR concept came out in 2000 i believe it was.
My issue with this is that its a rifle for past wars. If we ever go to war any other place than Afghanistan the M27 IAR will again repeat past mistakes of the BAR. The Marines wanted a rifle that allowed the previous SAW user ghe ability to keep up, especially in room clearings. This is a nice addition for Afghanistan, but if we ever face a true army again the M27 will show its weakness and will be replaced by The SAW on e again.
Also remember NO rifle entered into the IAR trial passed, the HK just did it at a lighter package, the Colt entry was on par with the HK, but i weighed 2lbs more than the HK entry, in the end with no rifle passing the trials and livig up to what they wanted they down selected the best ofthe losers and that was the HK IAR.
Fully loaded with light/peq/bipod/ect the M27 is weighing around 11.5lbs so its still heavier than the M4 by 3 or so lbs, what the M27 really offers is better accuracy(its free floated so the bipod does not effect the barrel) and higher cook off rates(ever seen the barrel? Its 1″ in diameter, that is thicker than the SOCOM barrel on the M4A1 and features a huge aluminum barrel nut which is a heatsink). Parts life is about 15,000 – 20,000 for bolt with 900MRBS vs the M4′s 12,000-16,000 bolt and 600MRBS, M16 has shown 18,000 – 20,000 bolt and 1,100MRBS.
Thats why i wont replace the M4 or M16 for the Marines.
I hav alot more info on this subject but ill save it for another day.
Typos are from my phone.
I don’t disagree with anything you said.
Keep in mind I laid out two options for explaining the M27. A mistake that will become obvious in the future OR the HK416 foothold.
No matter how much you polish a turd, at the end of the day it is still a turd. Such is the HK 416. It does absolutely nothing more than a similarly configured M16 would do.
The myth of M16′s not working has been dispelled along with the age old mantra that only minimal lubrication is necessary on the weapon. Most have heard about the “Filthy 14″ by now.
The M16 was not designed to have a piston/op rod scabbed on top of it. Go to Vuurwapen Blog and check his slow motion video “phases of AR-15 Recoil as the affect the shooter” that shows the 416 flexing like a pretzel. This should answer any questions you have about any manufacturers piece of crap piston conversion.
Majrod I agree, I personally feel that if…..no when we enter into a real war, not one based on terrorism in mountains the issues with the M27 will become apparent. Right now it does great at its role when your on a mountain at high altitudes, the weight decrease was a much needed benefit. That said in a real war that will be mostly in urban areas the M27 will pale in comparison to a belt fed like the M240, in urban environments against a military that employs beltfeds a magazine fed IAR will be a liability.
Also Johnny remember the whole HK416 came from the issues a certain group was having with their MK18′s before free float rails became common and Colt was having some CQ issues, its tellin that alot of guys who used to use the HK416 are now using the MK18 and M4A1 now that the SOPMOD II was finalized.
NO!
the M27 is not a ideal weapon system
The Surefire High Cap magazines are unreliable.
Back to the 416. It has been established that the AR15/M4/M16 can be made astonishingly reliable with proper lubrication, good magazines, and proper replacement of parts.
I have a hard time recommending other firearms besides a AR since they have transformed so far and so much experience has been acquired with them. No wonder other countries are buying them in large numbers.
I really like how the sites and railing stays stationary while the feed tray is seperated. I hope this gets adopted, lugging a full-sized SAW can get old quickly.
Wake me up when they chamber it in a more capable cartridge.
If they get this one adopted in 5.56mm, it would be the bigest wasted chance in the small arms ever.
They used 5.56mm as a baseline so that they can compare directly to SAW. In designing a production weapon, they’d try to get the best round they could, probably something in the 6.5mm-7mm range.
Matt- My posts aren’t showing up. If you get a double please delete one. I’m going to wait awhile and see if the system catches up.
Waste of time and money. If the 249 is to heavy for you , do more pushups.
Yeah, because its not like having reduced weight will have any positive effects, right?
Ammo is the key word, The M249 “Para” I had in iraq was nice but it never made the ammo lighter so I can carry more. Give it a high rate of fire, rise the combat load a few thousand rounds and you got a winner. Oh what I do for 1000 rounds per minute…
test
Saw this at the Maneuver Conference last week and wrote up some stuff for a hobby blog interested in stuff military. Spoke with the Textron folks at length when they were in Columbus (outside Ft. Benning). The LSAT SAW is a highly modified SAW. It is still in the experimental phase but the tech is very promising. This SAW can only fire telescoping ammo described next. It won’t feed brass. It cuts about seven pounds from the SAW (about 50%) because of the use of a stamped aluminum receiver. Rate of fire is around 650/min.
The difference in design is the breach is rotating (think of one cylinder on a revolver). This video does an excellent job of explaining everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WlM8IHij6Hs
Ref Caseless Ammo (they had some on hand and we chatted about it) and telescoping (also known as encased) ammo … Big advantage is caseless ammo eliminates the brass casing, the heaviest part of the round but you are talking about a very small savings over telescoping ammo where the case is plastic. For this particular round (telescoping 5.56) there was a 40% weight savings over brass ammo. That’s very significant because that’s virtually the same weight saving we got when we went from 7.62 to 5.56. From the video above you can see how the round works. All in all, this tech has potential to be fielded inside of 2-5 years depending on money and desire.
The caseless ammo is uber experimental. Still way in the future. Big challenge is creating ammo that won’t explode in a hot chamber that is common in auto weapons and making the ammo robust enough so that it doesn’t fracture in a magazine which would impact feeding and burn. Having fired the 120mm of an M1 they don’t really worry about the hot breech (you have to shoot A LOT) and in comparison to the old brass cased rounds caseless ammo is delicate. I asked the rep how many years before caseless would be a reality and he wouldn’t even try a guess where telescoped ammo is about five years out.