View Full Version : M249 SAW
February 5, 2001, 02:59 PM
Anyone here who has fired the M249 SAW currently used by the US and some other countries have anything to say about it?
February 5, 2001, 05:09 PM
It's actually a Daewoo (a Korean copy of the M249). The design is quite simple, similar to any other SAW's. Full-Auto only, gas-operated, and adjustable rate. The recoil under sustain fire is very manageble. By the way, I shot it @ this place M249 (http://www.firinglane.com/)
February 8, 2001, 12:23 AM
Its a little lighter than the M60 and more reliable.
Under full auto, its much easier to get a first burst hit and keep the cone on the target. Very smooth.
The tracers are something to behold. One of Murphy's laws of combat is tracers work in both directions. With the M856, the trace isn't noticable until past 200 yards, perfect for SAW work.
The real kudos goes to the belt feed. Much better than the M60 AND the belt isn't swinging and catching dirt. The M60 had a problem with that and any interference on the belt killed the fire.
Some think its too weak but I don't know as I've never had to use one in combat. It certainly will make exposed troops duck for cover! I doubt an M60 will be much good against any real armor, say any APC. Besides, I'd hope my 203's will be lobbing HEDP's on the APC to shuck the grunts from inside. Once they disembark, the SAW and 16's will light them up.
Then I call in the TOW crew to kill the APC. Or call in the helios for a Copperhead.
February 9, 2001, 11:02 AM
I see alot of references to the M60 machine gun on this thread. Except in a light machine gun support role (Lunch box Battalion, MPs, chow trucks, etc...) the M249 SAW is not a replacement for the M60 Machine Gun. It is an apples verus oranges issue.
The SAW is a Squad Automatic Weapon, used to give each fire team in the squad an Autorifle capability beyond the M16 autorifleman. Between the days of the BAR and the SAW, you simply designated on of your hooahs to fire full auto and you made him carry more magazines (larger basic load); this guy was called the autorifleman. With the adoption of the SAW, this could be accomplished much more effeciently.
The M60 Machine gun is being, and has been for the most part, in Combat Arms units with the M240b Medium Machine Gun. The M240b is a dsimounted version of the M240 COAX which have been in US armored bvehicles for decades and has also seen service with many foreign armies. The Isrealis have used it in their many wars and the British (and many of their commonwealth countries) refer to it as the GPMG (though these are not the M240b varient, they are essentially the same gun).
All the World's Finest!
February 11, 2001, 12:33 PM
I'll tell you something about the m249 SAW...oops sorry, Bladerunner flashback..
I can say the SAW can't handle extended rates of fire. its nothing more than a belt fed m-16a1. The 200rd drum is a clunker and gets in the way. The sights are as small as a M9 pistol sights and they like to float. While the M60 isn't that great either, at least it has some punch and is less finicky than the SAW when its dirty.
July 29, 2006, 04:37 PM
Trying to compare the SAW to the M-60 is like comparing apples to oranges (as mentioned before) two different cats two different functions, although both fire from a open bolt which is good if given the choice of the two I would take the the M-60 purely for the fact of more knock down power(again as said before). One being crew served and the other is not. Many stories have evolved about the M-60 being used in Nam firing until the barrels are bright red with out problems being noted.
And I just seen a video of a M-60 firing 850rds for a total of 1 minute and 45 seconds the links all the belts together and then fired them all in one trigger pull. Quite impressive to say the least. No malfunction. As for the reliability factor I would have to go with the M-60 (old school) IMO.
July 29, 2006, 07:10 PM
I've heard both good and bad things about the SAW. All I know is that I wouldn't choose one over an M60 or an M240, unless I was told I had to walk a ways with it.
The Navy's still using M60s, for what it's worth...
July 30, 2006, 03:47 PM
I likes it a lot :D
Put 800 rnds through one in 20-30 mins, no issues. None of the other 7 on the line had issues either. Although, I do enjoy the 240B more ;)
July 31, 2006, 03:01 PM
I can say the SAW can't handle extended rates of fire. its nothing more than a belt fed m-16a1. The 200rd drum is a clunker and gets in the way. The sights are as small as a M9 pistol sights and they like to float.
The SAW does fine as long as you keep it at or below the sustained rate of fire, IIRC, 85 RPM. Cyclic rate is 750 or 1000 (selectable) but no MG I've ever seen, other than that new model M60E4 TNT mentioned, can run at its cyclic rate for long.
It IS more or less a belt fed M-16, though it can also be used as a true, if small caliber, MG with T&E mount and the works.
I love the 200 round mag. It's not a drum, just a box for the belt. Much better than letting it dangle in the dirt, twist, break, etc.
Sights like an M9?:confused:
I like the SAW. It is what it is. Not a heavy machine gun or even, really, a medium. It's an automatic rifle and takes the place of the old BAR or the designated automatic rifleman who had the same M-16 as everyone else, just used full auto and carried more rounds.
July 31, 2006, 03:56 PM
The M249 SAW, as mentioned a few times already in different ways, is a light support weapon (SAW=Squad Automatic Weapon). It doesn't replace the M60 in reach or punch by any means, but that wasn't really the intent of it--it fills a gap between M16's and Medium suppord weapons such as the M60. It's lighter, a bit smaller, and easier to manage than the M60, which makes it a great supression weapon within the limits of .223 performance. It can lay down a lot of lead quickly but still be handled relatively easy and keep up in a hit 'n run situation or urban/more confined areas where you need a support weapon but don't need the encumberance or power of the M60.
August 1, 2006, 11:57 AM
I carried a M249 SAW for about 10 months on my first tour in Iraq. It is a great MG and never failed me. After you carry it for a while you get used to the weight. If need be, it can be fired from the shoulder as an automatic rifle, although using the bi-pod is prefered. The M249 SAW is a lot beefer weapon than any varient of the M16, uses quick change barrels, and handles sastained fire very well. But hey, I'm just a grunt who has used them in combat.
August 1, 2006, 08:27 PM
I always found it easiest to control the SAW with short quick burst, but long burst are always sooo much fun.
In the hands of an expierenced user, the SAW can be a devastating weapon.
August 10, 2006, 06:29 PM
Mike40-11 I got a video clip of a M-60 firing 850 rds in 1 minute and 45 seconds very impressive to say the least
August 11, 2006, 12:38 AM
Terrence "Mili-Terry" Taylor, SAW gunner, of the notorious 82nd Airborne once told me:
"I like my 249 fine, but I wish I had a '60..."
He then spit on the floor, screamed "Aaaaah-Ooooooogh!" and punched a hole in the wall.
I feel sorry for the terrorists, Terry's been on a 'round-the-globe tour these last few years...
August 11, 2006, 05:35 AM
Its heavy for a 5.56 for the weight make mine a 7.62.
It is one hell of a bullet hose though! It will deliver suppresive fire, and remember that if you a fleeing and scrambling you are not shooting at me.
I just want a bigger stick for the same weight, guess I'm just and Infantryman.
August 11, 2006, 07:44 PM
I used one in the army. loved it. It didn't malfunction like the m60s did.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.