Jump to content

User:D.E. Watters/Sandbox/M249 History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Army decided that an individual machine gun, lighter than the M60 but with more firepower than the M16, would be advantageous; troops would no longer have to rely on rifles for automatic fire.[1] Through the 1960s, the introduction of a machinegun into the infantry squad was examined in various studies: SAWS (Small Arms Weapons Systems), IRUS (Infantry Rifle Unit Study), and ASARS (Army Small Arms Replacement Study).[2] While there was a brief flirtation with the concept of a fléchette-firing UMG (Universal Machine Gun) during SAWS, most non-7.62mm light machine gun experiments concentrated on the Stoner 63 LMG.[3][4] The Stoner 63 LMG even saw combat in Vietnam with the USMC (briefly in 1967) and on a wider scale with the US Navy SEAL teams.[4]

While the Army Small Arms Program (ARSAP) included plans for a 5.56mm LMG as early as 1968, no funds were budgeted. Studies did begin of improved 5.56mm ammunition.[5] The earliest reference to theoretical studies of alternative calibers did not appear until 1969.[6] In July 1970, the US Army finally approved an Advanced Development Objective for the LMG. At this time, the nomenclature "Squad Automatic Weapon" was introduced.[7] Actual design of alternative cartridges did not begin until July 1971. A month later, Frankford Arsenal decided upon two designs: a 6mm cartridge as well as a completely new 5.56mm cartridge based upon a much larger case.[8] None of these were finalized by the time that the Army published a Materiel Needs Document for the SAW in March 1972.[9] The final 6mm cartridge design was not approved until May.[10] Sometime before the end of Fiscal Year 1972 (ending June 30, 1972), development contracts for the SAW were let to Maremont (XM233) and Philco Ford (XM234). Rodman Laboratory at Rock Island Arsenal also began work on its own design (XM235). Designs were required to have a weight of less than 9.07 kg (20 lb) including 200 rounds of ammunition and have a range of at least 800 meters.[11][12]

When the time came for developmental and operational testing of the SAW candidates, three 5.56mm contenders were added to the before mentioned 6mm candidates. The former included a M16 HBAR, the FN Minimi, and the HK 23A1. The initial round of tests ended in December 1974.[11] In February 1976, the Minimi and Rodman SAW were selected for further development. At this time, opinions were beginning to sour on the 6mm SAW cartridge due to the implications of providing yet another ammunition type to the infantry.[13] By June, it was requested that the SAWS Materiel Needs Document be revised to emphasize standard 5.56mm ammunition. In October, the requested revisions were approved, and bids were solicited for the conversion of the Rodman XM235 to 5.56mm. Production of the converted XM235 was awarded to Ford Aerospace, and its designation was changed to XM248.[14] A new M16 HBAR variant, the XM106, was developed in 1978, and soon after, HK lobbied to include their HK 21A1 converted to 5.56mm (instead of the standard 7.62mm NATO) in future SAW testing. The latter was designated the XM262. At this time, the Minimi received the designation XM249.[15] Testing of the four candidates resumed in April 1979.[16]

In May 1980, the FN XM249 was selected as the best choice for future development on the grounds of performance and cost. The HK XM262 reportedly placed a close second. In September, FN was awarded a "maturity phase" contract for further development of the XM249.[17][16] Testing of the new XM249E1 variant began in June 1981.[18] The official adoption and standardization took place on February 1, 1982.

Although found to be reliable and accurate, the new M249 was considered to present unacceptable hazards in the form of an exposed hot barrel and sharp edges. In addition, there were complaints that the front sight required special adjustment tools.[19] On August 23, 1985, Under Secretary of the U.S. Army James R. Ambrose suspended M249 production pending the development of the Product Improvement Package (PIP).[20] Congress deleted funds for the M249 from the Fiscal Year 1986 defense budget. Adding insult to injury, Congress retroactively set aside Fiscal Year 1985 funds for the M249 program for other purposes, including retirement and pay raises. The 1,100+ M249 already issued were to remain in use, but be retrofitted with the PIP kit when it became available. The remaining 7,000+ M249 were to stay in storage at depots until corrective changes could be made.[19]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bonds was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ezell - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 91
  3. ^ U.S. Army - Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel - Volume 11, Appendix 10 - The Army Small Arms Program, pp 18, 20, 22
  4. ^ a b Ezell - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 89
  5. ^ U.S. Army - Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel - Volume 11, Appendix 10 - The Army Small Arms Program, pp 36, 41-42
  6. ^ U.S. Army Weapons Command Future Weapons Systems Division - A Methodology for Choosing the Best Caliber for a Light Infantry Machinegun
  7. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 91
  8. ^ Woodin Laboratory - Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) Cartridge Development at Frankford Arsenal (1971-1972), The International Cartridge Collector, p 1
  9. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 92, 95
  10. ^ Woodin Laboratory - Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) Cartridge Development at Frankford Arsenal (1971-1972), The International Cartridge Collector, pp 5-6
  11. ^ a b Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 95
  12. ^ U.S. Army Center of Military History - Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1972, p 176
  13. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., pp 96-97, 100
  14. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., p 98
  15. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., pp 96, 102
  16. ^ a b U.S. Army Center of Military History - Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1980, p 240
  17. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed., pp 103-104
  18. ^ U.S. Army Center of Military History - Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1981, p 253
  19. ^ a b U.S. Army Center of Military History - Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1986, p 43
  20. ^ Ezell, Edward C. - Small Arms Today, 2nd Ed., p 415

References

[edit]
  • A Methodology for Choosing the Best Caliber for a Light Infantry Machinegun, U.S. Army Weapons Command Future Weapons Systems Division, 1969
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary: Fiscal Year 1972. U.S. Army Center of Military History. 1974.
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary: Fiscal Year 1980. U.S. Army Center of Military History. 1983.
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary: Fiscal Year 1981. U.S. Army Center of Military History. 1988.
  • Department of the Army Historical Summary: Fiscal Year 1986. U.S. Army Center of Military History. 1995.
  • Ezell, Edward C. (1983). Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 0880296011.
  • Ezell, Edward C. (1988). Small Arms Today, 2nd Ed. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 0811722805.
  • Woodin Laboratory (January-February, 1980). "Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) Cartridge Development at Frankford Arsenal (1971-1972)". The International Cartridge Collector (289–290): 1–7. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:D.E._Watters/Sandbox/M249_History&oldid=269171057"