>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 pounds—8 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 M249’s 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 23–9. | | 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 23–9 (FM 23–9), 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 23–14, 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 PEQ–2s 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 PEQ–2 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. Accuracy—although according to raw data better than the current M249 SAW in every test—was 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 semiautomatically—to 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 M16A2’s 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 question—“is 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, 1914–1918, 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 23–9, pp. 4–7 and 4–8.
>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.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2004/04eby1.html