Update on the IAR competition
A couple of days ago I blogged about H&K winning the USMC's IAR competition. There has been much confusion regarding the IAR competition since then.
Dan Lamothe, who broke the news, updated his The Marine Times article and added that it now appears that the H&K IAR has not officially won but is the frontrunner ...
With several months of testing ahead, the decision isn’t considered final, but it makes the H&K model the clear front-runner in the competition.
...
The Corps will now put H&K IAR through five months of testing beginning in January and taking place in locations ranging from Panama to the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center and Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in California, Eby said. The Corps has ordered 24 H&K IARs for testing, said Capt. Geraldine Care
Rob Curtis who blogs at GearScout (also part of the Military Times) wrote that the DoD appear to done a downselect, rather than awarding H&K an outright win ...
From what we understand, this is actually a downselect to just one system as opposed to a contract win
Dan send me an email regarding my previous comments on the supposed weight of the H&K IAR, which is almost identical to the standard HK416 carbine. He sent me the spec document which H&K provided him with. It does indeed list the weight as just 7.9 lbs!
Daniel E. Watters wrote that he suspects that the Marine command may have been framing the IAR as a partial M249 replacement but in reality they may have just wanted a piston operated full-auto carbine. By procuring what is sold as a new class of weapon they could sidestep the inter-service politics and bureaucracy ...
The weird thing is that the HK416 IAR is roughly the same weight as the M16A4, if not lighter when the latter is fitted with the M5 ARS. I'm certain that someone in Congress will ultimately ask what the HK416 can do that their issue M16A4 retrofitted with full-auto trigger groups can't.
Like others have mentioned, I can't help but wonder if the USMC didn't game the IAR requirements so that a basic carbine could win instead of a HBAR. The idea would be to gradually increase the number of IAR issued so that they could later justify standardizing on it to replace not just the infantry squad's M249, but their M16A4 and M4 as well. By framing it as a service-specific supplement to their M249, they skirted the need to argue with the other service branches over a set of joint requirements.
As for winning the contract, everyone needs to remember that Colt, FN, and HK were already awarded Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts for their IAR last year. An IDIQ contract guarantees the awardee that they will have a specific minimum of items ordered, with the possibility of additional orders up to a specific maximum. There is no guarantee that more than the stated minimum will ever be ordered. I've long suspected that contracting officers have been purposefully making multiple awards of IDIQ contracts prior to a final downselect in order to head off potential award protests by the disgruntled losers. It is my understanding that by accepting their IDIQ award, the contractor only has grounds to protest if the guaranteed minimum has not ordered before the end of the contract. They cannot protest that they did not receive additional orders in excess of the guaranteed minimum.
Make of all this information as you will. All I know is that DoD procurement was never designed to be understood by a mere mortal such as myself!
I noticed the deal with the weight too. I just didn’t put it together the way that you have. It makes perfect sense too, SOCOM which is willing to try darn near every concept that hits the market isn’t interested and they’ve been pushing this so hard despite the weirdness of it that your conclusions seem spot on.
Pretty funny they have to go to such lengths to stand a chance at changing the M16a4.
Considering the adoption of the scar for socom. Maybe that spooked some people and they thought “Scar the main infantry rifle?, not on my watch!” And they cooked up this bogus IAR replacement, so they would have a rifle that could hold its own against the scar. Or least have an alternative design already in action that they could use to block the Scar going mainstream.
I think Steve already said it but I’ll repeat it anyway. The HK416 got bad reviews by SOCOM…it was put into service before the SCAR and only thing heard about it was bad stuff.
As far as an M16A4 replacement…I still can’t see it. The barrel is too short/range too limited for it to be considered the primary Infantry rifle. Of course the same thing applies to the IAR in this form as a replacement for the M249. I can’t believe that they would give up effective range, effective rate of fire and the only gain being in weight as a reason to switch to this concept. Heck they could have gone with any of the SOCOM or paratroop versions of the M249 as a cheaper and more effective modification of an existing machinegun.
The last time the Marine Corps went this route was with the M60E3…it was not successful and I can see this IAR (if its to be the M249 replacement…even in limited roles) not being in service long.
I think the Marines just want to head the way of the Army with there new perposed M-4A2 with a pison system. I dont think they will replace the M-16A4 for a while but it may replace the older M-4 modles in use.
I dont think this is a scare tactic on the SCAR the gun is have problums in the field and is too expensive to be widely used. But I think the Corps may justwan to look at new guns for adoption at future uses.
This is just sounding very bizarre, it doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s just basically a piston M-4 with probably a slightly heavier barrel. No larger capacity magazine, no barrel change, a closed bolt which without either a barrel change or a really heavy barrel with maybe some fluting just does not make sense to me. Or like the POF guns they have a large collar to absorb heat around the chamber area.
The more the DOD does stuff like this the more I just shake my head. To me the only thing that makes sense is a backdoor way of getting a piston rifle in the supply chain. Why bother if you’re still staying with the 5.56mm round. So bow you can have another pea shooter in your squad.
If they were serious about getting something to bridge the gap between a SAW and a carbine the only weapon of any merit out there is the Ultimax 100 and everybody in the DOD treats it like they’ll catch Ebola or AIDS from it.
Requirements are written by committee. It is very possible that there is a faction in the Corps thinking exactly like Steve does: as a backdoor to a carbine. However, the concept itself, a new auto rifle, is a tactically valid one. The true believers do exist, but they had to compromise on the specifications at the committee to get buy-in from everybody else.
Lots of competitors participated for the IAR job, including a version of the Ultimax LMG, and seemingly the HK has won.
Unless someone is going to argue that the USMC rigged the testing, the HK won despite whatever theoretical deficiencies it has. The Ultimax didn’t even survive to the final round against the competition.
I agree that, on paper at least, the Ultimax 100 is the best weapon for the IAR role. Better luck next time!
I also think the weirdness of the HK IAR in it’s initial configuration with a 30 round mag is freaking people out unnecessarily. Just because the HK IAR resembles an M-4 too much doesn’t mean the USMC is scheming to replace the M-4 and M-16a4. For one thing I doubt the Corps could afford to replace it’s entire inventory of brand new M-16a4 rifles.
Given how none of the IAR program makes any sense whatsoever, I’d have to go along with the conclusion that the USMC is just trying to backdoor an M4/AR replacement. I’ve always thought the Corps did a good job when it came to picking and equipping their troops, except when it came to suppressive fire.
I know that the official reason for removing the M60 family from service was reliability issues. However, in my experience, the problem wasn’t with the weapon, but with the lubricant (CLP). I’ve always hated CLP and thought it was garbage. I could take a M60 that had a stoppage, and without cleaning it, apply some Remington RemOil from an aerosol can and put it back in service with no further stoppages. SO, they go with the SAW, which runs good, but lacks firepower. Now they say a SAW is too heavy, and they’re essentially leaving their squads with rifles and rockets.
As I’ve said in another thread, the IAR could work if all the riflemen were equipped with it, which may be their goal. I feel sorry for the entrants that will lose this competition because they provided what the USMC asked for. This whole IAR fiasco is going to end in a lot of tears.
Not being either a telepath or clairvoyant, I can not speculate on the reasoning behind the USMC’s action. But, that service has been getting “stuck” with weapons systems that the other services want, rather than what the Marines feel is better suited to their mission, for decades. Possibly, fearing either stagnation in weapons system procurement under the current administration or a McNamara like approach to standardization of equipment military-wide, the boys and girls at 8th and I may have decided to procure a weapon system that they prefer through a loophole in the system. This would not be a first for them in recent months. They just managed to procure two of the three main components of the 1911 pistol in a similar stealthy manner.
m with Brad on this one 100%. The Marines are still buying M-16A4s and the Navy M-16A2s from both FN and Sabre firearm firms. If they want to replace them they wouldnt have, made a last year buy of a huge contract with them. I think theres some in the corps getting new guns ready in case they need them. But more like want a BAR type gun in service for light firepower more than a carbine not as heavy as a LMG. The BAR concept worked in WW2 and Korea while a full size M-1919 would have been way too heavy to lug around every where. The Corps wants the same from a modern weapon line up.
I wonder why the LWRC IAR wasn’t in the competition…?
Lance, just because the BAR worked in WW 2 does not mean we should look to it as our metric for now. There’s a reason we went to a belt fed SAW. The Enfield and Mauser also worked in WW 2, perhaps we should reexamine the concept of a standard issue bolt gun?
Additionally the BAR weighs a whooping two pounds less than the M249.
This sounds exactly like the Brits and their LSW, the Germans and the MG36, and even the US and the m14 A1. Mag fed SAW’s in a SAW role are inferior and everyone who has tried them, Britain Germany, US, and i believe one major power I’m forgetting have dumped them in favor of the M249 specifically or weapons of similar profile, MG4 ect.
The only exception i can think of is Russia with the RPK however, a lightened version of the PKM is moving into the RPKs territory and it isn’t like the Russian small arms TOE has changed much in the last 20 years.
The Marines are either up to something, or are going to get alot of marines killed when they need to achieve at least fire parity in a crappy situation. Something here doesn’t make sense. you ll loose your weight savings with all the additional mags you’d have to carry to get the same combat load, your going to have cook offs galore when you need the weapon most and burn out barrels with no option for a quick change, as i don’t see them carrying additional uppers in the spare barrel bag.
Just my opinion take it for what you will.
I 100% agree with what appears to be a developing majority view. The USMC is making a weird move here.
If its to actually accomplish what they’re stating then this is probably the stupidest idea out of a fine organization in years.
If its a backdoor to a piston rifle, then ok, but the politics of it are going to have ramifications.
Either way this is worth watching…Keep on it Steve!
Dan
Im not saying we need to goto WW2 weapons! Im just saying a idea of a BAR in a squad is sound. The Soviets/Russians use the RPK-74 dose tht make them old WW2 morons? I dont think so. Denmark and Britan use IAR Denmark bought Colt Automatic Rifles. The Brits use a IAR varient of there L-85 assualt rifle. China has both a Type-56 and a Type 95 IARs for there infantry. The US was the only one back in the 60s to replace all automatic squad weapons for a GPMG IE M-60. And While I think both the M-60 and M-240 are exilent MGs I can see the US getting a lighter weapon for some smaller conflict IE Afghanistain. And the M-249 in concept was great. But more reports of M-249s running out of belts quick and jamming on 30rd mags makes the case that M-249 is not ideal for all situations. And that while a light wepons section may still have a SAW gunner a extra man with a IAR may be able to back him up with more accurate aimed auto fire in a fight.
As for the some who say the Marines I will disagree. For them to do away with the M-16 real shortly wont happen. Well heres a fact to kill that Idea. The USMC is still buying M-16s. The fact of both the Navy and Marines both buying normal M-16s also is a BIG mark against the idea that the Corps is going for a all HK 416 military. Both services bought a long contract with two M-16 makers (FN and Sabre) less than a year ago. They wouldnt have done this if They wanted to get ride of there M-16s in a year or two. All combat reports of normal sized M-16s is fine ever since the M-16A2 went into service in 1983. The only Stoner to have problems which I think are heavly overblowne are smaller M-4 carbines which are not normal M-16s. While the ARmy is the only service to try to use a all M-4 fleet. The Navy and Marines use M-16s alot more and M-4s only used by a few select men in a company, like a carbine should be used. So the Marines never had issues in combat like the army did.
I think there alot of good men out there who loved another design both US and Euro designs. And when the USMC went one way lot where disapointed. So many think theres a more sinister plot afoot. True? mabie who know what happens in the Pentagon, I work for the USCG for crying out load..lol. the Army just anounced they want a piston M-4 a few weeks ago and hay the Marines a week later adopted one. OR it could be that the men in the R&D in the Marines just liked the 416 design. Most of the test where done in eviroments like Afghanistain where it did very very well. So the Corps buys the design. Next year there going to try in in Jungle conditions in Panama, who know humidady might screw it up and the DI system may work better in high humidity. All yesterdays news shows is that a AR design won and the Marines like a piston squad auto I said a piston is better for automatic fire in prolonged bursts… Its cooler on the gun. For a rifleman who in the Corps is trained more to shoot on semi-auto a piston is not needed due to aimed slower fire. Remember Marines are trained to aim and fire, which is lower and controled a M-16s job. The army teaches to do more spraying which is hard on a smaller M-4 which was not ment for that useage.
Im just saying what I gathered from all the news the last few days.
Dan are you sure that its the piston that’s the big attraction or the ability to fire from the open bolt (which necessitates a piston) to keep the weapon from overheating? I know it might seem like splitting hairs but the ability to fire from an open bolt seems like the real big difference from normal piston AR clones.
para is lighter when both are loaded
Sorry that should have been addressed to Lance.
The HK IAR dosnt fire from a open bolt. Its a fixed closed bolt. Some think its a sham that a IAR wont have a open bolt option, I disagree. The piston system fire a bit slower and the heat from the gas operates the piston and keeps the upper reciver cool. The idea of a open bolt would only allow dust and sand to enter when your fireing a hot weapon. The result would be more jams. So a closed bolt on a piston would bypass this problum with a IAR in desert ops.
Lance, the problem is not so much heat, but if the gun is already hot, an open-bolt prevents cook-offs (rounds igniting in chamber).
Lance, reread the requirements. It most definitely DOES fire from an open bolt.
lance, since my last post got deleted, ill try to rephrase it nicer.
“The army teaches to do more spraying which is hard on a smaller M-4 which was not ment for that useage.”
so i should remember the marines are trained to aim and fire while the army just sprays and prays? id like to know why my original response to that got deleted while this blog keeps that obviously credible information up.
you do realize the army’s m-4s are burst fire right?
“And the M-249 in concept was great. But more reports of M-249s running out of belts quick and jamming on 30rd mags makes the case that M-249 is not ideal for all situations.”
why is running out of ammunition a flaw of the weapon, when one can carry more ammunition lighter in belts than magazines? if you are low on ammunition why would you expend your remaining rounds in a weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire?
“The HK IAR dosnt fire from a open bolt. Its a fixed closed bolt. Some think its a sham that a IAR wont have a open bolt option, I disagree. The piston system fire a bit slower and the heat from the gas operates the piston and keeps the upper reciver cool. The idea of a open bolt would only allow dust and sand to enter when your fireing a hot weapon. The result would be more jams. So a closed bolt on a piston would bypass this problum with a IAR in desert ops.”
the rate of fire depends on the gas system not the piston, ie adjustable gas systems on the 249 ect
you do realize nearly every machine gun fires from an open bolt, the open bolt and quick change barrels are essential to sustained automatic fire. why wouldn’t dust and sand enter a closed bolt when the bolt cycles? do you know what a cook off is? the mean rounds between stoppage on the 249 and 240 are in the 10s of thousands open bolts are more reliable.
Open bolt doesn’t prevent cook off. They minimized the chance of it. It still happen if it gets too hot. That’s why most machineguns have quick barrel change. Go do a google search for m249 cook off. The trade off is a very less accurate platform.
I really don’t want to get into this again but I will point out some facts. The program was started by a highly decorated gunnery sergeant (which the name I have forgotten). The IAR progam is being push hard by the people that have fought in wars and not politicians, paper pusher, and internet commandos. It is push by Marines staff sergeant for some time.
The m249 is too heavy. So the fireteam either have to wait for the person dragging the M249 or leave him behind. This might not be a problem in the past when a GI didn’t carry much on him but it is now.
My personal opinion is that a close bolt system was picked due to consistency. They do not want a 17 years old Marine to screw in the heat of battle between an AR open bolt and an AR close bolt.
Someone posted on AR that the HK416 system doesn’t address the bolt tilt problem. It would be interesting to see how much round count the IAR version take before it destroy the upper receiver and the extension tube.
jdun1911, it prevents cook off because a round will not be sitting in the chamber when the gun is not being fired. Without it, the operator would need to use the bolt hold open to lock the bolt back after an engagement (or even during a lull in the fighting) and then release it when the action starts again.
But I agree with what you say – it does not replace a quick change barrel which is needed for “true” machine guns.
Here is an m249 cook off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZZoddtlH8
The program is being pushed by Marine Gunners. There is much doubt in the rest of the Corps about whether this is a good idea or not. Even the Commandant has been reported by Marine Corps Times as having doubts but the Gunners were able to satisfy his concerns. I still believe this is all moot though. This is a list of the vehicles/aircraft that the Marine Corps is buying/refurbishing/developing…
F-35
AH-1Z
UH-1Y
MTVR
JLTV
Marine Personnel Carrier
EFV
LVSR
M-ATV
V-22
CH-53K
M-16A4
Joint Combat Shotguns
Improved body armor
Improved rucks
New Helmets
New optics
New Sniper Rifles
The list really goes on. What project do you think is most vulnerable? I still wonder why they just didn’t go with a para model of the M-249. This is a boondoggle and to repeat myself the M60E3 was the last time the Marine Corps did something like this and it didn’t turn out well.
Indeed.. the round may “cook off” with an open bolt but the “cook off” will happen when you pull the trigger (and a round is chambered) and you want it to “cook off”.
IAR is for lighter weight, more accurate, more mobile firepower than the saw.
Another thing to realize is that the bad guys will always target the guy with the saw. When you are running around in the streets that can be a major problem.
The idea that the scar is no good is just silly. It may not be perfect but the hk is far from perfect also and we don’t need to get into the problems with the m4. I don’t think the SF community would just accept a piece of junk.
jdun1911, I am confused how this happens. How does it cook off in an open bolt gun?
The HK IAR dosnt have a opn bolt. It was the only design not too. And the M-249 is a closed bolt as well it just has a barrel change. Open bolt in theroy prevents a round cooking off but if its that hot the whole fron of the upper reciver will cook one off anyway.
And Soloman
The Marines are buying M-16 still and M-40A3 sniper rifles. I doubt they will get ride of them over night. There brand new.
And not all Army M-4s are burst fire i know alot of guys who have M-4A1s with full auto options.
Bye the time the barrel is hot enough to cook a round off the reciver its connected too get red hot as well Since even in a open bolt the whole area the ammo is in will get red hot. Which means a cook off as well.
I hate to be aginst your side Steve im not just to this???
You have to agree though Steve the M-40 and M-16A4 which they are buying right now arnt going away any time soon, agreeSeve????
Lance, no one has to agree with me! All I ask if that people are polite to me and each other.
I don’t know what the Marines are planning. I have no experience, so my opinion is pretty worthless, but I would be surprised to see them dump the M16A4.
Receiver got too hot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht9DOM_-Xto
There were a number of videos that was on live leak few years back that show m240 and m249 getting cook off in Iraq. Only one I could find, right now. Most of them are taken off.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c41f25226
Operational manual for both firearms said 200 rounds per minute max before the need to change the barrel to prevent cook off (assumption).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c03.htm
jdun1911, dangerous! thanks for the info
Thanks Steve what I ment was I useally agree with you 97% of the time.
Yeah I dont see the current Marine or Army for that matter invatory go awayanytime soon.
But I dont get some on this site who think a M-60 and M-240 are open bolt. There closed bolt with a barrel change option.
And I disagree that the M-60 was bad and a horrible design. You and I can argue over M-60 vs M-240 MGs any day. But he M-60 served well in Vietnam and Gulf War 1. Seals and Coast Guard units still use them too. Ive shoot them and they work just fine.
Lance, I think the big difference is that your compatriots shoot them from boats and ships! Not like the poor grunts in the Army who have to carry the damn heavy M60
Ahh but a 240 weighs just as much. But I see your point a 7.62 GPMG is nice to me but many dont like them for there weight. I also know the Army issues them to the sortest man in every outfit every time hece alot more weight complants. lol
lance are you serious…. the m 60 and 240 are open bolt
from FM 3.22-68
1-1. DESCRIPTION
The M249 machine gun is a gas-operated, air-cooled, belt or magazine-fed, automatic weapon that fires from the open-bolt position (Figure 1-1). It has a maximum rate of fire of 850 rounds per minute. Primarily, ammunition is fed into the weapon from a 200-round ammunition box containing a disintegrating metallic split-link belt. As an emergency means of feeding, the M249 machine gun can use a 20- or 30-round M16 rifle magazine but increases the chance of stoppages. This gun can be fired from the shoulder, hip, or underarm position; from the bipod-steadied position; or from the tripod-mounted position. See Table 1-1, for general data
2-1. DESCRIPTION
The M60 is a gas-operated, air-cooled, belt-fed, automatic machine gun that fires from the open-bolt position (Figure 2-1). It has a maximum rate of fire of 550 rounds per minute. Ammunition is fed into the weapon from a 100-round bandoleer containing a disintegrating metallic split-link belt. It can be fired from the shoulder, hip, or underarm position; from the bipod-steadied position; or from the tripod-mounted position. (See Table 2-1, for general data.)
3-1. DESCRIPTION
The M240B is a general-purpose machine gun. (Figure 3-1) It can be mounted on a bipod, tripod, aircraft, or vehicle. The M240B is a belt-fed, air-cooled, gas-operated, fully automatic machine gun that fires from the open bolt position. Ammunition is fed into the weapon from a 100-round bandoleer containing a disintegrating metallic split-link belt. The gas from firing one round provides the energy for firing the next round. Thus, the gun functions automatically as long as it is supplied with ammunition and the trigger is held to the rear. As the gun is fired, the belt links separate and are ejected from the side. Empty cases are ejected from the bottom of the gun. A spare barrel is issued with each M240B, and barrels can be changed quickly as the weapon has a fixed head space. However, barrels from different weapons should not be interchanged. The bore of the barrel is chromium plated, reducing barrel wear to a minimum
where are you getting this garbage?
the m60 is widely considered the WORST modern gpmg also.
did you claim to shoot CLOSED bolt m 60s?
Ok an I dont like your accusations of me.
Tell GI that most men ive meet thought yes it was heavy but the M-60 was good firepower. Some experts didnt like the M-60 fine but most ive talked to at least said it could hold its own. I fired M-60s and M-1919s which the M-240/MAG is based on. While on vacation over seas. They are closed bolt. They dont have a same action as a M-3 Grease Gun. And im tired you some commeters accuseing me of telling untrue lies.
If you disagree fine you can say you love M-249s and hate M-60 thats your opion and I respect it. I dont want people name calling and accusing me of stuff. In the end we are on the same side and it hurts to see ideas go to out right cyber warfair.
Steve any comments?
My father shot the M-1919 in the Army vis M-48 tanks coaxe MG. He spent more hours on them than most he said it was a closed bolt.
Lance, wikipedia says they fire from open bolt. I have never used one, nor asked anybody who probably has used them what they thought, but on military forums people are usually complaining about them.
Lance really you stated “But I dont get some on this site who think a M-60 and M-240 are open bolt. There closed bolt with a barrel change option.”
i replied with the description from the FIELD MANUEL of the weapons, the official document that describes them.
you then respond to that with “My father shot the M-1919 in the Army vis M-48 tanks coaxe MG. He spent more hours on them than most he said it was a closed bolt.”
the 1919 is not the 240 or the 60 or the 249 are you serious, no one has mention the 1919 but you.
“I fired M-60s and M-1919s which the M-240/MAG is based on. While on vacation over seas. They are closed bolt. They dont have a same action as a M-3 Grease Gun. And im tired you some commeters accuseing me of telling untrue lies.”
the m 240 has the feed mechanism from the MG 42. i have no idea where your getting this M3 grease gun stuff from as the first mention of it was yours in that post.
provide me a reference that states the m249, m240 or m60 fires from a closed bolt, i cited FM 3-22.68 which states they are open bolt, you are wrong and i am very unconvinced of your credibility.
sir the way i see it there are two options at this point prove me wrong and i will apologize or admit your mistake.
Ok id odmit that ok the M-60 and 240 are open bolts. But im not backing on the idea that the M-60 was carp. I know men who carried it and swar by it. I also know men who hate the M-240. A weapon always has its critics and supporters. I like them both. I fired one and it was OK. I acutally disliked the 1919 more due to its odd shape.
Im not standing for guys who name call me or any men who agree with me. Be civilized here.
I addmitted mabie the M-60 mabie open bolt its been years sinced i fired one. BUT Dan your credibility im not conviced either since you been name calling. You dont like the M-60 so do some authors but men I do know who carried them in Nam and the Gulf liked them. The gun was well performed in the Navy. Comment from a ex army man on this site said the only problum with 60s was poor army lubs they gave gunners that attracted too much dust and made jams.
The M-240 has some MG-42 designs but its mostly based on the Browning M-1919 MG. NOW FOR THE LAST TIME I ADMITT ABOUT the bolts. Thats all.
Daniel and Lance,
Please feel free to point out inaccuracies, but insulting each other in the process it not helpful. Just state the facts, and leave the personal stuff out.
also, this debate about M60s is offtopic. Please stick to the topic in question.
This is a tough subject. Believe me the discussions are even more fierce inside the Marines. Assault gunner and Riflemen and the need to whether tactics or equipment needs to be changed. The published reason for the desire for the IAR is that the machine gunners can’t keep up with the rest of the squad in the assault. Mags are desired not for the fire power but for the agility gained…the Fallujah experience is weighing heavily here.
But I think that’s the problem. Urban combat is far different from what’s going on in Afghanistan. Hilltop to hilltop firing. Defense of outposts.
US Army experience with the need for suppressive fire in the outpost wars is what has them keeping the M249. The Marines haven’t suffered those type hits yet. I really wished SOCOM had picked up this project instead but it appears that they’re sold on the added firepower of a belt fed weapon.
>The Brits use a IAR varient of there L-85 assualt rifle.
Sure but I´ve read that this weapon is nowadays used as marksman´s weapon within infantry sections. Brits use L110 FN Minimi as light support weapon.