Talk:Squad automatic weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


1. M249 is downsized M240 General Purpose Machine gun, not heavy barrelled Assault rifle.

2. Both M249 and RPK uses same ammo as Assault rifles (RPK-74->AK-74, RPK->AK-47 resp. M249->M16)

3. Noticed FN FAL assault rifle is no related with M249, but with M240, what is a FN MAG machine gun licensed and manufactured in USA.

The only relation between the FAL and MAG is that they are both 7.62mm NATO and both FN designs. There is no parts interchangability and little similarity in mechanism or operation.FergusM1970 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this[edit]

"Therefore, in many modern armies, military doctrine requires the ordinary soldier to avoid using his weapon's fully automatic mode "

Red Army doctrine until the 1980s was for fully automatic fire. Do they not count as modern?

I quite agree with the above. It might be more accurate to say, "The United States military does not like using automatic fire from assault rifles." As far as I know we are the only nation whose military doctrine is to use semiauto firing or the 3-round burst ONLY with the primary service weapon. -RR63

Nope. Most armies (certainly every NATO army I've worked with) have a doctrine that restricts automatic fire to ambushes or final assaults, where it's actually useful. The US Army doesn't NEED doctrine to restrict use to single rounds or 3-rd bursts; that's all the standard service weapons are capable of. FergusM1970 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Related Weapons?[edit]

On the "See Also" section, there are links that lead to the FN FAL and the Sterling submachine gun. While I'm sure these are fine weapons, they have nothing to do with the SAWs of the world and should be removed. -RR63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The FN FAL is indeed a fine weapon, the Sterling Small Metal Gun not so much. There actually was a FAL variant intended for the LMG/SAW role so it probably qualifies, but of course the Small Metal Gun doesn't. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sterling was actually a very good SMG that incorporated a number of interesting features, probably to distance it from the Sten, which wasn't actually a bad design for the most part but it did gain an unenviable reputation due to its often "economy" manufacture (which it was designed for, to be fair). The Sterling's main problem is that, as with most traditional designs, the HK5 happened. Other than that, it was a good, solid weapon that did what was asked of it and perhaps interestingly had a remarkably robust magazine design, understandable given that the Sten's seems to have been considered the source of most of its problems. Some of the criticism I've seen is rather bizarre, such as someone claiming that they saw the rear cap unscrewing as they fired it, which is an accomplishment as it wasn't a screw fit (it was a bayonet fit, in camera terms, held in place by the return spring tension and a fairly robust latch.)
But I am wondering about this thing of conflating SAW and LMG, which is what is bothering me most. I know it's not actually the case, but SAW does sound a bit "Hollywood" and you'd sort of expect someone to say "lock and load!" as soon as it's mentioned. Ugh. Even if they refer to the same thing (and I'm unclear as to whether it's the case) surely the older and more established LMG designation should be used? --Vometia (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Relation to light machine gun?[edit]

How is a SAW different to an LMG? Surely they're just different names for the same thing?

-- Tom Anderson 2008-01-28 1829 +0000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SAW is a role LMGs are often put into. Geoff B (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe the term "Squad Automatic Weapon" refers more to the application of the weapon rather than it being different to other LMG's. Granted the M249 has far greater mobility but the function and design is classic LMG. (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) LMG - means the barrel may be changed by the user in action to combat overheating ie. BREN gun, it is a SAW and LMG, while the BAR is a SAW but since it's barrel is fixed so is just a SAW - Breeze —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "doctrine" section from this article because it didn't actually contain any doctrine. To be honest I think the whole article should go; "Squad automatic weapon" is basically a US term and what it describes is a light machine gun. I think we should bin this article and edit the LMG one to say that the term "SAW" is used by some nations. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the M15?[edit]

I seem to recall that at the same time the M14 rifle was adopted, a heavy-barrel version with bipod was introduced as the M15, intended as the SAW. What ever became of it? -- Craig Goodrich (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The M15 was reclassified as "Obsolete" before it ever entered production. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)