Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 119

Thread: USMC to upgrade to "Deadlier" rifles

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by strambo View Post
    Well...the rifle is negligible in terms of which rifle. Any decent carbine will do in the grand scheme of things. I think it is sad that they don't at least equip all M16A4's with the VLTOR A5 system ASAP. To continue to saddle Marines with the A2 stock while wearing armor is silly.

    I think a near ideal carbine for Marine sensibilities would be a floated 16" barrel, Geissele SSF trigger, and an A5 stock system.
    Collapsible stocks are already authorized, however infantry and infantry like units (about everyone in division) will go M4 pure in the future.

    The A4 PIP actually was proposed to have a 16" barrel, interesting testing done by ARDEC showed the A4RCO was much closer match to a 16" barrel than it was to a 20" barrel

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    503
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by R0N View Post
    Collapsible stocks are already authorized, however infantry and infantry like units (about everyone in division) will go M4 pure in the future.

    The A4 PIP actually was proposed to have a 16" barrel, interesting testing done by ARDEC showed the A4RCO was much closer match to a 16" barrel than it was to a 20" barrel
    Thanks for the info, I didn't realize Marine infantry was going M4 pure, good deal. I kinda felt bad in Iraq, my Army Nat. Guard unit has had M4s for forever and the active duty infantry Marines were still lugging the A4s around.
    "The world's a dangerous place – we can help." -www.portlandfirearmtraining.com
    NRA LE Handgun-Shotgun Instructor/Life Member

  3. #83
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisco
    Posts
    987
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BrigandTwoFour View Post
    IMO, small arms just aren't the priority in the DoD. The explosion in small arms configurations in the last 15 year has been awesome, but long-term combat experience shows that most killing is done by bigger weapons (artillery, air power, etc). Small arms have simply become deemphasized. That translates from acquisition programs all the way down to marksmanship training.
    On the MEU we in the Air Wing had brand new M16A4's that sat in the armory and every month we would have to clean them for inspection. It was stupid because we didn't shoot them at all but every month we'd stay up all night with a bottle of CLP cleaning dust out of the rails. The grunts 03's that I dealt with on the range had crap M4's that had been used an abused with one missing a chunk of it's front sight post but it was issued with an RCO (ACOG) so the armory would replace it and the guy wasn't weapons dropped. It was stupid. My mission in the Wing was to support the guys on the ground, every Marine knows that, but I think you are right in the fact that as the Air Wing we had money to put bombs on target, and the grunts were a secondary priority to the top brass.
    I perfer black coffee in the morning, bourbon in evenings and spending money on sh*t I probably don't need.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    SETX
    Posts
    364
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    No shit. Especially given the USMC's reputation for marksmanship it seems retarded to remove the optics as it requires a re-zero of the weapon. Sure, you should be "close" but I personally wouldn't be comfortable with it.
    I can't speak for anyone else's unit, but for the ones I was in, we only removed the optics for cleaning while in garrison. When we would conduct live-fire field ops, rezeroing was the first event on the list. For extended field ops and deployments, we wouldn't touch the optics unles they were broken. I know some senior NCOs out there who can't get out of garrison mode, so I have no doubt the issue exists in some units.
    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

    "It is better to be thought a fool and to remain silent, than to speak and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    25
    Feedback Score
    0
    My reserve unit had almost universal adoption of the M4 about a year out from our deployment. A couple stagglers got stuck with M16s but that was it. We were also weapons co, so in other words mounted. Our line companies didnt have as universal a fielding of M4s.

    IMO another huge improvement would be a MUCH lighter medium machinegun. I know there are lighter weight M240s coming down the line, but Id like to see something in the 15lb range. Not sure how good the 7.62 Negev is but im impressed with the platform from what Ive read at 16-17lbs. That said I dont know if they have the reliability of the 240s.

    And yes, after a BZO in country or for any training excercise ACOGs were not removed.

    Mike

    Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    276
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by crazymjb View Post
    My reserve unit had almost universal adoption of the M4 about a year out from our deployment. A couple stagglers got stuck with M16s but that was it. We were also weapons co, so in other words mounted. Our line companies didnt have as universal a fielding of M4s.

    IMO another huge improvement would be a MUCH lighter medium machinegun. I know there are lighter weight M240s coming down the line, but Id like to see something in the 15lb range. Not sure how good the 7.62 Negev is but im impressed with the platform from what Ive read at 16-17lbs. That said I dont know if they have the reliability of the 240s.

    And yes, after a BZO in country or for any training excercise ACOGs were not removed.

    Mike

    Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
    Did you get to use MK-48s? We had them as TPE in ASTAN. they are a couple pounds lighter than the 240B. Think a 7.62 M249.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    25
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cd228 View Post
    Did you get to use MK-48s? We had them as TPE in ASTAN. they are a couple pounds lighter than the 240B. Think a 7.62 M249.
    No. We were supposedly the first unit to field M27s though. The fam fire was sweet. 600 rounds per Marine on an unknown distance range with pop up Ivans, just laying down bursts for 15-20 minutes from the standing and kneeling until all ammo was expended. I still think it is an inadequate replacement for the SAW. Patrolling without beltfed stuff is a bad idea IMO... which is why we took 240s whenever dismounted. Apart from a bunch of IEDs, pop shots, and 1 ambush our deployment was pretty slow. I firmly believe my friends would be dead if they didnt have the 240s with them when they got ambushed.

    Mike

    Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,293
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by crazymjb View Post
    No. We were supposedly the first unit to field M27s though. The fam fire was sweet. 600 rounds per Marine on an unknown distance range with pop up Ivans, just laying down bursts for 15-20 minutes from the standing and kneeling until all ammo was expended. I still think it is an inadequate replacement for the SAW. Patrolling without beltfed stuff is a bad idea IMO... which is why we took 240s whenever dismounted. Apart from a bunch of IEDs, pop shots, and 1 ambush our deployment was pretty slow. I firmly believe my friends would be dead if they didnt have the 240s with them when they got ambushed.

    Mike

    Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
    I thought the IAR was meant to augment the 249, not replace it as many people seem to assume.
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    I thought the IAR was meant to augment the 249, not replace it as many people seem to assume.
    The M27 replaces the M249 in the rifle squads, the Company Commander keeps 9 as, "as required weapons" that are issued them out as needed.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by crazymjb View Post
    No. We were supposedly the first unit to field M27s though.
    1/3 and 1/9 were the first BNs to get them in Dec 2010 (1/3 was the first and their CO happened to have been the infantry advocate at PP&O prior to taking command), 2/4 got them Jan of 11 and 1/25 in Apr of 11.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •