M249 SAW Goes On A Diet

image

imagePicatinny Arsenal took a look at the M249 and experimented with reducing its hefty weight of 17.5 lbs down to 9.2 lbs. They also gave it a new name: Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun, or CT LMG.

To achieve this impressive weight loss, they did not use exotic materials. Rather they removed material where they could and detaching the firing chamber from the barrel. Having an external firing chamber reduces the heat so the gun runs cooler and prevents rounds from cooking off.

They also went with plastic like casings for the ammunition to reduce the weight of the ammo down by 39%.



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • DW

    Isn’t this the LSAT and a completely different gun at that?

    • Phillip Cooper

      Yup. Apparently the Army PR source the article is pulled from employs troops that don’t have 11B buddies…
      Or trigger time.

  • Anthony

    That’s the LSAT program not an M249

    • ryguy

      ya it looked like an LSAT too? Hence the second picture where it looks lil a small flip up square port to insert the ammo. Where as the SAW would have the whole back open up… That’s definitely an LSAT LMG

  • colin s

    As the other two posts have said, its from the LSAT programme, a completely different weapons system.

  • Fegelein

    So how long until they find serious reliability problems when fielded, insist there aren’t any, then insist that there kinda are but they aren’t serious, only they are serious enough to call for a new competition, and when the M249 lightweight starts getting creamed, the Army cancels the competition, claims it was pointless and invalid and that the M249 is not only completely adequate but the best, and then wait anywhere from 2-20 years to introduce any kind of upgrade or fix, while in the meantime they write official doctrine enabling them to blame the user for absolutely any and all problems while absolving themselves of any responsibility, continuing this for decade until they finally arrive at a weapon which finally under ideal conditions only mostly measures up to the competition?

    • Agitator

      Never, since this isn’t an M249 you jackanapes.

    • CommonSense23

      Good job on pretty much nailing every gun store myth on the AR family.

      • tts

        I’m seriously wondering if this site should just run a AR mythbuster story once or twice a week.

        Seems like near endless potential for content.

        • Vitsaus

          They already pretty much do.

          • tts

            You’re right. Maybe they should step it up to 4-5 times a week they do a AR mythbuster post.

            Still plenty of content to work with for a while.

      • Joshua

        Best part is the 5 up votes from some random idiots.

      • z

        Sounded more like a summary of the new handgun trial fiasco to me.

        • valorius

          it sounded like about a thousand different cancelled army programs to me.

          Commanche, Crusader, the G36 variant the army was gonna buy, etc, etc.

    • Vitsaus

      You comment caused so much butt hurt, its delicious. So sensitive, the fanboys.

  • Kovacs Jeno

    Yeah, two different weapon systems M249/5,56 NATO vs. LSAT/CT.
    Apples and oranges!

  • valorius

    9lbs is too light for a machine gun.

    • tts

      How so? Recoil issues maybe? Muzzle breaks would help lots with that if it really is an issue right?

      • valorius

        see my post to iksnilol.

    • iksnilol

      Well, it is 5.56 so I doubt “too light” is gonna be an issue. A 4kg rifle in 5.56 can’t be called “too light”.

      • valorius

        It’s not a rifle though, it’s a light machine gun. The heavier a machine gun is, the more controllable it is. There’s a happy medium between to heavy and too light, and in all honesty, i felt like the M249 was already at that weight.

        Of course your mileage may vary.

        • iksnilol

          LMGs have rifled barrels, ergo in my eyes they are a form of rifle… a heavy, clumsy, devastating form of rifle.

          • Phillip Cooper

            an M2 has a rifled barrel. Is that a rifle? Want to hump it?

            Many tanks have rifled barrels. Are they rifles?

          • iksnilol

            Nope, an M2 isn’t a rifle because it isn’t made to be fired from the shoulder.

            Also, you must be fun at parties?

        • Andrew

          I like the Mk46 pretty well, because of its light weight, but yeah you’re right, the beaten zone is better with the full M249. Lighter than that is only better for MG’s if you’re going to use them very close.

          • valorius

            Agreed. A 9lb SAW may find a customer in SOCOM, but i don’t see any value as a general issue or vehicle mounted weapon.

    • LCON

      Knights Armament Company LMG A1 is 10 pounds empty fires 5.56x45mm Nato from a 14.5 inch barrel

      • valorius

        That means it’s a good idea?

        Who uses that weapon?

        • LCON

          surprisingly just about nobody. The Danish Marines, a few PMC’s

          • valorius

            I would submit that its not actually very surprising. A MG that light is a niche weapon.

          • LCON

            another more widely used example of a weapon with similar weight 11 pounds empty options of a short 13 inch barrel or a 20 inch barrel the only thing is it’s the magazine fed Ultimax 100 used by some thing like 23 nations including having replaced the Chilean marine corps who used it to replace there FN minimi’s. The Question is I think What do you need form a LMG. if your mounting it to a vehicle sure you will want it to have some heft. but if it’s just infantry and Squad use why so heavy? The USMC is trading there M249’s for modified HK416’s ( mind you they are still not for some reason adopting high cap mags for them). Does the Us army need Saw’s on vehicles? They have M240B for that If it’s for infantry Then what is easier to aim form a 22 pound M249 or a 11 pound CT LMG?

          • valorius

            It may not sound like much, but the 11lb ultimax is over 20% heavier than the 9lb SAW this thread is about.

            To me, and this is just my personal taste, an LMG should ideally be about 15 lbs. Still a featherweight compared to the almost 24lb M-60 we had when i joined the infantry.

          • LCON

            The M249 with a 200 round belt weighs almost as much as the M60 you carried back in the day. It weights the same as the Current M240L and more then the M240LW.
            Ironically It weighs about the same empty as the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle.

            now consider how much Today’s infantry carries other then weapon. the Army claims a SAW gunner load is about 79 pounds, That is probably a low ball number. but as a Rule the weight of gear and load carried by infantry has continued to increase over time dramatically in the last two decades. And the ability to operate in Aimed fire as well as carry both more ammo for the same load and I think a lighter SAW makes alot of logical sense.
            the M249 was introduced in 1984 based off a design from 1974. part of the Reason the Marines were dissatisfied with there M249’s was they had aged poorly with poor quality spot welds to boot. When Barrett introduced there M240LW, They produced a 21 pound version of the M240 shaving 6 pounds off the M240B with out using titanium just by updating the manufacturing. turning a receiver made from 64 parts down to 2. Here we have evedence that the same could be done to the M249. Even if you don’t use the CT Ammo even if you keep existing brass or go with conventional Polymer ammo types dropping the weight of the loaded M249 from 22 pounds to 16 pounds or less would be a major improvement for the Saw gunner and his Squad.

          • valorius

            The SAW is not designed for precision aimed fire, though it is capable of it. It’s designed with a built in beaten zone for area suppression fire.

            Dammit….i just accidentally deleted the rest of my post. LOL, i’ll retype it later.

          • LCON

            I get that, but which is easier to fire from the shoulder a 22 pound M249 or a 15 pound Stoner A1?even if it’s suppressive this is not a Rambo movie were talking about nor is it a mounted MG. The Marines Mad a odd choice moving to the M27 The Army is trying to get the reduced weight but keep the suppressive fire well still dealing with the fact that in the triple digits of Iraq troops became armored turtles with guns well in the high mountains of Afghanistan Infantry normally attached to vehicles and armor were marching across terrain that destroyed boots and left there heavy gear dragging them down. Add to this that like it or not Female infantry is coming and it seems reducing the load is a fact of life.

          • Uniform223

            “Add to this that like it or not Female infantry is coming”

            I have no problem with women being on infantry or combat arms units, women have served in combat before. I only ask that the standards not be reduced. Recently 8 out of 16 women (the first to actually be allowed to, attend, and attempt) the US Army’s Ranger school passed its first week called RAP (Ranger Assessment Phase). That only lets them continue on to the other phases and courses of the school. It pretty much general knowledge in the Army that Ranger school has a 50 percent washout/failure rate. I guarantee that IF none of those women make it or even get the coveted Ranger Tab some women’s rights group is going to call foul on the US Army.

          • valorius

            When i was in we were trained to shoulder fire the M60. Obviously though, yes, lighter weight makes it easier. Remember though, we came off the M60, so to us, the SAW was already a light weapon in comparison.

            I cannot for one second fathom a female surviving life in an infantry unit.

          • Uniform223

            I had some trigger time with the USMC’s M27 IAR (HK416) when my last unit did some cross training at Camp Pendleton.

            (this is how I understand it)
            The USMC is not replacing all their SAWs with the M27, the M27 is merely just another weapon in the squad. The complaint was that the SAW was not particularly handy for urban operations like room clearing and its over all size made it cumbersome for those tight quarters. In Afghanistan the weight of the SAW was a point of complaint. The USMC shifted thought on suppressive fire from high volume of fire to more precise fire. This is where the M27 IAR comes in.

            Some Marines I spoke to like it over the M249 but do not see the point in it when they essentially use it the same way they use their M16s. The M27 is definitely lighter and more handy than an M249 in some regards but compared to an M4 and an M16, the thing has some heft to it. I heard someone say the M27IAR is just a modern day BAR.

          • valorius

            Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

            Honestly, in my opinion, a SAW shouldnt be used for clearing rooms at all, it’s proper role in such a scenario is as an overwatch weapon set up on a commanding position outside the building to be cleared.

            If they wanted the ability to have more riflemen, they should have just issued more M4s.

            We are paying for this stupidity with our taxes, so the services can learn unlearn and relearn the same lessons again in 30 year cycles. As if they needed an all new weapon to add a few more riflemen. It’s literally nuts.

            I GUARANTEE in about 10-20 years the USMC will come back and say “we dont have enough light machine gun firepower now.”

            Am i alone in wondering how US GI’s in WWII cleared rooms with big M1’s and BAR’s?

            The continued pandering and sissifying of our troops is not helpful, IMO.

          • Uniform223

            “Am i alone in wondering how US GI’s in WWII cleared rooms with big M1’s and BAR’s?”

            Well they definitely don’t do it the same way we do today. Still before my unit got M4s we trained with the M16. Its possible just not as maneuverable as the M4.

            “Honestly, in my opinion, a SAW shouldnt be used for clearing rooms at all, it’s proper role in such a scenario is as an overwatch weapon set up on a commanding position outside the building to be cleared.”

            When I was in we preferred not to bring the SAW inside but sometimes its just “laudy daudy everyboady get inside”. During MOUT when we occupied structures we brought them inside, extra security and put them up top for over watch during movement.

            ‘If they wanted the ability to have more riflemen, they should have just issued more M4s”

            Hooah. I remember a little while back watching a video where Larry Vickers was talking about the M27 IAR (HK416) and compared it to the M16A4 and M249. Not to doubt the man and his experience and over all knowledge but if they really wanted to a level “playing field”, they should have had the M16A4 with a grip-pod. Soldiers and Marines have had them for years so in my own opinion it seemed slightly unfair and skewed to favor the M27IAR in the video.

          • valorius

            The M27 is IMO literally a perfect example of an unnecessary pentagon weapons program.

            I’m not sure what MOUT tactics were in WWII for US forces, but they obviously used them all the way across Europe to great effect.

          • Uniform223

            Ounces equals pounds and pounds equals pain.

          • valorius

            I used to hump an M60 bro. Believe me, I know. 🙂

            At a certain point though, the weight is needed for a useful and controllable weapon.

          • valorius

            Pain makes boys into men. 😉

          • Uniform223

            “Pain makes boys into men”.
            Men with bad knees and back with a sprinkling of premature arthritis at the age of 30.

            Pain is weakness leaving the body.

          • valorius

            Just wait’ll you’re in your 40s like me. It doesn’t get any better. Degenerative joint disease and arthritis, fun!

  • For the folks complaining about the title, blame the PR staff at the Army News Service. On the plus side, the top photo has some interesting teaser information regarding the 6.5mm and 7.62mm CT rounds, as well as the carbine and MMG being developed for each, respectively.

    • Joshua

      I have no hopes for a carbine. The one AAI has shown as well as Colt Canada are massive. Generally much larger and thicker than the M4.

      The magazines are also much larger due to the increased diameter of the LSAT ammunition.

      Now maybe in 10 years things can change, but right now a LSAT carbine would be a downgrade. LSAT LMG on the other hand is a huge upgrade.

  • Don Ward

    I came for the chance to mention the LSAT program. I stayed for the friendship and comradeship on the comment section!

  • tazman66gt

    Click bait

  • MPWS

    Mixing subjects, huh? As far as LSAT, it has one major issue AFAICT – not suitable for carbine version. Why? Excessively complex with rotating chamber and thus expensive. Either way, issue LMG only of forget about the LSAT project.

    • Giolli Joker

      Rotating chamber is that much more expensive than the current setup?

      • MPWS

        Well, look at mechanism involved, look at seal-off between chamber and barrel. Also, the work envelope is wider – more bulk.
        In conventional mechanism you work in same plane, forth and back; stripping alternately from either stack. Actually, even telescoping shot can be handled that way. Is 12ga auto shotgun any different?

        • tts

          Mechanism function doesn’t necessarily function as a indicator of cost though. Bigger factors will be materials used, CNC mill time, labor, and R&D.

        • Giolli Joker

          Do you have any source of what you mention?
          CTA is designed to have shorter, lighter, simpler weapons.
          And it is stated even in this, very flawed, article.
          It’s not a glorified shotshell.
          You can have the main operation in the same plane though, the main difference? The fresh round can be inserted backward in front of the chamber, pushing back the empty… thats why you rotate the chamber.
          In terms of speed of the cycle, think 2 strokes instead of 4 strokes. As you can realize this means longer barrel in the same OAL.
          Surely nothing is perfect, sealing the gasses ( I guess it’s obtained by a plastic wad) might be troublesome especially with wear, over time, but testing will highlight issues and reduce their occurrence.
          Personally I’ve always seen CTA as the most interesting development for hunting revolvers… and few months ago Daniel E Watters linked a document proving that somebody had my idea decades ago. Now on an X-frame a 6.5mm shot from a 12″ barrel at rifle level speed sounds great to me… as a silenced .300 revolver with 300BLK performance (yes, KAC did already a SRH rifle and GP100 revolver with similar system).

      • MPWS

        One more thing to consider with telescoping shot – bigger diameter. That induces greater circumferential (hoop) stress. to counter it in chamber area you need thicker wall, meaning more weight. No good for use in small arms.

        • tts

          Except the LSAT is lighter than the M249 by quite a bit. A thicker chamber wall might not be too big a deal vs the weight savings gained from lighter ammo and a lighter gun.

          The chamber is only a relatively small portion of the gun and barrel after all.

        • nobody

          If you would have read anything before making this ridiculous comment you would have realized that the LSAT’s polymer cartridges have the same maximum OD as current 5.56x45mm. You are talking about a problem that doesn’t even exist.

          • Joshua

            Actually LSAT in 5.56 is around 30% larger in diameter than a brass cased 5.56.

          • nobody

            Spiral one maybe, the spiral 2 ammunition was only 18% larger and spiral 3 is the same at .38″ max OD.

          • Joshua

            Interesting. I haven’t seen the spiral 3 ammunition, would be a very interesting cartridge if they go turn OD the same.

      • Joshua

        It’s not just cost, which currently LSAT is running around $1.30 a round. The issue is size, due to the chamber design needed to run LSAT you need a large rifle.

        Now this works for a LMG since they are all very large anyways, and you can actually decrease size and weight in a LMG. A carbine however would need to be twice as thick as the M4, and the upper receiver would need to be twice as tall to accommodate a rotating chamber.

        Unless they can find a way to extract the polymer case and not use a push through system a carbine version would be larger than the M4, use magazines that are twice as thick as a M4 magazine, and overall be twice as large as the M4.

        • Giolli Joker

          Vertically traslating chamber?
          Lower position load/eject, upper shoot.

          • Joshua

            That’s actually what they are…or were looking at for the carbine variant, however the one I saw(which was an early prototype) was still very large and in every way almost twice as large as the M4(except length which was about as long as the M4).

          • I’m surprised that they haven’t revisited the breech mechanism from the Steyr ACR.

        • nobody

          They could just have the chamber rotate on a different axis like the HK G11 or slide up and down like most other previous infantry rifle designs that used a push through feed mechanism. Also, I thought that the reason for the magazine being so huge is that they made it quad stack, as the current polymer cased ammo has the same max OD as 5.56x45mm and there’s really no other explanation for why the magazine is so huge.

  • jay

    I thought I’m reading this piece on yahoo news, or mail online and not a firearm blog.

  • kev

    We live in exciting times folks, I really hope the LSAT program takes off. It has alot of potential.

  • Cornelius Carroll

    I wonder how much weight came off the weapon itself and how much weight came from reducing the weight of the ammo.

  • roguetechie

    Not to contradict people on their certainty that the carbine will be too bulky, but at one point they were testing a modified AR pattern rifle retrofitted to use the LSAT CT round. There were a couple pictures available of this modified weapon at the time too, from those angles that hid the naughty bits of course, but one thing that was clear was it actually didn’t add a bunch of weight and they even mentioned that you gained an inch or two of barrel length because of the changes in a given overall length.

    Also most of the objections I’m seeing in the comments section are indicative of the writers assumptions about how the system would be implemented, not hard and fast axioms of firearms physics.

    People complain about the lack of innovation and variety in the firearms world, until someone tries to actually bring something new and innovative to market. Then suddenly the firearms world turns more snippy and gossipy than a combination menopause support group and quilting circle.

    • Joshua

      I have seen the prototype LSAT carbine a few years ago and it was a bulky weapon. Like I said a few inches extra barrel length, but the magazine was thicker than the M4 magazine, and the receivers were about twice the size of the M4.

      • Giolli Joker

        Others have already said that newer prototypes are less cumbersome… I can’t confirm or argue because there’s not much yet online that I can read about it.
        However, prototypes are just prototypes, they serve the purpose of testing the system, they have to be not overly expensive to realize and they don’t need refinements. I’d prefer doing something bulky that allows me to see and understand how everything behaves than shedding all the beef from the beginning and then questioning the reason of a failure.
        Let’s see. Centerfire metallic cartridges took they’re time as well before proving themselves as the best option.

        • Joshua

          Probably. I do know their main design goal is for a upper receiver system that can use the basline M4A1 lower receiver.

          If the accomplish that selling a LSAT carbine will be a piece of cake.

        • valorius

          I am of the opinion that the military should just stick to standard brass cased ammunition until laser rifles are ready, in anywhere from 20-40 years.

          Always trying to reinvent the wheel, is the US military.

      • Jay

        Please do a Google search on the early prototypes of the new Polish carbine. You’ll be shocked how bulky and blocky it looks compared to the final versions.
        That’s because in the early developement, specially when they are trying new concepts, most serious companies first they focus on function. First, the thing has to work as intended and only after that aesthetic and ergonomic aspects are added into the design.
        I’m pretty sure the new versions of the carbine are much slicker, if they did much work on the carbine. The official budgets, allocated to the LSAT project, in the last few years were pretty miserable.

        • Joshua

          Hey I hope they prove me wrong and accomplish a kick ass carbine, or a upper receiver group for the M4 lower. I’ll be the first to buy one.

          • valorius

            They’ll end up cancelling it after they spend millions. Bank on it.

      • LCON

        I think they just relabeled a LMG mock up for that carbine.

  • Lance

    Nothing new another look at LSAT with a new name. Picatinny has been looking at this over 5 years now.

  • Dr Sick

    Can someone explain external firing chamber.

    • Giolli Joker

      The chamber isn’t part of the barrel, think revolver.
      The definition used in the article is far from being the best, however.

      • Dr Sick

        Yeah I get it for a revolver, but in the 249 action there is nothing that can be change to act like a external firing chamber, or it’s a total change of mecanism… ?

        • Giolli Joker

          If you read the other comments you can realize that the article is grossly misleading, that is NOT a M249, it’s the LSAT LMG. 😉

  • forrest1985

    Q- would the LSAT ammo work with 7.62? This in theory would allow troops to use 7.62 without the weight?

    • Giolli Joker

      7.62 is one of the options listed in the panel.
      The system by itself is not caliber related.
      Anyway, the larger the caliber, the wider the shell. If the CTA will ever replace the standard issue ammunition for infantry, the caliber will be more likely in the 5.56 to 6.5mm range, imho.

      • forrest1985

        Big fan of the 6.5! I was just wondering if the plastic casings solved the old weight vs capacity argument in 5.56 v 7.62 but as you said 7.62 has wider casing.

      • roguetechie

        The diameter situation is being way overblown in my opinion, but I think using the 7.62 NATO projectile would be a tremendous waste of the potential present in the system.

        Honestly if I had it my way I’d probably go VLD 85-100 grain 5.56 for the individual weapon, and do a 7mm VLD LMG that replaces both 249&240 for dismounts and an 8mm VLD for static, coaxial, RWS, ring mount, and specialized long range use.
        (the 8mm I’d want to have similar muzzle energy to Swedish 8×63 kulspruta)

        Especially in the 5.56 & 7 mm guns I’d want to focus heavily on high MV, Which combined with the great BC & SD should be able to give you short time of flight and pretty long mean point blank range. Those two attributes will help mitigate the two largest sources of low hit probability in combat, those being range estimation errors and failure to adequately lead moving targets!

        Also for shots beyond 300 meters the velocity retention and ability to buck wind should allow more likelihood of successful engagement even when engaging fleeting targets. And for your gunners with the 7mm weapons you should have very respectable tracer burnout distance, while your designated marksmen would actually have a prayer of putting effective counter fire into pkm toting guerrillas trying to slow the team down with potentially deadly harassing fire! (also your foot patrols could have as many as 3 weapons in 7mm per squad including 1 DMR & 2 belt fed weapons meaning even if you don’t hit the dragunov Enfield or pkm guys they’ll definitely needs a change of pyjama bottoms LOL)

  • Alex Nicolin

    Uncharacteristically weak article for this blog. The LSAT program has been ongoing for at least 10 years and the first prototypes were field tested 3 years ago. Furthermore, the gun is only cosmetically similar to the M249 (FN Minimi) machine-gun. The inner working are totally different.

  • The woman in the photo is ARDEC project management engineer Kori (Spiegel) Phillips. LSAT has been her baby for nearly a decade.

    • Giolli Joker

      You officially scare me. 🙂

  • USMC03Vet

    “Reduced weight” = carry more ammo

    #JustMilitaryThings

    • Fegelein

      Command Logic:

      Saved 4 pounds in rifle weight? Add 7 pounds in ammunition!
      Made ruck 2 pounds lighter? Add 5 more pounds of kit!
      Lighten body armor by 20 pounds? Add 35 more pounds of plates!
      Invented ultraportable anything: Use freed space to carry 4 more cumbersome items!
      Converted rifle into lightweight carbine? Coat it in heavy rails and gagets!
      Introduced lightweight modular LBE? Make everyone hang 6 more stuff on it!

  • John

    The solution here is going to be labor- and time-consuming to arrive at, but I think we’re looking at eventually replacing brass-cased bullets with plastic casings instead.

    That’s where the real significant weight savings happen.

  • mrdakka

    Simplify and add lightness

  • Looks like you forgot your hyperlink, there, Nick.

    • Giolli Joker

      Could you patch up a more comprehensive review of the current status of LSAT and CTA developments in a more TFB worthy article?
      The topic is extremely interesting and possibly the dawn of the future of small arms…

      • Kori Phillips will be giving a presentation on the program’s current status at the NDIA’s 2015 Armament Small Arms Forum in a few weeks. The NDIA and DTIC will post most of the forum’s PowerPoint presentations online after a month or so.

        • Joshua

          Looking forward to this.

    • nadnerbus

      I thought it seemed a little… bare.

  • LCON

    “To achieve this impressive weight loss, they did not use exotic materials. Rather they removed material where they could and detaching the firing chamber from the barrel. Having an external firing chamber reduces the heat so the gun runs cooler and prevents rounds from cooking off. ”

    So basically They did to the FN minimi what Barrett did to the FN MAG ( Barrett Rifle M240LW) then loaded it with cased telescoped ammo. I wonder what the loaded weight would be with conventional ammo vs CT

    • mig1nc

      Well, CT ammo itself is much lighter than conventional ammo, so when you factor in the weight of the ammo belt I’m sure the difference would be much more substantial.

      • LCON

        found an older article on gear scout gave a weight of a 100 pound belt of CT as being 2 pounds, last Article I read on LSAT called for a 150 round belt so with a 9.2 pound dry weight minus optic and other goodies it would be about 11 pounds but because M249 uses 200 round boxes for 22 pounds the CT LMG would be if loaded with a 200 round load 12 pounds.

        of course if you really want a lead hard on, 575 rounds of Ct ammo 11.25 pounds. ( not counting weapon so if we round it lets say 21 pounds) That’s actually lighter then the Tyr tactical Mico High capacity ammo carrier that load would fit into.

  • jay

    Now, can you get a full picture of that panel in the background. There’s a lot of new info there that we may like to read.

    • mig1nc

      Yeah, my eyes aren’t as good as they used to be, but so far I can see topics like 6.5 CT low drag projectile and CT carbine. I would really like to read more on that.

  • MisterTheory

    This article doesn’t really tell me anything.

  • Joshua

    Like I said, I saw prototypes. Looks like the carbine has changed since, which is excellent news.

  • Jackie Moskol

    I keep hearing from several recently deactive bros that they’ve actually been seeing a surge of modified SAWs being re-issued to SOF etc. Something about parts commonality issues with FN’s Mk 46/48s being not as easy in-theater as the SAWs. I saw pics of friends out there in Af/Pak AO with cut down 249s and same with a small handful of advisory fellas in N. Iraq (doing FID vs ISIL with Kurd SOF) w/ nearly all their LMGs being 249s and nearly no Mk 46s visible.