New Marine Corps weapon to replace SAW

[YutYut]

Hahahaha. Yea. Im not gonna lie i got pretty slayed by it on the 12 mile hike on the super fun hills of camp pendleton

30 miles..... The times when its nice to be pog haha

[stanc]

thats one video.

Yes. By chance, it was the first video shown in the search. Since it was good, I didn't bother looking at others. But, I'm confident that a similar scene could be found in other urban combat videos, if one cared to spend the time viewing all of them.

I can tell you, though, that I used to have a US Army photo of several soldiers lined up, ready to assault into an Iraqi building. And just like the scene in the Fallujah video, there was an M249 gunner there in the middle of the entry team.

When i went through MOUT training at mct it was always prefered to send in the A4's and M4's.

Uh huh. And as the video shows, what is taught in training ain't necessarily how it's done on the battlefield.

As an example, thirty or so years ago a San Diego cop was shot and killed while on duty late one night. His body was found sitting in his patrol car, in the middle of an isolated parking lot. At the time, a young woman I knew was undergoing training at the police academy. I mentioned to her that it looked to me as if he had pulled up driver's door to driver's door with another police car, and the murder may have been done by a fellow officer.

Her reaction was, "Oh, no. That couldn't possibly happen. We are taught to never pull up to another vehicle that way, not even if it's another police car."

Well, it turned out that it did happen in precisely that manner.

----------------------------------

"Train as you fight, fight as you train" sounds good, but it doesn't always work that way in reality.

[stanc]

HK sure pulled a great marketing scam on the Marines...

Not sure what you mean by that. The IAR was not proposed by HK. It was a USMC idea. IIRC, we discussed it on the old forum several years ago. There was a Marine Corps Gazette article, the original of which is no longer accessible, but a copy is at:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=813478

[YutYut]

Point taken. I just hope they didnt end up throwing away 24 million dollars

[LRRPF52]

In 2002-2003, our SAWs looked like this, but with the Elcan brick weight as an MGO (Machinegun Optic) and a PEQ-2A mounted on the Rail Adapter System:

Force Recon SAW.jpg

This is what they've gone to in conventional units:
300px-PEO_M249_Para_ACOG.jpg

This one actually makes sense (Mk.46), but again is supported by a dedicated civilian armorer:
800px-U.S._Army_Ranger,_2nd_Battalion,_75th_Ranger_Regiment_providing_Overwatch_in_Iraq_2009.jpg

[JASmith]

Stan,

LRRPF52 did not say that no SAW gunner would enter the building. Not that he indicated that a SAW gunner from a trail team will help provide cover. That team and gunner are probably not visible in the footage you refer to.

[LRRPF52]

Not sure what you mean by that. The IAR was not proposed by HK. It was a USMC idea. IIRC, we discussed it on the old forum several years ago. There was a Marine Corps Gazette article, the original of which is no longer accessible, but a copy is at:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=813478

Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them. The HK had the worst hit probability of all, but was determined to be statistically insignificant. The main complain with the Ultimax was that they couldn't obtain a proper sight picture for some reason.

I wonder if they pooled a bunch of SAW gunners and told them to use the standard support hand grip, which places your support hand under your cheek, thereby raising your eye height for other machinegun designs that had too high of a sight line.

"Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249 SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for its automatic fire suppressive capability. Given the results of this assessment, accuracy alone is not a strong enough reason to replace the M249 SAW. However, most would argue that accuracy was never the problem with the M249 SAW. The problem with the M249 SAW was the lack of mobility when manned by an individual while attempting to move at the pace of a rifle team."

While reading the test results, it became clear to me the tests were structured by some bean-counter who has very little conceptual understanding of the practical considerations of employing LMG's in the Infantry Fire Team. I don't care if they've been polishing USMC campaign hat brims for the past 3 decades, there is a major disconnect in the tests, but the actual soldier comments cut through all that BS anyway, which is good, and it's exactly as I have been saying all along...

We need a platform closer to the AR/M16 in weight & maneuverability, with the firepower of the SAW. Those two words sum up what is needed: Maneuverability + Firepower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2yJeeyn5A

[LRRPF52]

Stan,

LRRPF52 did not say that no SAW gunner would enter the building. Not that he indicated that a SAW gunner from a trail team will help provide cover. That team and gunner are probably not visible in the footage you refer to.

The only reason why soldiers and Marines are lugging around SAWs in MOUT is because they have to...that is what is issued to young hooahs after being a rifleman for a while. You don't get to say, "Sarge, I'd actually like to keep that M4 or M16, since the SAW is a heavy little pig that doesn't really work that well."

[stanc]

Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them.

Yeah, I knew you'd like that part.

"Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249 SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for its automatic fire suppressive capability."

And that's exactly what has been done. The Corps is putting an AR in the fire team, but retaining the M249 at higher levels.

I don't care if they've been polishing USMC campaign hat brims for the past 3 decades...

Uh, I'm pretty sure nobody polishes campaign hat brims.

[LRRPF52]

That's two separate weapons representing a capability split in each of them. The soldiers want both capabilities in one, not a SAW back in the arms room, with an empty-mag IAR in-hand. Reading these things without a raw contextual foundation will make them basically a foreign language. You have to live, train, and fight with these tools for significant periods of your life to know what to look for, and what questions to ask, as well as how to sift through the BS.

You got me on the Campaign hat, but I think you get my point. The only way we'll get a real deal test of any value with this stuff is if a group of guys with enough experience carrying and fighting with these tools conducts them in a private capacity, with the truth and the best system as the only motives, without millions of taxpayer money wetting the palates of foreign and established small arms companies. There also needs to be an engineer connect to the soldier perspective, versus a paper design approach to problems from a desk-driven position. The military should facilitate a program with contractors so that select soldiers transfer into employment with defense contractors, carrying their institutional knowledge with them into the development of products that address real problems from their experience base. All the parts are there, just no dots really being connected.

[stanc]

Point taken. I just hope they didnt end up throwing away 24 million dollars

Well, it isn't as if it'd be the first time that DoD has wasted a few million bucks.

However, while my personal opinion is the same as LRRPF52, that something like the KAC LMG or Ultimax 100 would be a better choice for a squad auto, I expect the M27 IAR will prove to be usable as a fire team support weapon.

After all, we did manage to fight a couple of wars with a magazine-fed automatic rifle in the fire team and rifle squad...

[stanc]

That's two separate weapons representing a capability split in each of them. The soldiers want both capabilities in one...

No doubt they would. But, it seems to me the capability split is unavoidable. By definition, an automatic rifle is magazine fed, and therefore lacks the ability for the sustained fire role. A belt-fed machine gun is (or so I've been told by guys who've BTDT) a poor choice for building entry and room clearing. The Ultimax attempts to address these issues, but 100 rounds in a drum still has more weight and bulk than the same amount linked.

I've not seen any info regarding reliability of the Ultimax drum in field conditions. Have you? I also haven't heard why the Ultimax wasn't selected to be the M27 IAR. Perhaps it didn't perform all that well in testing?

The only way we'll get a real deal test of any value with this stuff is if a group of guys with enough experience carrying and fighting with these tools conducts them in a private capacity, with the truth and the best system as the only motives...

Sounds good. How would you get it implemented?

[LRRPF52]

I knew the BAR would come up. It's a perfect example of both a maneuverability and firepower problem, and is one heavy, long sun of a gun! Endless scores of air sorties and indirect fire is what caused the most casualties in WWII. Because the BAR was there does not support the claim that it was somehow an influential force in allied victory.

On the other hand, the Suomi Kp31 9mm Submachinegun was an influential instrument in the Winter War of 1939-1940, even though it lacks effective range, but thousands upon thousands of Russians didn't know the difference. The Kp31 represented both firepower with its 72rd drums, reliability, and compactness for both trench-clearing and suppressive firepower.

There was an issue in the past with licensing from Singapore for the Ultimax, even though it is James Sullivan's design, but I doubt Singapore is well-versed in the politics of dealing with the Pentagon and US T&E/contract system...definitely not as well-versed as FN and HK or Colt. I suspect these determining factors have more to do with what was selected, despite the inconvenience of a bunch of actual Marine SAW gunners preferring the Ultimax over what was probably already pre-determined before the "tests" even began. Call me cynical, but you can't run a constant-recoil LMG against traditional impacting operating system guns and say they're somehow better. There are some Latin American Special Ops units that use the Ultimax as their go-to LMG's, since they could choose what they wanted based on professional soldier input, not Pentagon politics.

[stanc]

I knew the BAR would come up. It's a perfect example of both a maneuverability and firepower problem, and is one heavy, long sun of a gun! Endless scores of air sorties and indirect fire is what caused the most casualties in WWII. Because the BAR was there does not support the claim that it was somehow an influential force in allied victory.

That ain't what I said.

All I was saying is that an automatic rifle was used for support at the fire team level in the past, and therefore could be again.

Is a mag-fed AR the best choice? Not in my opinion.

But, is it usable for the intended purpose? I think it is.

Time and experience will either validate the selection, or not.

Call me cynical, but you can't run a constant-recoil LMG against traditional impacting operating system guns and say they're somehow better.

You can if the constant-recoil guns don't work as well in adverse conditions.

There are some Latin American Special Ops units that use the Ultimax as their go-to LMG's, since they could choose what they wanted...

I'd be a lot more impressed if it were US spec ops units choosing to use the Ultimax.

Since you didn't answer my question, I take it that means you don't know how well (or poorly) the Ultimax and its 100-rd drum fare in actual or simulated combat use?

[pinzgauer]

when they try to insert the Surefire 60rd mag in the unique HK mag well, which is not compatible with PMAGs, and then see what happens. We had to force one into a 416 the other day, just to see if it fit. It wouldn't drop free either, and had to be pried out with force.

Not to defend the IAR, but the PMAG is out of spec. The HK was built per the documented STANAG (NATO) spec for the AR mags. And it works flawlessly with proper spec mags.

The problem is Magpul made the PMAG a bit oversized (over spec) to tighten the feel in the AR. Which is also what HK did with the 416, but for spec mags. Which then creates problems in rifles which are on the snugger end of the mag well spec. It's not only the HK that PMAGS are tight in, there are other AR's which have the same issue. (Typically billet receivers which work just fine with spec mags)

End result either way is a problem, but the HK development predated the pmag, and specifically it's usage in major military forces.

I don't have specific details, but I've seen references to various active duty units banning use of pmags due to the snugness factor totally independent of the 416/IAR.