Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 156

Thread: Marines choose H&K to make SAW replacement

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0

    Marines choose H&K to make SAW replacement

    Now we know

    Well that didnt take long at all

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...e_IAR_120209w/




    Corps chooses H&K to make SAW replacement
    By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
    Posted : Wednesday Dec 2, 2009 13:14:12 EST
    The Marine Corps has selected the infantry automatic rifle made by Heckler & Koch as the weapon that will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in infantry fire teams, a senior service official told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday.

    The H&K IAR “was truly the best in the class on multiple levels and will finally allow the billet of automatic rifleman to be performed as intended without the disruption of the squad integrity that the M249 created,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner, said in an e-mail.

    The final contract competition also included two models from Colt Defense LLC and one model from FN Herstal.

    Like the SAW, each IAR finalist is built for 5.56mm ammunition. Unlike the SAW, they are not designed to operate with a 200-round drum, a point of contention for some Marines concerned about a loss of firepower. The IAR is designed to use the same 30-round magazine used with the M16, although industry, including FN Herstal, is also developing high-capacity 5.56mm magazines for the weapon that could hold 100 or 150 rounds.

    The H&K IAR is the lightest of the four weapons the Corps tested this summer, after selecting finalists for the competition in December 2008. It weighs 7.9 pounds empty, with a barrel length of 16.5 inches and a collapsible stock that extends from 33 to 36.9 inches, company officials have said. It has a gas-operated system and fires from the closed-bolt position.

    Marine Corps Systems Command, based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., had not announced the winner of the IAR competition as of Wednesday morning. SysCom officials said in September that they expected a decision on the IAR to be made in October, but have declined interviews since. Eby, who oversees the Corps’ infantry weapons experts, said he has known who won the contract for about a month, but referred questions about why it has not been announced to SysCom.

    A formal protest was filed with the Government Accountability Office by FN Herstal to a Marine contract decision on Oct. 30 and updated on Nov. 23, but GAO officials declined to discuss whether the protest was related to the IAR decision. Colt currently has no contract protests filed with GAO.

    Eby said initial operational testing is scheduled to take place from January to May in locations ranging from Panama to the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center and Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center in California.

    “If successful and awarded full-rate production approval, then we should see initial operational capability by late summer 2010,” Eby said.

    Company officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

    For more information, see next week’s Marine Corps Times.

    RELATED READING
    • High-capacity magazine may signal demise of SAW

    • Corps to reveal SAW replacement in October

    • Marines to test, evaluate 4 auto-rifle models
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    809
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Cool.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,331
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Rock on.
    "Life is short, but the years are long." - Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    752
    Feedback Score
    0
    What makes this different than an issued M4 besides length? I'm a bit confused here. Yes, the SAW was an intermediate weapon, but at least is was built a little heavier to achieve a higher sustained rate of fire. I don't see this HK as anything more than an AR. What am I missing?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,921
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I like the fact that the SAW is being replaced in the automatic rifle role. It was always a light machinegun to me and never an automatic rifle.

    I am not impressed however with the fact that it fires from a closed bolt. Cook-offs are a real issue in an automatic rifle and this one modification can fix it.

    I am curious to see this high cap magazine and how reliable it will be. I think that's going to make or break this thing. 30 rounds in an automatic rifle just isn't enough to get the sustained suppressive fire that is needed from that type of weapon system. I couldn't imagine running a battle drill 1A with ARs that only have 30 rounds available before reload.
    Last edited by decodeddiesel; 12-03-09 at 14:55.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    752
    Feedback Score
    0
    How prevalent are "cook offs?" I have never observed one and we used to push the M60E3s (open, yes) quite hard, back in the day.
    Last edited by gtmtnbiker98; 12-02-09 at 13:15.

  7. #7
    ToddG Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98 View Post
    What makes this different than an issued M4 besides length? I'm a bit confused here. Yes, the SAW was an intermediate weapon, but at least is was built a little heavier to achieve a higher sustained rate of fire. I don't see this HK as anything more than an AR. What am I missing?
    I got to speak to HK about this a while back when they were first informed they'd won. (I told you guys there would be some cool 416 news coming!)

    Basically, the 416 as-is was capable of maintaining the IAR sustained rate of fire without cooking off, and was able to achieve the requested service life without needing a heavier barrel, etc.

    Perhaps the better question to ask is, if a 416 can do everything the Corps wants from an IAR in the size/weight of an M4, why not just give the whole squad IARs?
    Last edited by ToddG; 12-02-09 at 13:14.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    All over NC
    Posts
    283
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    They should of went with the LWRC IAR, fires from both open and closed bolt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    752
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    I got to speak to HK about this a while back when they were first informed they'd won. (I told you guys there would be some cool 416 news coming!)

    Basically, the 416 as-is was capable of maintaining the IAR sustained rate of fire without cooking off, and was able to achieve the requested service life without needing a heavier barrel, etc.

    Perhaps the better question to ask is, if a 416 can do everything the Corps wants from an IAR in the size/weight of an M4, why not just give the whole squad IARs?
    That was leading up to my point, I don't see much of a capabilities difference.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,921
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98 View Post
    How prevalent are "cook offs?" I have never observed one and we used to push the M60E3s (open, yes) quite hard, back in the day.
    I have seen an M4 cook off after a fire fight more than a few times. This is obviously an example of a closed bolt system being pushed beyond it's max recommended rate of fire.

    I have seen an M249 (yes, open bolt and all) do it after some hellacious strings of fire in training.

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •