Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Don't worry - if you're using the HK 416, they'll still fire that way. Just like the rifle fires with no issues, with a complete bore obstruction, per the water video.
Marines choose new weapon
- Thread starter RedAlert
- Start date
- Status
Don't worry - if you're using the HK 416, they'll still fire that way. Just like the rifle fires with no issues, with a complete bore obstruction, per the water video.
madd trapper
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 33
The H&K is a very good weapon. But I have nothing good to say about the 5.56 mm nato round . The military needs to reevaluated the 5.56 mm all together and use a better round like the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. I prefer the 6.8 SPC a better combat round for the buck.
Deavis
Member
Do yourself the biggest favor of your life. Go read Thomas Sowell's book, "Basic Economics." If after reading it you don't "understand" then read it again and you will understand why free trade works no matter where the goods come from.
madd trapper
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 33
Real Mags , I'm retired Military and have been deployed overseas .I have used the 5.56 mm,and 7.62 x51 nato , browning 50 cal and a barrett 50 cal. I'm not impressed at all with 5.56 mm in its performance .By the way the 6.8 SPC was developed by a SGTMaj from 5th group SF and have been used in combat .
scythefwd
Member
They also aren't designed to occupy the same role in combat. The M16 is more manuverable and lighter, the SAW can sustain a longer burst and is belt fed. One is offensive, the other is suppressive.
Either way, if the 416 doesn't accept the common magazines (Pmags would be included), then Magpul makes the Emag, to fit that bill. However, I'm sure that the new 416 takes the standard Milspec 30 round mags.
In terms of the 6.8spc being utilized in a larger scale, if the government would back off all these entitlement programs, and cut some spending in areas like space and environmental protection, the Military could award contracts to Silver State, the leader in the 6.8SPC ammunition realm to date, and other leading ammunition manufacturers to produce projectiles and cases for this round. Once that's the case, then Remington, Winchester, Federal, Hornady and Silver State can be on a playing field that produces it in just about the same level as the 5.56 round. Once that happens, it'll become a more economical round to use. Built off the .277 caliber projectile, it is very efficient for the intermediate ranges that the M16A4 has become.... and even for close quarters. The round is even further efficient in a short barreled rifle, thereby reducing the need for heavy equipment. Noveske and LWRC have already shown its potential in both DI and Piston driven full-auto offerings. It's the folks who are elitist into thinking the military is too good for the round that leaves it hanging in the balance. It's still more efficient in close quarters than the 6.5
In terms of the 6.8spc being utilized in a larger scale, if the government would back off all these entitlement programs, and cut some spending in areas like space and environmental protection, the Military could award contracts to Silver State, the leader in the 6.8SPC ammunition realm to date, and other leading ammunition manufacturers to produce projectiles and cases for this round. Once that's the case, then Remington, Winchester, Federal, Hornady and Silver State can be on a playing field that produces it in just about the same level as the 5.56 round. Once that happens, it'll become a more economical round to use. Built off the .277 caliber projectile, it is very efficient for the intermediate ranges that the M16A4 has become.... and even for close quarters. The round is even further efficient in a short barreled rifle, thereby reducing the need for heavy equipment. Noveske and LWRC have already shown its potential in both DI and Piston driven full-auto offerings. It's the folks who are elitist into thinking the military is too good for the round that leaves it hanging in the balance. It's still more efficient in close quarters than the 6.5
Kernel
Member
H&K 416
"The HK-proprietary gas system uses a piston driving an operating rod to control the function of the bolt"
Z-Michigan
Member
The USMC often picks good weapons and the other services often pretend that the USMC is on another planet. I think the continued use of the M4 boils down to politics and logistics, and is unlikely to change.
Average Joe
Member
I read the test results a while ago, its a very impressive rifle, they buried it in sand, mud, ice and dumped it in water, and never a malfunction.
LaEscopeta
Member
Looks like the USMC is going with the H&K IAR:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_IAR_update_120309w/
Didn't the Special Op Command buy a bunch of H&K 416 uppers a few years ago, to go on existing M16/M4 lowers? I think the IAR can be viewed as an ongoing evolutionary change to the M16/M4 family of weapons. I assume the new IAR will have some part interchangeability with the rest of the M16/M4s, and the same or similar manual of arms, although the rear sight in the photo above looks like a G-3 style, not the M16 type. The cleaning procedure will be a little different.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_IAR_update_120309w/
Didn't the Special Op Command buy a bunch of H&K 416 uppers a few years ago, to go on existing M16/M4 lowers? I think the IAR can be viewed as an ongoing evolutionary change to the M16/M4 family of weapons. I assume the new IAR will have some part interchangeability with the rest of the M16/M4s, and the same or similar manual of arms, although the rear sight in the photo above looks like a G-3 style, not the M16 type. The cleaning procedure will be a little different.
LaEscopeta
Member
I’ve been thinking (it keeps me out of the pool halls.) Based on the criticism of the IAR in this thread and this one:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=474728&page=3&highlight=IAR
…maybe the USMC needs/intends to reconfigure the infantry squads that exchange IARs for M249s.
I’ve read (all my info in this post is from reading) USMC infantry squads have 12 members (sometimes 13 when the squad leader is not one of the fire team leaders.) The squad is made up of 3 fire teams of 4 Marines apiece, armed as follows:
1. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
2. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
3. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
4. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
5. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
6. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
7. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
8. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
9. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
10. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
11. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
12. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
Maybe the new squad makeup, to have the same firepower as the above, should be:
1. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
2. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
3. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
4. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
5. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
6. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
7. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
8. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
9. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
10. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
11. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
12. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
This is under the assumption that 6 IARs provide at least the firepower as the 3 M249s they replace. The 2 Automatic Riflemen in each fire team would work together to provide a base of fire, firing alternating bursts (“talking machine guns”.) Maybe one of them starts with a magazine ½ loaded so the 2 IARs do not have to reload at the same time. According the Feb 2009 Marine Corps Times:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/
… the “SAW…provides a sustained rate of fire of 85 rounds per minute.” And “The sustained rate of fire available in the…HK models is 12 to 15 rounds per minute, with a maximum effective rate of fire of… 75 rounds per minute for 600 rounds” So 2 Automatic Rifleman would carry the same 1200+/- rounds as the Saw Gunner and Assistant SAW gunner, and have close to the same fire rate for those 1200 rounds.
And the above squad reformation is based on the assumption the new IAR is light enough (maybe 11 lbs. loaded w/ bi-pod) to allow the Marine carrying it to fulfill the Rifleman role. With the M249s, 3 Marines in each squad are loaded down with 16.5 lbs weapon (empty) and 5 ammo belts that weight what? 3 lbs each? Having an Assistant SAW Gunner distributes this load between 2 men, but having 2 men with IARs and 600 rounds apiece reduces and distributes the total load better. This should allow the 12 men in the squad to move with equal speed against the lightly armed and fast moving insurgents they are now facing in 2 wars, without waiting for the 3 SAW gunners to catch up.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=474728&page=3&highlight=IAR
…maybe the USMC needs/intends to reconfigure the infantry squads that exchange IARs for M249s.
I’ve read (all my info in this post is from reading) USMC infantry squads have 12 members (sometimes 13 when the squad leader is not one of the fire team leaders.) The squad is made up of 3 fire teams of 4 Marines apiece, armed as follows:
1. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
2. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
3. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
4. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
5. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
6. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
7. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
8. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
9. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
10. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
11. Marine SAW Gunner w/ M249 and 5 belts (1000 rounds.)
12. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 of M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
(Sometimes assistant SAW gunner, carrying ammo belts and spare barrels)
Maybe the new squad makeup, to have the same firepower as the above, should be:
1. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
2. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
3. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
4. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
5. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
6. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
7. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
8. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
9. Fire team leader, M16 rifle w/ m203 grenade launcher and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
10. Marine Rifleman w/ M16 or M4 and 7 mags (210 rounds.)
11. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
12. Marine Automatic Rifleman w/ IAR and 21 mags (630 rounds.)
This is under the assumption that 6 IARs provide at least the firepower as the 3 M249s they replace. The 2 Automatic Riflemen in each fire team would work together to provide a base of fire, firing alternating bursts (“talking machine guns”.) Maybe one of them starts with a magazine ½ loaded so the 2 IARs do not have to reload at the same time. According the Feb 2009 Marine Corps Times:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/
… the “SAW…provides a sustained rate of fire of 85 rounds per minute.” And “The sustained rate of fire available in the…HK models is 12 to 15 rounds per minute, with a maximum effective rate of fire of… 75 rounds per minute for 600 rounds” So 2 Automatic Rifleman would carry the same 1200+/- rounds as the Saw Gunner and Assistant SAW gunner, and have close to the same fire rate for those 1200 rounds.
And the above squad reformation is based on the assumption the new IAR is light enough (maybe 11 lbs. loaded w/ bi-pod) to allow the Marine carrying it to fulfill the Rifleman role. With the M249s, 3 Marines in each squad are loaded down with 16.5 lbs weapon (empty) and 5 ammo belts that weight what? 3 lbs each? Having an Assistant SAW Gunner distributes this load between 2 men, but having 2 men with IARs and 600 rounds apiece reduces and distributes the total load better. This should allow the 12 men in the squad to move with equal speed against the lightly armed and fast moving insurgents they are now facing in 2 wars, without waiting for the 3 SAW gunners to catch up.
Or we could wait for the SAW gunners and have some real suppressive fire. Machineguns/ automatic rifles should be able to sustain fire for more than 3-4 seconds, IMO. This is not 1945, 30 rounds is no longer enough for a support weapon. The suport weapon needs to have a larger magazine than the weapon that is supports, IMHO. The Brits tried the L86 for a while, then decided that it was a bad idea. The USMC will porabalby do the same soon. You should take up more time firing than reloading, at least in my opinion.
vaupet
Member
Some small opinion from overseas: (i live in Belgium, some 20 miles from the FN factory)
1. HK makes the most reliable weapons around
2. most infantry squad around the world use mixed weapons, like hk416 in 5.56 and hk 417 in 7.62 or scar L and scar H
3. the SAW M249, that is the FN Minimi, no?
4. all these factories produce their weapons for us government in the US
5. It looks to me that a lot of the people here support the free market, but only if they get the profit.
6. end there was me, thinking the marines just wanted the best gun to protect their lives
greetings
1. HK makes the most reliable weapons around
2. most infantry squad around the world use mixed weapons, like hk416 in 5.56 and hk 417 in 7.62 or scar L and scar H
3. the SAW M249, that is the FN Minimi, no?
4. all these factories produce their weapons for us government in the US
5. It looks to me that a lot of the people here support the free market, but only if they get the profit.
6. end there was me, thinking the marines just wanted the best gun to protect their lives
greetings
1. Nope, just HK likes to take advantage of the suposed failings of the M4/M16. 14 nations, use the HK416. Of them, 10 of them barly count, they just got something new and cool. The other nations are Germany (special forces only), France (special forces again, since the FAMAS is bullpup and has no rails), the UK (SAS/SBS only, might replace the L85), and US (Delta only, and some civilian LEOs)
2 Nope, most squads have 5.56 rifles and machine guns, or 5.56 rifles and 7.62mm machine guns. I don't know of any nation that uses 5.56 and 7.62 rifles together in a squad. HK417 is mostly use as a DM rifle by nations using th HK416.
3. Yes, with a diferent hand guard and a few minor changes.
4. I think so
5. naturaly
6. The Brits thought the same thing about the L86. Seen any recently?
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
Even in 1945 it wasn't enough, the Germans based there squad around the MG42 which throws a ton of lead, and we copied.
The 416 isn't going to replace the Saw, its not heavy enough. But it would make a damn good replacement for the M4.
stubbicatt
Member
Din't the Marines choose the Reising and the Johnson rifle in WW2?
Yes they had them early in the war. However, the Resing was complex, fired closed-bolt, and jammed way too often, so it was dropped. The Johnson was, i belive, popular with the Para-Marines, since it was easy to break down. However, it was recoil-operated and puting a bayonet on messed it up since (i think) the barrel recoiled on firing. An the fact that the M1 Garand was being produced ingreater numbers and its fans(the Para-Marines) played no real role in WW2 (no real opritunity for paratrupersi the Pacific) and it disapeared. At least that's my understanding.
I agree that this is a nice looking rifle. I believe that our Armed Services are doing their homework to get the most bang for the buck.
My concerns with buying our weapons overseas is the same as my concern with foreign cars made in the USA.
1. The profits do not stay here to put more Americans to work.
2. If WW3 did break out how reliable would our spare parts lines be.
3. Do we believe that Toyota, Honda or Subaru will retool and build us tanks, trucks, and plane parts?
I have often wondered about these things.
I know that my 2 American vehicles have foreign parts in them. I know that in this global economy we can not expect to buy 100% American. It does help me to know that the money I spent stays here for the most part.
My concerns with buying our weapons overseas is the same as my concern with foreign cars made in the USA.
1. The profits do not stay here to put more Americans to work.
2. If WW3 did break out how reliable would our spare parts lines be.
3. Do we believe that Toyota, Honda or Subaru will retool and build us tanks, trucks, and plane parts?
I have often wondered about these things.
I know that my 2 American vehicles have foreign parts in them. I know that in this global economy we can not expect to buy 100% American. It does help me to know that the money I spent stays here for the most part.
HorseSoldier
Member
This is a cool development, since it means I never have to listen to what the USMC has to say about weapons again.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I know the Marine have the reputation for being the most combat oriented service, but in the US Army Military Police, each 3 man team has at least 1 SAW, sometimes 2. The M249, in it modern cut down variant, is very easy to field on a mass basis. There is no reason to have a rifle that fills the space in between the M4/M16 and the SAW. The SAW itself is meant to be the automatic gun for small groups.
But then again, the Military Police corps is a bit different. We generally carry more firepower in a 3 man team than a whole infantry squad carries.
- Status