The Firearm Blog

From the NYT ...

As envisioned, the teams will work like American politicians who campaign door to door and learn what voters care about. A team is to arrive in a village, get permission from the male elder to speak with the women, settle into a compound, hand out school supplies and medicine, drink tea, make conversation and, ideally, get information about the village, local grievances and the Taliban.

...

On patrols, the women will carry M-4 rifles, which are shorter and more maneuverable than the military’s standard M-16s, but once inside an Afghan compound, and with Marine guards posted outside, they have been instructed, assuming they feel safe, to remove their rifles and take off their intimidating “battle rattle” of helmets and body armor.

In my opinion the article implies that these woman are being treated less-equal than the male Marines when behind the wire, but isn't it standard operating procedure to remove armor and helmet?

UPDATE: As some commenters realized, I misinterpreted "Afghan compound" to mean inside their base of operations, not inside a native compound.

[ Many thanks to Mik for emailing me the link. ]

Over the past 6 months I have been following the Marines sly procurement of M45 1911 pistols (formally MEU(SOC) pistol) in small parts. The Marines have just procured 150,000 rounds of Federal Premium Gold Medal .45 Auto 185GR FMJ-SWC Match Ammunition.

The procurement is notable because the rounds are not loaded with classic 230 gr hardball bullets, but the lighter and faster 185 grain FMJ-SWC bullets.

[ Many thanks to Matt for emailing me the info. ]

UPDATE: Daniel pointed out that the purchase was for the USMC Competition-In-Arms Program and that the solicitation appears to have been canceled.

The T48 was the designation of the FN FAL entered into the competition to replace the M1 Garand. The T44 (later called the M14) won the competition but the Marines appear to have kept their quote of T48 rifles. These have been meticulously photographed by an Australian who visited Quantico in 2008.

[ Many thanks to jdun1911 for emailing me the link. ]

In September I wrote that the Marine MEU(SOC) M1911 pistol appeared to have finally been given an official DoD designation. A solicitation request, number M6785410R1030, was issued last week for M45 parts ...

The intent of this sources sought request is to identify potential qualified 8(a) small businesses that can provide the attached weapons parts list for the M-45, MEUSOC Pistol.

This confirms earlier evidence that the pistol will henceforth be known as the M45.

A Marine fires what was formally called the "MEU(SOC) pistol"

Thanks to Mark for spotting the solicitation request.

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!

After a year of speculation and commentary from pundits, myself included, the Marine Times reports that the H&K has won the competition and that their entry will enter production next year ...

The Marine Corps has selected the infantry automatic rifle made by Heckler & Koch as the weapon that will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in infantry fire teams, a senior service official told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday.

The H&K IAR “was truly the best in the class on multiple levels and will finally allow the billet of automatic rifleman to be performed as intended without the disruption of the squad integrity that the M249 created,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner, said in an e-mail.

Despite what is said in the above quotation, I do not think that the SAW is being replaced outright. The Marine Times has at times reported that the SAW would be replaced with the IAR, and at other times reported that it would augment the IAR, not replace it ...

The plan is to buy 4,100 IARs and reduce the number of SAWs in the Corps from 10,000 to 8,000, Cantwell said.

“We are still going to maintain SAWs in the company,” he said. “Only 2,000 SAWs will be replaced. The reminder will be kept as an organizational weapon for when commanders need them.”

The H&K entry was a modified version of their HK416 piston-operated AR-15 rifle. Unlike the Colt and FN entries, it is said to fire only from a closed bolt. Given the lack of an open-bolt fire mode I had presumed it was the least likely choice for an automatic rifle.

Presumably it is fitted with a heavy barrel, like H&K's previous, and commercially unsuccessful, attempt at the automatic rifle: the MG36. The Marine Corps has been reporting the weight of the 16.5" barreled H&K IAR as being 7.9 lbs. This is not possible as a standard 16.5" barreled Hk416 weights in at 7.84 lbs. I also think that the photo of the H&K IAR shown by the Military Times is that of a standard HK416.

HK416 standard rifle (not IAR)

I have contacted H&K to see if they are willing to publicly acknowledge if they have won. If they do, I will endeavor to get the specs of the new weapon.

UPDATE: The Marines Times has an updated article here.

Many thanks to Mark and Matt for sending me the news.

Military Times (via. SNAFU!) reports ... (emphasis mine)

James Conway had questioned how the IAR will fit into fire teams, but said that his concern was “answered in short order.” Smith declined to elaborate, and Maj. David Nevers, a spokesman for Conway, said the commandant was unavailable for comment.

At the Modern Day Marine exposition held at Quantico in October, FN Herstal displayed a high-capacity magazine for its IAR variant that can hold 100 to 150 rounds. Another con­tractor, Armatac Industries, has approached the Corps about a 150-round magazine it makes and says is compatible with each of the finalists’ weapons.

Early in the evaluation process for the IAR, the Corps’ requirement called for the weapon to use 100-round magazines. That was eventually elimi­nated in favor of using the same 30-round maga­zines, as Marine officials sought to cut weight from the SAW’s replacement.

Translation: Ultra-high capacity magazines have poor reliability and so we are pretending that they are in fact too heavy for our Marines to carry.

I was not aware that the requirement had been dropped. Not having a ultra-high capacity magazine would seem to significantly decrease the utility of the rifle, insofar as it being a replacement for the SAW.

150 round AR CL-MAG

Many thanks to Solomon for the link.

I missed this article when it was published last month, but luckily a reader alerted me to it. The Marine Times reported last month (Sep 21, 2009) that the result of the Infantry AUtomatic Rifle competition will be announced this month!

The Marine Corps plans to announce next month a heavily anticipated plan for the infantry automatic rifle, which is expected to replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in Marine fire teams.

“We’re close to having a decision,” said Maj. John Smith, the weapon’s project officer at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va. “I’m on schedule to have a decision on the program to move forward. Maybe within three weeks or so, there will be a lot more information.”

Testing is complete, Smith told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday, and plans are underway to make sure logistics, training and maintenance of the weapon are handled.

The article is not entirely accurate. The Corps will not be replacing the SAW with the IAR, but rather adding the IAR to their weapons mix.

I have covered the Infantry Automatic Rifle many times on the blog.

Many thanks to Walt for telling me about the article.

A leaked US Army report about the Battle of Wanat criticizes the reliability of the M4. On July 13, 2008 200 Taliban fighters attacked 48 US and 24 Afghan troops. Outnumbered 2.7 to 1 the M4 Carbines, which the troops were carrying, could not function reliably under the sustained fire they were required to put downrange. Fox News reports:

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

...

"My weapon was overheating,” McKaig said, according to Cubbison’s report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

Snowflakes In Hell, via Michael Bane's blog, correctly points out that assault rifles are not machine guns:

No assault rifle is going to stand up to sustained automatic fire. They aren’t machine guns, and even a machine gun needs to have its barrel changed out if it’s been firing a lot.

The M4 has a very short 14.5" barrel and a relatively lightweight barrel profile. This allows the barrel to heat up much faster than a longer and heavier rifle or machine gun barrel. When the barrel of a closed-bolt gun gets very hot, cook-offs,when a round is ignited from the heat in the chamber, become a significant problem ... not to mention the fact that a soldier cannot fire a gun that is to hot to hold!

The Marines have been criticized by many for their plans to introduce an Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) into the mix of weapons issued to their troops. The IAR is not intended to replace the SAW but would be deployed alongside it, giving some riflemen a light weight weapon that can sustain automatic fire.

FN IAR. Switches from closed-bolt to open-bolt when automatically when barrel temperature increases.

The Army would do well to look into the concept.

At the end of last year the Marines announced they were awarding contracts for the development of IAR prototypes to Colt, H&K and FN. Since then I have heard nothing about the IAR.

There are discussions about the M4 failure at Wanat over at Snowflakes In Hell, via Michael Bane's blog and SaysUncle.

Many thanks to Jerry, Caedis, Lee and Lance for emailing me links about this story.

During the Iraq War the Marines urgently ordered 180 of the Mk11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System's, but with the Army M110 Rifle Upper Receiver. This Mk11 / M110 hybrid was known as the Mk11 Mod 1. Later, the Marines began ordering the Mk11 Mod 2, a SOCOM / Navy developed variant of the SR-25 that is very similar to the M110.

Knight's Armament are now selling the last 50 of the Mk11 Mod 1 rifles that will ever be produced to civilians.

The suggested retail price ... $8508! Most of these 50 rifles are already spoken for with only a few left for sale. It is more than I would spend on a rifle of this class, but I suppose it is also a piece of military history.

Big thanks to Jesse for sending me the info.

The legendary Daniel Watters has unearthed compelling evidence that the Marine MEU(SOC) M1911 pistol has now been given the official designation "M45 Close Quarters Combat Pistol".

A Marine fired the MEU(SOC)

Two documents ¹, recently posted on Navy.mil, provide information about the procurement of slide assemblies for the M45. Unlike previous documents these do not refer to the MEU(SOC) designation and refer only to the "M45 Close Quarters Combat Pistol".

Note the reliability requirements.

Many thanks to Daniel for the information.

There is an interesting article at Human Events about the US Army culture favoring the M4, while the Marines culture being pro-M16A4.

Two years ago when I was in Iraq, I noticed there were essentially two different primary infantry weapons (the M16 automatic rifle and the also-automatic M4 carbine) carried by America’s two primary ground forces — the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army.

Marines for the most part were carrying the M16. The Army on the other hand was primarily carrying the M4: a shorter, lighter version of the M16 with a collapsible-stock.

Hat Tip: Say Uncle

James found this photos of a pair of homemade pistols that appear to be chambered in .303 British! Apparently they, along with the cartridges, were confiscated from some students. Can you imagine the blast of burning power that must shoot out of these!

I found the following photos of a Martini-Henry .303 1870 rifle which has been converted into a pistol. It was captured by Marines in Afghanistan.

The pistol has an original Martini-Henry barrel which was cut down to 2.5″ and sights carved out of it. Other than the addition of the pistol grip and sling swivels, the pistol is made entirely from original parts.

These pistols, converted from rifles in the Khyber Pass, are said to be common in that part of the world. It is designed to for one purpose: to kill an enemy in order to take his weapons … that is of course if the death-trap of a gun does not kill the operator first!

More information about this pistol is at gunboards.com.

DOD Buzz has some thoughts on the weapon platform used by the SEAL Snipers who took out the pirates:

And let’s not get carried away with the sea state, says DT contributor Joe Buff. A multi-thousand ton destroyer is a pretty stable platform in any but the most tumultuous sea states and makes dialing in a shot on an admittedly tossing life raft more doable — a smart platform for the Team to operate from.

Well sure a big ship is a more stable platform, but that does not make it any less of a feat of marksmanship. Missing could have meant the difference between the American captain surviving and being executed by the frightened pirates.

We also have some information — unconfirmed, though we’re working on it — about how the shots were taken and what was used. Our firearms expert Eric Poole who writes for Tactical-Life posits that the snipers were using the MK-11 .308 sniper system manufactured by Knights Armament Co. This weapon is awesome, by the way (I’ve shot it a few times myself) and, if this is indeed what the shooters used, would mark a major, high-profile departure from legacy thinking about sniping which holds bolt-action rifles as the Gold Standard or marksmanship.

I also said that I though the Mk 11 was the likely weapons system.

Bolt actions and semi-auto’s can both be made accurate enough. Bolt actions can be made more accurate cheaper, but semi-autos give a much better rate of fire. The Army is sticking with the M24 Sniper Weapons System, based on the Remington 700 bolt action, for now because of cost.

Poole figures the DevGru frogmen removed the “overpowered” standard-issue Leupold scopes and opted for the Aimpoint CCO augmented by the PVS-14 night vision monocular. Though the SEAL version of the MK-11 Mod 0 is issued with suppressors, it’s unclear whether the operators used them, but I’d bet a million bucks they did.

Good point about scopes. The range was relatively close, so I don’t think the sound suppression of a suppressor would make a huge difference to the situation, but the decrease in recoil would be advantageous when making followup shots at a moving target. I think it is safe to assume these guys know now their weapons performs when suppressed (unlike video games, in real life suppressors make no change to the external ballistics of the projectile, but it does change the weight balance of the firearm)

One other question (among many) remains open…were there three shots or four? Poole reasons, and Allen and I agree, that someone had to shoot through the lifeboat window first, then fire the kill shots. My limited knowledge of ballistics leads me to believe the snipers could not rely on the effectiveness of the one window shot to actually strike the target where it was aimed based in the potential deflection of hitting that probably plastic (glass) window.

There are a lot of things we do not know.

Thanks to Paul for the link.