I’m interested in a number of things regarding this… First, which battalions are getting them.

Second, how will they be deployed in the battalions? Are we talking universal replacement, or what the Marine Corps. has been stating all along where the IAR will SUPPLEMENT, not replace, the SAW. (Which i’d imagine would replace 1 of the 3 SAWs in a squad with a IAR.)

Third, are they REALLY fielding the IAR to these guys with absolutely NO change in their current tactics training? That’s a disaster waiting to happen.

The majority of infantry tactics revolve around the concept of achieving fire superiority through suppression, and that’s how these guys have been trained since bootcamp. You can’t just hand them a revolutionary new concept with absolutely no proven training an expect great things to come of them. If the battalion they hand them to hasn’t had a combat deployment in the past 3 years, this effect is multiplied.

Honestly, i think this M27 thing is a bust. As someone with more than a little grunt time spent down range, i can tell you first hand that Afghanistan is NOT a target rich environment. A good 90% of the time it’s almost impossible to pin point specific enemy fire positions, and the other 10% of the time, a DM or attached sniper (Or hell, even a good rifleman, team leader with a M203, or attached Assaultman.) can easily engage and eliminate the threat. It’s evident that the people making these decisions are very far removed from the realities of the war in Afghanistan. Or in some of their cases, war in general.

“saying the improved accuracy of the Heckler and Koch-made automatic rifle makes up for a lower rate of fire compared to the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon it’s being fielded to replace.”

I guess this guy was out sick the day they talked about suppressive fire.

Makes a lot of sense. SAW != LMG/GPMG. More accurate weapon is good for this kind of intense police action: You’re not suppressing platoons of Warsaw Pact forces, you’re engaging lots of point targets and every round downrange could have paperwork or a news story attached. This sort of makes me think back to the historical proliferation of BARs in the Corps.

OMG

Does that Lieutenant General even know why the SAW existed in the first place? To suppress the enemy, meaning, to protect the extraction,fall back or moving forward of soldiers under a blanket of bullets! Depending all THAT on the marksmanship of a 5.56′s stopping power (!!!) and assuming the soldiers that use those IARs have ANY!

I think the IAR was supposed to save weight comparing to the Minimi, BUT maintain the high rate of fire, namely, using 100-150 drum mags…

The idea of buying and using IAR for a job any M4 can do is ludicrous!

Again, I am sure this LTG is not telling the REAL reasons behind the HK416 IAR being approved! Without high-capacity mags, this is nothing but an overpriced piston full-auto AR-15 M4 version!

And people complain about the SCAR!!!

The FNH HAMR was introduced at Shotshow 2010 Range Day using the SAW-MAGs for a reason! Seeing them in action, clearly showed that reason… Given the highest rate of fire of an IAR, a 30-round mag cannot offer the protection a SAW is and was devised to offer!

If you want to suppress a dozen enemies and prevent them from firing at you and keep their heads down, you need a SAW or a LMG, not an IAR the way this high ranking officer is defending it to perform!

I mean, the IAR controversy is EXACTLY because of the REAL use of a BAR-type weapon (and the BAR had a bigger caliber, 7.62×63!) with a short magazine in a suppression fire mode!

The poor IAR operator would be wasting ammo and mags like crazy!

If only used in single-shot, semi-auto mode for accuracy shots, I see no credible use for purchasing an IAR whatsoever! That accuracy job can be done just as easily by the far-less expensive M4 already in use!

Again, I think this high ranking official is not telling the whole story! When a senior officer fails this miserably to provide credible reasons for approving the purchase of a weapon whose use in the configuration he presented is questionable to say the least, I think there is definitely something fishy going on here!

The more the officials speak about this, the more suspicious this whole thing becomes!

Cheers!

This whole IAR program is going from bad to worse. Now they’re going to remove the support weapon and replace it with their souped up rifle. Marines will be left without a weapon designed for suppressive fire, which will result in more weapon(rifle) failures.

The SAW, despite it’s flaws, is still a far better support weapon than the IAR. Better accuracy and a low rate of fire are not criteria for a support weapon.

Someone needs to be slapped, and hard.

The tactical place for the IAR does not seem to be …. thought out.

Others have speculated that this may just be the USMC’s way to get around the procurement problems of the Pentagon and other branches, and get a reliable, piston AR capable of sustained automatic fire into the hands of the grunts ASAP, without it looking like they’re bucking the system.

Quote:
“I fired the [IAR] … and this thing could — notice I didn’t say ‘would’ — could replace the SAW,” Amos said. “Any of you grunts in here who have not fired that weapon, you need to fire that weapon.”

and:
“Flynn said the plan is to outfit infantry companies with both the IAR and the SAW and leave it to the discretion of commanders on how their grunts are outfitted.”

Pretty sneaky if you ask me.

Im with Spudgun the whole M-249 is a WASTE in the first place. A M-60 or M-240 7.62mm GPMG is far far better for surpressing fire and damage than a dinky 5.56mm. A IAR is ment to be more accurate for persicion full auto fire and is manet to fire in burst than just barrel melting full auto waste of ammo as a belt fed 5,56mm weapon is. We need knock down power for surpression work and 5.56mm dosn’t cut it. In aimed persion fire 5.56mm can work. 7.62mm is the only real logical western calilber for belt fed.

2nd place this is more of a way to get a piston AR in service.

@ Lance
yes the 7.62 is the only logical cal put there we have to use it for our belt feds ,remember the russians ? they DONT USE ANY of theyr intermediate rouds for belt fed weapons they only use theyr 7.62×54
its unlogic to place a round designed for an assault rifle in a surpport weapon.

So? Trying to revisit FG42 in 5.56. If everyone in the squad has one of these (safe the guys with underslung 40mm, or with rocket launchers, or the marksmen) it might work better than expected – for certain missions. For others the caliber is still wrong.

It’s interesting to see that the old German answers to small unit combat are still valid.

In a fire team, an IAR makes sense. 4 men can’t carry enough ammo keep a belt fed in a way that gives best usage. Even with a SAW, ammo conservation means that you have a heavy, bulky IAR.

The mission of squads and fire teams is to move, quickly. That means their loads have to be relatively light. Support and suppression is the job of the weapons squads and platoons.

Spudgun and toad make good points, and I must say that if we get IARs we should get GMPGs too. We have the M240 for a reason, and H&K had better pray to God that they get good beta mags.

I think this is just a short term move for the war conditions in Afghanistan, to get as many of these H&K IAR into as many hands as possible. In Afghanistan these ARE replacements for the SAW.

In Afghanistan the SAW has become a niche weapon. Handy in certain situations (static guard positions), but otherwise the IAR is a superior weapon system. Things change, and the marines have to change with it.

In maneuver combat, mass fire is needed to advance, you are not shooting at them to kill you are shooting at them to keep their heads down. so alot of [insert round here] being fired downrange is what you need. accurate suppressive fire is frankly a crap term. If your accurate, he is dead, and maneuver isnt necessary.

the IARs “perks”

- Use USGI mags, so does the SAW, but it rarely works. but you dont want to ever use them in it anyways.*

*a fact i think a lot have forgotten.

id rather carry a belt of 200 than the 7ish mags that would represent.

i dont see this weapons system panning out i mean sure its pretty and new righ now but after seeing this weapon it seems very questionable weather it would be sutiable for anything other than a carbine. Frankly i dislike the m240 even the 5.56 cartridge has no place in a squad machine its to light a round and dosent have the bute power of the m60 and its 7.62 cartridge. So honestly this weapons system seems as though its a real step in the wrong directione.

There was an argument like this when the British army was having issues with the L86 light support weapon. It had a heavier longer barrel and increased accuracy but fed from STANAG 30 round mags. They found that when they wanted to get sustained fire that changing mags every 30 shots could not provide adequate suppression. In the end they bought some paratrooper type SAWs to fill this gap and kept the LSWs for DMR or a similar point suppression as the IAR is intended for. It may be that the ‘ghan requires more of this than volume suppression?

If anything, it seems that like in life and genetics a diversity of firearms is what is optimal to deal with such fluid and unexpected situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80#L86_LSW

I appreciate the perspectives of the guys who have been in Afghanistan and understand that the battlefield is different there than Iraq and may require a different philosophy.

That said, we’ve been there for ten years and it seems a bit of too little, too late. Unless we expect that all future wars will be fought there or somewhere requiring similar material, why change from what has historically been correct? Do we expect that future conflicts will no longer require volumes of fire produced by the SAW? If not, why are we making this change at this late stage of the game? Seems like there’s more to it. It could just be that those supplying the effort are always the last to get in the game.

The Mk 48 never saw wide spread useage The newer light weight M-240L hasnt seen much feilding yet due to budget cuts.

@ Bobby I generally agree with wyou but some adjustment

Officer: M-4A1
Rilfemen: M-16A4
DMR: M-110 or M14 DMR
Support: M-60/M-240, or on defensive duties M-2.

The main fact is that Marines use differnt tactics than the army dose since the early 1990s. After Bill Clinton slahed the Army all Infantry units became Mecanized since defuct units vehicles became aviliable. So the Army has almost in a all Calvery state armed with M-4s, except for MP and Armored infantry units WHich first started to us M-16A4 but Army brass cut that off so most use M-16A2s and or M-4s.

Marines never had extra assult vehicles so they remain more of a true infantry force hince why they have more of a use for a IAR and why they use and will use for quite some time the M-16A4 over M-4s.

There’s also the future. A reliable, compact and light AR drum mag would be a huge boon for the marines. Having the option to turn their M16′s into SAW-lites if the situation calls for it, and making the IAR into almost the SAWs equal.

Taking away the 100 round magazine requirement for the IAR enabled the marines to get the best rifle for their purposes. An AR compatible drum magazine can always be added on later. (unlike the M249 SAW)

I think one issue is commonality, to me commonality is not as much a field issue as a procurement bean counter issue.

The Marine infantry should have a MIX of weapons organic to their infantry squad. A mix of weapons along with a mix of different caliber rounds.

To make a point here I will relay something I found very interesting reading about some Vietnam history. The Army developed something called gun trucks during Vietnam. After it took them about 5 years to finally figure it all out it was found that they had all the information on how to put together convoy security in 1914. If someone had actually read a book it was all there. But they ignored the past and it took 5 years to learn what was SOP in 1914 concerning supply convoy protection. In fact it goes back to the Indian wars in the late 1800s. We made the same mistakes in Iraq because we ignored the past.

The Army had to relearn these lessons in WII and then even more so in Vietnam. Then again in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can read how all these NATO supply lines have been blown to bits recently in Pakistan. If they wanted to protect the supply lines it’s all there in history on how to do it and has been for over 100 years. But they ignore it.

The same goes for infantry weapons. Go back to WWI and then WWII and Vietnam. Three very different wars but they all had the same basic lessons. One weapon does not fit all needs, one caliber does not fit all needs and every time the DOD tries to implement this mentality it fails and ends up costing lives. All the bean counters want is to save money and make everything uniform. They never ever think about the guys who are actually doing the fighting. The Marines have always tried their best but it seems that it’s a losing cause now and they have joined the Army bean counters or worse.

The DOD would rather waste billions on weapons that don’t work then spend a few million on weapons that do and would help the guys really doing the fighting.

We don’t really know if the IAR is any good as a weapon. To have it replace a weapon that replaced a weapon is ridiculous. The SAW replaced the M-60 and now the IAR is replacing the SAW. How does a IAR match up to a M60 in the suppressive fire role, it can’t even come close. But in essence that is what has been done.

I have some ideas but I don’t have all the answers. IMO one would be to totally ditch the 5.56mm round. But we know that ain’t happening!!!

I think this is pretty good reading, short and to the point:
http://www.g2mil.com/squads.htm

Here is some info and explains what works in Iraq:
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,79595,00.html

More good reading:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/rethinking-rifle-platoon

It obvious that what works in Iraq does NOT work in Afghanistan. One thing the Army and Marines has to do is change their organization and weapons to fit different areas of operation. They do but it takes too long to figure out the lessons of the past. By the time they get it, the it is over.

Seems like a mistake. Some of their reasoning is that the SAW is too big to maneuver inside building, but their are better solutions than an assault rifle with a heavy barrel. Too bad the Marines didn’t really give the Ultimax or Knights Armament Stoner LMG a chance, that could have been interesting.

I love the SAW as a hip-pocket LMG that is under the complete control of small unit leaders. Anyone who says they are a waste of time compared to an M60 a) hasn’t tried to get M60 support from company HQ and b) hasn’t had to carry around much M60 ammo. The SAW is plenty accurate as an automatic *rifle* and very useful if deployed according to its capabilities. All of this discussion about USMC procurement tricks is way above my paygrade. I am a big fan of M16/M203/M249 small unit tactics, and I personally can’t see a way to improve on this with any combination of weaponry.

I think the point is that, the M27 isn’t intended to replace the M249. I think the point is, that, the M249 FAILED to replace the BAR automatic rifleman concept. There’s no way it can replace a light machine gun; by all accounts, it’s a light automatic carbine.

Actually quite a novel weapon, considering that most weapons of our era have been PORTRAYED as awesome auto firing machines, but actually failed to live up to that expectation (like the M16, for example).

I don’t think that the marines ever intended for a weapon like the M249 to replace the BAR like operation of a regular unit.

They wanted, basically, a rifle like the other rifles that was possibly a little heavier but capable of fully automatic fire.

But, failing the whole “6mm” round idea (proposed for a SAW weapon, actually) they basically ended up adopting the M249 like the army did, for logistics reasons (ability to change weapons between marines and army plus ammunition).

And, besides, the M249 is 17 pounds with the ability of a 200+ round belt; a much better option than the 20 pound, 20 round BAR.

Except for the concept of firepower.

Apparently, suppressive fire power can come from steady, autonomous fire rather than simply automatic fire.

It’s basically the same; one round every second or so or 15 rounds a second really doesn’t change much. Just “Bang Bang”… “Bang Bang” plus a couple of M240′s in the background is all you really need to hear to keep your head down, IF your going to get your head down anyways.

Another thing people don’t also consider is that marines operate on a “Expeditionary Unit” scale.

There are rifle companies, medic companies, artillery batteries, mechanized armor, airborne etc. per each unit, or 2000-3000 people.

While the front line gunners will probably change their RIFLE TEAMS up a little bit, the heavy “Machine Gun Companies” will probably keep packing heavy machine guns, and along with snipers, will provide all the suppressive firepower necessary for the quick maneuver fire teams.

“The real difficulty at present is deciding the best way to carry around 600 rounds worth of magazines. I have some thoughts, but none are ideal.”–IRgRunt

A few extra mags per FT member HAS to be less of a hassle than a belt or two per FR member. Not only is the ammo better protected, but ammo can be more easily redistributed as the situation requires.

@IRgRunt

No I haven’t carried the M249, but yes I have carried the M60 as a section (ie squad weapon). A M60 is one and a half times heavier. At 23 pounds is was called the “pig” for a good reason. 17 lbs would have been a holiday.

We don’t use 15-20 rounds on belt feed MGs. 5 is plenty, 10 round bursts at most. The Australians use 100 round bags on the F89 (M249) to keep weight down.

The M27 has a 16″ barrel. Put a 16″ barrel on M249 (short L110 barrel not SOCOM barrel), and get rid of all the extra crap (magazine feed and MG mounting points), the M249 drops by 4 lbs.

M27 8 lbs vs M249 “basic” 13 lbs. Not M27 8 lbs vs M249 17 lbs.

How to carry 600 rounds (20 magazines), I await the answer. Speed loads are great, but when you’ve used your ready chest rig magazines (6-8 magazines) then what? Is the solution the classic Vietnam “claymore” bag trick? One over each shoulder, one with full magazines, and the other for dries. Rattles like hell and tangles around your neck like link “bandolier” link. Otherwise you’ll need a number 2 to start throwing you ammo.

Very high capacity magazines require very powerful springs. For these magazines to work properly in field conditions, you need springs that can only be factory loaded (Ultramax 100 rounds drums). Drums are high volume and non-square shape wastes space. Half a drum is empty space.

60 quad loads may work (straight quad 100s are too long at 13”), but how they go in the field is the real question.

If 60 round quad work in dust and grit, the M249 is dead. 10 magazines is manageable; 5 on the chest and 2 on each hip. I would still want a “beefed up” weapon that can take the continued automatic fire and have a true quick change barrel. A couple of extra pounds would be worth it.

Some Guy, thanks for those weights.

@some guy
Food for thought

1000 5.56 rounds 27 lbs
1000 M27 link 4.4 lbs
(data you and Tony Williams supplied M27 blog)

M16 rifle (data from FM 23-14 )
30 round magazine 1.07 lbs (empty .25 lbs)
990-1020 rounds (33-34 magazines) 35.3 -37lb

Surefire MAG5-60
60 round magazine 2.02 lbs (empty .43 lbs).
1020 rounds (17 magazines) 34.3 lb

Surefire MAG5-100
100 round magazine 3.3 lbs (empty .60 lbs).
1000 rounds (10 magazines) 33 lb

Ultramax 100 LMG
100 round drum 4.2 lbs (empty 1.5 lbs)
1000 rounds (10 magazines) 42 lbs.

Beta C-Mag
100 round drum 4.6 lb (empty 1.9 lb)
1000 rounds (10 magazines) 46 lb

M249 (data from FM 23-14 )
200 round link in boxes 6.92 lb (empty box 1.1 lb)
1000 rounds (5 “cans”) 34.6 lb

Extra weight of belt feed over magazine feed.
Using Stoner 63 LMG vs Stoner 63 AR, same basic weapon, same barrel length, the difference is belt feeder.

LMG 11.7 lb vs AR 10.2 lb (extra 1.5 lb for belt feed)

The difference between a LMG and a AR using the same weapon is in-significant.

Drums are about a third heavier and remember a both drum magazines are about the same size as a 200 belt box.

Quad stack offers about the same weight and volume, but reliability is sand ????????????

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-surefire-60-shot-and-100-shot-ar-ar-15m16-5-56mm-nato-box-magazines-for-infantry-combat-and-tactical-engagements-meet-the-surefire-mag5-60-and-mag5-100-high-capacity-magazines-hcms/

http://www.stengg.com/upload/194X9nI4kMKCDKfW7kd.pdf

http://www.betaco.com/page.asp?pg=faq

seems like an ar platform based upon the idea of the rpk.

I’d like to see a belt fed adapter on this weapon, like in the Ares shrike. So that it could accept M249 links. It really wouldn’t be that difficult to pull off, and many rifles have been made that have been adapted use a belt, such as the G3, AR-10, and even the M16, known as the “Colt Automatic Rifle”, no relation to the CAR that the Canadians use.

In concept, and in practice, a belt fed addition really isn’t that difficult to add, and doesn’t seem to raise the over-all weight of the weapon up very much.

It would allow the weapon to use both magazines and belt links, like the M249, except be more reliable with the magazine feed and lighter weight.

And basically solve the issue of “high capacity” magazines, although I still like the 60 round magazines.

Granted, it’s firing rate would still be lower, but it would allow a user to have a vastly larger magazine capacity, drastically increasing their sustained rate of fire and increasing the time in between magazine changes.