M27 on Tac-TV last night!

[mastiffhound]

I was impressed by the M27 last night on Tac-TV. Thanks for the review Mr. Vickers! It was more accurate in Mr. Vickers hands than either the M16A4 or the SAW. The only thing that seemed to suck was having to reload alot more with the high fire rate when compared to the SAW. I wonder if the Marines will get a larger capacity magazine for use with the M27? I also couldn't really tell what profile the barrel had? It didn't look heavy, I thought that with such a high fire rate it would be a heavy barrel, but it might actually be I just couldn't tell.

Does anyone else on here have any experience with it? I found it interesting that it had a 16" barrel? I don't see alot of posts about H&K on here that they are either good or bad? I was thinking for my next rifle about getting one but I would like some firsthand experience from someone who has used it or the MR556A1(what us lowly civi's can get). Again, thank you for the review Mr. Vickers. I also loved the factory tour at Mauser and the Daniel Defense torture tests(most recent and 1st). I hope your show lasts a long time as it more informative than the salesman show that Guns and Ammo and most other shows are.

[glock_40_caliber]

I have to take "accuracy tests" that depend on firing without having the firearm locked in a rest with a grain of salt. Especially when the manufacturer of the firearm is a sponsor or otherwise has a compensatory relationship with the person doing the testing. I am not saying that there was anything intentionally misleading in this demonstration, but the potential is certainly there. Have you read more than one negative firearm review in a gun magazine? I haven't. Probably one reason I do not read very many of them. I also tend to believe what I see on television almost as much as I do what I read on the internet. YMMV.

[R0N]

The M27 is one of more accurate weapons in the Marine Corps infantry battalion, it meet the requirements laid out for the Mk12 in terms of accuracy.

[jstone]

The impression i get from Larry vickers is that his integrity is more important than making his sponsors happy. While there is a chance the groups were mis represented, but if he did this for this show i would think it would be a theme. When he did the mile shot the show would have him hitting in a couple shots. When it took most or the 30min show.

I do not know Mr vickers at all, but i would not question his integrity. Im sure that maintaining the reputation he has built is far more important than how accurate the IAR is. Last time i saw the show hk was not even a sponsor.

[Failure2Stop]

I am going to put this in right now:
Larry Vickers is beyond question as far as integrity.
I wholly put my own reputation on this endorsement.
I might not completely agree with every single thing he has ever said, but I believe that he is/was working off of his best knowledge and extensive experience on anything he says or claims.

[Arctic1]

@mastiffhound:

There is a big HK416 thread here, with some good discussion:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92876

The M27 is basically the same as our HK416N, so some of the info I have given in the above thread (from page 4) can be relevant, although we use it as a general issue carbine, not as an automatic rifle.

[LRB45]

I saw the show the other night, first time really, and thought it was a pretty good show.

They should have shot the HK from the bipod and then used the mag as a monopod like the M16 was fired. That would have been only fair.

[Land Shark]

Was this show that the OP mentions a previously aired show from last year?

Thanks

[1371USMCFL]

I saw the show the other night, first time really, and thought it was a pretty good show.

They should have shot the HK from the bipod and then used the mag as a monopod like the M16 was fired. That would have been only fair.

Having seen an issued M27 fired side by side to an issued M16A4, the M27 is a hands down better weapon platform. The only serious drawback is the lack of compariative capacity to the belt fed SAW. This problem could be alleviated with using the 60 round Surefire mag, but not the cure-all.

Having talked with Infantry course instructors (both Os and Es), the key thing is fire discipline has to be ingrained into the Marines carrying M27s.

[sinlessorrow]

Comparing the accuracy of the M16A4 in burst while rested on the mag to the M27 fired in bursts using a good bipod is not a fair comparison.

While the episode is good and Larry is a wealth of knowledge I found the test biased. When doing accuracy tests anyone will tell you to remove as much of the human error as possible. Adding more human error and less stability to one gun is not a fair comparison.

I would have liked to see both the A4 and the M27 tested with a bipod and a magazine rest to see the accuracy in a fair comparison. Its pretty much a given that a gun will be less accurate when firing bursts when rested on the magazine vs locked down in a bipod.

[whick1]

one think i did not like about the Civilian version of the HK 416 that was on last week is the lack of a chrome lined barrel. We saw what issues we had with the 1st M16s in Vietnam with one of the main issues beign lack of a chrome lined barrel.

I find it amazing that a company who makes such great weapons as HK does would not chrome line the barrel of the 556a1

[Failure2Stop]

Comparing the accuracy of the M16A4 in burst while rested on the mag to the M27 fired in bursts using a good bipod is not a fair comparison.

While the episode is good and Larry is a wealth of knowledge I found the test biased. When doing accuracy tests anyone will tell you to remove as much of the human error as possible. Adding more human error and less stability to one gun is not a fair comparison.

I would have liked to see both the A4 and the M27 tested with a bipod and a magazine rest to see the accuracy in a fair comparison. Its pretty much a given that a gun will be less accurate when firing bursts when rested on the magazine vs locked down in a bipod.

I think that the demo was a fair comparison as far as what the dude in the field will be able to do with issued weapons in their issued configurations.

[sinlessorrow]

I think that the demo was a fair comparison as far as what the dude in the field will be able to do with issued weapons in their issued configurations.

I agree with you on that part given how each come issued and thats what was trying to be showed, but I was just pointing out that in order to draw a true decision on which is more accurate they must both be fired in the same manner meaning both rested on a bipod or magazine.

Thoughfor the purpose Larry was showing(which is more accurate with the gear your issued) it worked well given the M27 is issued with a bipod and a FF rail.

[7.62WildBill]

Excellent episode. Informative and entertaining as usual. I think he skipped the bipod on the M16A4 since it is not issued with one.

And echoing jstone and Failure2Stop, LAV is the one of last people who's integrity I would ever question.

[R0N]

I think that the demo was a fair comparison as far as what the dude in the field will be able to do with issued weapons in their issued configurations.

I cannot remember since I saw it last year when it first came out, but did they fire it off the issue grip pod?

[sinlessorrow]

I cannot remember since I saw it last year when it first came out, but did they fire it off the issue grip pod?

Harris bipod I believe. Could have been a different brand of bipod though.

[ryr8828]

Was this show that the OP mentions a previously aired show from last year?

Thanks

I had to trace down it's next airing because my dvr lost all my scheduled recording info. The guide said that Monday was the first time it's aired so it was a new show.

[MistWolf]

I have to take "accuracy tests" that depend on firing without having the firearm locked in a rest with a grain of salt...

...When doing accuracy tests anyone will tell you to remove as much of the human error as possible...

I think that the demo was a fair comparison as far as what the dude in the field will be able to do with issued weapons in their issued configurations.

F2S is correct. Using a rest and eliminating the human factor only tests the mechanical accuracy of a rifle. For use in the field under dynamic conditions, how how accurate the shooter is with the rifle is more important. An extreme example is a rail gun. It's mechanical accuracy is phenomenal but it's practical accuracy in the field leaves a whole lot to be desired. A good number of members of this site spend quite a bit of money, time and effort to ensure their ARs are as accurate in field use as possible, without expending a dime to improve mechanical accuracy. To borrow an M4ism, that is what is called a "clue"

[sinlessorrow]

F2S is correct. Using a rest and eliminating the human factor only tests the mechanical accuracy of a rifle. For use in the field under dynamic conditions, how how accurate the shooter is with the rifle is more important. An extreme example is a rail gun. It's mechanical accuracy is phenomenal but it's practical accuracy in the field leaves a whole lot to be desired. A good number of members of this site spend quite a bit of money, time and effort to ensure their ARs are as accurate in field use as possible, without expending a dime to improve mechanical accuracy. To borrow an M4ism, that is what is called a "clue"

While true, they did compare a mag rested rifle to a bipod rested rifle. While that is a test of how they are issued its still an apples to oranges comparison.

Apples to apples would be both magazine rested and both bipod rested. However I do understand why the test was performed in the manner it was even if I personally consider it to be less than an even comparison.

[Arctic1]

What was the difference in accuracy?

[sinlessorrow]

What was the difference in accuracy?

Can't remember honestly, I would have to rewatch it. I do remember you could tell the that the mag resting of the A4 caused a rocking motion affecting accuracy. The M27 had very good accuracy as well. I'll have to rewatch it and see what the A4 did.

Just checked Artic the A4 was 15.5" at 50yrds.

[Ryno12]

What was the difference in accuracy?

Just going off of memory, it was something like:
M16A4=17"
SAW=15"
M27=11"

3/3 round burst @ 50yds. Other than the M16, the others shot 10 rounds.

Again, this is just off of memory. I could be off a bit.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[sinlessorrow]

Just going off of memory, it was something like:
M16A4=17"
SAW=15"
M27=11"

3/3 round burst @ 50yds. Other than the M16, the others shot 10 rounds.

Again, this is just off of memory. I could be off a bit.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

M16A4 = 15.5"
M249 = 17"
M27 IAR = 9.5"

The M249 had 1 flier and their was 1 shot on the A4 that went way left opening the groups up by a lot for both of those rifles, the M27 seemed to shoot true for all 3 bursts.

Before the way left shot the A4 was 10"
Before the flyer the M249 was 11"
From what I could tell the M27 shot true for all 10 shots.

Ya'll owe me for watching that video on my phone without wifi lol. Took me forever to get this finished.

[R0N]

Test done by the Marines a few years back showed the M27 hovered around 3" CEP at 300 meters and the M16A4 around 5.5

[sinlessorrow]

Test done by the Marines a few years back showed the M27 hovered around 3" CEP at 300 meters and the M16A4 around 5.5

Bipod on both?

[Ryno12]

M16A4 = 15.5"
M249 = 17"
M27 IAR = 9.5"

The M249 had 1 flier and their was 1 shot on the A4 that went way left opening the groups up by a lot for both of those rifles, the M27 seemed to shoot true for all 3 bursts.

Before the way left shot the A4 was 10"
Before the flyer the M249 was 11"
From what I could tell the M27 shot true for all 10 shots.

Ya'll owe me for watching that video on my phone without wifi lol. Took me forever to get this finished.

Yeah, my memory is not so good. Thanks. :D

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[Talon167]

What channel is this on? I know I don't get it, but I might be able to watch old episodes on their website or something...?

[Ryno12]

What channel is this on? I know I don't get it, but I might be able to watch old episodes on their website or something...?

I watch it on the Sportsman Channel

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[sinlessorrow]

What channel is this on? I know I don't get it, but I might be able to watch old episodes on their website or something...?

Im a paid subscriber to tac-tv.com so i can watch them whenever.

[Failure2Stop]

Bipod on both?

I don't know what test specifically R0N is referring to, but the test I know of, with similar result, was from a fixture.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[sinlessorrow]

I don't know what test specifically R0N is referring to, but the test I know of, with similar result, was from a fixture.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Fixture is even better.

[R0CKETMAN]

I had to trace down it's next airing because my dvr lost all my scheduled recording info. The guide said that Monday was the first time it's aired so it was a new show.

The episode you're thinking of was shot at the same range in NC, but with 416 and different HK rep on site.

[Arctic1]

I think it is poor form to say that the test was rigged, or biased, just because the M27 was fired from a bipod.

Mr Vickers even prefaces the test by saying that both the M249 and M27 fires from a bipod, clearly stating that it should give both weapons an advantage over the M16A4.

That statement leads me to believe, like F2S alluded to, that they were tested as issued.

[sinlessorrow]

I think it is poor form to say that the test was rigged, or biased, just because the M27 was fired from a bipod.

Mr Vickers even prefaces the test by saying that both the M249 and M27 fires from a bipod, clearly stating that it should give both weapons an advantage over the M16A4.

That statement leads me to believe, like F2S alluded to, that they were tested as issued.

Which is why I said in two different posts I understand why he did what he did.

And I said IMO, the whole in my opinion is the biggest part since we all have opinions...IMO it was not an apples to apples comparison.

I never said it was rigged, I just said the test was setup to give the M27 and M249 an advantage...but I do undertand why the test was done the way it was since the M16 is not issued with a bipod. I was just stating my opinion and not everyone has to agree with it.

[montrala]

That statement leads me to believe, like F2S alluded to, that they were tested as issued.

I think that it was a point of this test - to shoot every weapon in "as issued" configuration. At least this is what I assumed from LAV comments in part of this test, that I could see for free on Tac-TV YT channel.

[train of abuses]

Especially when the manufacturer of the firearm is a sponsor or otherwise has a compensatory relationship with the person doing the testing.

Yet LAV has also said the HK417 is too heavy to even consider as a rifle compared to something like the PredatAR or SCAR, that Glocks are really only reliable and worth buying in 9 mm (and 10mm) and to avoid the 4th gen models for the time being, and that the PPQ has a better trigger than any other polymer handgun.

All of those statements run contrary to what the sponsors would want him to say, so your idea that he does stuff based upon the influence of sponsors is factually incorrect.

[Ed L.]

one think i did not like about the Civilian version of the HK 416 that was on last week is the lack of a chrome lined barrel. We saw what issues we had with the 1st M16s in Vietnam with one of the main issues beign lack of a chrome lined barrel.

I find it amazing that a company who makes such great weapons as HK does would not chrome line the barrel of the 556a1

The Civilian version of the HK416 is known as the MR556 in the US and MR223 in Europe. The MR in the that designation stands for Match Rifle. It is designed as such to get around German arms restrictions with regard to exports and sales to civilians. As such there are changes over the military version--such as a non chrome-lined barrel to maximize accuracy and a heavier match barrel.

The HK416 which is designed for military use has a chromelined barrel; the MR223s and MR556 which are designed for civilian use do not.

Still, HK has used different steels in their barrels. I'm not sure some of their other Military longarms came without chome lining.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I'm not sure some of their other Military longarms came without chome lining.

Don't quote me on this or anything, as Steyr, or somebody would know better. But I think early G3s might not have.

[Hunter Rose]

Still, HK has used different steels in their barrels. I'm not sure some of their other Military longarms came without chome lining.

The G-3/HK91 and HK33/HK93 both had non-lined barrels, and they seem to stand up to abuse pretty well. Can't recall seeing reports on poor barrel life/performance from these rifles. A former HK employee on HKPro.com has stated that the early HK MG4 barrels were not chrome lined either, and stood up fine to full auto endurance testing.

HK uses very high quality steel alloy for their barrels and, personally, I think its an overblown issue for a semi-auto civilian rifle like the MR556.

[sinlessorrow]

The G-3/HK91 and HK33/HK93 both had non-lined barrels, and they seem to stand up to abuse pretty well. Can't recall seeing reports on poor barrel life/performance from these rifles. A former HK employee on HKPro.com has stated that the early HK MG4 barrels were not chrome lined either, and stood up fine to full auto endurance testing.

HK uses very high quality steel alloy for their barrels and, personally, I think its an overblown issue for a semi-auto civilian rifle like the MR556.

I fear rust living near the coast in SE Texas far more than I do barrel wear.

[Hunter Rose]

I fear rust living near the coast in SE Texas far more than I do barrel wear.

I live in Louisiana and do not. My HK barrels do not seem to be very rust prone. Haven't seen any in my HK91, HK93, or MR556 and I am, how do you say, less than compulsive about cleaning rifles.

Not saying HK barrels can't rust or are impervious to wear, but I think even in their unlined condition HK barrels are decently rust resistant.

Montrala may be along shortly. He's had some first hand experience with an MR223 in a damp basement where the HK was fine while another AR showed rust. Not all steel is created equal, and different alloys will have different rusting properties.

[sinlessorrow]

I live in Louisiana and do not. My HK barrels do not seem to be very rust prone. Haven't seen any in my HK91, HK93, or MR556 and I am, how do you say, less than compulsive about cleaning rifles.

Not saying HK barrels can't rust or are impervious to wear, but I think even in their unlined condition HK barrels are decently rust resistant.

Montrala may be along shortly. He's had some first hand experience with an MR223 in a damp basement where the HK was fine while another AR showed rust. Not all steel is created equal, and different alloys will have different rusting properties.

Its more of a salt on the coat combined with 80%+ humidity 6 days a week thing. I have had rust form on my SSA overnight because I was testing froglube and it did not spread to the trigger, I have also had numerous things rust overnight if they do not have a coat of lubricant and are properly cleaned. CL at least protects the bore from this issue.

[CRAMBONE]

Having seen an issued M27 fired side by side to an issued M16A4, the M27 is a hands down better weapon platform. The only serious drawback is the lack of compariative capacity to the belt fed SAW. This problem could be alleviated with using the 60 round Surefire mag, but not the cure-all.

Having talked with Infantry course instructors (both Os and Es), the key thing is fire discipline has to be ingrained into the Marines carrying M27s.

I think that will be the key to having this platform succeed in the Marine Corps as a SAW. A auto rifleman doesn't have the 100-200 rd belt to do 8-12 rd burst with. I like the IAR idea, but think we would have been better served lightening a 240 to ala PKM. I also think that as long as the IAR is supplementing the 249 and not replacing we are good. It would be awesome if commanders had to option to tell their auto riflemen when they were carrying a M27 and when the threat dictacted a 249. I just feel that too many other countries have tried the auto-rifle idea and found it lacking.

Although when word first came out about these my fellow squad leaders and I thought it would be awesome to have an entire squad armed with IARs.

[KG_mauserman]

I don't doubt its an accurate weapon, but I do doubt that it can provide the base of fire that an M249 can. How are these integrated into a Marine infantry squad? How many SAW's will be left in the squad?
If all targets were point targets I'd be fully on board with this but it was my experience that many if not most targets were area targets. Volume of fire trumps accuracy when it comes to these types of targets. I'd like to see how well the M27 does at supressing a treeline or multistory house compared to a SAW.
I don't see what this system offers over a standard M4/16 other than a bit more accuracy. It seems to me that they are turning the automatic rifleman into a designated marksman with a happy switch. From what I've read the M27 is a fine weapon. I just question its application as an Automatic Rifle.

[Auto426]

I'm not military and I don't spend nearly as much time studying these things as some, but here goes nothing.


I don't doubt its an accurate weapon, but I do doubt that it can provide the base of fire that an M249 can. How are these integrated into a Marine infantry squad? How many SAW's will be left in the squad?

FWIW, taken from Wikipedia:


The IAR will be distributed one per four-man fireteam, three per squad, 28 per company, 84 per infantry battalion, and 72 per Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion,[18] with 4,476 total for the Marine Corps. Nine M249s will still be available per company in reserve.

It's not completely replacing the M249, but it seems Marines will see a lot more M27's now than M249's.


I don't see what this system offers over a standard M4/16 other than a bit more accuracy. It seems to me that they are turning the automatic rifleman into a designated marksman with a happy switch.

I think it's more about what it offers over an M249, which would be increased reliability, accuracy, and decreased weight. Though these benefits do come at the cost of a reduction in sustained fire capability. I think another plus is that the entire ammunition load for a squad is now housed in STANAG magazines giving any member quick access to to the total sum of rounds if need be.

[sinlessorrow]

I think that will be the key to having this platform succeed in the Marine Corps as a SAW. A auto rifleman doesn't have the 100-200 rd belt to do 8-12 rd burst with. I like the IAR idea, but think we would have been better served lightening a 240 to ala PKM. I also think that as long as the IAR is supplementing the 249 and not replacing we are good. It would be awesome if commanders had to option to tell their auto riflemen when they were carrying a M27 and when the threat dictacted a 249. I just feel that too many other countries have tried the auto-rifle idea and found it lacking.

Although when word first came out about these my fellow squad leaders and I thought it would be awesome to have an entire squad armed with IARs.

R0N stated it was looked st but would cost far to much and take far to long.

[KG_mauserman]

I'm not military and I don't spend nearly as much time studying these things as some, but here goes nothing.



FWIW, taken from Wikipedia:



It's not completely replacing the M249, but it seems Marines will see a lot more M27's now than M249's.



I think it's more about what it offers over an M249, which would be increased reliability, accuracy, and decreased weight. Though these benefits do come at the cost of a reduction in sustained fire capability. I think another plus is that the entire ammunition load for a squad is now housed in STANAG magazines giving any member quick access to to the total sum of rounds if need be.

Let me ask you a question...


If you were part of the assault element which would you want in the support by fire possition?

Again I'm not saying the M27 isn't a great rifle, but thats all it really is.

[Arctic1]

Accuracy trumps volume of fire any day. Suppression is the result of accurate fire, not volume. Sure, belt fed machinguns (LMGs, MMGs) are a lot better at providing sustained fire, and will have an advantage over a magazine fed rifle when it comes to utilizing traversing fires.

Also, the M27 IAR is not meant to be employed as a SAW. It is not designed or meant to replace it. As far as I understand, the IAR came about due to a capacity gap/deficiency in the Marine infantry squad when conducting MOUT missions; the SAW gunner was slower during movement, as well as having difficulties in performing MOUT tasks (room clearing etc) as a result of the SAW being a bit unwieldy.

Each company is supposed to keep a certain amount of SAWs at the company level (I think), the thought being that you can task organize your unit based on METT-TC, using the gear best suited for the mission at hand. Don't the Marines have MMGs as well? M240s? Weapons squads?

The M27 IAR fills a specific need, it's not a 1:1 replacement for the SAW.

[Failure2Stop]

Arguing about whether or not the M27 is a fitting replacement to the M249 is like shaking your fist at the clouds.
It has been tried, tested, proven, and found superior for purpose.

The IAR conversations have been going on for years, and a whole lot of crow has been consumed since then. Argue it all you want, but this isn't the thread for it.

[Auto426]

Let me ask you a question...


If you were part of the assault element which would you want in the support by fire possition?

Again I'm not saying the M27 isn't a great rifle, but thats all it really is.

Well as I said before I am not military and have no experience in these matters. However, if the M27 were used in conjunction with magazines like Surefire's 60 rouder or a similar higher than normal capcity mag (which I believe is already being looked into), I don't think most would see a dramatic difference that would impact the outcome of the mission.

I do find it somewhat funny that the Marines are just now moving towards something that the Soviets started over 40 years ago. The M27 is analogous to the RPK that has been serving the SAW role since the 1960's.

[KG_mauserman]

Arguing about whether or not the M27 is a fitting replacement to the M249 is like shaking your fist at the clouds.
It has been tried, tested, proven, and found superior for purpose.

The IAR conversations have been going on for years, and a whole lot of crow has been consumed since then. Argue it all you want, but this isn't the thread for it.

Roger that.

I wont clutter this thread up with my views on the M27. I will gladly respond offline in a friendly manner to anyone who sees things in a different light.

[montrala]

Montrala may be along shortly. He's had some first hand experience with an MR223 in a damp basement where the HK was fine while another AR showed rust. Not all steel is created equal, and different alloys will have different rusting properties.

Somebody called my name? OK.

My brand new Stag (I know, I know, but 7 years ago it was only AR15 available in Poland and it never let me down) started to show external rust spots on barrel after as short as 3 weeks in my gun safe.

My HK MR223 with unlined barrel did not show any external or internal rust traces in 3 years (second one only spend a year there), but when I installed JP/Cooley brake, it started to show rust after a week. PWS FSC91 lasted longer before first symptoms, like 2 or 3 months. After this 3 years in humid basement (area is ex-swamp, 1/2 mile to Vistula river - we have serious problem with it) also other parts of my HK did not show rust. Some photos of internals are HERE (http://montrala.blogspot.com/2011/09/6000-rounds-later-good-bye-mr223.html)

Anyway, while HK does not use "stainless steel" for their barrels, they also do not use plain carbon steel. Metallurgy went a little ahead during this over 100 years since stainless steel was invented. There are lot of low chromium alloys that have great rust resistance while do not have stainless steel downsides. Only problem is that those are "a little" more expensive to supply.

That being said, I would prefer HK to use nitriding on MR barrels, like they do on their pistol barrels and slides. But lack of chrome lining never bothered me. Chrome lining was always just a substitute of using proper materials and proper maintenance (or allow to use cheaper steel and still have decent barrel life). While revolutionary, when for first time in mass production used on Russian Fiedorov Avtomat (and later mandatory to all Red Army small arms) in days of modern alloys, peace-time manufacturing standards, modern surface treatments it is nothing more than a legacy, still there due to legendary stubbornest of military leaders.

I have nice anecdote on this topic. In early '90s, polish firearms supplier (Łucznik aka "oval 11") did extensive tests on using carbon nitriding in place of chrome lining. Test showed that it is superior to CL in most fields and not worse in others. So they approached Army with proposition to change barrel technology. In all their wisdom, our generals (trained in Moscow Military Academy) answered: "OK, you can nitride barrels... then chrome line them as well". Since those nitriding is available on civilian models, while military ones are CL.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Well as I said before I am not military and have no experience in these matters. However, if the M27 were used in conjunction with magazines like Surefire's 60 rouder or a similar higher than normal capcity mag (which I believe is already being looked into), I don't think most would see a dramatic difference that would impact the outcome of the mission.

I do find it somewhat funny that the Marines are just now moving towards something that the Soviets started over 40 years ago. The M27 is analogous to the RPK that has been serving the SAW role since the 1960's.

I just attended a M27 trainer class today, and I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people involved in the Marine Corps weapons procurement program about the rifle. They said that there is no plan for using high capacity magazines like the surefires. The plan at the moment is to have the IAR gunner carry 20 30 round mags to match the standard SAW combat load of 600 rounds. Frankly I think this is stupid, as the added weight and bulk of so many magazines completely negates the weight savings of the lighter rifle, but that's why I'm not in charge.

As far as the weapon itself goes though, I was extremely impressed with the quality and accuracy it was capable of, even with the SDO which isn't exactly made for precision. For once the Marine Corps decided to buy quality stuff, and it shows. The Harris/LaRue bipod is especially nice, as is the vickers sling (obviously).

On the point of SAWs, what I've been told is that they're going to become a company level asset, i.e. they'll be carried by the 31's instead of 11's. It remains to be seen if this actually happens, but its an interesting thought. Another thought I was discussing with a few of my friends at the class is the prospect of using the M27 as a DMR given that its significantly more accurate than our M16A4's.

[sinlessorrow]

I would also like to see the A4 with a FF rail to give it enhanced accuracy. I know most people choose a FF rail for their carbines for a reason, myself included.

Interesting discussion on the M27 even if it has wandered from the OP.

[glock_40_caliber]

Wow. Just wow. Some of you folks need to put a certain individual's jock down and step away from it. If I recall my original post correctly, I stated something to the effect of "I am not saying there was any INTENTIONAL [emphasis added] effort to skew the results, but the possibility does exist." Heck, even switching between my personal weapons that I am quite familiar with back to back will give a skewed demonstration of their accuracy with me on the trigger. And yes, being in a compensatory relationship with a manufacturer can influence a person. Besides, didn't he "help develop" that H&K, or was it a different model?

Perhaps I am ignorant, but what does the m27 do that free-floating and putting full auto into an A4 won't do? Oh, and don't forget the bi-pod when the A4 leaves the depot for reissue. I get wanting to replace the 249 with a lighter weapon. I am not making an argument against it.

[jp0319]

While true, they did compare a mag rested rifle to a bipod rested rifle. While that is a test of how they are issued its still an apples to oranges comparison.

Apples to apples would be both magazine rested and both bipod rested. However I do understand why the test was performed in the manner it was even if I personally consider it to be less than an even comparison.

I have doubts that the M27 is "issued" with a bipod. I'd have to confirm that with a Marine that has been issued the weapon. This caused my skepticism toward some of the accuracy tests. I have never seen a standard infantry weapon (m4, M16) issued with a bipod in the Army or Marines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[R0N]

I would also like to see the A4 with a FF rail to give it enhanced accuracy. I know most people choose a FF rail for their carbines for a reason, myself included.

Interesting discussion on the M27 even if it has wandered from the OP.

Already tested and the M16A4 withfree floated tube cut about an inch off the CEP from the non-free floating, it still showed significantly less inherent accuracy than the M27

The german tapper bore barrel is just an accurate barrel.

[R0N]

I have doubts that the M27 is "issued" with a bipod. I'd have to confirm that with a Marine that has been issued the weapon. This caused my skepticism toward some of the accuracy tests. I have never seen a standard infantry weapon (m4, M16) issued with a bipod in the Army or Marines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It comes with a bipod. Automatic rifles normally come with them, the BAR did (often removed), the M14 varient did and when the M16 was tasked as the fire team automatic rifle it came with a clip on bipod.

[sinlessorrow]

Already tested and the M16A4 withfree floated tube cut about an inch off the CEP from the non-free floating, it still showed significantly less inherent accuracy than the M27

The german tapper bore barrel is just an accurate barrel.

Excellent info R0N thats what I was looking for.

So is the whole M27 made in the US or are parts imported?

[Failure2Stop]

Wow. Just wow. Some of you folks need to put a certain individual's jock down and step away from it. If I recall my original post correctly, I stated something to the effect of "I am not saying there was any INTENTIONAL [emphasis added] effort to skew the results, but the possibility does exist." Heck, even switching between my personal weapons that I am quite familiar with back to back will give a skewed demonstration of their accuracy with me on the trigger. And yes, being in a compensatory relationship with a manufacturer can influence a person. Besides, didn't he "help develop" that H&K, or was it a different model?

If you don't understand why Mr. Vickers has garnered the support and loyalty that he has within the industry, then maybe you need to expand your perception.

He did indeed consult with HK on the 416, but it is up to him to discuss the degree of his involvement.



Perhaps I am ignorant, but what does the m27 do that free-floating and putting full auto into an A4 won't do? Oh, and don't forget the bi-pod when the A4 leaves the depot for reissue. I get wanting to replace the 249 with a lighter weapon. I am not making an argument against it.

The IAR provides better precision, higher fire rate without cook-off, a full-auto trigger, and greater accuracy in burst fire from all positions. Bipod, grip-pod, or simple magazine monopod works with all, and the M27 out-performs the longer A4, so I'm not sure what you mean by "don't forget the bi-pod when the A4 leaves the depot for reissue."

[1371USMCFL]

I have doubts that the M27 is "issued" with a bipod. I'd have to confirm that with a Marine that has been issued the weapon. This caused my skepticism toward some of the accuracy tests. I have never seen a standard infantry weapon (m4, M16) issued with a bipod in the Army or Marines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

As has already been stated in this thread by multiple Marines, the M27 is issued with a Harris Bi-pod on a Larue mount.

To add to the benefits of the benefits list of the IAR (that I haven't found mentioned yet) is that it blends well as a weapon system and also feeds well from your standard mags (compared to SAW's which can hard lockup on you after 1 round from a standard mag). What I mean by "blends well" is that when it leaves the wire in it's standard configuration, it looks like an M4; as opposed to the SAW, which looks like a LMG. How this plays out in big picture, when a patrol leaves the wire and derka-bob spotter calls up his buddies to tell them what we have, he may only count 1 machine gun (if your bringing a 240 with you) instead of 3 or 4 they would count if you had SAW's.

[Arctic1]

HK M27 IAR Product sheet

http://www.scribd.com/doc/66412531/HK-M27-IAR

[MountainRaven]

I guess the next question to ask is: Is there anything that the M4 or M16A4 do better than the M27? Is there a good (non-political) reason to not issue every rifleman an M27 (and maybe get them all in FDE while they're at it)?

[Dist. Expert 26]

Having carried both an M4 and M16 I can honestly say no. Literally the only advantage the M16 has is the higher muzzle velocity, but at the ranges where it would make a difference it doesn't matter because an M16 shooting 5-7 MOA can't hit anything that far out anyway. Its more reliable (although my M16 has never had a jam not related to faulty magazines, so in that department I can't really complain), by far more accurate (the rifle I shot yesterday was holding <2" at 100m), and it has user friendly features I feel we need (ambi controls and charging handle, collapsible stock, BUIS).

[Failure2Stop]

I guess the next question to ask is: Is there anything that the M4 or M16A4 do better than the M27? Is there a good (non-political) reason to not issue every rifleman an M27 (and maybe get them all in FDE while they're at it)?

The M27 is significantly more expensive than an M16/M4, which is a pretty significant factor in today's financial circumstance.

[Dist. Expert 26]

The M27 is significantly more expensive than an M16/M4, which is a pretty significant factor in today's financial circumstance.

Quite true, they can't even afford to pay our tuition assistance, there's no way we're getting new rifles :cray:

[Failure2Stop]

Literally the only advantage the M16 has is the higher muzzle velocity, but at the ranges where it would make a difference it doesn't matter because an M16 shooting 5-7 MOA can't hit anything that far out anyway.

I have never tested an M16 or M4 in military service that wasn't failing gauging that shot worse than 4 MOA. Most shoot in the 2-3 MOA area. This has been checked many times, in real precision testing fixtures.

[Dist. Expert 26]

That's just the estimate I came up with shooting and coaching on the range, I didn't mean to make it sound like an actual statistic. However I've shot my personal rifle off of sandbags a few times, and the best I can do is about 5" at 100m. My armorer friends tell me that our rifles haven't been tested in years though, so they very well may be out of spec.

[streck]

Why couldn't they have gone with the Mk46?

[Failure2Stop]

Why couldn't they have gone with the Mk46?

For what?

[streck]

For what?

As a SAW replacement. Sorry for not specifying.

I guess the answer lies in how they defined the problem in the first place (desiring hits on enemy at distance rather than suppressive fire)....But that seems like the wrong approach.

[Failure2Stop]

As a SAW replacement. Sorry for not specifying.

I guess the answer lies in how they defined the problem in the first place (desiring hits on enemy at distance rather than suppressive fire)....But that seems like the wrong approach.

1- Not an M249 replacement.
2- No current LMG met the requirements.
3- The Mk46 is not all that great of an LMG to start with.

[Heavy Metal]

As a SAW replacement.


The M27 isn't a SAW replacement.

It's a BAR replacement!

[streck]

Most of what I have read indicated it was to replace the SAW, sorry.

BAR? We haven't replaced the Browning yet? ;)

[sinlessorrow]

I guess the next question to ask is: Is there anything that the M4 or M16A4 do better than the M27? Is there a good (non-political) reason to not issue every rifleman an M27 (and maybe get them all in FDE while they're at it)?

Price is a huge factor, The M16 costs us around $400. The M27 contract was $23.6 Million for 6,500 rifles making them around $3600 each, now what that all includes I am not sure but there is certainly a huge price increase.

[MountainRaven]

The M27 isn't a SAW replacement.

It's a M16A1 replacement!

Fixed! (If memory serves.)


The M27 is significantly more expensive than an M16/M4, which is a pretty significant factor in today's financial circumstance.


Price is a huge factor, The M16 costs us around $400. The M27 contract was $23.6 Million for 6,500 rifles making them around $3600 each, now what that all includes I am not sure but there is certainly a huge price increase.

Makes sense.

Does the M16A4 cost include RCO, RAS, &c.?

I wonder what the Norwegians paid for their rifles....

[Dist. Expert 26]

Price is a huge factor, The M16 costs us around $400. The M27 contract was $23.6 Million for 6,500 rifles making them around $3600 each, now what that all includes I am not sure but there is certainly a huge price increase.

I was told by a Major involved in the weapons procurement program that with an SDO and all the SL3 gear (bipod, sling, cleaning kit) it comes out to around $5000 a rifle.

[R0N]

The M27 is significantly more expensive than an M16/M4, which is a pretty significant factor in today's financial circumstance.

Although important, lack of a contract vehicle and predicted production capability was equally important.

[sinlessorrow]

I was told by a Major involved in the weapons procurement program that with an SDO and all the SL3 gear (bipod, sling, cleaning kit) it comes out to around $5000 a rifle.

Thanks for that info, I was not 100% sure that info came from the contract but i was vague on what came with it or if it was just the rifle.

[mastiffhound]

Thank you guys for the back and forth, especially you enlisted guys. Since my brother was killed I miss the back and forth b.s.ing with him and hearing about all the cool gear that the Armed Forces get to test out. Damn I miss him. I would like to thank all of you who served, I know your hear it all the time but I really do mean it. Hearing from you guys brings back some really good memories, it reminds me of when my brother came back from his first tour and told me about shooting full auto ak's, shooting a saw, finding old bolt actions and so many other things. I'm so proud that he served. He was one of the reasons I got into AR's and even joined this forum. Thanks for the insight into the M27 and bringing up some great memories guys!:)

[sinlessorrow]

Fixed! (If memory serves.)





Makes sense.

Does the M16A4 cost include RCO, RAS, &c.?

I wonder what the Norwegians paid for their rifles....

From what I can find online it was USD$16.7 million for 8,200 rifles. So about $2,000 USD each.

[R0N]

From what I can find online it was USD$16.7 million for 8,200 rifles. So about $2,000 USD each.

The last cost I could find was for FY11 and it was $735.00 for the M16A4MWS, $1,010.36 for the RCO, $1,275.00 for the PEQ-16A, $38.61 for the bayonet, $115.00 for the Grip Pod, $64.00 for the cleaning kit and $66.57 for 7 magazines.

[sinlessorrow]

The last cost I could find was for FY11 and it was $735.00 for the M16A4MWS, $1,010.36 for the RCO, $1,275.00 for the PEQ-16A, $38.61 for the bayonet, $115.00 for the Grip Pod, $64.00 for the cleaning kit and $66.57 for 7 magazines.

Thanks R0N, those numbers I posted were for the Norwegian HK416N's I should have specified that. Thats all I could find.

Does that $700 include the RAS(or is it RIS?)? Thats not a bad price if so. What all comes with the M27 if you don't mind me asking?

[Arctic1]

Thanks R0N, those numbers I posted were for the Norwegian HK416N's I should have specified that.

That includes:

Sling
Vertical grip
BUIS
Cleaning kit
7 Magazines

That said, the price went down when we purchased an additional 17000 weapons, for a total of 25000. We are also getting 17000 new rifles this year.

[Dano5326]

I don't think the M27 was a sound choice.

I have no reason to suspect any greater bolt longevity out of HK than an conventional AR/Stoner arrangement. The recoil impulse of a 416 is much more than a similarly configured AR. Not ideal for burst on tgt.

A heavier, more expensive carbine, with expensive replacement parts, coming from a foreign company.. brilliant.

The Corps either wanted to sneak in a fleetwide adoption of the 416, or they have no idea wtf they really need. In an institution with a 86% turnover rate every 4yrs, and a massive dissonance between savvvy end users and procurement types... I would suspect the later.

An improved M4 with a 16" heavy barrel, longer gas system, heatsink fore-end, and a stabilizing muzzle device would have been smarter.
-commonality of parts from barrel nut back, ala less proprietary crap
-armorer training essentially unchanged
-not wedded to fluctuations of foreign quality
-much better recoil characteristics
-cheaper, definitely so over lifecycle

-US Marines.. with a US made product, crazy

PIP could of had improved bolts/carriers with 20K lifespan ala KAC or LMT's wares, backwards compatible with standard m16 BCG's for quick fix's in deployment scenarios. Barrel burnt, change barrel & bolt.

Or go completely logical and require a rd count device in the pistol grip. Every institution with systemic weapons issues has massive issues tracking why/when. Since when is directly related to rd ct and firing schedule, which is never correctly tracked.. get the data and fix it.

[R0N]

I don't think the M27 was a sound choice.

I have no reason to suspect any greater bolt longevity out of HK than an conventional AR/Stoner arrangement. The recoil impulse of a 416 is much more than a similarly configured AR. Not ideal for burst on tgt.

A heavier, more expensive carbine, with expensive replacement parts, coming from a foreign company.. brilliant.

The Corps either wanted to sneak in a fleetwide adoption of the 416, or they have no idea wtf they really need. In an institution with a 86% turnover rate every 4yrs, and a massive dissonance between savvvy end users and procurement types... I would suspect the later.

A PIP M4 with a 16" heavy barrel, longer gas system, heatsink fore-end, and a stabilizing muzzle device would have been smarter.
-commonality of parts from barrel nut back
-armorer training essentially unchanged
-not wedded to fluctuations of foreign quality
-much better recoil characteristics
-cheaper, definitely so over lifecycle

-US Marines.. with a US made product, crazy

PIP could of had improved bolts/carriers with 20K lifespan ala KAC or LMT's wares, backwards compatible with standard m16 BCG's for quick fix's in deployment scenarios. Barrel burnt, change barrel & bolt.

Or go completely logical and require a rd count device in the pistol grip. Every institution with systemic weapons issues has massive issues tracking why/when. Since when is directly related to rd ct and firing schedule, which is never correctly tracked.. get the data and fix it.

Our PIP is going to be a free-floating rail system and adjustable butt-stock for the A4.

I cannot speak to bolt life but I know barrel life is around 4x longer for the M-27 than it is for either the M4, A4 or M4A1 barrel.

[sinlessorrow]

Our PIP is going to be a free-floating rail system and adjustable butt-stock for the A4.

I cannot speak to bolt life but I know barrel life is around 4x longer for the M-27 than it is for either the M4, A4 or M4A1 barrel.

What kind of barrel life are ya'll seeing?

[Dano5326]

HK 1st said 30K rds for the 416 to some users... not so much in real life. They now say 10K. There is no physics altering cloud covering the factory in Germeny. Overselling does not engender confidence in a companies wares.

Several US manufacturers can produced a hammer forged, chromed lined of equal or superior quality.

[Failure2Stop]

HK 1st said 30K rds for the 416 to some users... not so much in real life. They now say 10K. There is no physics altering cloud covering the factory in Germeny. Overselling does not engender confidence in a companies wares.

Several US manufacturers can produced a hammer forged, chromed lined of equal or superior quality.

True, but they didn't make a difference in the testing. I am anything but a 416 hugger, but it answered the mail better than any of the other submissions as far as the requirements document went. Doesn't mean that there is nothing better, or that technology hasn't progressed since 2008, but it's kind of a moot point.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[sinlessorrow]

I surprised ya'll didnt choose a HF barrel from FNH since they currently make the A4 and have the machines to produce the barrels.

[Failure2Stop]

I surprised ya'll didnt choose a HF barrel from FNH since they currently make the A4 and have the machines to produce the barrels.

You can't require a specific vendor in a mil requirements document without a lot of heartache and a very good reason. The manufacturers submit what they think is the best fit for the stated performance and the testing validates it.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[sinlessorrow]

You can't require a specific vendor in a mil requirements document without a lot of heartache and a very good reason. The manufacturers submit what they think is the best fit for the stated performance and the testing validates it.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Makes sense, was a different barrel looked at for the PiP?

[R0N]

HK 1st said 30K rds for the 416 to some users... not so much in real life. They now say 10K. There is no physics altering cloud covering the factory in Germeny. Overselling does not engender confidence in a companies wares.

Several US manufacturers can produced a hammer forged, chromed lined of equal or superior quality.

Through independant testing the barrels were getting signifantly more life than the 10K.

However, the US made CHF barrel tested did have a approx 10K service life.

[sinlessorrow]

Through independant testing the barrels were getting signifantly more life than the 10K.

However, the US made CHF barrel tested did have a approx 10K service life.

10K on a CHF barrel? What kind of firing schedules were they subjected to?

[Auto426]

An improved M4 with a 16" heavy barrel, longer gas system, heatsink fore-end, and a stabilizing muzzle device would have been smarter.
-commonality of parts from barrel nut back, ala less proprietary crap
-armorer training essentially unchanged
-not wedded to fluctuations of foreign quality
-much better recoil characteristics
-cheaper, definitely so over lifecycle

That describes the two submissions from Colt almost perfectly. They made it as finalists in the competition, but for whatever reason they were not chosen.

FWIW:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/020109mc_saw_graphic.JPG

[MountainRaven]

As someone looking in from the outside, the whole procurement process for the M27 seemed screwy.

First they put out a requirement. Then they kick out most of the entrants (every American-made entrant, save for the Colts) for mostly specious reasons. And then they change the requirement so that only one of the final entrants makes any sense... a final entrant that did not meet the initial requirements as well as any of the other final entrants or even some of the pre-cut-down entrants.

I'm not saying that I believe that the M27 or the HK416 is not a fine weapon. I am thoroughly convinced that they are. But I do remember reading predictions from face-shooting folks in the military that the H&K was going to win specifically because it is an H&K and for no other reason. And from where I'm sitting, that appears to have been a correct assessment.

(Again, I've not shot any of the weapons in question. I was in no way involved in the process to adopt the IAR. All my knowledge on the matter comes from reading about the entrants and what SMEs have said about the entrants. It just seems to me that everyone else put a lot of effort into their weapons to make them fit the requirements of the Marines, while H&K just seems to have slapped a heavy barrel and a bayonet lug on the HK416 and called it good. Without even redesigning the mag well to take the then available Pmags, as H&K has now done for the KSK's HK416A5s.)

I'm wondering, if the 'Great Recession' had not occurred if the Marines would be seriously considering the M27 as a general issue weapon at this time. And if the IAR was an attempt to do an end-run around the politically-suicidal effort necessary to seek a replacement for the M16A4 and M4.

[sinlessorrow]

As someone looking in from the outside, the whole procurement process for the M27 seemed screwy.

First they put out a requirement. Then they kick out most of the entrants (every American-made entrant, save for the Colts) for mostly specious reasons. And then they change the requirement so that only one of the final entrants makes any sense... a final entrant that did not meet the initial requirements as well as any of the other final entrants or even some of the pre-cut-down entrants.

I'm not saying that I believe that the M27 or the HK416 is not a fine weapon. I am thoroughly convinced that they are. But I do remember reading predictions from face-shooting folks in the military that the H&K was going to win specifically because it is an H&K and for no other reason. And from where I'm sitting, that appears to have been a correct assessment.

(Again, I've not shot any of the weapons in question. I was in no way involved in the process to adopt the IAR. All my knowledge on the matter comes from reading about the entrants and what SMEs have said about the entrants. It just seems to me that everyone else put a lot of effort into their weapons to make them fit the requirements of the Marines, while H&K just seems to have slapped a heavy barrel and a bayonet lug on the HK416 and called it good. Without even redesigning the mag well to take the then available Pmags, as H&K has now done for the KSK's HK416A5s.)

I'm wondering, if the 'Great Recession' had not occurred if the Marines would be seriously considering the M27 as a general issue weapon at this time. And if the IAR was an attempt to do an end-run around the politically-suicidal effort necessary to seek a replacement for the M16A4 and M4.

I am not sure how the whole competition went and will let others speak to that, but it has been stated they did look into adopting the M27 to replace their A4's and M4's but supposedly it was to expensive and would have taken to long.

[armakraut]

HK ran a lot cooler than the competition.

Unfortunately their commercial MR556A1 offerings suck. Boat anchor barrels and no chrome. Their excuses for doing this are laughable. Nobody runs a match with a blue label boat anchor barrel. Yes some people don't run chromed barrels... because they run stainless barrels.

Their failure to set up a US factory and crank out 10.4, 14.5 and 16.5 upper receiver kits for anyone with a credit card has cost them millions of dollars and ceded the market to a bunch of fly by night piston AR makers that turn out junk. HK even sent out harassing letters to people that were accidentally allowed to purchase 416 uppers a few years back. Bunch of tin eared kraut d-bags.

[sinlessorrow]

HK ran a lot cooler than the competition.

Unfortunately their commercial MR556A1 offerings suck. Boat anchor barrels and no chrome. Their excuses for doing this are laughable. Nobody runs a match with a blue label boat anchor barrel. Yes some people don't run chromed barrels... because they run stainless barrels.

Their failure to set up a US factory and crank out 10.4, 14.5 and 16.5 upper receiver kits for anyone with a credit card has cost them millions of dollars and ceded the market to a bunch of fly by night piston AR makers that turn out junk. HK even sent out harassing letters to people that were accidentally allowed to purchase 416 uppers a few years back. Bunch of tin eared kraut d-bags.

Did you expect any less from HK? Civilian sales are not their strong suit. I do wish they would focus more on the civilian side in the US, there is a huge market here.

[montrala]

HK 1st said 30K rds for the 416 to some users... not so much in real life. They now say 10K. There is no physics altering cloud covering the factory in Germeny. Overselling does not engender confidence in a companies wares.

Several US manufacturers can produced a hammer forged, chromed lined of equal or superior quality.

I had conversation with one unhappy HK customer. The comment was that "after mere 70K rounds only barrels are still GTG". Of course those guys do not use full auto much, only during some rare scenarios.

10K rounds is suspiciously low life for barrel. Polish military standards do not allow for degraded accuracy (or any parts breakage) in 10K rounds (procedure for barrel life test is in short, shooting some mags semi auto, then some mags bursts, then some mags f/a dump, then cool barrel in bucket with water, da capo al fine, of course with intermediate accuracy and muzzle speed measurements). Our Beryls, with CHF, chrome lined, light profile barrels have zero problems meeting this requirement.

BTW, regarding M27 price, if I remeber correcty, Trijicon SDO aiming device makes up for over 50% of M27 cost.

[vicious_cb]

This debate does seem familiar :rolleyes:. My conclusion about the SAW vs M27 is the same as the conclusion reached at the end of this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4T7kN0t68

[sinlessorrow]

Hey R0N if American CHF barrels only showed to be good for 10,000 rounds what kind of life are ya'll getting out of the standard button rifled M4 and M16 barrels?

[R0N]

Hey R0N if American CHF barrels only showed to be good for 10,000 rounds what kind of life are ya'll getting out of the standard button rifled M4 and M16 barrels?
approx. 5000 rounds.

[Failure2Stop]

Hey R0N if American CHF barrels only showed to be good for 10,000 rounds what kind of life are ya'll getting out of the standard button rifled M4 and M16 barrels?

The biggest question is what is the definition of "life", and measured by what convention?

[sinlessorrow]

The biggest question is what is the definition of "life", and measured by what convention?

I don't know what the Marines used to determine but I would guess an accuracy criteria at a certain distance.

Alot of barrels will shoot 10,000+, just look at filthy 14. Accuracy though will suffer. Then theres also throat life and gas port.

[Frens]

I don't know what the Marines used to determine but I would guess an accuracy criteria at a certain distance.

Alot of barrels will shoot 10,000+, just look at filthy 14. Accuracy though will suffer. Then theres also throat life and gas port.

ROF plays a big role in barrel life

[sinlessorrow]

ROF plays a big role in barrel life

That is true. I can only imagine what kind of barrel life the Army is now getting with the use of M855A1.

Has the M27 been tested on M855A1 to see how it performs with it?

[Failure2Stop]

I don't know what the Marines used to determine but I would guess an accuracy criteria at a certain distance.

Alot of barrels will shoot 10,000+, just look at filthy 14. Accuracy though will suffer. Then theres also throat life and gas port.

That's my point.
The usual criteria for the USMC is the throat gauge, which is a highly flawed method. I've seen barrels with less than 1,000 rounds through them fail the throat gauge that still shot sub 3 MOA.

I've also seen barrels with well over 5k that failed throat gauge that maintained adequate precision.

I personally would prefer to see throat gauging get changed to a more accurate measurement technique, and to be disassociated as a pass/fail criteria and instead insert a live-fire precision requirement.

I think that the only gauges that should be a pass/fail should be barrel straightness, firing pin protrusion, and headspace.

[sinlessorrow]

That's my point.
The usual criteria for the USMC is the throat gauge, which is a highly flawed method. I've seen barrels with less than 1,000 rounds through them fail the throat gauge that still shot sub 3 MOA.

I've also seen barrels with well over 5k that failed throat gauge that maintained adequate precision.

I personally would prefer to see throat gauging get changed to a more accurate measurement technique, and to be disassociated as a pass/fail criteria and instead insert a live-fire precision requirement.

I think that the only gauges that should be a pass/fail should be barrel straightness, firing pin protrusion, and headspace.

Isn't that test done to keep the chances of case seperations to a minimum since enlarged throats is a cause of it?

It is still very interesting to see that the HK barrel gets about 4x the life in that area.

[Failure2Stop]

Isn't that test done to keep the chances of case seperations to a minimum since enlarged throats is a cause of it?


No.
The throat measurement is a depth measurement, not an internal diameter measurement.
So, while measuring the throat wear would be a measure to attempt to reduce case throat tears, the current gauging does not take that into account.

ETA: the gauge used is very similar to this one:
http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/measuring-tools/barrel-throat-erosion-gauges/throat-erosion-gauge-prod8761.aspx
EXCEPT that it measures from the rear of the upper receiver instead of at the barrel extension/bore.
There are several way that the gauging done could be more accurate.

[sinlessorrow]

No.
The throat measurement is a depth measurement, not an internal diameter measurement.
So, while measuring the throat wear would be a measure to attempt to reduce case throat tears, the current gauging does not take that into account.

ETA: the gauge used is very similar to this one:
http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/measuring-tools/barrel-throat-erosion-gauges/throat-erosion-gauge-prod8761.aspx
EXCEPT that it measures from the rear of the upper receiver instead of at the barrel extension/bore.
There are several way that the gauging done could be more accurate.

Thanks for the explenation.