M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle
A couple of weeks ago at the NDIA Joint Armaments Conference Brigadier General Michael M. Brogan revealed that Marine Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) had been given the designation "M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle".
At the end of last year it was announced that Heckler & Koch had won the IAR competition with their entry of a slightly modified H&K 416.
I visually inspected the H&K IAR which was on display at SHOT Show and the only difference I noticed between it and the standard H&K 416 was a slightly heavier barrel profile compared to the standard M4-style barrel with its grenade launcher cutouts. It has a bayonet lug attached to the barrel which is something I have not seen before in H&K 416 marketing material.
The Marine command touted this project as the development of a new class of weapon. I have gotten the impression that in reality they wanted a new carbine but did not want to deal with DoD and Congress politics to get it. The Army is already looking into developing a new carbine and the USMC would have been hard pressed to persuade the powers-that-be to give them funding for their own independent carbine project.
[ Many thanks to Nathaniel for sending me info on the M27. ]
Nice to see that the marines finally managed to trick the higherups to get them the hk416, because thats really what it is. I used to be norwegian army and can tell you that this is a great weapon. only time I’ve ever had a jam with this thing was when I was stupid enough to take it inside after firing it in -56 degrees celsius and then take it outside again to fire it again.
Okay I’m a rifleman with 1st LAR about to deploy at the end of this month and I’m issued the M27 IAR. I’ve been using it the entirety of my work up once I returned from my first Afghan deployment in which I was issued the SAW. And let me say this. Marines Love This Weapon. This weapon is SubMOA meaning at 100 meters a shot group is smaller than a 2 inch group, we’ve used this rifle not only as a suppressive weapon but also as a DMR. The M27 is incredibly accurate. At 100 meters I’ve put 10 rounds in a group the slightly larger than the size of a quarter. On fully automatic I put another 10 rounds in a group 8 inches in diameter. Next the weapon is incredibly easy to maintain, after putting 700 rounds through the weapon the only carbon needing to be cleaned was the gas piston, barrel, chamber and a slight carbon ring on the bolt face.
For negatives we HATE that there has been no word of issuing out 100 round magazines. My unit issued every IAR gunner 22 30 round magazines. To make matters worse the supposed “good” magazines which are supposed to feed better and reduce jams stick to the magazine well. You press the magazine release but alas the magazine is stuck there and must be yanked out. Due to this we Marines feel that this weapon should NOT replace our SAWs but the M16A4s and later on the M4.
Note one of the reasons why this replaced the M249 SAW was that the weapons is way more accurate. The argument is why send 100 rounds of suppression when a Marine only needs 1 round to kill. Marines place a high regard to accuracy and well aimed shots. Do most of us ground pounders agree to this? No, I loved my SAW in a firefight. It just felt safer throwing more rounds then everyone else.
All in all Marines want this weapon. We love it. Just give us 100 round Magazines like Beta C Mags or replace the M16s and M4s and keep the SAWs instead.
Great idea! This will be a great improvement in firepower for the rifle squad. You get 3 M27′s per squad. Better accuracy than an M4/16 and better automatic fire. PLUS the corps is keeping 9 SAW’s per rifle company (that’s 1 per rifle suad). Every rifleman should be issued one.
Take a weapon from a company… put on a different barrel and change the epic European style sights to some crappy sights (looks very similar to SCAR’s sights)… have your own military designate it whatever they want (M27 IAR)… Now claim it’s a total american design… seems legit. They’d be better of with the old idea of a SCAR-L IAR… or with the new LWCR which in my opinion would be perfect in the hands of US military. Taking advantage of other countries’ technologies and pretend it’s their by “dressing the gun with different clothes”…
Well it’s all just influence H&K has… that’s the only reason.
Anyway, wouldn’t it be better to try something new? Why not put the IAR guys with a 7.62x51mm weapon… and leave the riflemen with 5.56x45mm… It’s not like soldiers these days don’t need a high caliber weapon anymore…
Sturmgewehr is correct. Simply correct. This is a joke, a really funny jackass joke. The high-quality milled G 3 H&K (Copy of a German Weapon developed at the end of WWII) As a sad matter of fact, the last version of the G 3 is actually better than this “new class of weapon”.
1. Proven fact that 30 cal weapons produce more casualties between 150 and 400m.
2. 30 cal (8mm) rounds with cheap tungstun cores traveling at 2900fps do NOT bounce off windshields and DO penetrate body armor plates at 300m.
3. Blowback piston actuated roller actions are the most reliable.
4. G 3 is MUCH less expensive, even retooled in 6.8mm.
5. Only reason to go to 5.56 or even 6.8 is the sad fact that we now have girls in the military. 8mm was calculated long ago a being the best caliber round, considering: recoil, velocity that cold be achieved, penetration, wieght of rounds carried, etc.
6. .338 is highly touted. 8mm is .332
7. If you have a doubt, buy a high level H&K G 3 and take it to the range and shoot house.
8. Even the FN built better weapons in 7.92 and 7.62 or .308
9. This is not a MG or a suppressing fire weapon Automatic Rifleman’s weapon, BUT the H&K G 3 had a drum fed, 30 cal version that is/was!!!!!
10 BTW what was wrong with the Stoner???
It delights me to see the USMC is finally learning the lessons given (though not necessarily learned) by World War II. The Soviets were far ahead of their time, employing automatic riflemen with RPK rifles (having parts commonality with the AKM), snipers as designated marksmen, and mobile machine gun teams with PKMs.
I dislike the lower receiver of the HK 416 though because the magazine well is optimized for the HK steel magazine, though USGI mags fit less than ideally. Pmags cannot be used unless the Emag is utilized. HK would have been smart to utilize a magazine well that can fit all magazines. I would also like to see a higher capacity magazine that is actually reliable to be fielded as well (preferably not a drum, though a double stack magazine with 60 rounds…if the surefire ones will be worth a darn).
I believe the M27 is more ideal as a automatic rifleman’s weapon than the M249 SAW, being lighter, more accurate, and more reliable. Perhaps to reduce logistical requirements, 416 uppers (with 14.5″ and 20″ barrel) uppers will also be fielded to systematically upgrade existing weapons, though i doubt it given the current competition for the next service rifle. perhaps the M27 is a interm solution?
Nice carbine… but to suggest that it could sufficiently replace the M249 in the automatic rifle role is ridiculous. The whole purpose of the SAW is to lay down a high volume of suppressive fire – while remaining lighter and more mobile than a conventional crew-served machine gun such as the M240B or the M60.
By the way, the purpose of the 14.5 inch barrel on the M4 is two-fold: first, it’s easier to maneuver in urban combat (i.e. room clearing); second, it’s easier to deal with while jumping out of an airplane, dismounting a combat vehicle, etc. Anyone who complains about its accuracy clearly doesn’t get enough trigger time at the range – or has a crappy EOTech mounted to it. Practice more, or get a Trijicon ACOG – as a matter of fact, I would recommend both.
so much for supporting our economy buy buying AMERICAN… as the United States has learned when battling the taliban…5.56 just doesn’t cut it…..the US needs to go to 308 0r 7.62×39 to get the distance the 5.56 isn’t…
I say bring in the B-52 and carpet bomb them into submission
The problem is that we have convinced ourselves that we need 200 rounds in our squad automatics to be effective. In reality, the increses in accuracy and mobility more than make up for the decrese in capacity. This is definately a better suted wepon for the automatic rife role than the m249.
I don’t get it i thought the point of having a SAW was to have large amounts of ammo to pin the enemy down so he could be flanked. If you deploy just another assault rifle that won’t be possible will someone plz explain.
Marines were attached to the British in WWI but you don’t see anyone making the claim they weren’t MARINES!
this is a battle rifle(using the term lightly in 5.56) Gas piston does run a little cooler and cleaner, but a lot of the old bug-a-boos from the M16 direct impengement have been sorted out. This gains nothing but a nice rifle in an in-adequate caliber.
Make it in 6.5 Grendal (6.5×39) and it will out perform the 7.62 over 300 yards. with less barrel wear.
This is not SAW. fortunately, the have the new M240L coming in 7.62×51 and lighter than the older M240 for a SAW.
Rohan:
I liked CWO2 Eby’s article. He raised some good points and questions.
He made an interesting point of the rate of fire for a SAW being too fast and we perhaps should only employ a weapon with a 500 – 600 rpm rate of fire. He argues this would conserve ammo and barrels. The M60 MG had about a 650 ROF and nobody seemed to complain about it firing too slow.
He talks about the ability of the M249 to effectively fire out to 1,000m, but there was rare opportunities for it do so along with the gunner’s inability to put his rounds on target at that range without an AG (which SAWs don’t normally have). The addition of ACOGS (which I’m a big fan of) and similar low-magnification scopes on the SAW takes greater advantage of its long reach and ability to employ it in an SBF position. M249s are normally issued with a tripod for this purpose, but I can’t remember ever seeing the tripods used. Has anyone here use the SAW in combat in this manner?
He makes some good arguments about the difference between a LMG (the M249) and an AR (what the M27 is supposed to be). The biggest potential advantages I see with the M27:
- the large round drum is compatible with the squad’s M4s, so if the AR goes down, its ammo can be transferred and an M4/M16 take over its role. The linked ammo of the M249 cannot be used in any other weapon system unless you take time to de-link it.
- It’s obviously lighter and far more compact (depending on how bulky the drums are). The M27 in a semi-auto setting can be used in a CQB role like the M4/M16 – the SAW is considered too destructive and imprecise for this purpose.
- Like Eby points out, the M249 drum is notorious for slipping off and the belt spilling on the ground. The gunner has to stop and police it up (mabye under fire!). I’ve seen this happen quite a few times. If the M27 magazine or drum accidentally falls out, it’s not so much of a catastrophe to recover.
- The drums of the M27 will likely be quieter than the rattling plastic 200 round drums of the SAW and are designed as reusable. SAW drums left on the battlefield can be used later by the enemy for their own guns or as an IED.
Potential disadvantages of the M27:
- May not have the longer reach of the M249 in a SBF role – but that’s not really what it was made for anyway.
- The barrel may not the stamina of the SAW’s in a sustained fight, and as far as I know it’s not interchangeable.
Here’s something to ponder, guys: the M27 has a longer and more accurate barrel than the M4s in the squad. What is the M27 held a dual role not only as an AR but also as a designated marksman rifle? Put an ACOGS or other magnified scope on it, put it in a semi-auto mode and it theoretically has the ability to act as a pseudo-sniper rifle. In fact, there could be a total of four selector settings on the weapon:
- safe
- semi: for designated marksman role
- five-round burst: for sustained ROF without excessively burning ammo or the barrel
- full auto: for immediate suppression at the cyclic ROF
v/r
Todd
The 249 SAW is cumbersome and becoming outdated. There are already M27s in Afghanistan now, and the marines issued them have no problems so far. Besides the auto setting, it still has a semi setting, and its proven to be highly accurate even up to 800 meters.
The Corps is NOT using it to replace the M4 or M16, contrary to what several of you are suggesting. The M4 is used with vehicle operators and special forces because of its size. The M16 is still a workhorse as is. There are plans to expand the paltry magazine of the M27 though, as that is a main concern for machine gunners.
2 of my buddies in the grunts have it, and they like it so far. They say its easier to clear houses with than the SAW and the fact that its half the weight is a God-send on extended maneuvers. None of us are sure if its gonna be a permanent replacement, however…
@Todd FYI
Is the SAW the right weapon?
By CWO2 Jeffrey L. Eby – Originally Published April 2001
1st Force Reconnaissance Company has modified all of their M249s to the para configuration.
While the Marines in force recon normally carry M4A1 carbines in direct action missions, the M249 (para) is no longer than a CQBW. Though heavier, it provides a base of fire that may be necessary while moving to the extract point.
The Marines of 1st Force never carry the spare barrel. It is unnecessary when compared to the mission essential gear required for a deep reconnaissance mission. While it can be successfully argued that the M249 is problematic and temperamental, Ist Force has had no problems carrying the M249 (para) in condition three…
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/m249-employment-concepts
OICU
Mate, I with you. M27 is just an updated M16, but with a piston.
Stoner had it right with the 63 for rifle and carbine, but not the LMG. The ports on the wrong side for the LMG. Knight’s fixes that with a better updated gun. Have 2 out 3 fire teams with LMG.
I carried a M60, so everything is a holiday after that.
I see this system being used on reconnaissance missions where it’s desirable to be a bit lighter, quieter, and quicker. If this is used for normal patrolling operations then I foresee Marines coming back to the COP saying, “man, I wish we had brought the SAW!” after they’ve already loaded some of their buddies on the MEDEVAC chopper because they ran out of ammo and were not able to effectively suppress the threat.
Uhhhhh, the Stoner 63/63A is not even close to the Stoner AR series in design or construction. Do you want me to spell it out for you or can you read it for yourself?
FYI, Knight’s LMG is an evolution of the 63A and is the finest LMG in the land. THAT is what should have replaced the belt fed SAW. At only 10 lbs., 2 lbs more than the HK, give me that belt fed.
http://www.knightarmco.com/lmg.html
So, tell me, what does the HK IAR have over a similarly configured M16?
oicu812
“I see no advantage over a similarly configured Colt M16. None. The HK is a cobbled together conversion of Stoner’s rifle. If he wanted it to have a conventional piston he would have designed it with one”
What was the Stoner 63 system???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_63
I see no advantage over a similarly configured Colt M16. None. The HK is a cobbled together conversion of Stoner’s rifle. If he wanted it to have a conventional piston he would have designed it with one. The HK is a bloated, overweight weapon full of proprietary parts, has a sharper recoil impulse, and is not a replacemnt for a belt fed weapon.
How about proper training with a lightweight belt fed like Knight’s LMG? A 10 lb grim reaper for sure.
Ok, so this is neat but a replacement for the SAW it is not. the only real advantage I see is in CQB. were the SAW is bulky and aquard while clearing rooms. but for every other situation give me the SAW. I can’t imagain manning a check point, suppressing an area target, or direct fire support without a belt fed weapon, for these reasons. 1) standard rate of fire for target elimination is 3 to 5 round burst (7 trigger pulls) 2) area suppression is 7 to 10 round burst (3 trigger pulls) that is alot of reloading. 4) the current set up with the saw allows for accurate fire from 600 to 800 meters. I could not see this weapon doing that. 5) the magazines we currently use do not like high rates of fire. (without double springs) so would there be separate mags that look the same. (that has joe failure writin all over it) and 90 round mags (please I dont know of one that could discharge the whole load with out a jam, especally if they are old) 6) last but probably most important. a 7lb weapon firing 5.56 on full auto is a handfull. and if they think that silly gheto grip bypod is going to keep it grounded they need help. with the SAW you smash it into the ground and lean your weight into it. those silly plastic things would break.
This is 1967 all over again. The Marine Corps sent Stoner Assault Rifles with multiple concepts on to a Marine grunt company with little or no field testing in the States as a possible replacement rifle for the M-14. It was a debacle, the weapons consistently jammed, although the concept on paper was very promising. The solution was to recall the Stoners and bring in the M-16. To this day when I tell the buddies that we did not have a squad weapon in Vietnam, they are puzzled by my remarks. It seems that most regarded the M-60 as the total replacement for the automatic rifleman which it was not. That’s why more small arms ammo was expended in Vietnam because every one thought they were the AR. Kidding aside, using one guy on full auto was not the brightest idea. We needed a SAW/BAR weapon than and need it now. Wonder if those 1967 geniuses are still with the Corps. The Stoner should have worked and if the implementation had been done right, would probably be in the inventory today.
This truly is horrible. I like how it makes sense to all the civvies. Its unfortunate that know nothings prevailed.
We’ve come a long way from the old Browning Automatic Rifle aka; the BAR!
This can hardly be described as a new class of weapon. I built a similar weapon myself and 90% of the parts are from the Armalite parts bin. Still a jumped up 22 though. While I wouldn’t like to be shot with one if my life depended on it I’d rather carry something that could reliably kill my opponent instead of just reliably injuring and sometime killing.
I hope we have seen the last of the M4 barrel profile, those compromise barrels pollute the civilian marketplace where they are bought by people who will never even see a grenade launcher.
Hmmmm. I seem to recall my history where the Quartermaster General of the Federal Army during the Civil War refused to issue repeating rifles because they “used too much ammo”. It cost a lot of lives that didn’t need to be lost. Their worth was proven at Chickamauga when the 21st Ohio’s Colt revolving rifles were about the only thing that kept the entire Army of the Cumberland from being overrun by Longstreet’s Corps. As others have mentioned – we’re forgetting our lessons from history.
A 30-round magazine is insufficient for the task of an “automatic rifle”. Like with the SAW, a 30-round magazine should be a backup – not the primary. There is nothing wrong with the SAW – there never was. I do, however, liek the idea of not having to deal with a belt-fed system. If they want to keep Marines alive they better issue a solid, durable, high-capacity drum with this weapon and make damn sure the barrel can handle it. Does this weapon start from the closed bolt and transition to the open bolt like some other systems do? This would facilitate cooling. What’s the effective range on this weapon? The SAW boasted 900 meters – which gave a squad a long reach.
What both Army and Marine squads really need in the Afghan environment are designated marksmen in each fire team or squad armed with light “sniper system”. This allows them to pick off enemy riflemen with precision but looks similar to an M4 at a distance so the shooter doesn’t “advertise” he is the marksman. One of the main problems we have in the COIN fight is CIVCAS (civilian casualties). Our soldiers are unable to pluck out enemy shooters at less than 200 meters (that should be a head shot – even with an M4, folks!). So, they call in a HIMARS, CAS, or Excalibur and destroy the whole house along with the women and children nearby. I know that some units have already began creating designated marksmen for this purpose – to surgically remove the cancer in the village. The 5.56 SPRs are pretty good, but I believe it should be a 7.62 system for the range and penetration. A US Army fire team has a team leader (M4), grenadier (M4 and M203), SAW gunner, and rifleman (M4). This sounds like a good job for that extra rifleman.
v/r
Todd
@Lance
Attached means under command but still part of your parent organisation.
Corpsman are attached, are US NAVY, not Marines.
Marines served under OSS (yes) but as Marines.
“Yes but no Marines saw combat aginst the whermact no Marine fired his M-1 or BAR at a German solder”
Exactly, the Marine structure was never tested against the Hilter’s Germany (Whermach or SS). What I said 5 posts ago.
Yes but no Marines saw combat aginst the whermact no Marine fired his M-1 or BAR at a German solder.
As for OSS they were under army rank and command in the OSS and after the war released to the USMC again.
Check out the History channels documantary on the OSS.
@Lance.
Against Germany and the MG42 (the only real belt feed LMG of the war), would…??? (hypothetical) You again totally miss the point (twice).
You also show you know little about the role of Marines aboard US Navy ships. It’s not just a “few MPs”, but Marine Ships Detachments.
Shipboard detachments of Marines served throughout the landings in North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Normandy invasion as gun crews aboard battleships and cruisers. A 200-man detachment was normally carried aboard a battleship, and 80 Marines served aboard cruisers to man the secondary batteries of 5-inch guns providing fire for the landing forces.
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Frequently_Requested/Marines%20in%20WWII%20Sheets/Marines%20in%20Europe.htm
“As for OSS yes but none where offically still in the Corps while in the OSS”.
Assigned to the secretive world of spies and saboteurs were 51 Marines who served with the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) to engage in behind-the-lines operations in North Africa and Europe from 1941 to 1945. These OSS Marines served with partisan and resistance groups in France,…
ORTIZ, PIERRE (PETER) J.
(First Award)
Citation:
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to Pierre (Peter) J. Ortiz (0-12779), Major, U.S. Marine Corps (Reserve), for extraordinary heroism while attached to the United States Naval Command, Office of Strategic Services, London, England, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy in enemy-occupied territory, from 8 January to 20 May 1944…..
ORTIZ, PIERRE (PETER) J.
(Second Award)
Citation:
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting a Gold Star in lieu of a Second Award of the Navy Cross to Pierre (Peter) J. Ortiz (0-12779), Major, U.S. Marine Corps (Reserve), for extraordinary heroism while serving with the Office of Strategic Services during operations behind enemy Axis lines in the Savoie Department of France, from 1 August 1944, to 27 April 1945…
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080119043428/http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/03_wwii-nc/nc_06wwii_usmcN.html
Strange how the US President gave 2 Navy Crosses to a Major, USMCR who according to Lance is not in the Corps.
Might have been a few MPs on ships but no USMC ground units saw combat aginst the German Whermact.
As for OSS yes but none where offically still in the Corps while in the OSS.
@Lance.
Against Germany and the MG42 (the only real belt feed LMG of the war), would…??? (hypothetical)
“Sorry Rohan but NO USMC units were in the ETO all in the Pacific”
As organized ground combat units, yes (I’m not sure Iceland counts, but technically they were there to help the Brits defend it).
As members of ships’ detachments, yes.
As members of joint staffs, yes.
As members of the OSS, yes (there is a great story about a Marine captain serving with the OSS who held a bar full of German officers at gunpoint and forced them to sing the Marines’ Hymn before he escaped).
When it had embarked, this regiment had orders to report to the Commanding General, I Corps (Provisional), FMF, Atlantic Fleet.p-38
On the day following the arrival of the 6th Marines in Charleston the 1st Marine Brigade (Provisional) was formally organized; its commander was Brigadier General John Marston. The troop list included:
Brigade Headquarters Platoon
Brigade Band
6th Marines
5th Defense Battalion (less 5-inch Artillery Group)
2d Battalion, 10th Marines
Company A, 2d Tank Battalion (less 3d Platoon)
Company A, 2d Medical Battalion
Company C, 1st Engineer Battalion
1st Platoon, Company A, 2d Service Battalion
3d Platoon, 1st Scout Company
Chemical Platoon
On 18 June, General Marston arrived in Charleston from Quantico, bringing with him a small headquarters detachment and his instructions from the CNO for the operation of his brigade in Iceland. These orders dated 16 June, gave him a simple and direct mission:
In Cooperation with the British Garrison, Defend Iceland Against Hostile Attack. p-39
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/I/USMC-I-I-4.html
Sorry Rohan but NO divisional USMC units were in the ETO all in the Pacific!
Sorry Rohan but NO USMC units were in the ETO all in the Pacific
@that1guy
The answer is do you change the squad or just the weapon?
Change the squad and have fever real LMGs, or keep the current squad and go to a M16/M27 combo. The lesson from history is that the C2A1 and now L86 were failures. The magazine feed Bren types survived because it had a 2-3 man crew. In Canada two C2s formed the Gun group, while UK and Australia had a single GPMG.
The only “success” was the BAR in Marines, but only by doubling and then quadrupling the amount of M1919s in the battalion. Against Germany and the MG42 (the only real belt feed LMG of the war), would have Marines chosen the 3×4 + 1 structure with company M1919s?
Army is now having to “attach” a GPMG team to each squad for A’stan, is in effect forming an 11 man WW2 squad.
Two LMGs is the minimum (and maximum) a squad needs (with a real intermediate round). If everybody else has a M27, who cares whether 2x M27 is better than 1 x M249 with a number 2!
There isn’t much doubt in my mind that the M27 was in part designed to sidestep the Individual Carbine race. There also isn’t much doubt the M27 provides less volume of fire than the M249. The important question is who can better support the squad – 1 guy with an M249, or 2 guys with M27s. I know you can’t compare directly, especially without knowing the context of the situation, but this is what it will come down to. It’s a difficult question, and I don’t think anyone knows the answer yet.
Instead of trying to fit an intermediate round (6.5 or 6.8mm) into a 5.56x45mm magazine well (2.24″ / 57mm), a better option would be to use the 7.62x51mm magazine well (2.75″ / 70mm). Ironically more and more 7.62 rifles (HK-417, M-14, SCAR-H) are entering service.
With bigger magazine well, the new 6.5x48mm could have been developed. Tony William’s 6.5/8/800 (6.5mm, 8gram/123grain, 800m/s / 2600fps) would perfectly fit into a long .30 Remington. ( 6.8x43mm SPC brass). Longer and slimmer brass (10.7mm diameter) than 6.5mm Grendel (11.2mm) would result in a better feeding MG round. Parallel sided Grendel brass is not good for MGs.
A high ballistic coefficient Sierra 6.5mm 123 grain HPBT bullet (BC .510 G1) has the same energy at 1000m as a 7.62NATO. A steel arrow tipped M855A1 6.5mm type bullet would put both 5,56 / M855 and the 7.62 / M80 to shame. Unlike 6.8x41mm, 6.5x48mm is much more than just a 5.56 replacement. A 6.5x48mm rifle would become an accurate battle rifle, not just an assault spray gun.
The recoil would be half way between 5.56 and 7.62. It would slow down firing and force shooters to aim more (like 7.62), keep to short 2-3 round bursts (not 5-10 full auto unlike 5.56) and still be a good hunting rifle for civilians. Teenagers would learn to aim a rifle not a plinking gun.
With a bigger magazine well, a thicker modern polymer magazine could be used. Remember over half of the M4 dust test failures were due to the poor thin M16 magazine.
For the US, a lightened HK-417 with M27 features (open/closed bolt), 16.5” barrel (still a rifle to the Corps) and a lightened Mk48 LMG with 18’ barrels are obvious choices for 6.5x48mm. 10” barrel HK-417 carbines would ONLY be for pistol carriers (field officers, tankers, aviation) and SOCOM. 6.5x48mm should be designed from day one to fire in a carbine.
With selective fire intermediate weapons in the squad, less LMGs are needed. A new squad structure is also needed. The older Army 11 man squad (which was trialled by the USMC in the 80’s when M249 was introduced) maybe a solution.
Fireteams of 5 would have a team leader and two pairs; a rifle pair and a LMG team. The machine gunner would have a “number 2” to carry ammo, spare barrel and to protect him, solving M249 issues. For urban combat, pairs can swap between teams, creating rifle assault teams and LMG support teams. LMGs would stay outside of houses and only enter large buildings behind rifle teams. In open terrain individual radios will allow the squad to spread out. Pairs can operate dispersed with a “scout” rifle pair forward, LMGs and team leaders to flanks and rear guard of a rifle pair.
The 11 man squad has 9 riflemen (4 x M203) and 2 LMG, compared with
10 riflemen (3 x M203) and 3 IAR/SAW (Marines) or
7 riflemen (2 x M203) and 2 SAW plus 1 rifleman and 1GPMG if platoon GPMG team attached (Army)
Change the cartridge, change the rifle and change the squad and give every warrior (Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force) the tools for the job.
The big problem is it’s still 5.56. The military as a whole should give up on this caliber and go with either 6.5 or 6.8.
@ Rohan
Yes I agree the idea of a IAR is not needed in modern warfair and I still think this whole idea was to get the HK 416 into service to eventually adopted as a rilfe not a light MG.
I admit I got hooked off subjuct Rohan im sorry.
We argue sometime but we always must stay civil.
Note.
2-3 ROUND Bursts are only for “fleeting” moving targets at close range ie jungle and urban.
@ Lance
You don’t read things. The AUG actually has a heavier pull, 8.8lb for F88. I gave you a free hit and you totally miss it! The AUG trigger is far too heavy and we need 6.5mm.
The Australian Army uses auto only as required, and any soldier firing “spray and prey” would be in trouble, ie on a charge. Our Army used L1A1 until 1990 with no auto. Australian Infantry are called RIFLEMAN. The mind set is semi, period.
During Battle of Lon Tan when a company of 109 from 6th Battalion, RAR was hit by a regiment of 3000, the blokes with L1A1 “bet” each other to head shoot as the assault waves of VC/NVA come in. Head shots are nothing new to trained rifleman. (This was the company’s first battle by the way!)
We don’t need 3 round limiters because the blokes are trained to short fire bursts and that way from day one (like US SOCOM). 2-3 Bursts are only for “fleeting” moving targets at close range ie jungle and urban. Rapid bursts (not full auto) is used by forward scout (point-men) during “contacts” ie encounters with the enemy at ranges less than 50 meters. This is to keep the enemy head down till the rest of the section (squad) can get to cover and “win” the initial firefight.
We don’t need a separate automan M27 to do the job every rifleman can do. We have M249 for that. Every Marines needs a M27 to replace M16.
We don’t need to take off 3 round burst because we didn’t need it in the first place.
@ ROhan
I know you love your AUG but its trigger pull is 7-8 lbs too. Most of the very bad trigger pulls come not from design but crappy armorers in the feild who do quick fixes. I never beleve in full auto any way and semi can do most of your work for you anyway. I know bullpup lovers love to spray and prey. The USMC dosnt allow burst or auto fire unless in close urban situations. As an example in the Battle of Fallugia USMC use M-16s in semi auto got soo many head shots and kills the UN had set a commission to see if there were war crimes going on. The Corps never wanted full auro or bullpups and carbines only and they do fine Rohan.
@ Lance.
The regulation trigger pull for a M16A2 is not less than 5lb, it’s actually 7.5lb.
The F-88 (AUG-77) is 4Kg (8.8lb) semi and 7.5Kg (16.5lb) for auto (dual pressure trigger)
Australian Army Manual of Land Warfare P2 Inf Vol 4 Pam No 9
As for M16/M4
Are you tired of the rough, creepy and sloppy 7 to 9 lb. trigger pull of the AR15/M16 rifle, when a precision shot is required to get the job done? GG&G has an answer
http://www.lpstactical.com/ar15m16settrigger.htm
ADA271577
Title : Trigger Pull Testing M16A2 Rifle and M4 Carbine
Abstract : Using the current procedures of MIL-R-63997 for M16A2 Rifles, 22% of random trigger pulls taken failed the requirement of 5.5 – 9.5 pounds. Based upon an acceptable failure rate of 1%, trigger pull shall be taken three consecutive times with a requirement of 5.5 to 11.0 pounds. Using the current procedures of MIL-C-70599 for M4 Carbines, 65% of random trigger pulls taken failed the requirement of 5.5 – 9.5 pounds. Based upon a acceptable failure rate of 1%, trigger pull shall be taken three consecutive times with a requirement of 6.5 – 12.3 pounds. Trigger Pull, M16A2 Rifle, M4 Carbine
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA271577
The trigger pull on an M-16 is 7.5 lbs. As a general rule, the trigger pull on rifles/shotguns is in the range of 5.5-8 lbs.
Target shooters will reduce the trigger pull to as little as, about, 2 lbs, for competition triggers.
The M-16 actually has a very heavy, two-stage trigger, which has about 1/8th inch of slack, a hard stop to the sear, and then a very hard (what is called “dragging”) break as the sear is released.
Shotguns, as issued by the Army, have a weight of pull of 5.5 lbs. (the M-1/M-14 , by way of comparison to both of the above, had a trigger pull of 6.5 lbs, and a much smoother release than the M-16, though sitffer than the shotgun).
T. Karney
SSG Calif. National Guard
Unit Armorer
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/04/gun_control_cam.html
As for M4A1.
As of September 2010 the Army has announced they will buy 12,000 M4A1s from Colt Firearms by the end of 2010 and will by early 2011 order 25,000 more M4A1s. The Army announced also to have open competition for the newly designed M4 bolt carrier and gas piston operation system, which will be fitted to the newly bought M4A1 carbines. The service branch plans to buy 12,000 of these conversion kits in early 2011. In late 2011 the Army plans to buy 65,000 more conversion kits. From there the Army will decide if it will upgrade all of its M4s.
With 64K of US Troops in A’stan out of 548K of US Army, having 37K of M4A1 and 12K of conversion kits, that’s a drop in the ocean. (65K kits are maybe). And What about Marines who use M16A4, don’t use M4 much and NOT M4A1.
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/09/marine-corps-passes-on-army-carbine-updates-091110w/
The M-16A2 usally is reqired to have minimum of 5 or less lb trigger pull so it sould have decent pulls for all three bursts. No Problem the new Army M-4A1 also dont have burst so burst wont be in new M-4s in Army service.
@ Lance
The three round burst limiter cycles regardless, hence the 3 trigger pulls. Using auto is a distraction augment. Unless you have a A3, (only Navy) it is a issue.
“Strabge alot more nations adopted the M-16 than the AUG”.
M16A2 is half the price of AUG, simple. It depends on how much you want to spend. Australia is developing an ungraded AUG, the EF-88.
A lot of countries received their M16s for free or near free (Iraq the latest).
The WHOLE eastern block use AK, and more AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined.
By that logic 9mm should be the standard pistol round, as most of the world use 9x19mm. That means there a lot people are wrong!
@Rohan
Ive shot AUGs too they have crappy triggers compaied to the M-16A2 and A3 The trick with the A2 was to advoid bust fire unless in CQB situations which trigger pull was alot less relivant. Strabge alot more nations adopted the M-16 than the AUG.
There was a time when we would have come up with our own solution. Now we have to rely on someone else.
@Lance.
Pity the Army, Marines and Air Force don’t use the m16A3!
Wasn’t that keen on the L85A1 when I got my hands on it when the Gurkhas were in Oz. Very bulky and top heavy. The L85A2 trigger may be better.
As to AUG, the dual pressure takes a bit of getting used to. It was designed as combat weapon not a target rifle. It runs better dirty.
I’ve shot sheet, small bore target (hair trigger), full bore target (firm trigger) and every weapon in the 90′s Australian Army. Every mode of shooting has a different trigger. It’s what your used to.
The M-1 never had trigger problems and most have had a crisp trigger. The Navy solvedf the M-16A2 problems with the A3 and wennt back to full auto. Yes AUGs have crappy triggers but L-85s dont depend on the gun model.
@mike
What was that about triggers?
I read that the M16A2 actually has three trigger pulls, depending on where in the 3 round burst cog you are. Sounds very complicated.
The guys in the US SF firearms mag had no problem shooting 2″ groups with the AUG (Styre, not Steyer) None of the guys in the army here do.
AUG and Tavor are built and designed as bullpups, not bullpuped M18 that became the L85 (not Enfield).
It appears your “anecdotal” evidence is based on triggers alone (bad in M1 and M16A2) and not the way the weapon actually shoots. Based on your comments the M1 and M16A2 must be junk.
At the end of the day its how accurate the system is and where the bullet goes that counts.
‘Re bullpups, they also typically have a lousy trigger”
Is there any data to back up your statement, ie AUG, F2000, Tavor vs M16, SCAR, hk-416, or is this a view based on no scientific data.
No, I don’t think it takes a scientist to feel a rough trigger with a very unpredictable break. What kind of “data” do you want? Measure the trigger weight and feel for creep before it fires., My comments are both anecdotal from foreign troops who have the bullpups and from my own experience with the Steyer Aug, the British military Enfield bullpup and a couple of others, which all felt about the same. Any armorer I have spoken with about bullpups has said pretty much the same thing; it goes with the breed and because of the nature of the trigger mechanism it’s difficult if not impossible to do anything about it. The gun isn’t designed for sniper work, obviously, but it is nice to have a crisp trigger, regardless of the weight.
“The Corps has always stressed and been proud of their marksmanship. A rough or heavy trigger won’t help achieve good shot placement”.
Most Garands come to me with a total trigger weight of between 6 and 6.5 Lbs. The final stage of the trigger pull is weighty and long.
http://www.shuffsparkerizing.com/Pricing.html
“The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is paramount in combat. Overly complicated firearms systems are overly prone to malfunctions that are difficult to correct in the field.”
Forget self-loaders and bring back bolt actions!
That would make the Marines happy! Hey, bullpups are nice to carry, great for close-in work and tight quarters and generally well made weapons. My personal opinion, from shooting several thousand rounds through several of them, is that the trigger is inferior to that of a standard rifle. If you like the gun and can work with the trigger, God bless you. There was no intention of starting an issue here. I just thought personal opinions based on some experience would be encouraged. Hmm, maybe we could get the government to print some more money and do a multi million dollar study on what we can all go out and feel for ourselves?
@ Mike
‘Re bullpups, they also typically have a lousy trigger”
Is there any data to back up your statement, ie AUG, F2000, Tavor vs M16, SCAR, hk-416, or is this a view based on no scientific data.
“The Corps has always stressed and been proud of their marksmanship. A rough or heavy trigger won’t help achieve good shot placement”.
Most Garands come to me with a total trigger weight of between 6 and 6.5 Lbs. The final stage of the trigger pull is weighty and long.
http://www.shuffsparkerizing.com/Pricing.html
“The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is paramount in combat. Overly complicated firearms systems are overly prone to malfunctions that are difficult to correct in the field.”
Forget self-loaders and bring back bolt actions!
Re bullpups, they also typically have a lousy trigger due to the requirement of a long mechanism used to deploy the firing mechanism which is well behind the trigger assembly. The Corps has always stressed and been proud of their marksmanship. A rough or heavy trigger won’t help achieve good shot placement.
The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) is paramount in combat. Overly complicated firearms systems are overly prone to malfunctions that are difficult to correct in the field.
The IAR is a SAW. The M249 “SAW” is a light machinegun and is probably the most misunderstood weapon in our military.A SAW is a weapon that uses the same caliber and fires using magazines.The m249 was never designed to be a SAW but just a LMG for a squad.The IAR will not replace the 249 but just bring the numbers down on a squad level.The IAR gunners combat load will be 14 30 round mags.The IAR is an excellent weapon with extreme reliability and amazing accuracy.The most effective suppression on the enemy is killing him not just puttin his head down.
I’m sure that the weapons can get 3-4 MOA. The thing is that, most people think that the M16 is “Inherently accurate”, and somehow super accurate at around 1 MOA or something.
The truth is that it is a lot less than that. Actually, Military M16′s generally have around the same MOA as an Ak-47, which their said to be “more accurate” than, but Ak-47′s are generally harder to aim.
That’s mostly due to a mixture of worse ergonomics, poor sights, higher recoil, and a much more curved trajectory compared to the 5.56mm.
Not to mention that most enemy soldiers are not trained as well as our people, making them less accurate.
@Some Guy – Prior to the introduce of the A4 the average Marine was required to maintain 7 MOA at 300 yards when BZOing his A2. The rifles themselves were capable of greater precision than that. The 3-4 MOA from the factory claims are completely accurate.
I don’t think any of us know, but judging by it’s heavy barrel profile (at least compared to the M16 and M4), it’s hammer forged barrel (which is considered to be a lot stronger than straight milled barrels), and the use of the new marine rounds, along with the fact that the firing system is designed to prevent the weapon and barrel from overheating, I wouldn’t doubt that this weapon is going to have a lot longer barrel life than a standard M16 or M4.
Truthfully, it will probably not have as long a barrel life as the M249, but because a lower volume of fire is expected from the weapon (hundreds of rounds, instead of thousands) it could very easily “outlast” M249′s in terms of service length, but not necessarily service use.
There is a lot of hype about M16′s, mainly about how “accurate” they are. But M16′s are only functionally required to have 7 MOA; while it’s possible that some factory production M16′s might have better accuracy than this, 3-4 MOA is a lot to expect from most service rifles.
What you find is that most military rifles sacrifice accuracy for reliability and versatility (such as guns being able to fire multiple types of rounds, such as tracers, armor piercing rounds, lighter and heavier weight variants etc.). A military sniper rifle is expected to have roughly 1-2 MOA, while civilian competition “sniper” rifles are generally sub MOA. High grade civilian models can be .5 MOA or less straight out of the box with standard factory loads. Of course, they are not as reliable, and not as versatile, but they are generally more accurate.
The obvious problem with sacrificing accuracy for reliability with the M16 is that it’s not very reliable to begin with, and was made to be accurate. Of course, if the gun was considered “Accurized” and light weight- I.E. 6.6lb and 2 or less MOA- then it wouldn’t work at all, which is what we found out in NAM.
So now our “lightweight accurate” rifle is back up to 8 lb and extremely inaccurate, while still being unreliable.
So functionally…
The M16 has a very low MOA. Surprisingly, an increase in inherent reliability of the firing system allows you to focus more on accuracy, reducing certain necessities when compared to poorer firing systems. While it is theoretically possible for an M16 to be extremely accurate, it cannot preform this way due to it’s extremely low reliability under field conditions. Therefore, an inherently reliable system (or, an extremely reliable system) can suffer slight reliability issues for increased accuracy and performance, without hindering it’s reliability as drastically as a weapon, like, say, the M16.
I need a new keyboard and check my grammar.
What MOA will the M27 shoot in 5-10 years time?
@ Ozzie
A few of comments.
If your M16 is shooting 7 MOA, why the hell is it kept in service?
Is it because it’s worn out or that’s what the M16 shoots in the real world?
The M249 can’t hit targets accurately at 200m.”The M249 is outdated” The M249 is 20 years younger than the M16!
Is it because it’s worn out or that’s what the M249 shoots in the real world?
What MOA the M27 shoot is 5-10 years time?
What sight did the M249 and M16 have? The M27 had “reflex sight on top of the SDO”. Is that comparing “like with like”?
The issue of a “high capacity” magazine has not been addressed. Is 8 magazines (240 rounds) enough to allow effective fire to allow maneuver?
When squads operate independently, away from its base of fire 7.62 MGs, will one of the fire-teams have to revert to having a M249 to survive?
Not all fire is frontal. Enfilade fire best for from LMGs, by mutual interlocking fire. Is the USMC giving this to only platoon weapons?
If you believe the 50 year old M16 rifle should be replaced by the M27, the obvious question is should the M249 LMG be replaced by a modern belt feed?
Well, the M249 CAN have 2 MOA, which is a reason why we adopted it. But the thing is, the military keeps buying poor, sometimes unrifled replacement barrels, and the weapons are severely worn out.
For a military of around 300,000 combat troops, we only have around 10,000 M249′s. Considering that their designed to use automatic fire, in training and in actual combat, the weapons have taken a beating.
Besides, the M249 design is really best used for the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round.
The Mk. 48 and M240 are where it’s at.
Simply put, it’s easy to match the M249′s required firepower in a much smaller, cheaper weapons platform than.
While it’s potential firepower is higher, this simply isn’t used very much at the squad level, and over-all is outmatched by more powerful rounds, like the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round.