New Marine Corps weapon to replace SAW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    "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. "

    LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds. I find it hard to believe almost any Marine, even one with a Pizza box could not make above average hits. As I understand it, there is talk that they may change the distances that tables are shot in the Corps to a longer distance because the IAR made it too easy due to it's accuracy. At least in the issued version. As far as functionality, You and I had a recent conversation about optics, in that conversation we discussed what optics that Tier One units were using. To the best of my knowledge, a lot of them are using HK 416's, which with a couple of modifications, is an IAR. I doubt they would bet their life on it if wasn't better than what they had an option to use.

    As far as the belt vs mag issue, you are correct. A higher capacity would be more suited in this role, but I would bet that most guys would rather have something they can make hits with, that worked as close to 100% of the time, than something less. The surefire 60s may be a solution in the near future. They seem to run in the 416s, at least some of them. Agreed, that a bigger issue is who is going to carry his spares and not use them when the going gets hot. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to offer an additional view.

    Comment


    • #32
      We only qualify with the M16, with the exception of E-6 and above. they use the M4. Not sure where you heard that the IAR was used to qualify with. http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO...74%202K%20.pdf

      -Grunts do qualify with em but its not for score.
      Last edited by Guest; 10-15-2011, 05:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SBBW View Post
        "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. "

        LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds. I find it hard to believe almost any Marine, even one with a Pizza box could not make above average hits. As I understand it, there is talk that they may change the distances that tables are shot in the Corps to a longer distance because the IAR made it too easy due to it's accuracy. At least in the issued version. As far as functionality, You and I had a recent conversation about optics, in that conversation we discussed what optics that Tier One units were using. To the best of my knowledge, a lot of them are using HK 416's, which with a couple of modifications, is an IAR. I doubt they would bet their life on it if wasn't better than what they had an option to use.

        As far as the belt vs mag issue, you are correct. A higher capacity would be more suited in this role, but I would bet that most guys would rather have something they can make hits with, that worked as close to 100% of the time, than something less. The surefire 60s may be a solution in the near future. They seem to run in the 416s, at least some of them. Agreed, that a bigger issue is who is going to carry his spares and not use them when the going gets hot. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to offer an additional view.
        My understanding is that certain folks prefer the 416 because of the "cool factor", and units have adopted them within certain levels. I know that LAV doesn't really use them in his courses, and from a handling perspective, I can totally see why. Something just does not feel right under recoil in that gun, suppressed or naked. When I see the guy who was the end-user driving a lot of the development of the 416 preferring not to use it in his practical, daily work, I start to scratch my head. Same thing goes for the Masada/ACR. When do you see that many guys from the team that designed it using it in their courses? I've seen Drake a few times, but DI AR's dominate in carbine classes and will, even as op-rod system flood the market. You can't get away from the superior handling of an in-line operating system that has no torque off the bore axis.

        Back to LMG's: I forecast that the IAR will supplement belt-fed systems, and never replace them, especially when hiccups start to occur with the SF mags and dust. IF the SureFire mags prove as reliable as 30-rounders, I will be more than pleasantly surprised, by history is not on the side of reliability and coffin mags. I really hope the SureFire mag works out though, honestly, since Russia seems to be interested in making them for the AK100 series, as well as the An-94. No fight inferred at all...I'm just one guy who has only walked in one set of boots in my life at a time. Maybe I'm totally out of it on my assessment of the 416, but I have to tell you that it recoils more than my AR10's, and I know how to muscle a gun to the point that I can pull the trigger as fast as mechanically possible and still keep all my hits on a 7" circle at 7yds with a 5.56, lightweight carbine, using zero muzzle brakes or special recoil-elimination devices..just standard parts. I cannot do that with the 416 as of yet, and the ones I've shot have heavier barrels, and way heavier fore-ends.

        I imagine the IAR has a smoother impulse with a rifle-length gas system, and from a bipod would be steadier, but unless they found a way to make it constant-recoil, it will never touch an Ultimax or KAC LMG, and those are some lightweight systems with smaller profiles with the commando barrels than the IAR. The shorter IAR variants might really show some promise if the SF60rd mag works long-term. I still like belt-fed, especially when it comes to resupply and consolidation & reorganization on the objective. That 100rd SF mag is out of the question for obvious reasons though.

        Comment

        • stanc
          Banned
          • Apr 2011
          • 3430

          #34
          Originally posted by SBBW View Post
          "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. "

          LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds.
          The HK in the quote was a G36 used in preliminary testing a number of years ago, not the M27 IAR that was adopted.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by stanc View Post
            I'd be a lot more impressed if it were US spec ops units choosing to use the Ultimax.
            The SEALs were the ones who cooked up the PIP for the Mk3. There was a Jane's article by Andrew Tillman (Tilman?) on it, maybe a websearch could turn it up?

            As far as I know, the biggest problems of the Ultimax are 1) the sights, as it was designed to be a "mobile fire support point" and fired from the shoulder on the move, so when you go prone with it, the sights end up very low, but I believe the problem will correct itself with P-rails and attached optics which will automatically raise the sight level higher, and 2) it hates blanks.

            The drums seem to be OK as the people who claimed to have used them never brought up any jamming complaints, but TBH, I'm not sure how well the system will age. What may work from years 1-5 may start to go wonky in year 6+, which I suspect is the main reason for many current 249 jams.

            Something interesting. Ultimax in AR configuration.

            [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9U6nRjA1Bo"]

            Pity it doesn't have a 60-75 round drum, I can see a combat load of 2 60-round drums in place of water bottles, shift the water to the back pouch, one drum or mag on gun and 4 30-rounder mags in vest, that's 270-300 rounds. Might work for a short engagement.

            One of my most memorable sights of this gun was one guy drawing on the range bunt with 100 rounds of tracer at night. Looked like something out of Star Wars.

            Anyway, back on topic, didn't many people try the IAR thing back in the 70s with the H-Bar M-16? And didn't it fail miserably? On the bright side, the LSAT may be coming out soon, so if this fails, at least something's able to replace it.

            Just don't hold your breath, asphyxia's a nasty way to go.

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              #36
              Originally posted by Observer View Post
              Something interesting. Ultimax in AR configuration.

              Fixed it for ya.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by YutYut View Post
                We only qualify with the M16, with the exception of E-6 and above. they use the M4. Not sure where you heard that the IAR was used to qualify with. http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO...74%202K%20.pdf

                -Grunts do qualify with em but its not for score.
                Yut, never said they, USMC, did use IAR to qualify, but it is a natural progression to use the IAR in the same role as an M4 or M16 and run the same type of evaluations, ie shooting the tables.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                  My understanding is that certain folks prefer the 416 because of the "cool factor", and units have adopted them within certain levels. I know that LAV doesn't really use them in his courses, and from a handling perspective, I can totally see why. Something just does not feel right under recoil in that gun, suppressed or naked. When I see the guy who was the end-user driving a lot of the development of the 416 preferring not to use it in his practical, daily work, I start to scratch my head. Same thing goes for the Masada/ACR. When do you see that many guys from the team that designed it using it in their courses? I've seen Drake a few times, but DI AR's dominate in carbine classes and will, even as op-rod system flood the market. You can't get away from the superior handling of an in-line operating system that has no torque off the bore axis.

                  Interesting thoughts on the recoil factor. I agree with the masada/ACR comment.

                  Back to LMG's: I forecast that the IAR will supplement belt-fed systems, and never replace them, especially when hiccups start to occur with the SF mags and dust. IF the SureFire mags prove as reliable as 30-rounders, I will be more than pleasantly surprised, by history is not on the side of reliability and coffin mags. I really hope the SureFire mag works out though, honestly, since Russia seems to be interested in making them for the AK100 series, as well as the An-94. No fight inferred at all...I'm just one guy who has only walked in one set of boots in my life at a time. Maybe I'm totally out of it on my assessment of the 416, but I have to tell you that it recoils more than my AR10's, and I know how to muscle a gun to the point that I can pull the trigger as fast as mechanically possible and still keep all my hits on a 7" circle at 7yds with a 5.56, lightweight carbine, using zero muzzle brakes or special recoil-elimination devices..just standard parts. I cannot do that with the 416 as of yet, and the ones I've shot have heavier barrels, and way heavier fore-ends.

                  I tend to agree with the supplement vs replace. I have seen the Surefires run great in the 416. I have also seen them fail more than 50% of the time otherwise, no matter what the rifle. I hope that it works and proves reliable in all platforms it would be a great addition for several reasons. I will try to shoot the IAR/416 vs the AR10, side by side. Never have done that.

                  I imagine the IAR has a smoother impulse with a rifle-length gas system, and from a bipod would be steadier, but unless they found a way to make it constant-recoil, it will never touch an Ultimax or KAC LMG, and those are some lightweight systems with smaller profiles with the commando barrels than the IAR. The shorter IAR variants might really show some promise if the SF60rd mag works long-term. I still like belt-fed, especially when it comes to resupply and consolidation & reorganization on the objective. That 100rd SF mag is out of the question for obvious reasons though.
                  Having never shot an Ultimax, I can't comment. I agree on the hundred round mag, it is freaking huge, although the way some guys have the front of their kit loaded up, they could still probably shoot it prone. LOL, I know I can't unless i was shooting up a mountain.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    When I was a SAW gunner, I had two well-stretched 30rd M16 mag pouches with the tape nylon dividers removed so I could fit a 100rd nutsack in each. I also had two SAW pouches with 2 100rd nutsacks per, for a total of 600rds on my fighting load, with the remaining combat load in my assault pack and within the team. As the Molle gear was adopted, SAW gunners were carrying variations of this load in the utility pouches and SAW pouches, many of which were individually-purchased.

                    If the chance of a slugging fight is likely, I want to have a minimum of 600rds on my person in that duty position. A constant-recoil system would facilitate less rounds expended per effective suppression, since you can write your name with them.

                    The M240 also can't fire blanks for crap, but it eats live rounds like nobody's business, and you don't hear a lot of complaints about its reliability from the troops. I was also an M60 AG for a little while as a PFC in Korea before going to the Scout Platoon, a 240 gunner, and a Weapon's Squad Leader at different stages of my service, so I really learned to deal with the dismounted belt-fed role from squad and platoon-level perspectives, with my sniper training as a better foundation from which to distribute trajectories, spot for gunners, and so forth. I always felt that the SAW was our weakest link in portability, but very effective in firepower when it worked. The M60 was great for portability, but absolutely blew chunks for reliability...probably worse than the SAW. The newer M60E3 & E4 seem to have corrected the reliability issues at least in short term initial demo of capability, but like you said, how will a system be running 6, 7, & 10 years down the line...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      talked to a few buddies who are using the m27 and they said they love it. it works 99% of the time which is something they weren't used to with the M249 lol. And they are using 60 round mags and have not had any problems.

                      Comment

                      • RangerRick

                        #41
                        Has there ever been a design with two mag wells so you can be firing from one while changing mags on the other between bursts?

                        Of course, given enough mags, a well trained gunner should be able to do a mag change in the delay between bursts and not skip a beat.

                        RR

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thanks for fixing the link stanc, Caveman Og here can't handle anything which doesn't involve banging 2 rocks together. Ugg....

                          Interesting idea Rick, possibly workable, though you'll need something to prevent both wells from feeding at the same time and jamming it up. Not to mention earplugs when the Marines complain that the "Marine" that a gun like that was designed for is an octopus. lol

                          And yes, the quick change of mag during a fire pause is the only thing that even makes using a 30 round mag for supression fire even basically workable. I can just see Ollie the Octopus being transfered to the Marines with this new need for soldiers with 4 arms or more.

                          LRRP, I'd love 600 rounds ready to use at all times too, I'm just trying to figure out a way to carry a decent amount of ammo without having to look like someone's covered in mags as well as the convenience of reaching the mag/drum during a fight. The drums on L/R hip seem a foregone conclusion, but the 30 rounders can definately be pushed up to 8 mags on vest, so it could be 180 rounds in drums (2x60 rounds on hips, 1 on gun) and 240 rounds in STANAG mags, 420 rounds total. Still short compared to 600 rounds, but not terribly short. Of course, if it were 75 round drums, it'd be better, but I'm keeping to 60 as a workable number, just in case. What's your ideal of an ammo loadout using drums/mags?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            This is one of the things I'm not too fond of with the SF60rd mags...their height. If I were an IAR gunner, I would use deeper SAW pouches on the left and right of my load, and 4 AK mag pouches up front. I used to make a custom SAW pouch with elastic retainers for all my batteries, chem lights up under the top flap, permanent markers, dry erase markers, camping spoon, electrician's tape, etc. They served the utilitarian role of being able to carry any magazine, drum, or linked belt of 5.56, as well as 7.62 if needed, and they fit AK mags too. I mostly used them for admin-type stuff since I was always in leadership positions when I made them.

                            I still think the Multicam Tactical Tailor SAW pouches will fit 3 SF60rd mags per x 2 pouches = 360 rds, + 4 AK mag pouches with 2 SF60s per = 240rds. 240rds in the AK mag pouches + 360rds in the SAW would give you 600 rounds, but that is dependent on being issued 10 SF60's. It also leaves basically no room for PVS-14's, or any admin crap, FAK could still be on one of the rear hips, Camelbak is on back, small ICOM or individual radio might be on support-side shoulder...it would definitely be a man's load, not a boy's.

                            More importantly, if I was assigned the IAR, I would go over my reloading drills in the prone in crap terrain (rocks, bricks, debris), on a knee behind concealment/cover, laying on my left side, and laying on my right side. With the special mags, you really need to train for both emergency reloads and tactical reloads with stowage of the mags with retention back into the pouches, without jacking up your load scheme. I always carry loaded mags lips-down, and empties lips-up.

                            When we tried the CMAGs in the Middle East, the dust made them totally unreliable. I wish they would be a solid performer in adverse conditions, but so far no-dice.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I've been watching the reviews on the SF60 magazine, and my apprehension about its reliability seem to be confirmed: Dropped mags seize the mag up so that ammo can't be used immediately...malfunctions occur right when it hands off to the next set of 30rds with the teeter-totter coupling of the followers, and capacity-check induced malfs when shooters press down on the rounds to check if it's topped off. These are very similar problems the Finnish Army had with the coffin mags for the Suomi Kp31 in 1939, resulting in it being banned from use on the frontline, with a preference for the 71rd drums, then stick mags.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I read some feedback from a Marine who was in a Scout Sniper Platoon in Afghanistan recently, and he said they still chose to take the SAW's out on patrol for the firepower over the IAR, which he believes saved at least one guy who was hit in an initial burst during an ambush. The volume of fire they were able to distribute after that initial contact was such that the guy that was hit could be evacuated, and they were able to get out of the kill zone after establishing a decent amount of suppressive fire in response to the ambush. He indicated that the IAR would most likely have facilitated a less favorable outcome.
                                Last edited by Guest; 03-06-2012, 03:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X