We had our introduction to the M249 today which was pretty motivating but, nonetheless, left me with a question left unanswered by the instructors.
The M249 has an effective range on a point target of 800m, 1000m for an area target.
The M16A4 has an effective range on a point target of 550m, 800m for an area target.
At first I figured the difference in effective ranges was caused by a greater bbl length in the SAW (and therefore higher muzzle velocity), but I soon found myself staring at 21" barrel–and an inch hardly accounts for that much of a difference, not to mention Wikipedia lists the muzzle velocity of the SAW as below that of the M16A4. Since they’re both shooting the same cartridge, the only other reason I can think of is some inherent accuracy of the design, but the SAW is, we are told, less accurate than the M16.
So what gives? How can two different weapons, firing the same cartridge, with nearly identical bbl lengths have such substantially different effective ranges?
Either it’s some doctrinal fib or I’m missing something pretty basic. Please educate me.
Actually I asked that exact question when I was in…it’s not a question of muzzle velocity or even terminal performance.
Whether it’s correct or not, the answer I got was that the difference between one round from a rifle and multiple rounds from an LMG where you can walk your fire into a target.
Effective doesn’t mean every round hits the target but having a 100 or 200 round source of ammo means that even if only 1/10 impacts the intended target it will do quite a bit of damage.
The pirmary difference between bipod and tripod mounted effective ranges lies within the size of the beaten zone.
On a bipod, you’re going to have far less control compared to a tripod and T&E. Over longer ranges, that beaten zone is going to be massive. Nothing says you can’t engage past 600m with a bipod…but it’s damn hard and I doubt the typical Private can do it. (unfortunately)
Also, I’ve never seen an M249 with a tripod and T&E. Ever. We had them mounted in the turrets as secondaries to our M2’s/Mk19’s, but that was only when we rolled out mounted. Even when I was a SAW gunner I never so much as drew out the tripod.
The pubs they’re giving us right now are light on real data, heavy on diss/ass instructions.
Ironically, the purpose of this exposure is to get us familiar with the capabilities of every asset under the sun so we can properly employ them. Instead, we’re leaning how to maintain the weapon (something we won’t really need to know) and, apparently, unrealistic data (something which would be really rather helpful).
It’s good to get the tech knowledge to build a solid foundation and understanding of what they’re capable of. Kinda like how I still teach crew drills from the FM but it isn’t my bible.
We have guys who can take the SAW out to 600m easily with the bipods. It really comes down to the ability of the individual behind the weapon. The average Joe can’t take a rifle past 300m let alone 600m, so that max efective range is heavily dependant on the competence of the soldier.
After fours years in the corps as an 0331(machine gunner) all the manuals i had changed every year. So they dont hold too much weight they do give a base of knowledge. I personaly have hit tgts (vehicles) out to 800m with a saw on bipods but it is really hard to see a person out to that range without an optic. Looking at my old books( 4-5yrs) i have 1000m area 800pt and can achieve grazing fire out to 600m and mv @ 3025fps my m-16 A4 reads at 3100 fps. I spent most of my time with heavy guns M2 primarly.
The SAW is an great weapon, but throw an ACOG on it and it’s an awesome weapon. The M4 and the 249 shorty barrel (Para Model) are about the same length so the RCO M4 model is perfect match. I really didn’t like the M145 on it, too bulky and heavy and not as user friendly as the ACOG. Throw on a folding stock, 100 round nut sack, PEQ-15, and a 2 point good sling on and you’re GTG.
Effective range means getting a hit a certain % of the time. This is based off mechanical accuracy, not being able to pick out and engage a target on the battlefield.
A burst from the SAW will produce a hit at longer distance than a single shot from the M16.
If anything, it would have a shorter max effective range.
The only reason the SAW is considered “effective” at 800m and 1000m is because it’s employed in a more stable firing position than a conventional rifle. An M16, even in a prone supported position, is still not as stable as an M249 locked in to a tripod and T&E. Even a bipod on the M249 is good enough for the role it’s serving.
For anything beyond 600m, it’s my opinion that type of engagement is reserved for your crew served weapons. They have both the manpower and equipment necessary to accurately and continuously reach out and touch.
+1
M249 is fired from a bipod in a "locked in"position, nice and tight, in the prone firing a 7-9 round burst. Not only is it from a solid bipod, but it’s a lot heavier and stable. An M16 fired from a bipod on burst would fire a much larger and therefor less effective group.
For what it’s worth, the ones we get to play with have SDOs on them. We spent an hour talking to a pretty salty gunner about the IAR. He was pretty excited about it. The USMC is really buying into the “accuracy IS suppression” thing.
What’s an SDO? I still can’t see how the IAR and match a belt-fed for suppression, especially in Afghanistan. Had he deployed with it yet? I have yet to hear any AARs of how it does in reality and not just in theory.
The gunner’s take on the IAR vs the belt-fed SAW was the following:
[ul]
When you start factoring in time spent reloading, over the course of a few hundred rounds, the IAR was able to keep up with and, in fact, surpass the M249. He stated (but all I have is his word on the matter) that when they tested it, even their best SAW gunner could not keep up with the IAR after a reload or two. Is that realistic? I dunno, I’ve never tried reloading a SAW, I hear it takes a while.[/ul]
[ul]You’ve also got the issue of accuracy. 100 rounds of ineffective fire impacting in a broad area around my head is worth 5 rounds of accurate snaps a few feet from my head. What we’re being taught is that volume of fire does not equal fire superiority. If you can keep his head down with 1 shot every 30 seconds, that’s good enough. He seemed confident that doing just that would be much easier with the IAR.[/ul]
[ul]And then you have the magazine issue. If your automatic rifleman can feed his gun from any magazine the squad is carrying without having to worry about reliability issues, then that’s worth something too.[/ul]
[ul]And finally you have the weight benefits from the IAR. Self-explanatory.[/ul]
Now, do I agree with any or all of that? I have no idea. I have no experience with MGs (I get that this week). But it seems plausible, at least.
Thanks, I’d never knew they had an ACOG just for the SAW…
I just don’t see realistically being able to keep up that volume of fire… the SAW is not that slow to reload, esp when you’ve practiced and after the first 100 round nutsack you switch to 200 round boxes. While I’m sure the IAR is accurate, it’s not like the SAW is known for being a blunderbuss. Oh, and SAWs run fantastic on Pmags, which seem to be issued by quite a few units now (including my last), so now every rifleman can cough up extras. While a SAW gunner can’t convert 5.56 belts into mags without de-linking, the only time a crew serve should be coughing up rounds is if the weapon is down.
I’m just curious to see how their power-point theory of the IAR does in a balls out ambush. But maybe I got so used to big Army FU’s that every time there’s a major doctrine change that can get people killed I’m a little cynical.
The IAR does solve the biggest SAW complaint which is it weighs the same as a PKM, heavy mo’ fo’…
Not to turn this into an IAR vs 249 thread… lo ciento…