Minimi vs. m-16 LSW

[POJC]

How are the m-16 LSW(SAW?) compared to the Minimi, I understand that they were replaced

[Tuukka]

Are you serious, of course the Minimi is a better weapon. And if the shit really hits the fan you can always use M16 mags in an emergency

[POJC]

I've heard that the minimi is much better. I would like to hear about the differences. The Danish army are supposedly going to buy M-16 LSW so i'am pretty interested

[veil]

Some units here (Marines) use the canadian C7 LSW, pretty much a flattop m16 LSW only with an elcan. I dont see much use for a weapon like this, besides maybe use the accurate ones as a DMR, since a 30-rounder and a fixed barrel dont give you much firepower advantage... We still lug the Gimpy around, i'd like to finally see some results from the SAW-tests we had years back...

-veil

[Enfield]

Okay, you guy's got me all confused...
The Minimi is the French name for the weapon we Canucks call the C-9 and the Yanks call the SAW, right?
What's the M-16 LSW? I thought it was a machine-gun, big-barrelled version of the M-16, which I've heard of, but didn't think anybody used.
Veil - what's the C-7 LSW?? We don't use anything like that - C7's, C9's, and Gimpy's are all we got.

If anybody can straighten me out here... =o)
Thanks!
Enfield

[baboon]

The Minimi is actually a Belgian weapon, originally made by FN (Fabrique Nationale). Yes it is the same thing as the C9 and M249/SAW. I don't know anything about this M16 LSW but it seems a bit pointless to me- you might as well go back to the Bren gun (probably better). What is the point of a support weapon with only marginally better performance than a rifle? The US Army tried to turn the M14 into a squad automatic in the '60s, it didn't work. There was also a heavy-barrel version of the FN FAL, didn't work either. The army here hasn't gone for 5.56 in support weapons, they have stuck with the MAG (Gimpy). Some units have the SS77, a 7.62 NATO weapon which looks kind of like the Russian PKM, has a folding butt and is about 1kg lighter than the MAG.
Didn't you Canucks still have the 30 Browning until quite recently as your main machine gun?

[This message has been edited by baboon (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Enfield]

Baboon-
Yep, we used the Browning 30 cal until a few years ago - exactly when, I dunno, but we still use training videos with soldiers armed with Sterlings and supported by 30 cals, so it wasn't too long ago. I think it was replaced by the C-9, but I could be wrong.

Enfield

[garett]

I'm all confused also. If you are talking about the SAW it has nothing to do with the M-16 designation. If you're talking about some other type of m-16 that is belt fed or something I have never heard of it or seen it. What the Americans call the SAW we Canadians call the C-9. The difference is that we have the C-79 optical scope on top and our stock is different in that it isn't a wood type c-6 (GPMG) type stock like the American's have (well from the pictures I've seen) and we have a hand grip on the stock for the hand not on the trigger. As far as the Minimi goes I think it has the same stock as the C-9 but it doesn't have a scope. There are a few variants floating around of the C-9/SAW/Minimi such as the paratroop version which has a shorter barrel with a slanted carrying handle and a collapsable stock. I'm a C-9 gunner and I've been dragging one of these bitches around for a few months. It is a great
weapon, light years ahead of the British
LSW. I feel sorry for those lads who had to carry around a c-6 (GPMG) or M60 as a section weapon. The weapon in heavy enough without carrying the ammunition.

[PathfinderJr3325]

Some good points, but one question:

What about thick brush or long range engagements? My father and I debated the
topic and he brought up the matter of
5.56mm being deflected by heavy brush, and
how after a few hundred yds/meters it lacked
punch. Ammo commonality is a great idea, but
what do you do when you can see but can't effectively engage a target?

------------------
Check Six

[Enfield]

I have to say, while lugging a C-6/GPMG around would really suck, the extra punch would really be nice when you needed it - a GPMG would pretty much double a section's firepower. The Paras took double the number of GPMG's with them to the Falkland's, and loved having the extra firepower. So there are plus's and minus's to each side, I guess. Weight and carrying enough ammo vs. firepower.

Enfield

[veil]

The C7 LSW is a standard flattop C7a1, with the addition of a heavy barrel, rectangular handguard with forward grip, bipod (attached right behind the muzzle - yuck) and ofcourse an Elcan. They are fed with standard 30-rounders. This is not a machinegun, it's an upgraded rifle and should be employed as a DMR rather than as a SAW.

About the Gimpy, well, it sucks. Yes it provides serious firepower, but the thing is so damn heavy and large, its incredible. Im pretty much the skinniest guy in the squad so im saved from lugging the gimp around, but it simply slows the whole squad down as well. Another problem is that it's close to impossible to actually _run_ with it and a big ruck as well. And then ofcourse it uses it's own ammo, which everyone has to carry around as well. Be advised, that for the space and weight of 1 canvas-packed 100-round belt of 7,62 you could as well carry a 200-round box of 5,56mm.

Now we're at the subject, does anyone know what happened to the 'standard' version of the Stoner S86 LMG? Im talking about the fixed-stock long barrel SAW variant. Besides 2 pictures and a drawing i have never seen or heard anything about it, and seems to be completely replaced by the shortie variant with the M4 collapsible stock.

-Veil

[recce_o]

It is impossible to conduct a discussion of the relative merits of the SAW vs. the GPMG without considering the tactics of their employment.

In an ideal world, the purpose of a GPMG is to establish a base of fire that can provide support while a manoeuver element conducts an assault. The SAW is carried by members of the manoeuver element to provided added firepower in the conduct of the assault. Therefore, in theory, aside from the poor bugger who has to carry the GPMG during the movement to the target, once the shooting starts there is much less need to have to move the GPMG around the battlefield. Hence, its weight, and the fact that you can't run with it are not critical deficiencies.

The SAW is designed to be a lightweight weapon that increases the firepower of the assault element. It is designed to be carried around, and it is essential that one be able to run with it.

So, I don't think it is appropriate to compare the GPMG and the SAW, because it's an apples and oranges type discussion.

[josepy]

Wow, You first period of instruction will be... Machine Gun Employment, your instructor will be Recce.

Good post dude.

[baboon]

Well I suppose you have to use what you have and the Gimpy was used successfully as a section-level automatic in the various wars in Southern Africa. It is definitely superior to the other two weapons that were generally available to the Rhodesian and South African armies, the heavy-barrel FAL and the 7.62mm Bren. In fact each four-man "stick", the basic unit of the Rhodesian ground forces, had one Gimpy and three FALs (normal type), which often provided them with a significant firepower advantage over larger groups of guerillas armed mainly with AKs and RPDs. Regarding weight, these " Fireforce" troops were normally deployed by helicopter or parachute with just webbing and weapons, so the heavy weight of the Gimpy was not as much of a problem as for troops marching in with rucks. However, this was also done at times.

Some specialist units, such as the Rhodesian SAS and Selous Scouts and the South African Recces, preferred the RPD. Generally they dispensed with the drum magazines and used a canvas bag containing a 100-round belt. The RPD was more useful in para or helo-borne camp attacks, with sweep lines moving through enemy positions, or on long-range patrols or raids on foot. But it could never bring down the firepower that the Gimpy could.

There is certainly a place for both the SAW and the Gimpy/MAG in every army and in fact in every rifle platoon.

[reconsweden]

recce_o: Excellent post, I agree with what you said.

Like recce_o said the GPMG is used in a very different way than the 5.56 support weapon and the tactics in their use is different so the CO has to know how to use each system(try assaulting with a FN MAG and you´ll know what I mean...).

We use the FN MAG in most units, only "rangers" and amphibious units have the Minimi(I refuse to call them by their respective country´s name) but one type of unit use the FN MAG in the assault role to great effect: the urban warfare units.
They use it because of the 7.62 cal, the weak 5.56 is unsuited for urban operations, wich is why they also use the G3 instead of the FN FNC.

Veil: I have a lot of experience with the FN MAG and I have to disagree with you. I´m not a big guy either but all it takes is some time getting used to, yes it slows you down, yes you´re not very agile with it, but it´s role in a squad is to important to leave it behind. In our recon squad we are only five men and the FN MAG gives us a tremendous increase in firepower. When it comes to ammo, we strap a wooden ammo box(1300 rounds capacity) to our backpak frames between it an the sack. This way it doesn´t take up any space that could be used in another way plus you can have the belt over your shoulder in a homemade feeder, giving you over a thousand round belt(useful in urban operations).

The right weapon in the right place and the right gear in the right place makes a helluva difference.

[POJC]

Looks like there is a lot of opinions on the topic of LMG/SAW. My original posting was different types of SAW(light LMG with small caliber(5.56mm)) especially the m-16 SAW compared to FN Minimi(M249 SAW). By the way the added punch 7.62 can come in handy at longer ranges, but to my knowledge the 5.56 round has better penetration values.

[veil]

Recon,

A 1300-round box eh? Must be pretty damn heavy as well. I think the major difference here lies in our functions. Like you said, if you have a 5-man team, a MAG makes a big difference in firepower.

You have to understand though, that we are airmobile infantry, not unlike the rangers. We fly in by chopper with an absolutely minimal amount of gear so we can move in as fast as possible and clean up for the grunts. The only reason we haul the MAG around is because there simply are no other beltfed weapons in the inventory and we need firepower to hold ground with.

For example, after securing the perimeter, we'll send small patrols out, of 4 men. Those teams only pack their C7a1's and maybe a daypack and a canteen. Simply because their job is to see and report and then let the grunts do the fighting.

Like you said, the right weapon in the right place will make the difference.

Cheers,

-Veil

[PathfinderJr3325]

Ladies and Gents;

HK makes a couple of 7.62 NATO belt-fed weapons,namely the HK-21E right? I don't see why HK-equipped countries don't use them. I've never heard anything bad about them.
If memory serves, it compared fairly well with the M-60 and the MAG in trials, but got
bumped because it wasn't in regular US service. I recall reading that Naval Special Warfare had some, dunno about service record.

BTW: Thanks Recce

[This message has been edited by PathfinderJr3325 (edited 05-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PathfinderJr3325 (edited 05-07-2000).]

[reconsweden]

Veil, its heavy allright but we are supposed to carry whatever we need so we train a lot at marching with heavy packs(30-70kg) and other things that might come in handy. Does´nt make it funnier but we are used to it. As you said, our functions are different, we move at least 5-10km in front of the rest of our troops(not airmobile) and provide intel about the enemy. This means that we are mostly just single squads(5 men) and rarely gather the full platoon(3 squads) so we need all the firepower and ammo we can get in case we have to either back up MechInf(we do that sometimes...stupid...) or perform ambushes.
It does seem useful with MAG´s if you´re gonna hold ground, its what its good at but carrying it at patrols and recon should be avoided.
We also dress down when doing recon close to the enemy and usually leave our packs 2-3km away from where the enemy is suspected to be.

BTW: We carry AT-4 and Carl Gustav if necessary. Quite a handful in ambushes, one soldier has a sniper rifle(L96A1AW), two handles the Carl(gunner, loader), the squad leader(Sgt) direct the Carl´s fire and the assisting squad leader has the MAG http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

------------------
Videre Non Videri

[veil]

Swede, Damn you guys sure pack a punch http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

-veil