Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    57
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by trunkmonkey View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Brian1/75; 07-21-10 at 22:05.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,829
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by John_Wayne777; 07-22-10 at 07:28.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    757
    Feedback Score
    47 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian1/75 View Post
    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?
    Owner/Instructor at Resolute Response
    Assistant Instructor at Protective Shooting Concepts

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian1/75 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by variablebinary; 07-21-10 at 22:49.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    65
    Feedback Score
    0
    Deleted

    Pointless internet argument, not relevant to the topic. My apologies
    Last edited by pcf; 07-22-10 at 05:31.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,904
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    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.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. IL
    Posts
    410
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dano5326 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by crazymoose; 07-22-10 at 22:53.

  8. #48
    Dano5326 Guest
    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)

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    34
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.)
    Last edited by DPB; 07-22-10 at 23:46.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,384
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •