US Marines set to field M27 IAR

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Markost

I read about that a month ago. Why the hell do you need a heavy barreled 5,56 carbine when you have the Mk 48 in 7,62x51??

Or the smaller Mark 46 if squad ammo commonality is desired, which was one of the original requirements of the SAW program.

Originally Posted by Nyles

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense to me either. I've heard it suggested that this is a backdoor effort to get new carbines but I don't think I buy it. I've never worked with Marines, so their tactics might be different from ours, but given the emphasis we put on winning the firefight this would definately seem like a step in the wrong direction.

I know the UK fielded their own IAR with the L86 LSW, but didn't Canada originally try this with a heavy-barreled C7? Whatever happened with that? I know the L86 performed better as an SDM-R and failed as a support weapon only to be replaced in the latter role by--you guessed it--the Minimi (which I know Canada also uses today).

[Excalibur]

Actually a while back the US also fielded an M16 with a heavier barrel before the SAW.

[Yournamehere]

Without a large magazine capacity, the IAR is just another rifle, making it somewhat inadequate as a support weapon, especially next to an M249 (the BAR comparison is a pretty good point too). They do need to find a machine gun to replace the M249 though, or buy some new ones, as the ones being used are showing signs of wear. A few of my friends in the military have talked about them as if they were jam-o-matics, which makes sense as they probably see more rounds than anything on the field. I'm not a fan of this IAR concept though, and I don't think the test will yield positive results.

I think one of the main reasons they are steering away from the M249 though is because it's fuck heavy. The Mark 46 and 48 are roughly the same weight, so they offer nothing in this area, but the IAR is less than half the M249's weight loaded, which is the most obvious benefit (but to me it's probably the only benefit).

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

I think one of the main reasons they are steering away from the M249 though is because it's fuck heavy. The Mark 46 and 48 are roughly the same weight, so they offer nothing in this area, but the IAR is less than half the M249's weight loaded, which is the most obvious benefit (but to me it's probably the only benefit).

The difference in weight between the M249 and the Mk46 Mod 0 is 5 pounds. I have had both in my hands and I like the Mk46 for several reasons compared to the M249 one is the weight reduction and the other is getting rid of that stupid magazine housing.

One of the reasons the M27 IAR was pick is a Marine Corp doctrine that states you can not use an open bolt weapon to engage the enemy from an ambush position.

[Yournamehere]

Eliminating the magazine housing allows for a simpler design but now you can't use a STANAG mag in a pinch. An Amry buddy of mine shot an M249 with STANAGs on several occasions though and the gun proved to be unreliable with them anyway, so overall this is a benefit.

I know the M249 is 17 pounds and I was under the impression that the Mk. 46 was 15 pounds, but I found some weights that are closer to 13 pounds so I was a bit off there, and that is singificantly lighter, but the IAR is significantly lighter than even that.

[Nyles]

Speaking from personal experience, I have never seen, or done so myself, a full magazine fired from a C9 without stoppages. It's a reliable weapon using a belt, but yeah, the magazine loading sucks.

[Nyles]

Yeah, the C7 LSW. That was Diemaco product aimed at succeeding the old C2 automatic rifle, but it was never a CF weapon. They (rightly) went with the FN Minimi, now the C9. The C2 was a heavy-barelled bipod-mounted FAL with FA capability and a 30 round mag. I'll say this - you still get guys who miss the FN C1, but nobody misses the C2. Surprisingly inaccurate weapon apparently.

[Excalibur]

There's got to be a way to design an LMG, trim enough weight on it, and keep all the good qualities of the SAW. I mean, if they do just issue beta c mags to every man that has an IAR, that would somewhat solve the ammo problem

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Actually a while back the US also fielded an M16 with a heavier barrel before the SAW.

We actually fielded it? I thought it was just tested during the SAW trials? Or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Nyles

Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense to me either. I've heard it suggested that this is a backdoor effort to get new carbines but I don't think I buy it. I've never worked with Marines, so their tactics might be different from ours, but given the emphasis we put on winning the firefight this would definately seem like a step in the wrong direction.

Well, the thing is, right now, it's mostly just supplementing the M249s, not completely replacing them. But I agree that there isn't too much logic behind the IAR. The only people for whom the IAR might make sense are the Recon Marines (since they're basically not supposed to let themselves get shot at, let alone shoot back) who want to minimize what they have to carry.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by MT2008

We actually fielded it? I thought it was just tested during the SAW trials? Or am I wrong?

The XM106. You're correct, we only tested it during the SAW trials. It was beat out by the then-XM249.

----------

I wonder how the Stoner 63 would stack up if it were modernized? In its LMG configuration, it weighs in at just over 11 pounds unloaded (with today's technology, I'm sure the weight could be reduced even more), can feed from either magazines or linked belts with a receiver conversion, and has the rifleman accuracy of the M16 rifle.

Another option would be the KAC Light Machine Gun which, according to their website, comes in at 10 pounds. It's only belt feed, but it's nonetheless a good 8 pounds lighter than the 249.

And of course there's also the Ultimax and the Shrike, but I don't know any specifics about them such as weight and whatnot.