Based on the generally held weapons
definitions adopted, three ARs were acquired off-the-shelf
to participate in the assessment with the M249 SAW.
These three weapons were the Colt AR, the Ultimax
100 (manufactured by Singapore Arms), and the Heckler
& Koch (HK) G36.
The Weapons
The Colt is a variant of the current M16A2 with
the exact same sights and commonality of parts.
The Colt AR weighs 15 pounds8 more pounds
than the M16A2. The additional weight is due primarily
to a heavy barrel intended to retard heat buildup.
Other alterations include a pistol grip attached
to the fore end, a hydraulic buffer to retard recoil
and rise, and a design change enabling the automatic
variant to fire from the open bolt, reducing the
possibility of cookoffs from excessive heat buildup.
The Colt has a rate of fire of 650 rounds per minute.
The Ultimax 100 is similar in
look to the M249 SAW. Like the SAW it fires from
the open bolt but does not possess a spare barrel
and is fed by magazine only. Because it weighs only
9 pounds, shooters can easily employ the Ultimax
in a variety of methods. An adjustable gas regulator
with 3 settings allows for a rate of fire varying
from 450 to 600 rounds per minute.
The HK is a lightweight rifle
capable of being fired in a fully automatic role
from the closed bolt. The version tested had optical
sights with an over/under system. The lower sight
system has a 3.5 magnified scope with multiple crosshairs.
The upper system was an aim point dot variation
for limited visibility shooting. Total weight of
the weapons system tested was 7 pounds. The rate
of fire is 650 rounds per minute.
Testing
Phase I began 21 July 2001 with the receipt of the
test bed of ARs. Forty-eight Marines en route to
the battalion from their recent graduation at the
School of Infantry were selected as the test bed
shooters in order to eliminate as much preexisting
bias concerning the SAW as possible. The tradeoff
for using new Marines was a lack of marksmanship
understanding and a failure to grasp open-bolt firing
concepts. The 48 Marines were divided into four
12-man squads labeled A, B, C, and D. Marines in
each squad were then numbered 1 through 12. Each
squad was armed with one of the four weapons systems
(Colt, HK, Ultimax, and SAW). Each weapon was then
zeroed to the individual shooter. Once a weapon
was zeroed to a specific Marine, the other three
Marines in his number series would shoot for an
offset aim point; i.e., shooter A1 zeroed the SAW
and then shooters B1, C1, and D1 used offset aim
points for the SAW. All number one shooters would
shoot all four of the number one weapons on each
test. This allowed a much quicker transition from
weapon to weapon throughout the test.
Class
|
SAW
|
Colt
|
Ultimax
|
HK
|
1st
|
2
|
7
|
1
|
2
|
2d
|
8
|
19
|
10
|
6
|
3d
|
19
|
12
|
12
|
7
|
4th
|
19
|
10
|
25
|
33
|
Table
1. Test 1 results.
|
Eight separate tests were designed
to assess the accuracy of the three AR candidates
and the SAW in various operational situations. The
main focus of these tests was to determine if the
ARs were more accurate than the SAW in various attitudes,
ranges, and conditions.
Test 1 was the M249 SAW paper
qualification course fired from 36 yards. The purpose
of this test was to use the M249s strongest
event to establish a baseline for comparison. The
other weapons would compete against the SAW in its
most favored environment. The most accurate weapon
for this event was the Colt and the least accurate
the HK. Table 1 shows that shooters using the Colt
qualified in the first or second class two and a
half times higher than shooters using the other
weapons.
Test 2 was a quick-kill course
established at Range 105A. Shooters engaged three
targets from the standing, kneeling, and prone positions
with nine rounds in a time frame of 20 seconds.
A target hit was valued at 1; a miss was valued
at 0. The quick-kill targets were established at
ranges of 25, 50, and 100 yards. The purpose of
Test 2 was to determine the accuracy of the weapons
in the critical, last 100 yards of an assault. The
Marines used all of the field firing positions to
duplicate the firing methods of combat Marines in
urban or jungle warfare. Table 2 shows the results
of Test 2.
25
Yards
|
50
Yards
|
100
Yards
|
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Accuracy |
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Accuracy |
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Accuracy |
SAW |
130 |
432 |
30.09% |
SAW |
119 |
432 |
27.55% |
SAW |
100 |
432 |
23.15% |
Colt |
161 |
432 |
37.27% |
Colt |
161 |
432 |
29.86% |
Colt |
176 |
432 |
40.74% |
Ultimax |
130 |
432 |
30.09% |
Ultimax |
130 |
432 |
24.54% |
Ultimax |
131 |
432 |
30.32% |
HK |
139 |
432 |
32.18% |
HK |
139 |
432 |
28.94% |
HK |
120 |
432 |
27.77% |
Table
2. Test 2 results.
|
Figure
1. Extracted Table I from FM 239.
|
RD |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
RD |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
1 |
50 |
3 |
11 |
100 |
8 |
2 |
200 |
6 |
12 |
200 |
3 |
100 |
4 |
13 |
150 |
10 |
4 |
150 |
5 |
14 |
300 |
5 |
300 |
6 |
15 |
100 |
9 |
6 |
250 |
7 |
16 |
250 |
7 |
50 |
3 |
17 |
200 |
6 |
8 |
200 |
6 |
18 |
150 |
5 |
9 |
150 |
5 |
19 |
50 |
6 |
10 |
250 |
7 |
20 |
100 |
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Saved Rounds |
Accuracy |
SAW |
231 |
1920 |
1 |
12.04% |
Colt |
427 |
1920 |
64 |
23.00% |
Ultimax |
368 |
1920 |
69 |
19.88% |
HK |
386 |
1920 |
173 |
22.10% |
Table
3. Test 3 results.
Figure
2.
|
Task |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
Rounds |
1 |
200 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
300 |
10 |
6 |
3 |
100 |
10 |
6 |
4 |
300 |
15 |
6 |
5 |
100, 300 |
20 |
12 |
6 |
200, 300 |
20 |
12 |
7 |
100, 200,
300 |
25 |
18 |
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Saved Rounds |
Accuracy |
SAW |
279 |
3168 |
327 |
09.82% |
Colt |
384 |
3168 |
580 |
14.84% |
Ultimax |
323 |
3168 |
642 |
12.79% |
HK |
330 |
3168 |
338 |
11.66% |
Table
4. Test 4 results.
Figure
3.
|
RD |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
RD |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
1 |
250 |
10 |
11 |
400 |
10 |
2 |
400 |
10 |
12 |
500 |
3 |
800 |
15 |
13 |
700 |
20 |
4 |
300 |
10 |
14 |
300 |
5 |
500 |
10 |
15 |
800 |
20 |
6 |
700 |
15 |
16 |
400 |
7 |
300 |
10 |
17 |
600 |
20 |
8 |
400 |
10 |
18 |
800 |
9 |
600 |
15 |
17 |
300 |
10 |
10 |
800 |
15 |
20 |
500 |
10 |
Weapons |
Hits |
Rounds |
Saved Rounds |
Accuracy |
SAW |
148 |
4800 |
0 |
3.08% |
Colt |
219 |
4800 |
290 |
4.86% |
Ultimax |
216 |
4800 |
280 |
4.78% |
HK |
151 |
4800 |
243 |
3.31% |
Table
5. Test 5 results.
Standing
results without masks
|
Standing
results with mask
|
Weapon |
Accuracy |
Time (Sec) |
Weapon |
Accuracy |
Time (Sec) |
SAW |
4.73% |
1132 |
SAW |
6.12& |
1013 |
Colt |
10.70% |
1355 |
Colt |
9.18% |
1138 |
Ultimax |
9.80% |
1272 |
Ultimax |
8.64% |
1300 |
HK |
13.51%
|
1621 |
HK |
10.99% |
1926 |
Table
6. Test 6 results.
Kneeling
results without masks
|
Kneeling
results with mask
|
SAW |
3.85% |
1116 |
SAW |
5.40% |
1131 |
Colt |
8.24% |
1309 |
Colt |
10.63% |
1304 |
Ultimax |
10.70% |
1410 |
Ultimax |
9.00% |
1459 |
HK |
11.22% |
1490 |
HK |
14.59% |
1753 |
Table
7. Test 7 results.
Task |
Range (M) |
Time (Sec) |
RD |
1 |
200 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
300 |
10 |
6 |
3 |
100 |
10 |
6 |
4 |
300 |
15 |
6 |
5 |
100,300 |
20 |
12 |
6 |
200,300 |
20 |
12 |
7 |
100,200,300 |
25 |
18 |
Figure
4.
Weapon |
Hits |
Rounds |
Saved Rounds |
Accuracy |
SAW |
43 |
3102 |
728 |
1.81% |
Colt |
50 |
3102 |
526 |
1.94% |
Ultimax |
Not
available for this event.
|
HK |
88 |
3102 |
641 |
3.58% |
Table
8. Test 8 results.
|
During Test 2 minor issues developed
with each of the weapons systems. Shooters repeatedly
had negligent discharges with the Colt, attributable
to the Marines forgetting the difference between
the closed-bolt M16A2 and the open-bolt AR. The
young Marines kept riding the bolt home on a live
round, thereby firing the round. With the Ultimax,
the shooters realized that the sights were set too
low in the rear. Once they achieved stock weld the
sights proved to be lower than the eye could see,
forcing stock weld to be broken and causing the
shooter to search for the sights. With the HK the
3.5 power magnification proved too much at 25 and
50 yards but beneficial at 100 yards. Overmagnification
at shorter ranges slowed down the presentation of
the weapon onto the target. For the M249 SAW, the
weight and length in general made this an extremely
cumbersome weapon in field firing positions. Another
problem resulted from the commonality of the Colt
AR and the M16A2. The familiarity led to initial
accuracy, as the young Marines had not yet become
familiar with the other weapons.
Test 3 was fired from the prone
position, using bipods for stability, engaging popup
targets ranging in distance from 50 to 300 meters,
with a varied time limit (See Table 3.) A 20-target
exposure using 40 rounds was fired from Field
Manual 239 (FM 239), M16A1 and M16A2
Rifle Marksmanship Table I. (See Figure 1.)
This evaluation determined quick reaction from a
defensive position to an attacking enemy.
Test 4 occurred on the same range as Test 3, firing
Table II of FM 2314, M249 Light Machinegun
in the Automatic Rifle Role (see Figure 2),
the SAW transition course of fire. A shooter in
the prone position with 66 rounds engaged popup
targets ranging in distance from 100 to 300 meters
with a varied time limit. (See Table 4.) This test
again gave the M249 the benefit of the doubt by
firing a course of fire designed for the light machinegun.
However, the only weapon that could qualify as a
light machinegun, the M249 SAW, posted the worst
results.
Test 5 was fired using long-range popup targets
without team leader assistance. Targets ranged from
250 to 800 meters. (See Figure 3.) Testing employed
a 20-target exposure firing 100 rounds per weapon
from a supported prone position with varied time
exposures. (See Table 5.)
The results from Test 5 identified difficulties
for a single shooter to engage targets beyond 300
meters. To effectively and accurately engage targets
at these ranges, weapons systems need to be operated
by a team, fired from a tripod, and assisted by
team leaders using magnified optics.
Tests 6 and 7 (see Tables 6 and 7 for test results)
consisted of field firing at elevated targets (simulating
urban patrol engagements) placed at distances of
100 to 150 meters. The targets were automated, three-dimensional
Ivan popup targets. A 5-target exposure
was used and engaged with 15 rounds with no time
limit, but total time for each shooter was recorded.
Shooters fired from standing and kneeling positions
with and without the field protective mask.
Test 8 consisted of night fire on an automated range
with targets arrayed from 75 to 300 meters. (See
Figure 4.) Ambient light was less than 20 percent.
All weapons were zeroed with PEQ2s using the
laser bore light prior to the range. (See Table
8.) The Ultimax 100 was not tested because there
was no way to mount the PEQ2 to the weapon.
The final evaluation of the assessment
was aimed at capturing intangible characteristics
and qualities of the weapons that numeric data could
not capture. Marines involved in the test filled
out a shooter evaluation questionnaire that attempted
to capture the intangibles of each weapon. The comparison
of these questionnaires with actual range performance
produced some interesting results. On average, during
Tests 1 through 4 the 48 shooters preferred the
weapons in the following order: Ultimax 100, HK,
Colt, and M249 SAW. The questions on the questionnaire
focused on nine areas: (1) overall performance,
(2) using system sights, (3) detecting and identifying
targets, (4) adjusting windage, (5) adjusting elevation,
(6) adjusting weapons zero, (7) maintaining zero,
(8) malfunctions, and (9) stoppages. Even though
the Colt fired the most accurately in most stages,
it was next to last in shooter preference.
Recommendations for modifications
were requested for each of the weapons systems.
The M249 and Colt were viewed as too heavy. The
HK failed to stay on target in burst fire while
the Ultimax sight system did not present to the
eye at all. When the shooter laid his cheek on the
stock of the weapon and achieved a proper stock
weld he found the sights of the weapon lay below
the line of sight capability of his eye. Accuracyalthough
according to raw data better than the current M249
SAW in every testwas of such a limited amount
as to be statistically insignificant. Only on Test
3 did any weapon outperform the SAW by more than
10 percent accuracy.
Automatic fire is inherently
less accurate than semiautomatic fire.15
The difficulty becomes achieving a balance
between weapons that provide a combination of the
accuracy of semiautomatic fire while maintaining
the ability to employ full automatic fire when required.
This is the reason the Marine Corps modified its
BARs so they could fire semiautomaticallyto
provide both capabilities.
Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249
SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel
just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for
its automatic fire suppressive capability. Given
the results of this assessment, accuracy alone is
not a strong enough reason to replace the M249 SAW.
However, most would argue that accuracy was never
the problem with the M249 SAW. The problem with
the M249 SAW was the lack of mobility when manned
by an individual while attempting to move at the
pace of a rifle team.
The M249 SAW provides the accuracy
that fire teams and squads require. The quantitative
tests of Phase I proved the variation in accuracy
between the M249 SAW and its competitors small enough
to not be worth the time, money, and effort to replace
it. Despite the mitigation of the accuracy issue,
the M249 SAW could not meet the requirements of
mobility and semiautomatic fire accuracy.
Unfortunately, the competitors tested
during Phase I of the AR assessment do not appear
to offer what the Marine Corps needs. As stated
previously, the HK failed to stay on target in burst
fire while the Ultimax sight system did not present
to the eye at all. The commonality of the Colt AR
with the M16A2 appeared to be advantageous. Yet
the Colt proved to be the only weapon that experienced
negligent discharges during the firing of 120,000
rounds. This fault resulted, in part, from young
Marines failing to understand the open-bolt system
but also, in part, from weapon design. Open bolts
are inherently dangerous. Traditionally, we fear
carrying an open-bolt weapon in the condition one
mode of ready to fire. The primary shooter can be
trained to be safe with the weapon, but primary
shooter casualties will soon place the weapons in
untrained hands, quickly leading to friendly fire
hazards.
Using the assessment as a jumping
off point, at the conclusion of Phase I of
the AR test, a universal need statement (UNS) was
drafted and submitted through 1st MarDiv. The statement
requested that the M249 be replaced with a true
AR. The weapon envisioned would fire 5.56mm ball
ammunition, be capable of receiving the M16A2s
30-round magazine, and would possess a selector
lever that went from safe to automatic to semiautomatic
(in that order), weigh less than 12 pounds loaded,
employ sights equal to the M16A2, use clip-on bipods,
and have a 450 to 600 rounds per minute rate of
fire.
Phase I testing did not provide a
yes to the original questionis
an AR more accurate than the M249 SAW? It
did, however, highlight the need for a mobile AR,
capable of semiautomatic fire at the fire team level.
Further, it illuminated the need to address the
future employment and role of the M249 SAW light
machinegun and a true AR in the fire
teams, squads, and platoons of the Marine Corps.
Because of the results achieved in
Phase I, testing carried forth with the same automatic
weapons into Phase II. Experimental squad and platoon
organizations were constructed in order to examine
the idea of consolidating the SAWs at various levels
of command. The next article in this series will
fully addresses the AR UNS submitted by 1st MarDiv
and the issues that arose from the experimental
organizations.
Notes
1. Gudmundsson, Bruce
I., Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German
Army, 19141918, Praeger, Westport, CT,
1989, p. 23.
2. Jones, Archer, The
Art of War in the Western World, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1987, p. 483.
3. English, John A.
and Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Infantry, Praeger,
Westport, CT, 1994, p. 59.
4. Ibid., p. 53.
5. Jones, p. 483.
6. Ibid., p. 56.
7. English, p. 164.
8. Ibid., p. 165.
9. Eby, SgtMaj John
M., Automatic Rifle Data (e-mail to author,
24 January 2002, Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat
Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms), p. 1.
10. Grundy, Ray A.,
(e-mail to author 21 January 2002, MCAGCC Twentynine
Palms), p. 1.
11. Eby, p. 2.
12. Grundy, p. 2.
13. Taylor Chuck, The
Fighting Rifle, Paladin Press, CO, 1984.
14. Hutchinson, G.S.,
Machine Guns: Their History and Tactical Employment,
1938.
15. FM 239,
pp. 47 and 48.
>Editor's
Note: The author would like to thank LtCol James
A. Cameron and Majs Scott Kenner and Thomas Clinton
for their assistance during testing and the preparation
of this article.
>>CWO3 Eby
is the Marine gunner, 7th Marine Regiment.