View Full Version : The Commandant has doubts about replacing SAW with HK M27 IAR
variablebinary
07-05-10, 23:21
Seems like the concerns everyone had from day one have trickled up to the top.
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/07/marine_IAR_070110w/
Is an automatic rifle up to the task of replacing a belt fed reign of terror? Belt fed weapons are scary as shit when you are on the wrong end of them.
Conway eyes additional testing for auto-rifle
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 5, 2010 10:21:21 EDT
Commandant Gen. James Conway has given Marine acquisitions officials approval to buy hundreds of 5.56mm infantry automatic rifles, Marine officials said, but it still isn’t assured the weapon will be widely fielded.
The Corps will purchase 450 auto-rifles, now known as M27s, officials said. The weapon could reach a few infantry battalions beginning this fall, providing the IAR program a chance to prove to Conway that it is ready to be widely fielded as a replacement for the 5.56mm M249 squad automatic weapon, which has been in use since the 1980s.
The decision does not mean that the commandant will definitely sign off on the purchase of 4,100 IARs that acquisitions officials have eyed to replace the SAW in many infantry formations, said Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokeswoman with Marine Corps Systems Command, based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The general is concerned that the auto-rifle doesn’t have enough firepower to replace the SAW, which can carry a 200-round drum of linked ammunition. The M27 — known commercially as a variant of Heckler & Koch’s HK416 — is designed to carry a 30-round magazine, although the Corps is also considering a high-capacity magazine that could carry 50 or 100 rounds.
Conway said in December that he was not convinced that replacing the SAW with a smaller weapon is a good idea because the M249 allows Marines to establish fire superiority in a firefight, forcing attackers to take cover.
“Let’s… talk about suppression and the psychology of a small unit fight, that says that the other guy’s got a light machine gun and I’ve got an automatic rifle,” he said. “I’m going to be hard-pressed to get fire superiority over him, you know, to keep his head down instead of him keeping mine down, because that 200-round magazine just keeps on giving.”
In April, acquisitions officials said the Corps could field large quantities of the IAR, but only if the commandant is convinced it’s a good idea. Marine officials hoped “to get a full-rate production decision” once the results were reviewed by Conway, said Col. Andrew Bianca, head of infantry weapons acquisition at SysCom.
“One of the big things that we’ve been doing — and most of you have probably read about it — is the infantry automatic rifle,” he told the group, gathered April 6 at SysCom’s 2010 Advanced Planning Brief to Industry. “It’s a look at going back to the true automatic rifle and replacing the [M249] squad automatic weapon within the infantry squads and the light-armored reconnaissance scout teams.”
Marine officials are reviewing Heckler & Koch’s IAR after selecting it as its preferred option in October and ordering 24 additional weapons for testing. It beat out three other finalists, including two models from Colt Defense LLC, maker of the M4 carbine, and one from FN Herstal, maker of the SAW. The H&K model is a variant of its HK416 assault rifle, which uses a spring-buffered short-stroke gas piston system, and was the sole finalist that fires only from the closed-bolt position.
Failure2Stop
07-06-10, 09:01
Is an automatic rifle up to the task of replacing a belt fed reign of terror? Belt fed weapons are scary as shit when you are on the wrong end of them.
1-It is not a replacement. It is a billet weapon replacement. The M249 will still be available for occasions where a light machinegun is necessary.
2- It doesn't matter what device is accelerating the little bit of metal that are directed at you: suppression is a tactic- I can suppress someone with a Red-Rider if that's all I have. Falling back on the suppression piece and on-gun ammo availability is really just another way of embracing high-volume fire with low-percent hit rates.
What's more effective at unbalancing a fight: missing a bunch or dropping threats? Before everyone spouts off about suppression, it might be a good idea to actually know what it is and how it is developed.
3- Gen Conway is on his way out, so while his opinion carries weight, it is a matter for Gen Amos to pick-up. I would also remind the readership that just because the guy is a General or the Commandant does not mean that he is an expert in small arms: he also said that the M4 is not applicable to the infantry.
1-It is not a replacement. It is a billet weapon replacement. The M249 will still be available for occasions where a light machinegun is necessary.
To reinforce this, I'll reiterate in different words for the LOS-logic-impaired......
-The SAW isn't going away.
-The SAW isn't leaving the USMC inventory.
-The SAW will remain in the USMC inventory.
-The SAW will be available for USMC warfighter use.
-Ammo for the SAW will be available for use in the SAW (I know, that's just crazy!).
-USMC warfighters will be allowed to take SAW ammo, put it in the SAW, point the SAW at booger-eaters, and use said ammo to encourage them to leave or lay down and bleed for a while.
I don't get what's so difficult to understand about this, and why folks seem to forget that the SAW is not I say again NOT the only belt-fed weapon in the inventory. The SAW is particularly not the belt-fed that's carrying the weight of the engagements warfighters are getting in; do some research.
If you think the JamMaster 5000 is still the center of gravity of the fights we're in, I don't know who's sig-event sheets you're looking at, but they're not the American ones.
How many other "Instant Mountain: Just Add Water to Molehill!! As Seen on TV!!" topics can we come up with?
I think that answers that. :D
Corps' getting the M110, too. I await with bated breath...
...the slough of articles about how it's going to "replace" the M40A5 (also not going anywhere, BTW, before the grist-mill of innerweb rumor starts grinding away), the DARPA rifle, penicillin, remove warts and make espresso, based on the statements of somebody who's leaving his twilight posting and can say whatever the hell he wants to with little or no repercussion.
We can presume to do analysis on the most recent written thing about Weapon X in regard to impact on the battlefield, but remain blithely uncognizant of current events regarding the source of the statements or deliberately fail to factor them in to said analysis. Not sure which this was. Irrelevant.
Critical thought processes = Not for everyone.
I am just trying to figure out what the USMC is gaining with the HK M27 IAR that they do not already have with the M-16. I understand the M-27 has a barrel length of 16.5 inches. An M-4 has a 14.5 and an M-16 has a 20 inch. Is it the piston system they want? I am interested in hearing others perspectives on the advantages of the HK M27, not over the SAW, but the M-16.
I have some, not a lot, of experience with the 416. A few very good friends and fellow instructors are issued 416s. Most of my opinion is based on their input. To date the 416 has not lived up to its hype and HK has not been receptive to the issue, which is the gun functioning with their duty ammo. (Federal 55 gr hp)
Does the M27 have an MG barrel that will tolerate sustained fire better than the M4 or M16?
variablebinary
07-07-10, 06:28
2- It doesn't matter what device is accelerating the little bit of metal that are directed at you: suppression is a tactic- I can suppress someone with a Red-Rider if that's all I have. Falling back on the suppression piece and on-gun ammo availability is really just another way of embracing high-volume fire with low-percent hit rates.
What's more effective at unbalancing a fight: missing a bunch or dropping threats? Before everyone spouts off about suppression, it might be a good idea to actually know what it is and how it is developed.
You don't think both a high volume of fire and marksmanship both have the capacity to control movement, produce high causalities and deter aggression, acting as force multipliers?
A good example being M60's helping thwart the tactics of General Nguyen Huu An, and the precision of Marine Sgt. John Ethan Place in Fallujah.
Also, what role do you envision is the M27 playing in a fire team?
I am interested in hearing others perspectives on the advantages of the HK M27, not over the SAW, but the M-16.
This has been done to death in innumerable "DI vs. piston" and related threads. Use the Search feature.
...
Does the M27 have an MG barrel that will tolerate sustained fire better than the M4 or M16?
Not sure if I'd call it a heavy MG barrel (since it's NOT a MG), but it's not the usual USG contour. It is heaviER, and does just ducky under sustained fire.
The role of the M27, in the fire team and the squad and the platoon and the company and the battalion, etc. is that of the Automatic Rifle...hence the name. It's not the same as that of a light machinegun, which is what has been pressed into service to fulfill the Automatic Rifleman role for the last 30 years or so. Square peg/round hole. We're finally getting back to a true Automatic Rifleman capability. If that's confusing to some, harken back to the days of the BAR.
That thing had 20rnd box magazines, which had to be carried, and the dudes loved that thing (just not having to carry it and the spare ammo; the more things change, the more they stay the same, EVERYBODY hates carrying shit), so I don't get why folks somehow think that the IAR can't fulfill it's designed role with magazines currently fielded that carry 10 rounds more that the old BAR, which did it just fine and was loved by the GIs of that era. It's pretty silly, quite frankly, once you stop thinking of the SAW as having fit the Auto Rifleman role when it most certainly did not. The IAR equates to a correction to what was a flawed doctrinal outlook at the time of the SAW getting picked up, by dudes still worried about a Fulda Gap scenario.
To frame it in other terms, look at it from this angle: No more waiting on the SAW gunner to be the last guy to get up ALL the time, or getting hung up in tight spaces because his ammo sources are so much bulkier. Less concentrated weight for him to carry, which has never been anything but more awkward than that of a rifleman even if their loads ended up being the same weight.
The advantages and potential advantages are staggering, if one is willing to step past the "But but but it's not a SAW!" mode of thought (and the closely-related "SAW was good enough for me in those days" lunacy, like those dinosaurs still around that thing that iron sights are the ONLY way to fly for EVERYBODY) and look at the thing as it's own weapon. SAW's going back to the role it was actually designed for, which is that of a LMG and not an AR.
Gen. Conway said that the M4 was "an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of the rifle" - never mind that it is literally a reduction of the rifle - so I will take what he has to say on the topic of small arms with a grain of salt (or two).
Gen. Amos, from what I have heard through unreliable sources (news media), was selected for political reasons: the likelihood that he wouldn't oppose DADT going away, and the likelihood that he wouldn't be opposed to budget cuts. The latter wouldn't seem to have a positive effect on the adoption of a new weapons system.
As far as the IAR goes, beyond everything that has already been discussed, it might drive home the point with the average non-IAR equipped 0311 that he is carrying a rifle, not an automatic rifle or a LMG, which would be a good thing as far as training and doctrine are concerned.
Not sure if I'd call it a heavy MG barrel (since it's NOT a MG), but it's not the usual USG contour. It is heaviER, and does just ducky under sustained fire.
It is very dense, cold hammer forged barrel (that means more mass in same dimension - so can soak more heat than classic barrel of sime size) that is 1" thick from extension to gas block and 0.750" from gas block to muzzle. This is same barrel that HK uses for civilian version of 416 -> MR223 (MR like Match Rifle). It is of course not same as quick change LMG/MG barrels but (as tests prooved) surpasses needs of IAR for sustained fire.
Failure2Stop
07-07-10, 17:33
You don't think both a high volume of fire and marksmanship both have the capacity to control movement, produce high causalities and deter aggression, acting as force multipliers?
They most certainly do, no argument.
The problem is that it requires both (high volume of fire and marksmanship), where most SAW gunners are only really able to provide 1, and it generally isn't the latter.
To be quite frank, the only people consistently caipable of first-burst mid-range effective fire with machineguns are school-trained machinegunners with A-gunners. It has been proven enough times to make me sick.
Imagine a world in which every person issued an M249 went off to a 4 week course to learn and master the weapon and its employment. That would be great. Unfortunately we do not live in that world.
Now imagine a world in which every person is issued an M4 or M16 and goes through rigourous and standards-based training that covers topics from basic weapons handling to long-range precision fire to multiple rapid shots and automatic bursts at close range from the first moment they touch the weapon until the day they EAS. What if that weapon was now more controllable in auto and could maintain higher rates and duration of fire? What if we could get 2 of those weapons per fireteam? Because that is the world we live in.
For your consideration:
Defense Industry Daily:
IAR What IAR: The USMC’s SAW Substitution
06-Jul-2010 17:41 EDT
HK wins; Commandant skeptical, but authorizes limited buy and combat test. (July 1/10)
The US Marines are looking to replace their M249 5.56mm light machine guns in their infantry and Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) battalions. Many have become worn from use, and can be more hindrance than help in some of the close-quarters urban warfare situations dominating current battlefields. They also have a reputation for jamming, and at 15-17 pounds empty, these belt-fed weapons are rather heavy.
In its initial 2005 FedBizOps.com solicitation for an “Infantry Automatic Rifle” (IAR), the Marines wanted two big things. First, the gun had to fire from either the open or closed bolt position. This would give it the single-shot and “first through the door” capabilities that the M249 lacks, while allowing for more sustained fire than an M16 can handle without risking ammunition “cook off” in a heated barrel. It also had to be considerably lighter than the M249, at just 12.5 pounds maximum and 10.5 pounds desired weight. In exchange, the Marines decided they were willing to trade the SAW’s belt-fed design for switchable 30 round magazines, which are used up much more quickly but can also be changed in battle much more quickly.
The result was not a true light machine gun, but something in between an LMG and an assault rifle. That shift in the 13-man Marine squad has its advocates and detractors. DID offers more background concerning the USMC’s IAR contenders, contracts… and controversy.
The Contenders
The winning bids went to a set of long-established competitors.
Colt. The current manufacturer of the M4 carbine, who also makes some of the Marines’ M16 rifles. Colt publicly touts a variant of its CAR design, which is called the LSW by Colt Canada and serves with customers that include the Netherlands. It’s basically an M16, with some modifications including a new hydraulic buffer assembly and a heavier barrel. Elsewhere, Defense Review has a complete review of the Colt IAR, which appears to be a different design than the CAR. It uses a direct gas impingement system rather than a gas piston system, and adds a large heat sink to the front which makes the 9.5 pound weapon a bit front-heavy.
Interestingly, Colt won 2 contracts for the IAR’s development and testing phase. It is not yet clear if this represents CAR and IAR awards, or if the twin contracts have a different set of dual competitors. Regardless, neither won.
FN USA. The US Marines are already a customer beyond the M249 SAW, as FN USA manufactures many of the Marines’ M16 rifles. For the IAR competition, the firm is entering a version of the SCAR Mk16 rifle that has become US Special Operation Command’s weapon of choice. FN’s SCAR family of rifles has a wide set of innovative features developed with SOCOM’s assistance over the last several years, and a 10-year production contract was awarded in November 2007. FN USA’s IAR entry is interesting, in that it retains the accuracy and performance of closed-bolt firing until the barrel reaches a certain temperature, whereupon it automatically switches to safer open-bolt firing.
With MARSOC operating as part of SOCOM, a number of Marines may already be familiar with this weapon. Since the Marines plan to rotate personnel back to regular Marine units after MARSOC, a rifle that’s shared with SOCOM offers certain advantages to the force.
That’s no longer true, however – in June 2010, SOCOM decided to cancel further SCAR-L Mk.16 purchases on cost and efficiency grounds, and will probably recall the 850 fielded weapons, rather than continue to support them. SOCOM will be adding to their stock of 750 SCAR-H Mk.17 7.62mm riles, however, and will fielded an extended SCAR-H Mk.20 with sharpshooter enhancements.
Heckler & Koch. The HK416 is an M16/M4 with a modified upper receiver. US SOCOM and other special forces around the world have been using them for several years now, after the standard Colt M4 design proved itself unable to meet SOCOM’s needs.
H&K replaced Colt’s “gas-tube” system with a short-stroke piston system that eliminates carbon blow-back into the chamber, and also reduces the heat problem created by the super-hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were made to the magazine, barrel, et. al. The final product was an M4 with a new upper receiver and magazine, plus H&K’s 4-rail system of standard “Picatinny Rails” on the top, bottom, and both sides for easy addition of anything a Special Operator might require. In exhaustive tests with the help of the USA’s Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies. The H&K 416 was declared ready in 2004, and there is also an HK417 version in 7.62mm NATO caliber.
In October 2009, H&K’s 416-based design won.
Unsuccessful
Some firms that were expected to be contenders for the IAR did not make the shortlist.
General Dynamics. The firm had partnered with Singapore’s ST Kinetics to offer a Mk5 version version of the Ultimax 100 5.56mm light machine gun, whose accuracy and control have deeply impressed many military observers and analysts [watch video – AVI format]. Part of the weapon’s secret is that it was originally designed for Singapore’s smaller soldiers, and the 11 pound Ultimax LMGs (when empty) now serves with a number of militaries around the world.
The Ultimax was not ready in time to dislodge FN’s M249 in the original SAW competition, but the Marines had maintained a simmering interest in the weapon ever since. General Dynamics hoped that this time will be different, but the IAR’s specifications and focus appear to have handicapped this entry, and it was not selected for the IAR development contracts.
LWRC This firm has done a lot of work refining and improving the M16/M4 for military, law enforcement, and personal use. This includes the introduction of more reliable mechanisms, designated marksman weapons, and even different calibers like the superior but magazine-compatible 6.8mm. Their 5.56mm “M6A4 IAR” candidate was not selected for additional development and testing.
IAR What IAR: The Choice
The larger questions around these weapons boil down to doctrine. Light Machine Guns can be used for sustained “suppressive fire,” but often pay a price for doing so. The price is paid in weight and accuracy. The benefit is that keeping the enemy’s head down has considerable defensive value, and frees up your own side to maneuver.
Until recently, the Ultimax 100 has been the closest thing to an LMG that could comfortably switch over into “heavy assault rifle” mode, without losing its basic function. The IAR is that magazine-fed heavy assault rifle, but its 30 round magazine can make sustained suppressive fire difficult unless several IAR operators are on hand.
Drum magazines can be used to increase the number of available rounds, but loading them is difficult, many drum magazines have reliability issues, and carrying multiple drum magazines is a lot bulkier than carrying multiple 30-round ‘flat’ magazines. In practice, therefore, the IAR is likely to be a 30 round weapon that depends on accuracy for suppression.
A recent USMC battle at Shewan, Afghanistan indicates that this may be possible. In addition, marksmanship and the ability to bring a weapon to bear very quickly are hallmark requirements of the urban battlefield, where the Marines and militaries around the world expect to do a lot of their fighting over the next few decades.
On the other hand, there’s a psychological dimension to combat. Crossbows fired faster than muskets, and were much more accurate. They were replaced by muskets because the musket’s psychological effect had that much value in a real fight. In a similar vein, USMC Commandant James Conway has expressed concerns about giving up the light machine gun’s lower accuracy coupled with suppressive and psychological value.
In the military world, as in the world of finance, options have value. The Marines’ decisions to date have indicated the priority they place on more optimized IAR designs, which may not be true LMGs but offer other advantages in compensation. That stance has now come into some question, and the questions emanate from the very top of the Marine Corps. The encouraging signal in all of this is that the question will be settled by combat trials, not bureaucratic infighting.
Contracts and Key Events
In September 2008, Gannett’s Marine Corps Times reported that only some of the USMC’s M249 SAW weapons would be replaced. The eventual contract announcements, however, specifically mention the option of replacing all M249 SAWs used by the USMC’s infantry and LAR battalions.
July 1/10: Media outlets report that in April 2010, USMC Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 H&K M27 IARs, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in 4 infantry battalions and 1 light armored reconnaissance (LAR) battalion. Each company in the 3 active infantry battalions and reserve battalion will receive 28 M27s: 1 for every SAW gunner, and 1 extra for the unit. These companies will also retain 6 M249s. The LAR battalion will receive 14 M27s, and completely replace its M249s.
The Corps intends to give these units 4-6 months of pre-deployment training with the new weapons, and they are expected to be in Afghanistan around November-December 2010.
Assessments from the Marines in theater will determine whether or not the IAR program resolves the Commandant’s doubts, and continues into full production of about 4,476 M27s. Marine Corps requirements officials hope that Conway will decide whether or not to take the IAR into full-rate production by late 2011, after the field reviews are in.
The biggest issue may turn out to be a factor that hasn’t featured much in debates so far. The US Army (M14) and the British (L129A1) are both turning to 7.62mm IAR-type heavy assault rifle/ marksman weapons in Afghanistan. Its wide open spaces are creating long-range firefights where 5.56mm rounds become ineffective, but the enemy’s 7.62mm rounds remain so. The HK417 is the 7.62mm variant of the HK416, and a 7.62mm IAR could indeed trump short-range LMG suppression – but a decision to change calibers would almost certainly re-open the competition.
Gannett’s Marine Corps Times | Military.com
June 8/10: The Firearms Blog highlights magazine maker Magpul’s recent patent application (#20100126053) for a quad stack AR-15 compatible magazine, complete with diagrams. A central partition separates 2 dual round stacks, with an asymmetric transition area. This could give the IAR its 50 round magazine, joining Russia’s new AK-200 Kalashnikovs with their 60 round quad-stack magazines. The Firearms Blog | Military.com Kit Up!
Dec 28/09: The IAR is facing skepticism at the very top of the Marines Corps. The issue is not performance to spec, but the trade-offs that the program has chosen to make. USMC Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, at a press conference:
“I do have concerns, and those concerns have not been abated at this point…. In terms of accuracy, there’s probably no comparison…. Let’s step away from accuracy for a moment and talk about suppression, and the psychology of a small-unit fight, that says if other guy’s got a light machine gun and I’ve got an automatic rifle, I’m going to be hard-pressed to get fire superiority over him, you know, to keep his head down instead of him keeping mine down, because that 200-round magazine just keeps on giving…. let’s talk about what it does to squad tactics…. every 30 rounds, you gotta change magazines. Well, you’re probably not gonna do that, y’know, in an exposed position… fire superiority is fleeting…. I’m concerned that moving at night… the other squad members carrying those additional magazine for that automatic rifleman, might in a spread formation be hard pressed to get him what he needs in a timely fashion….
I don’t want to get so far in the weeds… but it’s a big deal when you start changing how a Marine infantry squad fights, and, and, we’re gonna treat it as a big deal [raps table for emphasis], and I’m gonna have to be convinced that we’re making the right move before we start to purchase another system and change that whole dynamic…. [especially when the Army is not taking this approach]. So there’s another additional burden of proof here that has to be met….”
Nov 24/09: Gannett’s Marine Corps Times reports that the USMC is re-thinking its decision to drop the IAR’s requirement for a high-capacity magazine. A recent solicitation for a high-capacity magazine that could hold 50 or 100 rounds and fit “the M16/M4/HK 416 family of weapons” seems tailor-made for the IAR.
The magazine adds that the Modern Day Marine 2009 exposition saw FN Herstal display a 100-150 round magazine for its FN-SCAR IAR variant, while Armatac Industries has approached the Corps about a compatible 150-round 2-drum magazine that it says is compatible with each of the finalists weapons.
Early in the evaluation process for the IAR, the Corps’ requirement called for the weapon to use 100-round magazines. That was eventually eliminated in favor of using the same 30-round magazines, as Marine officials sought to cut weight from the SAW’s replacement.
October 2009: Marine officials pick Heckler & Koch’s HK416 derivative IAR over Colt and FN Herstal’s designs, and order another 24 additional weapons for more testing at various USMC facilities including Twentynine Palms, CA; Fort McCoy, WI; and Camp Shelby, MS. The award is framed as a “downselect” rather than a contract win, which indicates that Keckler & Koch’s design is a front runner for now, rather than an ultimate winner. Media reports began in December, and Gannett’s Marine Corps Times adds that:
“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.”
The new “M27 IAR” reportedly weighs 7.9 pounds unloaded, which is very close to a regular HK416, and much less than the M249 LMG’s 17 pounds. It uses a short-stoke gas piston, which is far more reliable and resistant to fouling than the M4/M16’s direct gas system. What it doesn’t have is a quick-change spare barrel to prevent overheating, which will limit it to 65 rounds per minute using 3-round bursts, compared to the M249’s recommended 85 rounds per minute, firing continuously while the trigger is depressed. Gannett’s Marine Corps Times report, GearScout blog entry, and Update | The Firearms Blog and Update.
Sept 21/10: Marine Corps Times quotes MARSYSCOM’s IAR project officer, Maj. John Smith, the IAR project officer. He says that testing is complete, and:
“I’m on schedule to have a decision on the program to move forward. Maybe within three weeks or so, there will be a lot more information…. Smith acknowledged that Commandant Gen. James Conway has questioned how the IAR will fit into fire teams but said that concern was “answered in short order.”
IAR candidate reliability testing reportedly took place in April and May at Marine Corps Base Quantico firing 20,000 rounds per weapon over 3 weeks. The Corps also reportedly held limited user evaluations for about 3 weeks in April in Hawthorne, NV, using Marines from Camp Pendleton, CA.
Dec 22/08: Under the initial contracts issued by US Marine Corps systems command in Quantico, VA, the winning competitors will supply up to 10 samples of their IAR design for testing, plus spare/repair parts, and various support services. The USMC will select a winner at some point, and plans to order up to 6,500 IARs via follow-on delivery orders, but there are no guarantees. Initial contracts, see also: Gannett’s Marine Corps Times | Defense Tech | Military.com | StrategyPage | The Firearm Blog.
Dec 22/08: Colt Defense, Inc. in West Hartford, CT received a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $14 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Colt’s production facility is in West Hartford, CT (RFP M67854-08-R-1000, proposal 6940, contract number M67854-09-D-1035).
Dec 22/08: Colt Defense, Inc. in West Hartford, CT received a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $14 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Colt’s production facility is in West Hartford, CT (RFP M67854-08-R-1000, proposal 6940H, contract number M67854-09-D-1036).
Dec 22/08: FN Herstal, S.A. in Herstal, Belgium receives a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $27.9 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). FN Herstal’s production facility is in Herstal, Belgium (M67854-09-D-1037).
Dec 22/08: Heckler and Koch Defense, Inc. in Ashburn, VA received 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $23.6 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Work will be performed in Oberndorf, Germany. (M67854-09-D-1038).
Additional Readings
FedBizOpps (2005) – Initial IAR solicitation
Modern Firearms – Heckler-Koch HK M27 IAR Infantry Automatic Rifle (USA / Germany)
Military.com (June 25/10) – Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle. It is a blow to FN Herstal, whose SCAR lost the USMC IAR and the British 7.62mm L129 competition.
Fred
Littlelebowski
07-07-10, 18:20
Corps' getting the M110, too. I await with bated breath...
...the slough of articles about how it's going to "replace" the M40A5 (also not going anywhere, BTW, before the grist-mill of innerweb rumor starts grinding away), the DARPA rifle, penicillin, remove warts and make espresso, based on the statements of somebody who's leaving his twilight posting and can say whatever the hell he wants to with little or no repercussion.
Well said :D
To reinforce this, I'll reiterate in different words for the LOS-logic-impaired......
-The SAW isn't going away.
-The SAW isn't leaving the USMC inventory.
-The SAW will remain in the USMC inventory.
-The SAW will be available for USMC warfighter use.
-Ammo for the SAW will be available for use in the SAW (I know, that's just crazy!).
-USMC warfighters will be allowed to take SAW ammo, put it in the SAW, point the SAW at booger-eaters, and use said ammo to encourage them to leave or lay down and bleed for a while.
I don't get what's so difficult to understand about this, and why folks seem to forget that the SAW is not I say again NOT the only belt-fed weapon in the inventory. The SAW is particularly not the belt-fed that's carrying the weight of the engagements warfighters are getting in; do some research.
If you think the JamMaster 5000 is still the center of gravity of the fights we're in, I don't know who's sig-event sheets you're looking at, but they're not the American ones.
How many other "Instant Mountain: Just Add Water to Molehill!! As Seen on TV!!" topics can we come up with?
I'm sorry but that is about the best post I've seen in ages.
JSantoro, thanks for the response.
I do understand the role of the IAR and was not questioning that. I was interested in why the Marines chose the HK. I have read many threads on the DI vs Piston debate. I was just wondering if the Corp.had a new reason I had not heard or thought of and I was not trying to turn it into a new debate. Just wanted to understand their logic. Sorry for the use of the term "heavy machine gun" barrel. What I meant was a heavier barrel intended for sustained full auto fire.
Still, 100 or 200 rounds ready to go is better than 30. 30 rounds goes quickly in semi auto and would go even quicker with a few long bursts. It is nice knowing that the M249s and M240s can go a while without reloading. Of course, reloading is slower but happens way fewer times than using 30 round mags. If they use Beta mags with the IAR, then it wouldn't be that bad.
Dustin
William B.
07-08-10, 06:55
I believe there have been a lot of reliabilty issues with the Beta mags. They have been working on a new drum mag for the IAR, though. The new Quad-Stack P-Mag looks like it would a pretty good contender to me as well.
http://www.defensereview.com/armatac-saw-mag-also-written-sawmag-150-shot-double-drum-magazine-for-usmcs-hk-iar-infantry-automatic-rifle-for-mobile-infantry-fn-m249-sawlmg-look-out/
Well... geez, where to start.
I think the romanticism attached to the original Browning BAR is funny. The utility of weapons and tactics are relative, as is "volume of fire".
No doubt the 30-06 BAR certainly had it's proponents in the Pacific theatre, pitted against 6.5mm bolt action wielding opposition hiding behind trees & bunkers. In europe against magazine fed semiauto opposition, the guys were probably pissed at the weight and mag capacity. Esp if running across MP/STG-43/44's
Belt fed vs magazine fed. How to quantify....??
Down time between reloads? 200rd drum vs 30rd mag.. well maybe consider you divide the 7mag changes by the time it takes to re-drum a SAW? For me about 8 seconds MK46(SAW) 2.5 sec M4.. of course gear optimized for either.
Ease of reloading on the fly? I can reload a mag fed form factor at a full run, not so much a SAW. If you issued the upcoming magpul 40 rd mags, or some of the evolving 50-100 rd doublestack or drum magazines the viability of a "IAR" comes out.
Weight: Belt feds generally weight more than mag-fed varients. A mature ARES, KAC, or Ultimax varient would bridge this gap. I must say the form factor on the KAC LMG is sweet, to bad it's not a mature product. For infantry use in urban areas the weight need come down. You average grunt isn't capable of effectively shooting a 20-25lb pill slinger in a 360degree sphere.
WWDD? Yep, what would Dano do?
-A gas piston m4-esq upper
-Heavy barrel 16.5" barrel, dimpled, ribbed, heatsinked, whatever to increase surface area. Make sure it passes the pour water from canteen/piss on it when stupid hot test
-Non-handguard removal required for cleaning (ala LMT MRP)
-make sure the magwell takes all NSN's mags to include magpul (HK416 not so much)
-put a closed bolt/open bolt trigger group on it (ala LWRC) for extreme circumstance
-more properly spring it for a nice auto recoil impulse and consistent action (ala Vltor A5 stock)
-compensate, for accurate full auto use, with a KAC Triple/BattleComp-esq muzzle device
-push industry for immediate 40-45rd mags (fine for the urban fight you low pro snipers)
-push industry ASAP for double wide mags and 75rd+ drums(HK G8-esq)
Well crap, how about someone throws: a Vltor stock, LWRC "OBA" trigger group, and a muzzle device on a heavy barrel LMT MRP (monolithic is a defacto heat-sink) and gives it a whirl.
IMO the salient point.. is positive forward momentum by the USMC for a more mobile, accurate, persistent base of fire weapon that fits the weight & ergonomic requirements of the actual warfighters laden with gear. Good on em.
How many other "Instant Mountain: Just Add Water to Molehill!! As Seen on TV!!" topics can we come up with?
Critical thought processes = Not for everyone.
HAHA! You're killing me over here...I just spit coffee on my keyboard.
It is very dense, cold hammer forged barrel (that means more mass in same dimension - so can soak more heat than classic barrel of sime size) that is 1" thick from extension to gas block and 0.750" from gas block to muzzle. This is same barrel that HK uses for civilian version of 416 -> MR223 (MR like Match Rifle). It is of course not same as quick change LMG/MG barrels but (as tests prooved) surpasses needs of IAR for sustained fire.
Here comes the HKPro crowd singing HK IAR uber alles. The weapon system hasn't really been tested yet. When the 0311's get their grubby mits on them and really put coal to the fire without being under the watchful eye of the HK engineers in a controlled environment, we'll get a better look at how good, or bad, the system really is. It amazes me that this system has reached iconic status and the ink isn't even dry yet...
If they use Beta mags with the IAR, then it wouldn't be that bad.
If they use Beta mags with the IAR, we'll merely be transitioning from the JamMaster 5000 to the JamMaster 5000 Mod1.
As stated, Beta mags have reliability issues. Strike that, they have significant reliability issues. Even when somebody sends one back to the manufacturer to get reworked, they come back, do okay for a while, then find a new way to create feed problems.
Plus, they're an even more awkward shape than a SAW drum.
Plus, they take up a much more awkward amount of real estate on a vest.
Plus, they weight more empty than a SAW drum does. Part of the idea is to try to lighten the AR gunner's load, or at least make it easier to handle.
Plus, they look stupid. Everybody knows: if you're gonna screw up, it's okay as long as you look good doing it (this is why sunglasses are so very, very important :D). They're not reliable enough to look as dumb as they do.
They are/were being tested, but the likelihood they'll become issue gear is on a par with that of me being elected Pope. Only folks that like those things are the ones that took the movie 3000 Miles to Graceland to be a documentary film, and fortunately they're noit part of the source-selection process (though sometimes I wonder...).
The 40rnd widebodies look promising, as does the 75rnd drum Dano mentioned. Much more sensible for the platform, but only time will tell if that's the way things will go. We all will just have to wait.
JSantoro, thanks for the response.
I do understand the role of the IAR and was not questioning that. I was interested in why the Marines chose the HK.
Honestly, I wonder at that, too. Not to say that the gun is bad (it's not), but the Corps had a VERY bad time with H&K and the MP5, from a supply-sustainment angle. Big debacle, lots of bad blood, to the point that we shucked it from the inventory and that seeing the H&K selected surprised me. Part of me thinks of that as speaking to the gun's capabilities, because the Corps knows how to HATE, and they've HATED H&K for quite a while.
For the gun, bottom line: The other submissions failed to perform where the H&K did not fail. As with any system, we have yet to see how it does away from the lab-coat guys and the glitter-collar people who run the tests. That's nothing new.
...For the gun, bottom line: The other submissions failed to perform where the H&K did not fail. As with any system, we have yet to see how it does away from the lab-coat guys and the glitter-collar people who run the tests. That's nothing new.
Thanks, and I agree 100% with the above statement. It would be interesting to read their requirements were.
Edited to add: I hope it works out for them.
variablebinary
07-09-10, 00:49
Plus, they look stupid. Everybody knows: if you're gonna screw up, it's okay as long as you look good doing it (this is why sunglasses are so very, very important :D). They're not reliable enough to look as dumb as they do.
That's pretty damn funny, right there.
Here comes the HKPro crowd singing HK IAR uber alles. The weapon system hasn't really been tested yet. When the 0311's get their grubby mits on them and really put coal to the fire without being under the watchful eye of the HK engineers in a controlled environment, we'll get a better look at how good, or bad, the system really is. It amazes me that this system has reached iconic status and the ink isn't even dry yet...
Thanks for warm welcome, but I just stated some facts about IAR barrel (like size and fact that in trials it meet heat resistance criteria with some safe margin). Please state in what exactly point I gave false or misguided information or where did I "sign HK ubber alles"? Show me where in my post did I assume that IAR is a go until field tested?
Do you have some kind of HK related allergy or just ARFcomer lost here venting frustration?
BTW Polish 1.PSK uses HK416 16.5" variant (basically IAR) in A-Stan for some time already with no problems. Of course it's not used in IAR role but as regular assault riffle. However our boys, used to AK style rifles "spray and prey" capability, use them for suppresive fire as well.
Don't mind him. He's guilty of what he's accusing others of, only his kool-aid is Colt-flavored.
Stand by for the accusations of committing the sin of idolatry for not making appropriate sacrifices to a triptych of rearing horse images.
http://bigpeace.com/jkatzman/2010/07/14/the-marines-m27-lmg-substitute-hit-or-miss/
I think the romanticism attached to the original Browning BAR is funny. The utility of weapons and tactics are relative, as is "volume of fire".
Me, too.
I mean, in WWII the Garand was fabulous, but now it's laughable...
Remember, too, that the equally-capable replacement for the BAR was the M14, and the replacement of the M14 was the... well, maybe you get the point already.
Bimmer
trunkmonkey
07-21-10, 08:23
1-It is not a replacement. It is a billet weapon replacement. The M249 will still be available for occasions where a light machinegun is necessary.
2- It doesn't matter what device is accelerating the little bit of metal that are directed at you: suppression is a tactic- I can suppress someone with a Red-Rider if that's all I have. Falling back on the suppression piece and on-gun ammo availability is really just another way of embracing high-volume fire with low-percent hit rates.
What's more effective at unbalancing a fight: missing a bunch or dropping threats? Before everyone spouts off about suppression, it might be a good idea to actually know what it is and how it is developed.
3- Gen Conway is on his way out, so while his opinion carries weight, it is a matter for Gen Amos to pick-up. I would also remind the readership that just because the guy is a General or the Commandant does not mean that he is an expert in small arms: he also said that the M4 is not applicable to the infantry.
You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.
Yes that has absolutely nothing to do with hit rates. It's about keeping their heads down so the rest of your boys can get in position to get those hits. If you've ever been shot at you understand the difference the SAW can make with that big ass drum laying down continous fire.
And yes, generally speaking the M4 is NOT needed by the infantry. We are not talking about units moving by vehicle or being dropped by plane. Sure it's nice to have in a CQB scenario as an option. But being the only branch with every man qualified to shoot out to 500 the M16 is a better weapon.
The statement by the general is the first batch of common sense yet I've read on the whole IAR. It would make a very bad replacement for the SAW in any scenario.
I suggest you go look up the definition of the Marine Corps rifle squad.
Littlelebowski
07-21-10, 08:46
I know FTS personally trunkmonkey, and I suggest that you reach back behind you, grab both ears, pull your head out of your ass, and maybe send FTS a respectful PM asking him what experience he is speaking from and what his profession is.
Trunkmonk
Not sure how you stepped knee deep into adversarial mode. It appears to me some semantics abound, and also that many would differ in opinion in some matters.
Fire superiority generally is accepted to mean a greater volume of effective fire. I suppose at which point you could chew on the definition of effective fire. Keeping heads down to enable maneuver(suppressive), or ripping apart flesh.
Suppressive fire, by definition, (visual or audio signature inhibiting action of the enemy) is about low percentage hits. It is a tactic, and it is a tactic the enemy sometimes could care less about... a hundred angry metal bees "keeping heads down" do not distract dedicated individuals who want to die.. at which point only rds impacting the tgt matter.
Seeing dedicated fighters less than impressed with belt fed flying about them, chewing up their buddies infront of them, and still go forward toward the noise may change ones personal definition of effective. At which point.. given the terrain.. what weapon system will most quickly allow for rapid degradation of individual targets. What tools to accomplish this? A lighter, more swingable, IAR may do the trick in the urban fight. An accurized vari-optic 5.56/7.62 carbine with high % hits may be of much more utility in say open area afghanistan. And .. wow... with a change of magazine size & optic suite the HK offering may offer this. At least the USMC is experimenting
Regarding the m4.. ah.. the USMC has been at war for yrs now and still has grunts in the urban fight using the non ergonomic overly long 2x4-esq m16a4. Not the best tool for use in confined spaces and covering a 360 sphere of responsibility.
While I applaud the USMC for embracing the fundamentals of marksmanship by still shooting iron to 500.. it is a 100 year old methodology. I have yet to get be attacked by static black circles while slung in, utilizing classic standing, sitting, and prone positions. The time could be much better spent with higher volume training utilizing issued optics, UKD, movers, etc.
Your avatar and the time posted might suggest the end of a long day of chest-beatery overseas, wearing skintight underarmor and naysaying all the "non-operators" around you. Beer & keyboards don't mix. Have the best day ever!
You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.
*and a bunch of other shit smeared on his foot and shoved firmly into his mouth*
Wow.
Always nice to hear from purchasers of the Pipe Hitter apparrel line. Yer gonna need a crowbar to get that foot out, Sally.
You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.
Yes that has absolutely nothing to do with hit rates. It's about keeping their heads down so the rest of your boys can get in position to get those hits. If you've ever been shot at you understand the difference the SAW can make with that big ass drum laying down continous fire.
And yes, generally speaking the M4 is NOT needed by the infantry. We are not talking about units moving by vehicle or being dropped by plane. Sure it's nice to have in a CQB scenario as an option. But being the only branch with every man qualified to shoot out to 500 the M16 is a better weapon.
The statement by the general is the first batch of common sense yet I've read on the whole IAR. It would make a very bad replacement for the SAW in any scenario.
I suggest you go look up the definition of the Marine Corps rifle squad.
We ARE talking about units who move by vehicle (and helicopter). And even if you are dismounted 24/7, you still find yourself in spots where a long weapon does not handle well.
Dustin
You evidently do not understand the importance of the Marine rifle squad having a weapon that can establish fire superiority in a firefight.
How much better is a SAW if the Marine carrying it can't keep up with his fire team? How does a SAW help establish fire superiority when it's not there? Leave a Marine behind or lose your momentum?
The IAR is not a SAW replacement, no one is pretending that it can fill the SAWs shoes. It's a compromise between weight, size and firepower. If it was just about firepower, why isn't the M240 and M2 being fielded at the fireteam/squad level?
John_Wayne777
07-21-10, 14:43
I suggest you go look up the definition of the Marine Corps rifle squad.
Wow.
In the broad spectrum of bad ideas, that ranked somewhere between running with scissors and sticking your pecker in the toaster.
I'll remind folks that we designate certain individuals on this site with the title of Industry Professional because of
extensive first hand experience with the deployment of small arms, execution of proper tactics, or development of the past or current military weapons platforms.
Suffice it to say that F2S's experience falls into the deployment of small arms and execution of tactics bit of the definition. As a board, M4C gives a frowny face to those who feel compelled to lecture our IPs or SMEs on stuff they know far better than most.
I would strongly encourage folks to muster all the tact possible when taking a contrary position to those espoused by our IPs/SMEs, as well as ensuring that they are firmly within their lane. Otherwise you'll end up with your foot inserted into your mouth so deep that you're gagging on your own knee.
RogerinTPA
07-21-10, 16:56
Since the SAW isn't going away with the Corps, anyone know the TOE authorizations of the SAW and IAR in a Infantry company, Plt or Sqd? Will the saw be pulled back to company level, ala weapons platoon, or one per PLT, augmented by several IARs spinkled among the SQDs or 1 SAW per Sqd, augmented by 3 IARs for each team? If I was the Commandant, I'd go with the latter choice.
Moose-Knuckle
07-21-10, 19:22
It never ceases to amaze me...:rolleyes:
Much thanks for those of you who are in the know on this and keeping the rest of abreast.
Will the saw be pulled back to company level, ala weapons platoon, ...
This is the most likely, 6 per company in Wpns Plt. Honestly, remains to be seen. There's still a lot of "you got your chocolate in my peanut butter! / no you got your peanut butter in my chocolate!" conversations going on, with interdepartmental gnashing of teeth, screams of apoplexy, and cross-accusations of the worshiping of graven images. Business as usual.
I'm sure trunkmonkey could probably settle the whole hash in like 3 days, between being all doctrinally cutting edge like he is and given such a fantastic display of situational awareness:
"Help us Obi-Wan, you're our only hope! We'll give you a Pipe Hitters Union hat."
"Oh hells, yeah! Meep-meep *zoom*!"
personally, i find that the IAR project is headed in the wrong direction. magazine fed and closed bolt? no thank you.
i think that the corps should have looked more into light weight LMGs, such as the ultimak and KAC LMG.
but im no grunt, what do i know.
-Joe
trunkmonkey
07-21-10, 20:57
Trunkmonk
Not sure how you stepped knee deep into adversarial mode. It appears to me some semantics abound, and also that many would differ in opinion in some matters.
Fire superiority generally is accepted to mean a greater volume of effective fire. I suppose at which point you could chew on the definition of effective fire. Keeping heads down to enable maneuver(suppressive), or ripping apart flesh.
Suppressive fire, by definition, (visual or audio signature inhibiting action of the enemy) is about low percentage hits. It is a tactic, and it is a tactic the enemy sometimes could care less about... a hundred angry metal bees "keeping heads down" do not distract dedicated individuals who want to die.. at which point only rds impacting the tgt matter.
Seeing dedicated fighters less than impressed with belt fed flying about them, chewing up their buddies infront of them, and still go forward toward the noise may change ones personal definition of effective. At which point.. given the terrain.. what weapon system will most quickly allow for rapid degradation of individual targets. What tools to accomplish this? A lighter, more swingable, IAR may do the trick in the urban fight. An accurized vari-optic 5.56/7.62 carbine with high % hits may be of much more utility in say open area afghanistan. And .. wow... with a change of magazine size & optic suite the HK offering may offer this. At least the USMC is experimenting
Regarding the m4.. ah.. the USMC has been at war for yrs now and still has grunts in the urban fight using the non ergonomic overly long 2x4-esq m16a4. Not the best tool for use in confined spaces and covering a 360 sphere of responsibility.
While I applaud the USMC for embracing the fundamentals of marksmanship by still shooting iron to 500.. it is a 100 year old methodology. I have yet to get be attacked by static black circles while slung in, utilizing classic standing, sitting, and prone positions. The time could be much better spent with higher volume training utilizing issued optics, UKD, movers, etc.
Your avatar and the time posted might suggest the end of a long day of chest-beatery overseas, wearing skintight underarmor and naysaying all the "non-operators" around you. Beer & keyboards don't mix. Have the best day ever!
Well in response I can say I definitely want you be just like you.
I didn't realize that the only branch of service still left teaching the core fundamentals of marksmanship as it should be taught was an outdated concept. Last I saw it all begins with that. You might say I consider the use of iron sights a concept that far too many have forgotten these days since becoming dependent on optics of some nature. Sure you may not hop down in the sitting position all the time in the real world, it's simply about knowing what you can do and applying when the time comes. Just because you don't use those positions often doesn't mean the time will never come or that you shouldn't learn them in the first place.
Now go read verbatim the mission of the marine corps and you'll find that while yes the M4 is preferable for some scenarios it is not a necessity for the marine corps specialty-beach landings. While the marine corps prides itself on being able to operate in any clime and place the commandant doesn't want to get away from the primary function of the corps.
As for the definition of effective fire I can agree with most of what you posted. Except for the fact that only 3 in a marine rifle squad carry the SAW. Leaving more than enough trained marksmen to put those "lighter, more swingable" firearms to good use. If that large volume of fire doesn't slow down the enemy that is "not impressed" I'm sure the other members of that squad are dropping that that small percentage of fighters that absolutely has no fear of death. But lets not lie about this. Not every fighter is like that, in fact MOST are not like that. So that "suppressive fire" tactic does indeed do what it's intended to do. If not I guess they wouldn't have come up with the term huh. Now which firearm is best at providing that "suppressive fire" on a marine rifle squad???..................you guessed it.
As for your last paragraph you assume alot more than you actually know. I'm out, have to go do some "chest-beatery".
Qualifying with 500m targets and actually hitting them is two different things. All service chest-thumping aside, the use of the m16, as well as the SAW, is probably antiquated. I don't know how the Marines employ 240s, but having one attached to a squad is common place in the Army. If the Army had the IAR, fire teams could quickly maneuver, still have a decent casualty producing weapon, and have a heavy base of fire for suppression coming from the gun.
Your assuming the marine with the SAW cannot keep up with everyone else. Bad assumption.
You've got to be kidding me. I've seen guys I'd smoke the shit out of under normal circumstances smoke my ass because I was weighed down with more kit than them. That SAW gunner is really going to wish he had an IAR when he's IMTing up some steep ass hill.
John_Wayne777
07-21-10, 21:08
Trunkmonkey is no longer with us since he decided to become the poster child for being out of one's lane.
We don't tolerate those who exhibit bad manners toward our IPs and SMEs.
William B.
07-21-10, 21:22
You've got to be kidding me. I've seen guys I'd smoke the shit out of under normal circumstances smoke my ass because I was weighed down with more kit than them. That SAW gunner is really going to wish he had an IAR when he's IMTing up some steep ass hill.
Just to reinforce this, when I was a SAW gunner I weighed about 275lbs with my full combat load. I weigh about 185lbs slick. That gear does get pretty heavy.
SME/IP's, what is the suggested amount of ammo that the IAR gunner should carry?
variablebinary
07-21-10, 21:39
Qualifying with 500m targets and actually hitting them is two different things. All service chest-thumping aside, the use of the m16, as well as the SAW, is probably antiquated. I don't know how the Marines employ 240s, but having one attached to a squad is common place in the Army. If the Army had the IAR, fire teams could quickly maneuver, still have a decent casualty producing weapon, and have a heavy base of fire for suppression coming from the gun.
You've got to be kidding me. I've seen guys I'd smoke the shit out of under normal circumstances smoke my ass because I was weighed down with more kit than them. That SAW gunner is really going to wish he had an IAR when he's IMTing up some steep ass hill.
It will be interesting to see the feedback from Marines tasked with carrying the IAR. Gear has gotten more efficient with size and weight.
Deleted
Pointless internet argument, not relevant to the topic. My apologies
SeriousStudent
07-22-10, 20:47
JW - thanks very much for the adding some chlorine to the pool.
As someone that used to tote an M-60D, and then an E3, I'm really interested in how the IAR works out. I did carry a SAW a few times, and was not very enthusiastic about it. It was a challenge for my limited skills as a knuckle-dragger to keep operational.
I do wish all those in harms way the best of success with whatever the Corps chooses to field.
crazymoose
07-22-10, 21:48
Well... geez, where to start.
I think the romanticism attached to the original Browning BAR is funny. The utility of weapons and tactics are relative, as is "volume of fire".
.
Agreed. I've seen many an interview in which BAR and Bren gunners said they found it to be incredibly dispiriting going up against MG34 or MG42 gunners, when they were reloading every 20 or 30 rounds.
To me, the Mk27 makes more sense as a standard issue rifle than as a kinda/sorta replacement for a belt-fed weapon. What exactly does this thing do that an M4 can't? We've all seen the video where the M4A1 rips out more rounds than any one man would realistically carry, before finally giving up the ghost when the gas tube melts. What is the envisioned scenario with the IAR? That you'd have an assistant gunner hauling a bunch of mags instead of belts? Not trying to be argumentative on this one, it just seems that if you throw a rail on an M4A1 and compare it to the IAR, the IAR really won't start to differentiate itself until you see differences in heat buildup from a long string of mags being fired very rapidly.
what a M27, IMO, will do that a m4 wont:
-cook off lube in key areas after a few mags of auto use
-be more controllable in F/A, denser cone of fire (416 variants are heavy)
I don't usually post here, but that dude calling out F2S has been one of the more humorous things I've seen on the internet lately. If that guy was a Marine, wouldn't he have capitalized "Marine Corps?" I mean, really, I was in the Army and I capitalize "Marine Corps."
Regarding the M27 being more controllable in automatic fire due to the inherent weight of the 416 platform, I would agree, except that the operating mechanism of the 416 is a lot more violent than a DI gun, so I don't think there will be much difference.
Here's a thought regarding the basis of issue. A USMC rifle company has all of the true MGs consolidated in a weapons platoon, right? Why not adopt an Army-ish TO&E, where you have, say, six M249s or MK 46s in a separate squad in the rifle platoon, and put the IARs in the fire teams. That way, your fire teams and rifle squads are light enough to assault, but you've still got belt fed guns at the platoon level.
All of the points that people have made about SAW gunners generally being too heavily burdened to be an asset to an assault element are spot on. Also, the questionable utility of the 500 yard iron sight qual is something I've questioned myself (and at least once, been answered with chest thumpery.)
crusader377
07-22-10, 23:10
I think the Mk 27 is a good concept and bridges the gap between the M4/M16 and the M249. However, I would be concerned with the decrease of firepower at squad level if they replace the M249 with the Mk27. IMO, I think a better idea is to issue both the M249 and Mk27 at the fire team level with 3 M249s and 3 Mk27s issued per Marine squad. Then employ both in an arms room concept and let small unit leaders optimize their equipment for the particular mission.
the 416 has a slightly more rigorous recoil impulse than a m4 as compared in 10" format. I have not directly compared a 14.5" m4 to a 16.5" heavy barreled M27 IAR.. so a bit of experienced based supposition on my part. They should consider a brake, for nice useable density of F/A fire at distance
The utility will still be defined by magazine size... hello industry.
Here's a thought regarding the basis of issue. A USMC rifle company has all of the true MGs consolidated in a weapons platoon, right? Why not adopt an Army-ish TO&E, where you have, say, six M249s or MK 46s in a separate squad in the rifle platoon, and put the IARs in the fire teams. That way, your fire teams and rifle squads are light enough to assault, but you've still got belt fed guns at the platoon level.
The IARs are already going to the fire teams, and the belt-fed medium and heavy guns are already at the line-platoon level, on the gun trucks. Have been for nearly a decade. All done without a TO shift.
The USMC population and force structure can't support a systemic TO shift, for one; it doesn't have a heavy armor/mech infantry basis to justify it.
Also, the idea of all our SSgts being down-selected from their PltSgt billets and demoted to Squad Leaders...? The inevitable insurrection would make any zombie apocalypse we could dream up a pale, wilting thing by comparison.
the 416 has a slightly more rigorous recoil impulse than a m4 as compared in 10" format. I have not directly compared a 14.5" m4 to a 16.5" heavy barreled M27 IAR.. so a bit of experienced based supposition on my part. They should consider a brake, for nice useable density of F/A fire at distance
Maybe it's not best example, but I have 1-st person experience with HK MR223 16.5" (same barrel profile as IAR) and 16.5" AR-15 with govt profile barrel (Stag-15) in 3Gun competition. Bouth used PWS comp. I can't feel the difference in recoil impulse when prone. I tend to think that HK even have slightly less recoil when off-hand (my splits on double taps seem to be slightly faster with HK). Probably part of this come from higher mass (front heavy barrel flips-up less) and high mass HDTP buffer that HK uses. On the other hand my second Stag in rifle format (20", regular barrel) was much "softer" than bouth 16.5"s.
BTW Comparing BAR 20rd magazine changes to IAR 30rd magazine changes seem quite pointless. Anyone who did it on bouth will know that IAR/AR magazine change (with modern magazine carry systems) takes virtually zero time compared to WWII era magazine changes on BAR (or Bren).
BTW2 Shortly after WWII there was interesting story - LMG gunner (with ZB vz 26 if I remember correct) with was left behind by fleeing froces of Polish Army against over 150 Ukrainian partisans assaulting uphill. Guy had 17 20rd magazines with him. Problem was he was fresh and did not know he is already dead. He put effective and dense fire. When he went trought last magazine all attacker were either dead or retreating.
The IARs are already going to the fire teams, and the belt-fed medium and heavy guns are already at the line-platoon level, on the gun trucks. Have been for nearly a decade. All done without a TO shift.
The USMC population and force structure can't support a systemic TO shift, for one; it doesn't have a heavy armor/mech infantry basis to justify it.
Also, the idea of all our SSgts being down-selected from their PltSgt billets and demoted to Squad Leaders...? The inevitable insurrection would make any zombie apocalypse we could dream up a pale, wilting thing by comparison.
I may misunderstand the USMC rifle company TO. I was under the impression that the rifle platoon had three squads and a small command element, and that the 240s were in a separate weapons platoon in the company, and distributed to the rifle platoon as the mission required. I was also under the impression that the gun trucks were deployment specific and not under the standard TO for a rifle company.
Again, I may be wrong about all of this. I wasn't suggesting a wholesale TO shift, and certainly wasn't suggesting a change in what ranks hold which billets.
What I am saying is that if you want to keep the 249s at the platoon level, one solution would to replace the 249s in the fire teams with IARs (which is apparently being done), and create a weapons squad at the platoon level that contained the 249s. Preferably under their own squad leader (like the Ranger or Airborne TOs.) Granted, this adds some machine gunner slots and an NCO slot to every rifle platoon, but I'm not sure that makes it a "systemic shift."
This is only applicable if you're one of the people who believes that the shift from the SAW to the IAR represents a catastrophic loss of firepower to the fire team. I'm not at all convinced that this really is a problem, for reasons that others have expressed better than I can.
I mentioned a zombie apocalypse in the same sentence as our SSgts, and that wasn't enough to denote sarcasm? Never mind. QED, it was clearly not enough, so put it aside. You don't misunderstand the rifle company structure on paper, you misunderstand the Corps and have fallen into the mental trap of thinking that it's no different than the Army, or worse, directly think that is should be just like the Army. Gun trucks are NOT deployment specific, because that's the war we're fighting right now, so that's how everybody is generally equipped. It's not like not wearing white past a certain date.
You ARE suggesting a wholesale TO shift across the entire combat arms branch. Add "a few" machinegunner slots? That infers 3+. And an NCO, so at least 4 bodies/line platoon. Where are these bodies going to come from?
Are you going to shift them from the Wpns Plt TO to feed them in? If so, you just effectively wiped out the Wpns Plt from a TO concept that WORKS, meaning you desire it to not work any longer to become more cumbersome. Why would that be?
The Corps gets $.07 of each defense dollar, so what are you going to cut from our already shoestring budget to foot the bill?
How are you going to staff the Schools of Infantry to support the plus-up of 0331s? That's presuming that you reached out to the petty-cash vines growing in your back 40 IOT pluck leaves with which to pay for simply adding NLT 4 bodies to each line platoon in, what, 51 battalions?
In the raw, not only do USMC numbers not support that, USMC force structure does not support that, ergo it's not applicable under any condition that exists.
Mr. Santoro,
Allow me to back up for a second. I'm not arguing with the substance of anything you're saying. I do not think that the Marines should be like the Army. I don't even think that a lot of the Army should be like it is right now. Having the machine guns in a weapons platoon (and having a machine gunner MOS) seems to me to be a far more effective method for maintaining well trained machine gunners than TOing them down to the rifle platoons.
My premise was this: If we accept the idea that the rifle platoon is losing significant "firepower" by transitioning from the M249 to the IAR (which is a shaky idea at best), AND for a moment we ignore the obvious issues with manning and funding (where do the bodies and cash come from), one solution MIGHT be to create an automatic weapons section or squad at the platoon level.
I fully recognize that there are logistic failings to this idea.
When I said that gun trucks were deployment specific, I meant that the units with gun trucks were the one's deploying to Iraq or A-stan. I'm making the leap that a MEU going on a float but not going to those theaters would not have gun trucks.
I don't even think that a lot of the Army should be like it is right now.
Ya got me. :D One of my co-workers prairie-dogged his head over the cubicle to see what I was barking laughter about. Well-played, sir.
Some of this revolves around your use of the word "solution." I categorically disagree that a problem exists that requires a solution. Certainly not one that will be caused by adding the M27 to the inventory. You're basing the idea on attempting to provide closure to a gap where no gap does or is likely (Cthulu pray it so!) to exist.
Cagemonkey
07-23-10, 17:00
Will IAR/M27 gunners and SAW/M249 gunners be the same MOS? The determining factor as to what they will carry being dictated by the mission and the authorization of their platoon Sgt.
Littlelebowski
07-23-10, 17:09
Will IAR/M27 gunners and SAW/M249 gunners be the same MOS? The determining factor as to what they will carry being dictated by the mission and the authorization of their platoon Sgt.
No MOS for SAW gunners. 03s of some sort, mostly 0311s.
Ya got me. :D One of my co-workers prairie-dogged his head over the cubicle to see what I was barking laughter about. Well-played, sir.
Some of this revolves around your use of the word "solution." I categorically disagree that a problem exists that requires a solution. Certainly not one that will be caused by adding the M27 to the inventory. You're basing the idea on attempting to provide closure to a gap where no gap does or is likely (Cthulu pray it so!) to exist.
Solution was probably the wrong word to use. I also don't think that the theoretical "loss of firepower" is an issue. I was just proposing a theoretical solution to those who believe that we are truly sacrificing "firepower" by replacing the 249 with a true automatic rifle.
One of the reasons I think that the IAR is a good idea is that, from what I've seen, there is too much of a tendency to use the M249 in the fire team as another machine gun, and not as a true automatic rifle. A lot of this has to do with the additional weight of the 249, and the gunner's issues with keeping up with his rifle armed team mates, as others have pointed out. It makes sense to me that by going to a lighter, more maneuverable system will allow the gunner to maneuver more effectively with his team and squad, while allowing for the more limited, precise, and immediately available automatic fire that an automatic rifle (as opposed to a machine gun) gives you.
On the other hand, I'm pretty proud to have inspired some "prairie dogging."
USMC 1970 a Machinegunner went to a four week MOS school. US Army in 1976 a machinegunner was an 11B that someone pointed at and said "you are a machinegunner", no MOS school(M60 machinegun) strictly OJT. Is it still that way? Marine Corps or Army?
Does the SAW gunner in either the US Army or USMC go to an MOS school? Not that I know of?
A Squad automatic rifleman is not a machinegunner. A SAW M249 is a crew served weapon, needs an "A" gunner to help out for full efficiency due to the weight and the belt feed. An automatic rifleman with a M27 is not a machinegunner, he does it all by himself. Currently an M249 gunner with a belt, does it all by himself. Does either Army or Marine Corps designate an assist automatic rifleman? You want to participate with the fireteam as an automatic rifleman carrying a belt fed "machinegun" go for it. I would rather carry an M27 and be able to keep up with the fireteam and fully participate with the fireteam. An automatic rifleman is part of the fireteam and his job is to support or participate with the fireteam. The MOS machinegunner is to support the platoon or squad as planned by the plt HQ, not the fireteam. In my opinion it was a mistake to use the M249 belt fed as a squad automatic weapon. Different jobs being mixed up and misunderstood by US military and now the USMC is trying to get that straitened out.
Does any of the above make any sense to anyone? Opinions?
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.