Topic: SAW vs. updated M16A1

U.S. Cavalry

FAQ/Rules - Search - Military Photo Gallery

  International Military Forums > Military Discussion Forums > Military Hardware, Gear and Technology
User Name
Password

 
May 30th, 2004   Post 1
soldierzhonor
Optio
 
 
Gear

Post; SAW vs. updated M16A1


I have asked a few people this question and have met with zero good answers. Why couldnt the M16A1 have been updated to the M16A2 yet have full automatic capability? The gear you use to carry magazines would be compatible, the weapon would be lighter, and more parts would interchange. Why? Higher cyclic? More reliable? If the Cyclic is the answer, wouldnt that defeat the purpose of the 3 rd burst on an M16A2? To conserve ammo more effeciently? This has crossed through my head numerous times and figured I'd see if anyone else could help on this

I understand the military is looking at new weapon systems like the XM8 and all, but back when the SAW first came out....why not just upgrade?
__________________
Im a soldier...count on me.

"bang" says Johnny...the hand convulses..."bang" says the gun
 
June 1st, 2004   Post 2
Redleg
The fire is everything...
 
 
Gear


OK, this one got a bit of a wrong start..

Deleted all off-topic posts, here's a short summary of the usefull stuff from the 15 (or so) deleted posts:

SAW = Squad Automatic Weapon = M249 Minimi


Stay on topic from now on!
 
June 4th, 2004   Post 3
Redneck
Buttercup
 
 
Ok, I just deleted your posts, Marksman and TankGeneral, the question is not which one you personally prefer. Read the original topic and address the issue at hand.

Aside from that, one and two word posts should be made only VERY occasionally.
__________________
No boom, no boom, no boom, Amen.
 
June 21st, 2004   Post 4
soldierzhonor
Optio
 
 
Gear

thanks, what I meant by the original post was why change to the M249 SAW when the M16A1 is full automatic already. Change out the upper reciever and barrel and such for full auto instead of design a whole new weapon....
 
June 21st, 2004   Post 5
silent driller
Tribuni Angusticlavii
 
The purpose of changing to the A-2 version was to get rid of the full auto mode. In Vietnam soldiers and Marines would empty their clips on insignifigant things and have no ammo for real combat. All they would have were s and kickass skills.
 
June 26th, 2004   Post 6
soldierzhonor
Optio
 
 
Gear

thats part of my question though. If they wanted to make a weapon with 3 rd burst, then why make a whole new weapon using the same ammo full auto? Why couldnt they have just updated the M16A1 to full auto instead of coming out with the SAW. I've already posted why the full auto was changed to 3 rd burst. Please read the question carefully, Im not asking that Im asking a different question. Details people...pay attention to details.
 
June 28th, 2004   Post 7
1217
Primus Pilus
 

Post; Re: M16A1 is NOT a squad Automatic Weapon....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Hulk 1988
The reason the M249 replaced the M16A1 in a Marine Fire Team is that is is more of a base of fire weapon without the weight of a M60 (the Pig). The SAW uses both belted and magazine feed systems with a barrel that actually can be changed. It is designed specifically for automatic operation and gives a fire team the power of a true machine gun (M16 in any version is still just a infantry rifle), so in a squad you would then have three full machine guns with common ammo with your rifleman brethren. If you have ever fired an A1 on full auto (I have), you would prefer the SAW for the ability to actually control and maintain your fire.
Now that sounds about right. It answers the question and it's logical. It's what I thought the answer was, but I wasn't sure.
__________________
"It is not supreme excellence to fight and conquer in all your battles,
It is supreme excellence if you break the enemy's resistance without fighting."
Sun Tzu, the Art of War
 
June 28th, 2004   Post 8
Marksman
Tribuni Angusticlavii
 
 
I just cant get it how can M16A1 be compared with SAW,they r weapons for totally diferent use,M16 is assault rifle and SAW is support weapon......
__________________
 
June 28th, 2004   Post 9
Uncle_Sam
Centurion
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marksman
I just cant get it how can M16A1 be compared with SAW,they r weapons for totally diferent use,M16 is assault rifle and SAW is support weapon......
Yeah, I agree with Marksman, they are totally fir different use. I don't see the point of comparing the light & devastating assault rifle with "heavy" close support machinegun.
__________________

American Military Community
 
June 28th, 2004   Post 10
Lil Hulk 1988
Centurion
 

Post; A1 and SAW


Quote:
with "heavy" close support machinegun.
Well, I don't consider the SAW a heavy support weapon, just a base of fire weapon. It actually helped the Marines in the aspect that instead a 5 man fire team, you could move to a 4 man team (when the M60 was the standard, there was a gunner and assistant gunner to hump ammo, barrels, and spot), which made 3 FT per squad. Now some of the light recon units went to 4 man teams before the SAW and just designated a rifleman as autogunner, which was useless since with a thirty round magazine it gave you 5 bursts into a killzone before reload, no better than a rifleman not following ammo discipline. I agree that the A1 was not a good comparison, but it was misused for a few years before the SAW.
__________________
\"U.S. Marines are about the most peculiar breed of human beings I have ever known. They treat their service as if it was some kind of cult, plastering their emblem on almost everythng they own, making themselves up to look like insane fanatics...., which I have come to the conclusion they are!\"
-- An Anonymous Canadian Citizen