Well surprise, surprise it works perfectly with the standard issued ammo of the time during its development cycle but not newer stuff.  Sort of like a computer operating system upgrade.

I'm not emotionally invested in the HK416 or the M27 or M38.  I no longer have skin in the game.  It doesn't affect me either way.

If it's a boondoggle they'll just go back to M4s and the USMC will write it off.

Could they go about this more cost effectively?  Of course but that's not government spending.

This is the branch that developed the EFV/AAAV, the F35B and the Osprey.

Warfighting innovation be expensive!

So, all the poor decisions/ignorance of data is coming out of MCCDC? Is that where PM Infantry Wpns is? Just seems strange that in many cases (Carl G, drones) they are making the right decisions, but something as simple as small arms get fucked up -- can't believe they are all HK whores and they don't have people familiar with the SOCOM work.

Is WTB still involved in small arms? Yes, I know they are the ones that made the A2 a range rifle instead of a better combat rifle.

I take it you missed everything said by GS5414 in the past? It's been done, they chose the M27 for reasons.

How is it innovation? They're just adopting a 10yr old system as is. A system that doesn't work withstandard issue ammo like Mk262 and M855A1.

It's not just SOCOM, MCOTEA and Picatinny have done tests that show the same thing, they still chose to adopt the M27 cause reasons.

it is a known public fact that the M27 was not designed around M855A1 with its higher pressures, and that has caused issues in M27s.

While piston may work better in some suppressed full-auto applications, it is not universally better than DI. Especially with M855A1's higher pressures (even though the current load is not as high-pressure as the original loading, it's still higher than M855).  In the DI system, the expansion within the bolt carrier pushes the bolt forward so there is little/no pressure of the rear of the bolt lugs against the front of the barrel extension lugs when the bolt rotates and moves backwards out of battery.  In the piston design, the rear of the bolt lugs are pressing rearwards against the front of the barrel extension lugs when the bolt rotates and moves backwards out of battery, whereas .  Combine that pressure on the bolt lugs with higher bolt carrier group speeds with M855A1, and it means more pressure on the bolt lugs leading to broken bolt lugs.  Or so I've been told by SMEs here.

OK.   Write your congressman.  Write MARCORSYSCOM.  Tell them your concerns.

The M27 is pretty much frozen in time. The Marines have prclaimed it the best thing from sliced bread and that they are going to roll it out for every infantryman. If they came out and said this needs tweaks for mass issue or DMR, they open themselves up to calls for an open competition, rightfully so. This about pushing an expensive rifle through the bureaucracy because its different from what everyone else has.

I'm sure a lot of bureaucratic inertia and career building going on, just sad to see for something where a better solution exists.

Depending on how you define war, we already have been for some time.

The M4A1 wasn't designed around M855A1 either, yet when using it, it gets withing 600 rounds parts life compared to the M27, while costing part for part 4x less than the M27.

The URG/IMR is built around M855A1 and it shows.

What's coming out regarding testing is showing uppers going in excess of 12,000 rounds without breaking parts, the M4 and M27 avg 9,000 rounds bolt life, with the M27 bolt costing 4x a M4 bolt.

The fact that the IMR is on track to basically double the bolt life of the M27 with M855A1 is amazing and the fact that The USMC chose the super expensive M4 equivalent is laughable.

You don’t need shiny rank to call a fire mission.

There have been a shit ton of mounted and dismounted patrols and other missions entirely devoid of officer presence in the GWOT.

In combat there is a chance for adverse outcomes that could result in serious consequences, such a reduced promotability for officers, so I think we can all agree that those guys need to stay in the rear keeping the freshest of PPT in the slide deck in the TOC. I can’t even begin to tell you how many junior enlisted will lay there bleeding without even a thought to how the event could impact the careers of important leaders.

Sounds like this needs to be in the military times, "USASOC chooses better rifle; USMC's M27 is half as good at twice the cost."

Yeah, Army hand-me-downs ain’t cheap these days.

We are really fired up that the Marines picked a rifle marginally different from the current rifle instead a a different marginally different rifle but most seem a lot less interested that the Marines are dramatically revamping the rifle squad to do it.

Locate, close with and destroy the enemy through fire and procurement.

Maybe not military times....but it's coming.

I think the old saw about a post military job for some people is more true than we want to really admit, and I think that was the only point.

BTW, I always liked the Masada/ACR.  I thought it would have made a worthy contender as a future service rifle.  Modular, piston, folding stock, operator removable barrel, it had a lot of nice features.  Not perfect but a lot of potential.

What? The Minimi/M249 is, I'm thinking, the most issued and successful light machine gun in history. You can't throw a proverbial rock without hitting a NATO country that has it issued as their Light gun. But no way in fuck is the Minimi a bad gun.

I thought it was stupid.

Doesn't do anything marginally better than existing weapons.

Same qualities as the FN SCAR abortion.

Everyone is racing to the bottom on who can design a bulkier and heavier weapon than the M4. It's crazy how slim, handy and light the M4 is compared to everything else that's been created to replace it.

QFT

It did way the hell back when Magpul first displayed it, but it doesn’t now.

Even when you add a 13.5" rail to the weapon it still remains under 7lbs and still the smallest gun available.

Besides what other gun would come standard with a 13.5" rail?

I agree with this 100%. Until something radically better comes along in regards to ammo developments, there's no real reason to use anything but the M4 or M4A1 for general issue. Obviously operators need to be able to operate however they want.

I didn't think so.

When I look at individual weapons and compare them, I'm generally looking at reliability, accuracy, effective range, weight, ability to attach existing accessories such as optics/clip ons, lights, lasers, ect. and component life as well as overall costs.

The ACR didn't bring anything tangible to the table that would warrant replacing the M4 in my opinion.

I'll shut the fuck up now.

From a military standpoint, you’re right.

But if the initial “pitch” for the Masada really came to fruition way back in 2007 (modular, piston driven, cheaper than a decent AR) it would have blown up the civilian market.

I was not advocating for "only officers can call for fire," I was asking a question.

I have neither the desire or need to explain my level of experience to you.
As for my comments, you have little need for them as you aren't the one using these weapons or being effected by these decisions.

Are we still getting matching EGA tattoos?

We had high GT scores and shit.

ok

New 12 Marine, Rifle Squad Video

The M249 made sense during the Cold War but it doesn’t make nearly as much sense now.

Sure it does. I would like to see a automatic rifleman covering his team that is IMTing, doing 3-5 second rushes. Unless you have a 100 round belt or more, your weapon runs out of ammo before your team gets back to the ground, by a couple strides.

The Cold War being over doesn't mean you give up on the Infantry fundamentals. The enemy needs to be suppressed so your guys can move.

A stupid box magazine fed rifle doesn't cut it. As our NATO allies found out; who had those long barrel Bullpup rifles they called LMGs and found out the theory sucked in practice. And then went with the FN Minimi for their Fireteam Support Guy.

the only way this will work is to give each squad a Humvee  can 3 men fully cover the bound of he other team?

I doubt it They will have to add more power to the squad by giving it a vehicle.

& they are totally overlooking team/squad casualty evac.

The M249 is a wildly inaccurate, optics unsuited, low-mobility, ammo waster that only made sense when we thought we would be defending against Soviet wave attacks from trenches in Europe.

The mobility and range of infantry warfare is increasing and the M249 is bad at those things. That doesn’t even take into account that the design isn’t that good to begin with.

The 240s have to keep up the Grunts. How come we're only bitching about the SAW's low mobility? You guys should be arguing to replace the 240 with a dumbass rifle too.

And I don't have the data. But from real world experience, I watched guys on the 800meter MG range knock down Ivan's like it was boring. And that is way way beyond typical engagement distance IRL.

Its a MG, it's supposed to "waste" ammo, in that 99% of the time in real life gunfights, you are shooting where you THINK the enemy is. Because it is very rare to actually see the enemy until you get real close. A smart enemy is using cover and concealment. We are a 1st rate industrial nation. The objective is to spend ordnance instead of spending lives. Holding your fire only until you can see the enemy is very bad.

A proper infantry unit should be able to be very mobile with SAW's, 240's, sniper rifles, mortar systems (60mm), LAW's, AT-4's, grenade launchers, etc.   Even if they are heavier than carbines.

It's not like infantry guys all have light weight carbines, aside from those super heavy SAW's.  

The 249 is a fantastic, tested weapon.

The answer to the belt fed problem is not a mag fed weapon, Here is your answer to the belt fed problem. 8.9lbs, 5.56, uses the constant recoil pattern for accurate full auto fire.


13.25lbs, 7.62, uses constant recoil operating system.

A proper SAW replacement.


Seriously why are we fucking around with the NGSAR and M27, when we could just straight up go IMR/URG + KAC LMG's. 100% stoner and better than anything else out there.

Risk aversion and the low intensity of the last 17 years of conflict has produced some interesting theories and equipment.

In what fuckin' way was an ACR "modular"?

The ACR is and was a terrible idea.

Can someone tell me more about the M38 rifle? Apparently it is supposed to be a DMR issued to all rifle squads and is essentially an M27 with a higher powered optic. But I thought we were moving away from 5.56 DMRs? Or was that just an Army thing? Does the USMC issue the M110 at all to rifle squads?

It's a M27 with a Mk4 scope, that's it.

That is what I thought, but my question is why? Aren't they issuing 7.62 rifles for that role already? Or was that always very limited?

In most of those patrols, no, just about all of them, the guy controlling the UAV was a guy like me. Someone in the TOC.  In some rare occasions we had company commanders using ROVER feed off of a vehicle.  I have not heard of a company commander or platoon leader using a UAV in the field while under fire, and conducting CAS or CFF dismounted, so doing it this way at squad level is a shot in the dark. I am amused that we take an asset that is usually synced at battalion level and we will now push it to squad.  We could have a fun little discussion as to how many patrols IDF was called for by SLs vice PSGs and PLs in theater.

For a platoon leader in a four vehicle convoy to ID source of fire, maneuver four vehicles, get distance direction and description, decide whether to assault, or not, from which direction, and whether to ask higher for CAS, rotary, IDF, or drones, was task saturation.  Big time. He needs help.  Best way IMHO for indirect fire, especially with GPS, was a DAGR/VIPER rangefinder/GPS combo, which the platoon FO has, and a SL does not. A PL can lean on an RTO, FO, PSG. An SL has noone.  A platoon can put UAV guy with weapons squad or a trail fire team, and develop the situation with the rest of the combat power.

Questions:
When the UAV guy is putting his machine in the sky, who pulls security? He basically has a fire team needed as he will be head down in the fight.
What comms does the SL have and who is he requesting CFF through?  What is the training for this NCO to sync three team leaders, a rocket launcher, drone guy, and IDF?  
What happens if right after the drone gets in the sky, the enemy breaks contact?  Can the drone guy run, IMT, and fly a drone? Do you just stop and let him do his drone thing? Or leave a three man team and then pursue with seven pax? Does the SL stay with the drone guy or the riflemen?  Or let the thing crash?  How heavy is drone kit and how does he keep up with this uber-speedy squad now that we threw the SAWs away?

I saw great confusion when enemy formations would break contact and PLs would have to decide on the fly whether to pursue, keep the IDF request going, and run it all off a map on the move.  Ive never seen an SL try.

That is one scenario.  There are many others as well.

There were Raven UAVs operating on squad and platoon level patrols as far back as 2009.  There are a shitload of situations where they were extremely useful.