Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: The Commandant has doubts about replacing SAW with HK M27 IAR

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pezboy View Post
    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 ). 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.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by az doug View Post
    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.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    637
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post
    ...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.
    Last edited by az doug; 07-08-10 at 15:46.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JSantoro View Post

    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 ). They're not reliable enough to look as dumb as they do.
    That's pretty damn funny, right there.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MK18Pilot View Post
    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.
    Last edited by montrala; 07-15-10 at 06:07.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    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.
    Contractor scum, AAV

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    159
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    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.
    Last edited by trunkmonkey; 07-21-10 at 09:32.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,469
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    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.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •