I'm really interested in seeing how that turns out. Probably the biggest small arms advancement since the late 40s/50s.

Joglee has seen my posts about a dozen times now about the independent testing that 10th Group did with the 416, SCAR-L, and M4A1 SOPMOD II, where there was no discernible difference in performance between them all in realistic dust, sand, and reliability tests.

Aberdeen did something skewed towards failing the M4, while using brand new samples of guns for the HK416 and FN SCAR-L.

Now you know why Group and 75th didn't switch to anything else, but hey, let's not let the facts interfere with an agenda.

Why he keeps parroting the rigged tests at Aberdeen puzzles me.  Is it a mental deficiency or an agenda?

The other thing that really irks me about what HK did was run those stupid articles about how the M4 was a sub standard weapon and that the Army was purposely issuing them something inferior, while special units got something else.

Think about what that does for morale, and the motives behind it when it was completely false.

The Army has jack and sh*t to do with issuing weapons to those units.  Because of the way they do certain things, they don't purchase weapons through Army channels, and have different acquisition methods.

Russia doesn't need a propaganda unit to target US soldiers when HK's marketing boys and the Army Times get access to print and online media.

A lot of people are arguing over the piston vs stoner reliability, but I think it is clear the Marines want the piston not to improve reliability, but to allow sustained fire without melting the gas tube. It makes sense, no LMG'a use direct impingement do they? So can we put that discussion to rest and focus on other things? Like why we can't just use the existing uppers and lowers?

Adams Arms BCG looks identical to the 416 to me, and I know it works in a standard AR15 upper and lower. So why can't we just replace the barrel and add a free float hand guard with adjustable gas piston system??? Or maybe it would be cheaper and less time consuming to just buy the whole upper, which would be fine. But why do we need the whole fucking HK416? I get the impression the Marines are trying to make this look like a next generation carbine, but it is an AR-15 with a piston...

Got to really hand it to the Army for creating the LSAT. That will be a real big deal. And they've been real reluctant to change in the past.

Well that's a colossal waste of money.  Should have slapped a longer barrel on an M4A1 and called it a day.

Actually, I only addressed the 11k rifles for 24 Bn's. You specifically stated you were sidetracking. So... that's all kind of on you. 
I was just letting you run with it since it seemed important to you. 

But anyways, back on track. The order is for 11,000 rifles on TOP of the existing inventory... So that 11,000 rifles actually stretches a lot farther in 24 active Bn's than just saying 11K.  The googles say the existing inventory is like 6K, 6500 something like that. 



You know a lot about a lot, but when it comes with what to do with 11,000/24=   I have a trick up my sleeve...

The only question is, was this a sneaky way to work around procurement rules and get what they actually wanted all along?

The whole idea of replacing a Light Support Weapon in the Infantry Fire Team with one that is not belt-fed is odd to me.

They say it makes sense to them in all the testing they have done, but that doesn't give me any confidence in their ability to understand:

Blocking positions
React to contact
Local support positions

What I'm talking about is from the perspective of actually doing these things as a dismounted Infantry SAW gunner, Riflemen, Fire Team Leader, Squad Leader, Machine Gunner, Weapons Squad Leader, and Patrol leader.

When you set up a blocking position, the SAW or M240 is one of the go-to systems you will often use, in addition to someone with a LAW, AT4, or SMAW.

If a vehicle charges your objective while your guys are doing actions-on, you need to keep it sealed off.

So say you now have an IAR M27 with that 30rd magazine.  Not a good choice, even if you blast the driver nice with the first shot or burst, because he is hell-bent on seeing the snack bar and will have the pedal to the metal already.

The only thing that redeems it in this regard is the Magpul D60.

Same for react-to-contact.  What you will hear is how accurate the IAR is, so now you can just shoot them enemy the first time and not just spray in his direction.  That works just fine out at the live-fire range with pop-up targets, but in reality, you rarely see the enemy in chance-contact, and once everyone has taken cover, your SA goes to crap.  The enemy is breaking contact by this time if it is harassment or a bloody nose, where he wants to lure you into another ambush.

Again, I want the D60 in the gun for that.

Local Support by Fire for my Platoon who is assaulting an objective, where I may be with the SBF position, or a local support position as my Squad is tasked with breeching an obstacle like a wall or wire?

Again, if you are sitting there changing mags from an improvised position, which is often in the mud or dust, you are not providing support for your assault or breech element, and not doing your job.

With belt-fed, this was rarely a problem, as long as the guns ran well (SAWs often didn't in units with poor armorer support).

Again, the D60 is a stop-gap solution to this, but if I have already made initial contact outside a village, and the lead element is hot on the tail of some dirtbag running through the place, I need to be able to have rounds ready to go for the next hasty breech, assault, or blocking position.  The drums present a problem once you go through one because now where do you put it?  Drop it in a dump bag and let it flop around in there as you run, or try to stash it back in a dedicated pouch for it?

With linked ammo, you just left a trail of links and brass, grab a new nut sack, and load up again.  You still had to stow your nut sacks, but they collapse when empty into a smaller footprint on your kit.

These are the questions I personally have about the thinking behind the mag-fed IAR.

And another thing:

The amount of space on my vest that a D60 takes up, with 60 rounds of 5.56 NATO, is not that different than what a 100rd nut sack for the SAW takes up.

That's a big deal when you look at the Automatic Rifleman's load.

I could carry a lot of 5.56 linked as a SAW gunner, comfortably, and still shoot, move, and communicate better than a lot of guys who just had an M4 because of my physical fitness level.

I'm trying to do the math of space and round count with the D60, and I'm continually coming up short.

Combat load for the SAW would be 600-800 rounds depending on the gun, with others in the Squad carrying additional nut sacks or drums to feed the SAW if things got nasty.

The ability to sustain the fight with this cross-landing is a huge advantage.

How much of that do you lose by going to D60s?

Well this got good.

I would rather have a nut sack than a D60. While they may have the same footprint, the nut sack will be flexible and cloth. The d60 is polymer and stiff.

I have a D60, I couldn't imagine lugging it around in a pouch and then having to put it in a dump pouch.

They like the idea of a half pound extra HK 416 before any add on's but then I suspect most of them haven't experienced the difference in carrying a M16A2 vs M4, 7.78 vs 7.46... on a long ass patrol in the iraq or afghan heat, and living with it 24/7 for a year at a time. It's a very noticeable difference due to weight and balance. Piston guns tend to be more front heavy. It's heavier than a full size M16A2 and I'm sure that weight feels less balanced but hey maybe I'm biased.

But theven biggest problem is its not belt fed . You don't replace a M249 with a magazine fed carbine.

What's old is new again.

Only now it's insanity to think its cheaper to adopt overpriced Kraut rifles instead of upgrade a few parts on the modular as fuck M16s & M4s.

The RPK was not the only support weapon at the squad level though. The Soviets phased out the RPD with the PKM and RPK. I suppose they figured a 7.62x39 belt fed was not worth the weight, complexity and having to support three entirely different designs and a mix of PKM + RPKs made up a good mix. Throwing out the RPD gave them two basic designs, as the RPK functions essentially the same as an AK. I can imagine it is also very straight forward to teach someone to maintain an AK, and then easily be able to figure out how to maintain an RPK.

Marines on here say it is not intended to replace the SAW.

Correct. It only replaces the saw, but it doesn't replace the saw. 

A few thoughts:

-Cost doesn't matter really, it's only a few thousand rifles
-De-issuing the SAW because of one accident is silly; clearly a training or maintenance issue. 
-The regular DI AR is still the best combat rifle in the world.  Might need a piston gun if you want to shoot a combination of suppressed/full auto/short barrel
-Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the AK factories are still running in China, Bulgaria, Romania, and Russia, some of them 24/7.  It's probably a decent option if you're a country like Malta to just buy some Chinese AKs as a supplement because they're cheap and work well enough.

I think it was Casvall that said it wasn't replacing the SAW in another thread.  If it is...

That don't make no sense.

Or, to be semantically correct, the IAR is being traded for the SAW in the Automatic Rifleman's position prioritizing the worst SAWs and keeping the best saws to be issued out as needed, the IAR is not a replacement for the capabilities of the saw, it trades different capabilities into the position.  The IAR would technically be replacing the automatic rifle in the automatic rifleman position, last held by the M-14E2. 

People toss around words like "replace" without context and it doesn't carry the full weight of what's going on. 

edit, which is why as you say, it don't make no sense, because the word "replace" doesn't actually fit in what is going on.


"the IAR replaces the saw"  "How can a mag gun replace a belt fed"

Rgr.

But, trading SAW capabilities, for IAR capabilities, CAN make sense, and when it does NOT make sense, the SAW's that are retained can be traded back. 

eta- that's the idea/ plan anyways. 

IMO a better gas tube eliminates that. Get a thicker inconel tube designed to outlast the barrel.

The surefire 60 and 100 round mags would seem like just the ticket, but a belt gets you low to the ground. with a big donkey shlong hanging out of the gun, you'd have to turn the gun sideways to get low. but then, you could get lower than with a saw.

You can carry quite a few of those big sticks in a small space. Probably 6 or 7 100s in the space of 2 250 round boxes.

I can actually see how, with a magazine like the surefire 100, this type of gun might be better than a SAW. faster to reload, more ammo in less space, probably 6 pounds lighter.

Hole squad could put up the volume of fire of saw gunners in a megency cause they would all have some big mags for their gunners.

Yup, I can see the light.

I hope this is sarcasm.

The surefires don't run reliably enough to make them worth a shit, not in the IAR. (Neither do the Harris bipods they are issues with)

If you compare the total rounds on target vs reloading time of 400 rounds, saw wins every time, hands down.

the Surefires could be improved. Lots of new designs suck until they have been refined by experience and R&D.

Imagine a squad with the ability to have 100 rounds on tap V 2 saw gunners and m4s with 30s.

t'would have its perks.

Again and again someone throws out the M4 breaks bolts in 5000 rds and burns out barrels in 8000 rds. Can someone give actual numbers for bolt and barrel life in a M4 thats not being mag dumped til failure, i.e., actual avg life expectancies? And as far as the M4 bolt failures experienced by socom, wasnt that linked to a QC issue at colt and rectified early on?

The quad-stack Surefire mags are too complex to be anywhere near as reliable as a drum. And hell, drums aren't as reliable as a double stack magazine. There really isn't much you can do, the tolerances needed for a quad stack magazine that has a curved and straight geometry, along with different widths and a folding follower. Too much shit going on in too small a space, the moment you get any sand in there, the round stack starts to bind up due to increased friction, and the follower can fail to fold/unfold properly.

Magpul gave up on the idea of a quad-stack magazine. That says to me that it's too much of a PITA to make it work reliably in all conditions. Maybe with straight-wall cartridges, say caseless or cased telescoping ammo, but not with tapered rifle cartridges.

The cost of the M27 is definitely a factor. For the same amount of money as 11,000 M27's, you can convert 33,000 M4 carbines to M4A1+ PIP specs, allowing the standard-issue rifle to do everything that the M27 does while still being half to a quarter pound lighter. Heavy barrel, Geissele trigger, floated rail, new BCG, the works. And maintenance costs for the upgraded M4's would be far less than the M27's.

There are 180,000 active duty marines in the Corps, 225,000 including reserves. And generally speaking, there is a 1 to 5 ratio of combat arms to noncombat personnel.(My numbers might be a little off, I suck at math) That means, for the overall cost of fielding and maintaining M27's for combat arms personnel, and just combat arms, you could give out upgraded M4A1+ or M4A2 or A3 or A-Buttfuck carbines to half the Corps, basically everyone who gets deployed overseas.

Frankly, instead of issuing M27's over of M249's, they should have had FN update the SAW to an M249A1 configuration that addresses the issues seen in the field. Either that, or simply replace worn out LMG's and wait for the LSAT before adopting anything new.

SOCOM's experiences just prior to the SCAR program were due to QC issues that were fixed. In fact, after the problems went away, they decided that the SCAR 16 was no longer worth the cost, since the M4 was half the cost and did the same things.

M855A1 burns out barrels and breaks bolts fairly quick, but you'll still see 10,000+ rounds on barrels that do see automatic fire, if not back to back mag dumps in breaking contact drills, before they are no longer holding 4 MOA or better. With less automatic fire, you'll get 15,000+ rounds. The SOCOM barrels hold up better than the M4-profile ones in regards to barrel life.

Bolts range anywhere from 6,000 rounds to 20,000 rounds, it honestly varies from bolt to bolt. Generally speaking, they last longer with less automatic fire, but M855A1 is very hard on them. I'd bet good money if they stopped doing the HPT on every bolt and instead did batch testing, we'd see a major increase in service life for bolts. M855A1 is the reason I'm a big fan of the LMT enhanced BCG; I have never seen a broken LMT bolt. The cam pins snap before the bolts break. Beyond that, their extractor design would be a nice upgrade to service life, ditto for their enhanced carrier with the longer cam pin track and gas vent.

Only reason the enhanced BCG wasn't formally adopted is because back when it first came up, the Army was still issuing M16's, and parts commonality is a big deal to the brass. Now that the M4A1 is standard and M16's are no longer being issued to line units, switching over makes a lot more sense.

Looking at the design, self lubing roller guides or bearings would be  neat tricks to incorporate into the columns.

Anyway, it does seem like upgrading existing carbines would be the best way to go.



.

No dog in this fight, but this comment intrigues me.  I've put nearly 1000 RDS through (1 of) my AK(s) in a single session, & its receiver was still nowhere near as dirty as my AR when shot with less than half that much ammo.  Not even close.  Also, the gas cylinder is "self-regulating" in terms of carbon deposition, just like the AR.

Ive read guys like them and I'm always interested in hearing real world experience with them.

But

@LRRPF52 posted his experience with belt feds which mirror my own. I know saws are still kept in inventory but how quickly can they get them back?

I can just imagine if we had IARs when I was in.
Nov 12 2004. 2 days in.
"Hey Gunny, I need my 249".

Gunny-"yeah sure I'll call K-bay and have it overnighted for ya. You want a grape soda and a reach around too?"

Life's good when you stop buying overpriced, obsolete 1911s.

Seriously? This is getting even better.

I have read DI is inherently more accurate or has the potential to be more accurate as there are less moving parts (and less momentum of said parts) during the recoil cycle.

The idea of making the gas tube stronger is a horrible idea.

The gas tube is a safety device. It's SUPPOSED to melt before the barrel bursts. It's safer for the gas tube to melt first, and it's also cheaper. It also keeps the weapon operational. Even if it's only a straight pull.

Can't recall if it was company or Bn level. Either way it's at the unit level. 

Plus, I mean... who REALLY want's a SAW? All they are is gimped 240's. A lighter rifle that just kills people with accuracy instead of weight (literally, throwing out bullets on a hedge of hit percentage in a cone of fire/ beaten zone) at least to me sounds like a lot better deal. If it's worth shooting at with a beltfed, its' worth at least waxing with a 240.  Plus, I don't know if it's changed, or if things really ever change... or maybe it was  just my Bn and the line companies I saw, but how often is it the senior guy with a ton of SAW experience humping the gun, vs the biggest boot, or kid no one likes? 

So I mean what would you really need a SAW for except for things like... guard duty.  Or a tasking to do squad rushes against an enemy in a trench-line head on, or a few other roles where saws belching out ammo would be useful, but not in situations where 240's would be better? 

From wiki:  






I would agree this isn't a 1:1 comparison.   Rack grade guns versus new production guns.  

What that test did show though, across a sample size of ten rifles is that what is in the racks right now doesn't stack up to what's on the market.  

Regardless of the comparatives - It says it's time for new guns.  

It's fair to take jabs at the companies, but the 416/417/IAR...  It keeps winning all over the world and now here too because that gun just works.  



From M67854-17-I-1218_RFI_for_IAR_021017.pdf  This isn't an RFP, but to suggest or hope that one isn't being written right now would be foolish.  

15,000 MRBF.

24K Barrel life.  

I don't think there's any way the M4 or even most other guns can meet these minimums.

You two need to keep up with the times instead of posting old info, then subsequently acting all "ooh look I'm all the sudden emotionally invested" responses. 

Big announcement, P-mag M3...  google it. 

LOL

FRAG OUT!

Fuck....

I take back my only post vow!

HA HA HA HA HA HA SHOTS FIRED!!

And with that said :



Its no use in participating further. I can tell people exactly the 5Ws for everything and most wouldn't listen. Ain't worth the effort anymore.

S/F

I love HK. Their products are generally very well made and designed, if somewhat expensive. That being said, I think that changing over to the M27 as a general issue weapon (if that's what happens) is a bad move. The marginal increase in performance the M27/IAR offers over the M4 is not worth the cost, especially when other areas of the military (e.g., aviation) is facing a maintenance and budget crisis.

If there was a caliber change to something in the 6.5mm area, that might be a different story. Otherwise, it's just fluff from Congressmen to show that they "care about the guys in foxholes and want to make sure they have the tools they need to do their job," even if the current issue weapon suffices for a fraction of the cost.

There is a certain ignorance logistically for our military to field such a variety of weapons and ammunition. Compatibility and commonality might make for boring and generic weapons but outside of specialized units that need mission oriented equipment it seems like it would be expensive and inefficient to stray from what is already plentiful. 

I vote fuck all of this, invest in R&D for 6.5 LSAT platform, rifles, LMGs, DMRs.

Maybe Aberdeen needs to have something happen like what resulted from the DragonSkin shitshow, where there is independent outside testing oversight beyond the bureaucrats.

Kharn

It is complete insanity.

Pockets are getting lined at the expense of the taxpayer while simultaneously degrading our capability to wage war.

Jail time should occur for this kind of stuff.  Especially if foreign companies like HK are involved.  Its theft and treason.

C'mon, nibble on that hook just a little bit more.