SAW vs. updated M16A1

S

soldierzhonor

Active member
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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
Re: M16A1 is NOT a squad Automatic Weapon....

Lil Hulk 1988 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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......
 
Marksman said:
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......
Click to expand...
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. :?
 
A1 and SAW

with "heavy" close support machinegun.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SAW is base of fire weapon,ahhh M60..........anyway,SAW offcourse greater ammo case and stabillity,with bipod u get higher accurasy,but its few per platoon weapon
 
Re: A1 and SAW

Lil Hulk 1988 said:
with "heavy" close support machinegun.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Well that's why I said "heavy"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top