Drum in back would be a nightmar

Though m27 might cost less than a SAW so that may be a motivator

Like a style that goes out and comes back in

M27 is made by HK, it probably costs as much as a house

Ehh

SAWs are like 3.5k though

Google says M27 is $1300

I hear they're keeping the SAW in the armory to use when they need it, and now adopting the M27 as a DMR also, called the M38

And there is talk of it replacing the M4 as well

But then there's really no AR or marksman. Everyone would be the same

Unless you're gonna give different optics, drum or extended mags etc

1.3 isnt bad

Especially in the long run HK would be way better rifles for infantry and probably as mgs for SAWs

Well I know the RPKs, even though internally they're basically AKs, they have heavier barrels and receivers

Receiver might be a bit longer, not sure

But as someone who can fix a malfunction on a saw in the dark while assaulting with nods there is just no way a rifle is better

It takes like 2 seconds max to reload and that would be 400 rounds

Even if you double that to 4 seconds you are still going to take longer than 4 seconds of reloading to go through 400 rounds of AR let alone the shit show of carrying 14 mags in a way you can use them all

And that is before you take into account the saw gunner probably has 3 extra drums for at least 800 rounds total

They tried extended mags for the M27 and they didn't work right. But if they fix that

Keep in mind it is much more accurate and lighter

Saw still has a place of course but I think if tactics change this could be the way

Seems to work for the Russians. Chinese don't see much combat, a bit in Sudan and the People's Armed Police in Xinjiang

I doubt its that much more accurate than a SAW

Even if it were the range for a saw is 900m and Ive never heard of an AR doing that reliably. As fo lighter, SAW isnt too heavy 16lbs on the full and as far down as 12 on the paratrooper model

Add to that fact that extended mags complicates prone fire and that the SAW has a bipop and it is a no brainer.

I see a need for the m27 with pogs and general use, but for dedicated infantry there is absolutely no reason to not use the SAW.

There's bipods for the M27 so that's not relevant. Hell even the famas has a bipod...all of them

It's a compromise between accuracy and volume of fire

Maybe a better way would be to keep the saw and replace the M4

Or, a longer barrel M27 with double stack mags

Thing is tho SAW is accuracy through volume of fire

But we can have accuracy without volume of fire

Again, it works for the Russians and Chinese, no reason it can't work for us.

Russia has been fighting our type of wars in Chechnya, Crimea, etc for awhile now, and China in Xinjiang.

Of course I don't think we should throw away the saw entirely...but why do we have the 240?

Base of fire

Same as saw but for platoon level instead of squad

As a bonus the SAW is responsible for more enemy deaths than any other weapon.

The 240 is likely similar but there are just more saws

They are basically overlapping roles

Idk from experience with the SAW it really does put out more rounds than 4 m4s on burst add to that the 4 to 5 times more ammo and it just seems like its to much to lose

Caliber aside

It sorta is sorta isnt

Saw is expected to manuver

Keeping the saw in the armory, they have a handful available at company level to use as needed, I think it's fair

240 will set up and protect the entire area

Moving saws to company sounds terrible

1 saw 1 m27 a squad or maybe even have weapons squad with saws and m27 for normal squads

Commanders discretion. Not just for company hq

240s can be replaced with saws and it would allow for the heavier weapons that WS normally also has to take

I don't know if you have ever been 240 AG and had to carry the Gustav but thats stupid.

I get what you mean but you should always have SAWs at the platoon level

The only time I would recommend not having them is in pure MOUT with a security element

All fair points. So why do other countries use the mag/drum fed ARs?

It saves a lot of weight

At one time the Russians used the RPD, but went back to the RPK for a lot of reasons

Historically you also have the Bren

They've tested 60 round drums for the M27 also, which would be a great idea

Other countries use mag fed because its 3 times cheaper than a beltfed weapon

In the conflicts that are around now you dont really need belt fed but it is still insanely useful. 1 belt fed weapon is literally doubling the squads firepower. I would imagine the second any large scale conflict starts up countries will have an up tick in wanting belt weapons.

Keep in mind that Marines have more people than the entire armed forces of Britain. Or that we have a bigger Navy than like the rest of the top 10 nations combined. M27 can get the job done but the 249 is better in almost every single way bar single shot accuracy (a non issue on a LMG) and weight (no one cares how much it weighs dont be a bitch).

Only country I would even start to take advice from is Russia or maybe certain SF units. Ill agree that 60 round mags sound cool but that is still 4 reloads before the saw reloads once. There are also 100 round mags but those things are massive.

I stand by my prior reasoning. Marines are small and thrifty, the weapon is probably chosen for budget reasons because that is always a problem for them. If budget becomes an issue Army might go that way but out side of money there is no real reason to choose it.

http://badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=46360524988

Hero of the imperium. Holy shit.

Reminds me of that guy beating people with a hammer. Think he was SAS.

I’ve been told there was an American guy in Iraq that carried a double barrel shotgun and a sword when it came time to breach houses. Apparently he liked to be the first guy in the room.

Sounds far fetched to me. Plus I don’t know if anything like that is even allowed.

What's better, 200 rounds fired and 10 hits or 50 rounds fired and 10 hits?

You can still put down suppressing fire with a mag fed AR, it's not the same of course but we should not be relying simply on volume of fire for accuracy

And you say you would take advice from Russians, well they use the RPK. They have experience from Chechnya, South Ossetia, Syria, and Crimea.

The reason the Chinese follow a similar trend is because they originally based everything on the Russians, and though evolving separately later they still have it in their minds to use a mag fed AR. It works fine for them in Sudan and Xinjiang

The weight of all the extra ammo, barrels, and the SAW itself is considerable, if it's no big deal then there's no reason we should not go to 7.62 as the standard round for everything

Worth noting also that the typical PLA rifle squad only has one QBB for a squad of I believe 11 men. They are very much into the dismounted infantry thing, not relying on machines and fuel

Russia went the opposite direction basing everything on types of vehicles

One configuration they have has three RPKs in the squad

You dont understand accuracy through volume of fire I think. It isnt 200 for 10 hits it would be 200 for like 50 or 60 hits.

Because you can see where you are shooting easily its easier to hit and stay on target.

Or spray and pray in layman's terms

Its extremely noticeable on the minigun where it has over a 70% accuracy rate

Or something retarded like that

Its less like shooting and more like coloring with bullets

As for the weight from SAW to 240 you get double the weight for half the ammo

And wasting a lot of ammo

I believe we can achieve similar results with more maneuverability

Not as much as you would think

And again the SAW kills the most people

That is three M27s per Marine squad of course. In the army we only have two fireteams

Its by a pretty large margin too

Rangers do 3 apparently

It sounds like a better set up

Yeah and nukes kill a lot of people too. But we don't drop nukes for an enemy rifle squad

I believe ww2 army had three fireteams also

That is false equivalence as fuck

But with a different arrangement of weapons

SAWs kill the most people in direct engagements despite being outnumbered 3-5 to 1

If rifle accuracy helped that much that wouldnt be the case

And why wouldn't a more maneuverable, more accurate rifle be able to do the same?

Do we need 200 rounds to produce a casualty?