Is there any differences between the M249 SAW and the MG4 machine guns?

[kato]

Well, there's still the "autocannon platoon" (20mm) in the light units. At battalion level, like everything else

Platoon level iirc has no fire support options at all. At company level, sniper teams are usually an option, everything else is at battalion level in the Heavy (Weapons) Company.

 

[Waylander]

Sure but we still don't have our GPMGs located in a weapons platoon...

But hey the MG3 is nearly as heavy as the 20mm Wiesel.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

No.
We don't have something like a weapons platoon where the GPMGs are located.

The MG3 was/is a squad level weapon and not attached from a higher level to the squads.
The Bundeswehr just started to replace the one MG3 with two MG4s in the squad.
But when a MG3 is needed one may very well also bring it along instead of the MG4s so that one has some squads with one MG3 and some with two MG4s.

I see what your saying.

I hope the replacement for the MG3 will still have that 1200 round per minute rate of fire.

 

[Waylander]

I don't think that this would be ideal.
The high ROF makes the MG3 a superb weapons for usage as a coax or mounted weapon.
Be it for self defense on a truck or for example on a tripod.

But the ROF is a little bit too high when it comes to it's usage as a squad MG. There is just so much MG ammo a squad can carry and as the MG3 is very hungry this can cause problems.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't think that this would be ideal.
The high ROF makes the MG3 a superb weapons for usage as a coax or mounted weapon.
Be it for self defense on a truck or for example on a tripod.

But the ROF is a little bit too high when it comes to it's usage as a squad MG. There is just so much MG ammo a squad can carry and as the MG3 is very hungry this can cause problems.

It worked well in WWII, besides the RoF gives it a distinctive bark that no other weapon could match.

Besides if the MG3 was not ideal because of the RoF then they would not have kept it for this long me thinks.

 

[saracen]

They both look very similar. Is there any major differences?

I was wondering if anyone can help. Thanks.

The SAW is a built under licence Copy of the FN Minimi. A Belgium Company who also Make your M240 which we the British build under licence as the G.P.M.G since the 60's

 

[Bonza]

I see what your saying.

I hope the replacement for the MG3 will still have that 1200 round per minute rate of fire.

Slightly off-topic, but in this and other posts you seem very taken by the cyclic rate of fire of various weapons (no offence, you just do). As such this article on the IAR might interest you, as it mentions the difference between cyclic and sustained rates of fire. You'll note the SAW is pegged as having a cyclic rate of 750rpm, whereas it's sustained fire rate is 85 rpm.

Probably worth noting the difference between the two.

Corps may field new Infantry Automatic Rifle - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

Apologies for the off-topic post, all.

 

[STURM]

A few years ago, I came across a photo of a KSK chap lugging a machine gun.
It wasn't an MG-3, nor a MINIMI. It could have been something from HK. Anyone have any idea what else the KSK use?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Slightly off-topic, but in this and other posts you seem very taken by the cyclic rate of fire of various weapons (no offence, you just do). As such this article on the IAR might interest you, as it mentions the difference between cyclic and sustained rates of fire. You'll note the SAW is pegged as having a cyclic rate of 750rpm, whereas it's sustained fire rate is 85 rpm.

Probably worth noting the difference between the two.

Corps may field new Infantry Automatic Rifle - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

Apologies for the off-topic post, all.

No I was just saying I love to sound from the MG42/MG3 and its what maid it popular and I just don't want to see it go.

But what does the IAR have to do with this thread about the M249/MG4?

RoF for M249 is 750 rounds per minute, 700-900 rounds per minute for IAR.

I do find it very interesting with the IAR in that hopefully they replace the M4/M16 with the H&K416 Since after all they are buying the 416 for the automatic rifle man I see this as a back door for a new combat assault rifle.:ar15

 

[F-15 Eagle]

A few years ago, I came across a photo of a KSK chap lugging a machine gun.
It wasn't an MG-3, nor a MINIMI. It could have been something from HK. Anyone have any idea what else the KSK use?

What military is it?

If its from H&K could it be an MG4? It looks just like a FN Minimi.

 

[kato]

Probably G8 aka HK11.

Light machine gun that is also used in a DMR role. 7.62x51 NATO, G3-based, uses any G3-compatible magazines up to 50-round drums but can also use belt feed (rarely used).
BGS used to use it as their standard machine gun (also on vehicles), Bundeswehr only with special forces.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Probably G8 aka HK11.

Light machine gun that is also used in a DMR role. 7.62x51 NATO, G3-based, uses any G3-compatible magazines up to 50-round drums but can also use belt feed (rarely used).
BGS used to use it as their standard machine gun (also on vehicles), Bundeswehr only with special forces.

Yeah thats true I forgot that the G8 can be used as a machine gun and DMR.

 

[Bonza]

No I was just saying I love to sound from the MG42/MG3 and its what maid it popular and I just don't want to see it go.

But what does the IAR have to do with this thread about the M249/MG4?

RoF for M249 is 750 rounds per minute, 700-900 rounds per minute for IAR.

Those are cyclic rates of fire. I was trying to point out that sustained rates of fire are different. So a cyclic rate of 1200rpm isn't what's going to make or break a squad machine gun (and as Waylander pointed out it may even be a disadvantage due to issues of ammo consumption rate). This is especially apparent when you consider the marked lack of other squad machine guns with a similar cyclic rate.

The article was just a convenient way to highlight the differences.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Those are cyclic rates of fire. I was trying to point out that sustained rates of fire are different. So a cyclic rate of 1200rpm isn't what's going to make or break a squad machine gun (and as Waylander pointed out it may even be a disadvantage due to issues of ammo consumption rate). This is especially apparent when you consider the marked lack of other squad machine guns with a similar cyclic rate.

The article was just a convenient way to highlight the differences.

I know what your saying. But with the IAR the sustained rate of fire is 12 round per minute.

But how does that work, you can't fire a bolt action rifle that slow. Thats like firing 1 round every 30 seconds. Machine guns can't fire at only 85 RPM or whatever. Even a semi-auto M4 will spit out its 30 rounds in less than 4-5 seconds.

 

[Waylander]

Bursts...

One doesn't fire on full auto just for fun.

Short controlled bursts are the way to go as they are more accurate, keep the barrel cool for much longer and help you to preserve your ammo.

Getting out a short bursts every few seconds gives you the lower sustained rate of fire.

 

[Bonza]

I know what your saying. But with the IAR the sustained rate of fire is 12 round per minute.

But how does that work, you can't fire a bolt action rifle that slow. Thats like firing 1 round every 30 seconds. Machine guns can't fire at only 85 RPM or whatever. Even a semi-auto M4 will spit out its 30 rounds in less than 4-5 seconds.

Note that the IAR's "maximum effective rate of fire" in the article (and I'm sorry for going off topic again but it serves to prove a point) is quoted at 36 rpm for 1200 rounds, or 75 rpm for 600 rounds. Why do you think there's that difference?

As Waylander said, there are issues of accuracy, barrel temperature, and ammunition management. How quickly do you think a section would exhaust their machine gun ammunition, firing at cyclic rates? Or for that matter, using your M4 example, how quickly would an individual soldier expend their ammunition firing an M4 in the manner you describe?

I know this has gone way off topic so I'll make this my last, but this is just something to think about and look into if you want.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Bursts...

One doesn't fire on full auto just for fun.

Short controlled bursts are the way to go as they are more accurate, keep the barrel cool for much longer and help you to preserve your ammo.

Getting out a short bursts every few seconds gives you the lower sustained rate of fire.

That is true, and better than just spray and prey. But in real war that just does not happen all the time.

Note that the IAR's "maximum effective rate of fire" in the article (and I'm sorry for going off topic again but it serves to prove a point) is quoted at 36 rpm for 1200 rounds, or 75 rpm for 600 rounds. Why do you think there's that difference?

As Waylander said, there are issues of accuracy, barrel temperature, and ammunition management. How quickly do you think a section would exhaust their machine gun ammunition, firing at cyclic rates? Or for that matter, using your M4 example, how quickly would an individual soldier expend their ammunition firing an M4 in the manner you describe?

I know this has gone way off topic so I'll make this my last, but this is just something to think about and look into if you want.

In a heavy firefight there have been times where the M4 and M249 will over heat because of the high rate of fire. The effective or sustained rate of fire becomes pointless. Whats more important is to have the rifles and machines be able to :

1. have an open bolt position.
2. Quickly change the barrel.
3. use a heavier barrel to withstand the heat.

but all in all I know what your saying.

 

[StevoJH]

How quickly do you think a section would exhaust their machine gun ammunition, firing at cyclic rates? Or for that matter, using your M4 example, how quickly would an individual soldier expend their ammunition firing an M4 in the manner you describe?

They wouldn't, the rifles and MG's would probably blow up first. But if they didn't, they'd probably be out of Ammunition in 30-60 seconds.

 

[kato]

the rifles and MG's would probably blow up first.

Nah, they just would become "a bit" inaccurate due to the barrel being expanded by the heat and then cooled down again.
And, depending on design of the gun, they'd cook off their ammo starting after 30 seconds or so, running on "automatic" without pulling the trigger

 

[Waylander]

That is true, and better than just spray and prey. But in real war that just does not happen all the time.

And you know a figure for the number of situations where the MG guys needed to fire full auto for half a minute or so?

Let's stay real. Even in desperate situations most well trained MG gunners are firing bursts. Longer bursts with less time between the bursts but still bursts. And that's going to give them enough problems when it comes to barrel heat and ammunition reserves.