Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 119

Thread: USMC to upgrade to "Deadlier" rifles

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    The improvements significantly improve accuracy and can be accomplished signficantly cheaper than buying new guns


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    On top of a mountain, NC
    Posts
    1,724
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I just hope that the improvements are actually improvements. Some of the new gear they come out with is questionable at best.
    0311
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,954
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    Whether the M27 is a failure or not at this point is still up in the air. However there was no subterfuge in fielding M27 it was not a backdoor means of getting a new services rifle. The gunner community was never a fan of the SAW seeing it as a LMG and not what the Marine Corps was originally wanting and have been attempting to go back to an IAR since the late 90s. Through numerous conversations with the gunner who wrote the original Gazette he specifically denied any idea of using it as a vehicle for a service rifle replacement, He is GS working for the Marines and not a gun company

    What brought about the discussion of it as a replacement for the M16 FOW was during its initial fielding how accurate it was compared to the M16F OW

    The RPK is still in Russian service and its adoption actually points to belt feed LMGs of the same caliber as the service weapon being replaced by an IAR and when they need belt feed they go with a larger caliber weapon

    Other nations have replaced their IARs but all that has bought them is the ability to make more noise; that is essentially the argument against the SAW it does produce a larger volume of fire and effect is mostly noise at the expense of maneuverability


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Fair enough. Its no surprise why the M27 is more accurate and has better sustained fire capability. I suspect if you replaced the M16FOW barrel with a similar barrel to the M27 you would gain most of the IAR capability at the cost of weight of course.

    Last edited by vicious_cb; 02-24-15 at 21:13.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,165
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    If ya'll are planning full M4's why upgrade the M16?
    My guess is that the Marines plan on piggy-backing on whatever the Army decides to do with their M4/M4A1s, but that they also want to keep the musket around and competitive/useful (and if they can succeed with the M16 while the Army is still trying to figure out the PIP for the M4, use the basis of their new M16s to upgrade their M4s and get the bragging rights that go along with the Army having to dump their stillborn M4 PIP for the Marine M16/M4 PIP). And if the Marines can embarrass the Army thusly, the Marines are less likely to bear the brunt of any congressional budgeting ire.

    I could easily be wrong, though.
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn View Post
    My guess is that the Marines plan on piggy-backing on whatever the Army decides to do with their M4/M4A1s, but that they also want to keep the musket around and competitive/useful (and if they can succeed with the M16 while the Army is still trying to figure out the PIP for the M4, use the basis of their new M16s to upgrade their M4s and get the bragging rights that go along with the Army having to dump their stillborn M4 PIP for the Marine M16/M4 PIP). And if the Marines can embarrass the Army thusly, the Marines are less likely to bear the brunt of any congressional budgeting ire.

    I could easily be wrong, though.
    Won't happen. Look at the ACU debacle. Marines got it right so the Army spent a billion dollars to get the same thing only in cool purplish gray colors.
    C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Fair enough. Its no surprise why the M27 is more accurate and has better sustained fire capability. I suspect if you replaced the M16FOW barrel with a similar barrel to the M27 you would gain most of the IAR capability at the cost of weight of course.

    That pic is of an HK416 barrel (before they made them M4 profile under the handguards). I thought the M27 had a finned barrel for enhanced cooling?
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,954
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    That pic is of an HK416 barrel (before they made them M4 profile under the handguards). I thought the M27 had a finned barrel for enhanced cooling?
    Nope its just a regular hammer forged Hbar. Here is another pic, note the separate bayonet lug indicating this is a real M27 barrel not just from a regular old 416.


  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Nope its just a regular hammer forged Hbar. Here is another pic, note the separate bayonet lug indicating this is a real M27 barrel not just from a regular old 416.

    Sorry, couldn't see the extra bayonet lug in the first pic. Looks like that is the same thickness as my 416 upper's barrel (last date code before they started the M4 profile under the handguards). Guess I also missed the lack of M203 flats on the barrel behind the gas block. Damn, I'm slipping!
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dist. Expert 26 View Post
    I just hope that the improvements are actually improvements. Some of the new gear they come out with is questionable at best.
    ESS Glasses are EXTREME!
    Why do the loudest do the least?

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    ESS Glasses are EXTREME!
    It's funny you mention that; when ESS first started getting issued I talked the company's president at Marine Expo West about how the bows kept popping off them all the time. He did they concentrated so much on the lenses and we did not pay enough attention to the rest of the design


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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