USMC: IAR vs SAW

Status
Not open for further replies.

chieftain

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,264
Location
The Free State of Arizona
For your consideration:

Defense Industry Daily:

IAR What IAR: The USMC’s SAW Substitution
06-Jul-2010 17:41 EDT

HK wins; Commandant skeptical, but authorizes limited buy and combat test. (July 1/10)
The US Marines are looking to replace their M249 5.56mm light machine guns in their infantry and Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) battalions. Many have become worn from use, and can be more hindrance than help in some of the close-quarters urban warfare situations dominating current battlefields. They also have a reputation for jamming, and at 15-17 pounds empty, these belt-fed weapons are rather heavy.

In its initial 2005 FedBizOps.com solicitation for an “Infantry Automatic Rifle” (IAR), the Marines wanted two big things. First, the gun had to fire from either the open or closed bolt position. This would give it the single-shot and “first through the door” capabilities that the M249 lacks, while allowing for more sustained fire than an M16 can handle without risking ammunition “cook off” in a heated barrel. It also had to be considerably lighter than the M249, at just 12.5 pounds maximum and 10.5 pounds desired weight. In exchange, the Marines decided they were willing to trade the SAW’s belt-fed design for switchable 30 round magazines, which are used up much more quickly but can also be changed in battle much more quickly.

The result was not a true light machine gun, but something in between an LMG and an assault rifle. That shift in the 13-man Marine squad has its advocates and detractors. DID offers more background concerning the USMC’s IAR contenders, contracts… and controversy.
The Contenders

The winning bids went to a set of long-established competitors.
Colt. The current manufacturer of the M4 carbine, who also makes some of the Marines’ M16 rifles. Colt publicly touts a variant of its CAR design, which is called the LSW by Colt Canada and serves with customers that include the Netherlands. It’s basically an M16, with some modifications including a new hydraulic buffer assembly and a heavier barrel. Elsewhere, Defense Review has a complete review of the Colt IAR, which appears to be a different design than the CAR. It uses a direct gas impingement system rather than a gas piston system, and adds a large heat sink to the front which makes the 9.5 pound weapon a bit front-heavy.

Interestingly, Colt won 2 contracts for the IAR’s development and testing phase. It is not yet clear if this represents CAR and IAR awards, or if the twin contracts have a different set of dual competitors. Regardless, neither won.

FN USA. The US Marines are already a customer beyond the M249 SAW, as FN USA manufactures many of the Marines’ M16 rifles. For the IAR competition, the firm is entering a version of the SCAR Mk16 rifle that has become US Special Operation Command’s weapon of choice. FN’s SCAR family of rifles has a wide set of innovative features developed with SOCOM’s assistance over the last several years, and a 10-year production contract was awarded in November 2007. FN USA’s IAR entry is interesting, in that it retains the accuracy and performance of closed-bolt firing until the barrel reaches a certain temperature, whereupon it automatically switches to safer open-bolt firing.
With MARSOC operating as part of SOCOM, a number of Marines may already be familiar with this weapon. Since the Marines plan to rotate personnel back to regular Marine units after MARSOC, a rifle that’s shared with SOCOM offers certain advantages to the force.

That’s no longer true, however – in June 2010, SOCOM decided to cancel further SCAR-L Mk.16 purchases on cost and efficiency grounds, and will probably recall the 850 fielded weapons, rather than continue to support them. SOCOM will be adding to their stock of 750 SCAR-H Mk.17 7.62mm riles, however, and will fielded an extended SCAR-H Mk.20 with sharpshooter enhancements.

Heckler & Koch. The HK416 is an M16/M4 with a modified upper receiver. US SOCOM and other special forces around the world have been using them for several years now, after the standard Colt M4 design proved itself unable to meet SOCOM’s needs.

H&K replaced Colt’s “gas-tube” system with a short-stroke piston system that eliminates carbon blow-back into the chamber, and also reduces the heat problem created by the super-hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were made to the magazine, barrel, et. al. The final product was an M4 with a new upper receiver and magazine, plus H&K’s 4-rail system of standard “Picatinny Rails” on the top, bottom, and both sides for easy addition of anything a Special Operator might require. In exhaustive tests with the help of the USA’s Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies. The H&K 416 was declared ready in 2004, and there is also an HK417 version in 7.62mm NATO caliber.

In October 2009, H&K’s 416-based design won.

Unsuccessful

Some firms that were expected to be contenders for the IAR did not make the shortlist.

General Dynamics. The firm had partnered with Singapore’s ST Kinetics to offer a Mk5 version version of the Ultimax 100 5.56mm light machine gun, whose accuracy and control have deeply impressed many military observers and analysts [watch video – AVI format]. Part of the weapon’s secret is that it was originally designed for Singapore’s smaller soldiers, and the 11 pound Ultimax LMGs (when empty) now serves with a number of militaries around the world.

The Ultimax was not ready in time to dislodge FN’s M249 in the original SAW competition, but the Marines had maintained a simmering interest in the weapon ever since. General Dynamics hoped that this time will be different, but the IAR’s specifications and focus appear to have handicapped this entry, and it was not selected for the IAR development contracts.

LWRC This firm has done a lot of work refining and improving the M16/M4 for military, law enforcement, and personal use. This includes the introduction of more reliable mechanisms, designated marksman weapons, and even different calibers like the superior but magazine-compatible 6.8mm. Their 5.56mm “M6A4 IAR” candidate was not selected for additional development and testing.

IAR What IAR: The Choice

The larger questions around these weapons boil down to doctrine. Light Machine Guns can be used for sustained “suppressive fire,” but often pay a price for doing so. The price is paid in weight and accuracy. The benefit is that keeping the enemy’s head down has considerable defensive value, and frees up your own side to maneuver.
Until recently, the Ultimax 100 has been the closest thing to an LMG that could comfortably switch over into “heavy assault rifle” mode, without losing its basic function. The IAR is that magazine-fed heavy assault rifle, but its 30 round magazine can make sustained suppressive fire difficult unless several IAR operators are on hand.

Drum magazines can be used to increase the number of available rounds, but loading them is difficult, many drum magazines have reliability issues, and carrying multiple drum magazines is a lot bulkier than carrying multiple 30-round ‘flat’ magazines. In practice, therefore, the IAR is likely to be a 30 round weapon that depends on accuracy for suppression.

A recent USMC battle at Shewan, Afghanistan indicates that this may be possible. In addition, marksmanship and the ability to bring a weapon to bear very quickly are hallmark requirements of the urban battlefield, where the Marines and militaries around the world expect to do a lot of their fighting over the next few decades.

On the other hand, there’s a psychological dimension to combat. Crossbows fired faster than muskets, and were much more accurate. They were replaced by muskets because the musket’s psychological effect had that much value in a real fight. In a similar vein, USMC Commandant James Conway has expressed concerns about giving up the light machine gun’s lower accuracy coupled with suppressive and psychological value.

In the military world, as in the world of finance, options have value. The Marines’ decisions to date have indicated the priority they place on more optimized IAR designs, which may not be true LMGs but offer other advantages in compensation. That stance has now come into some question, and the questions emanate from the very top of the Marine Corps. The encouraging signal in all of this is that the question will be settled by combat trials, not bureaucratic infighting.

Contracts and Key Events

In September 2008, Gannett’s Marine Corps Times reported that only some of the USMC’s M249 SAW weapons would be replaced. The eventual contract announcements, however, specifically mention the option of replacing all M249 SAWs used by the USMC’s infantry and LAR battalions.

July 1/10: Media outlets report that in April 2010, USMC Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 H&K M27 IARs, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in 4 infantry battalions and 1 light armored reconnaissance (LAR) battalion. Each company in the 3 active infantry battalions and reserve battalion will receive 28 M27s: 1 for every SAW gunner, and 1 extra for the unit. These companies will also retain 6 M249s. The LAR battalion will receive 14 M27s, and completely replace its M249s.

The Corps intends to give these units 4-6 months of pre-deployment training with the new weapons, and they are expected to be in Afghanistan around November-December 2010.

Assessments from the Marines in theater will determine whether or not the IAR program resolves the Commandant’s doubts, and continues into full production of about 4,476 M27s. Marine Corps requirements officials hope that Conway will decide whether or not to take the IAR into full-rate production by late 2011, after the field reviews are in.

The biggest issue may turn out to be a factor that hasn’t featured much in debates so far. The US Army (M14) and the British (L129A1) are both turning to 7.62mm IAR-type heavy assault rifle/ marksman weapons in Afghanistan. Its wide open spaces are creating long-range firefights where 5.56mm rounds become ineffective, but the enemy’s 7.62mm rounds remain so. The HK417 is the 7.62mm variant of the HK416, and a 7.62mm IAR could indeed trump short-range LMG suppression – but a decision to change calibers would almost certainly re-open the competition.

Gannett’s Marine Corps Times | Military.com
June 8/10: The Firearms Blog highlights magazine maker Magpul’s recent patent application (#20100126053) for a quad stack AR-15 compatible magazine, complete with diagrams. A central partition separates 2 dual round stacks, with an asymmetric transition area. This could give the IAR its 50 round magazine, joining Russia’s new AK-200 Kalashnikovs with their 60 round quad-stack magazines. The Firearms Blog | Military.com Kit Up!

Dec 28/09: The IAR is facing skepticism at the very top of the Marines Corps. The issue is not performance to spec, but the trade-offs that the program has chosen to make. USMC Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, at a press conference:

“I do have concerns, and those concerns have not been abated at this point…. In terms of accuracy, there’s probably no comparison…. Let’s step away from accuracy for a moment and talk about suppression, and the psychology of a small-unit fight, that says if other guy’s got a light machine gun and I’ve got an automatic rifle, I’m going to be hard-pressed to get fire superiority over him, you know, to keep his head down instead of him keeping mine down, because that 200-round magazine just keeps on giving…. let’s talk about what it does to squad tactics…. every 30 rounds, you gotta change magazines. Well, you’re probably not gonna do that, y’know, in an exposed position… fire superiority is fleeting…. I’m concerned that moving at night… the other squad members carrying those additional magazine for that automatic rifleman, might in a spread formation be hard pressed to get him what he needs in a timely fashion….

I don’t want to get so far in the weeds… but it’s a big deal when you start changing how a Marine infantry squad fights, and, and, we’re gonna treat it as a big deal [raps table for emphasis], and I’m gonna have to be convinced that we’re making the right move before we start to purchase another system and change that whole dynamic…. [especially when the Army is not taking this approach]. So there’s another additional burden of proof here that has to be met….”

Nov 24/09: Gannett’s Marine Corps Times reports that the USMC is re-thinking its decision to drop the IAR’s requirement for a high-capacity magazine. A recent solicitation for a high-capacity magazine that could hold 50 or 100 rounds and fit “the M16/M4/HK 416 family of weapons” seems tailor-made for the IAR.

The magazine adds that the Modern Day Marine 2009 exposition saw FN Herstal display a 100-150 round magazine for its FN-SCAR IAR variant, while Armatac Industries has approached the Corps about a compatible 150-round 2-drum magazine that it says is compatible with each of the finalists weapons.

Early in the evaluation process for the IAR, the Corps’ requirement called for the weapon to use 100-round magazines. That was eventually eliminated in favor of using the same 30-round magazines, as Marine officials sought to cut weight from the SAW’s replacement.

October 2009: Marine officials pick Heckler & Koch’s HK416 derivative IAR over Colt and FN Herstal’s designs, and order another 24 additional weapons for more testing at various USMC facilities including Twentynine Palms, CA; Fort McCoy, WI; and Camp Shelby, MS. The award is framed as a “downselect” rather than a contract win, which indicates that Keckler & Koch’s design is a front runner for now, rather than an ultimate winner. Media reports began in December, and Gannett’s Marine Corps Times adds that:

“A formal protest was filed with the Government Accountability Office by FN Herstal to a Marine contract decision on Oct. 30 and updated on Nov. 23, but GAO officials declined to discuss whether the protest was related to the IAR decision. Colt currently has no contract protests filed with GAO.”

The new “M27 IAR” reportedly weighs 7.9 pounds unloaded, which is very close to a regular HK416, and much less than the M249 LMG’s 17 pounds. It uses a short-stoke gas piston, which is far more reliable and resistant to fouling than the M4/M16’s direct gas system. What it doesn’t have is a quick-change spare barrel to prevent overheating, which will limit it to 65 rounds per minute using 3-round bursts, compared to the M249’s recommended 85 rounds per minute, firing continuously while the trigger is depressed. Gannett’s Marine Corps Times report, GearScout blog entry, and Update | The Firearms Blog and Update.

Sept 21/10: Marine Corps Times quotes MARSYSCOM’s IAR project officer, Maj. John Smith, the IAR project officer. He says that testing is complete, and:

“I’m on schedule to have a decision on the program to move forward. Maybe within three weeks or so, there will be a lot more information…. Smith acknowledged that Commandant Gen. James Conway has questioned how the IAR will fit into fire teams but said that concern was “answered in short order.”

IAR candidate reliability testing reportedly took place in April and May at Marine Corps Base Quantico firing 20,000 rounds per weapon over 3 weeks. The Corps also reportedly held limited user evaluations for about 3 weeks in April in Hawthorne, NV, using Marines from Camp Pendleton, CA.

Dec 22/08: Under the initial contracts issued by US Marine Corps systems command in Quantico, VA, the winning competitors will supply up to 10 samples of their IAR design for testing, plus spare/repair parts, and various support services. The USMC will select a winner at some point, and plans to order up to 6,500 IARs via follow-on delivery orders, but there are no guarantees. Initial contracts, see also: Gannett’s Marine Corps Times | Defense Tech | Military.com | StrategyPage | The Firearm Blog.

Dec 22/08: Colt Defense, Inc. in West Hartford, CT received a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $14 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Colt’s production facility is in West Hartford, CT (RFP M67854-08-R-1000, proposal 6940, contract number M67854-09-D-1035).

Dec 22/08: Colt Defense, Inc. in West Hartford, CT received a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $14 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Colt’s production facility is in West Hartford, CT (RFP M67854-08-R-1000, proposal 6940H, contract number M67854-09-D-1036).

Dec 22/08: FN Herstal, S.A. in Herstal, Belgium receives a 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $27.9 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). FN Herstal’s production facility is in Herstal, Belgium (M67854-09-D-1037).

Dec 22/08: Heckler and Koch Defense, Inc. in Ashburn, VA received 5-year indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with possible delivery orders up to $23.6 million for the production, delivery, and associated support of the Marine Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Work will be performed in Oberndorf, Germany. (M67854-09-D-1038).

Additional Readings
FedBizOpps (2005) – Initial IAR solicitation
Modern Firearms – Heckler-Koch HK M27 IAR Infantry Automatic Rifle (USA / Germany)
Military.com (June 25/10) – Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle. It is a blow to FN Herstal, whose SCAR lost the USMC IAR and the British 7.62mm L129 competition.

Fred
 
the Marines decided they were willing to trade the SAW’s belt-fed design for switchable 30 round magazines, which are used up much more quickly but can also be changed in battle much more quickly.

Ok, isn't having to stop and reload frequently a MAJOR issue for a gun whose main point is to provide sustained suppressive fire? No effort going into an improved highcap mag/drum for the new gizmo? Really?
 
30rnd mags?? That is just plain stupid. Why not put your M-16 on rock and roll and you have that.
 
yeah for some reason after i read the first couple of paragraphs a BAR with a tripod came to mind....I have fired a full M-16 mag through a SAW it took about 1 sec.
 
It just has a standard AR-15 magwell. It can take 30 rounders, or 100rd or 150rd drums, and Magpul's upcoming quad-stack 60 rounder design is probably intended specifically for IARs.
 
I agree with AR27. Don't the germans use the MG version of the G36, the MG36 with 100 round dual drum magazines?
 
Interesting summary - but it's full of the same misinformation constantly repeated over and over.

The HK416 didn't go piston because of the difference in heat compared to DI - that has been objectively measured at less than 40 degrees at the bolt. Pistons come with adjustable gas regulators that can be used to optimize suppressed fire. Suppressors "choke" gas flow in the barrel and need a much different setting - DI OR piston, regardless. Pistons are also somewhat easier to set up to swap barrels.

6.8 is magazine compatible? Only that it can fit in the same mag well, as does 6.5G, and 7.62x39. If they meant to say it can be loaded in 5.56 magazines, no. Continuing to perpetuate the compromise design of a straight mag well with a large capacity curved requirement is the bigger cause of malfunctions, plus the light throw away construction.

There's another dozen points to nitpick, that's the problem with taking in a broad view on a complex subject and boiling it down to paragraphs on a short deadline. Considering much of the report as accurate will be an effort of misplaced trust, but that's common with the media these days.
 
"Meh" nothing wrong with the M249 as-is...
Jeremy... Do you guys have the short barrelled SAWs with the solid gas regulator now? They started to be phased in as I was getting out and they appeared to be more reliable than the older long barrelled versions.

I would like to see the SAW replaced, but with a more reliable belt fed LMG.

But I have heard that the new IAR is not suppose to replace the SAW, just supplement it much like the BAR.
 
Old news. Personally, I agree with the Marine Corps's decision. I'd say it comes down to doctrinal differences.

This is a gross oversimplification, but the Army's SOP in a huge firefight is usually to take cover and lay down suppressing fire until the mortar teams dial in. The USMC's SOP is to make a naked, screaming, highlander charge. For the former, something like a VLMG (very light machinegun) is probably ideal, like the M249. For the latter, a much lighter weight, mag-fed automatic rifle will probably work better.
 
Epic level fail by the USMC that will likely get a lot of Marines killed.

The driving motivation behind all this appears to be some ill-informed nostalgia for the BAR. Perhaps, having never had to face German infantry with squad level MGs, the Marines emerged from WW2 believing the BAR was an effective base of fire weapon that could hold its own. The end result is classic Garbage In-Garbage Out.

For whatever reason, they spent a ton of money to buy a weapon that is only a marginal improvement over an M16, and which will not prove to be an effective base of fire weapon. If they had missions where the SAW gunner needs a rifle instead they could have just bought some extra M16A4s and not defrauded the US taxpayer in the process.
 
HorseSoldierThe driving motivation behind all this appears to be some ill-informed nostalgia for the BAR. Perhaps, having never had to face German infantry with squad level MGs, the Marines emerged from WW2 believing the BAR was an effective base of fire weapon that could hold its own. The end result is classic Garbage In-Garbage Out.

Hypostatize is trivial. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
 
Jeremy... Do you guys have the short barrelled SAWs with the solid gas regulator now? They started to be phased in as I was getting out and they appeared to be more reliable than the older long barrelled versions.

I would like to see the SAW replaced, but with a more reliable belt fed LMG.

But I have heard that the new IAR is not suppose to replace the SAW, just supplement it much like the BAR.
Short barrel have been around since late 2006 IIRC and are pretty much standard right now. However the SAW MUST keep the two long barrels AND the fixed stock with it (or in the armory). The short barrels and collapsible stocks are considered "unit" property and the unit CO has the authority to convert "his" SAWs if he desires.

RE: reliabilty.... I'll beat this horse again..there is nothing wrong with the SAW and it works fine as-is. It does what it's designed to do and does it well. The new "IAR" is NOT a SAW and never will be. Once the 249 ( is gone from the front line it will be missed and wanted back rather quickly I might add.

As long as it's "properly" maintained by unit armorers it will run like a raped ape...like anything else mechanical they get wore out and reliability drops. However in the military the armorers (the majority of them) look down their nose at the SAW and HAVE NO CLUE how to properly inspect and repair and keep the weapon in top condition. THAT is 90% of the problem with the SAW right there.

MY 249s ran and ALWAYS worked....some other units...well..they don't want to listen to me and I watch their "down" 249 numbers increase and here them talk junk about it. I gather up my crew go over and fix the majority of them on the spot with a few minor parts that are REQUIRED to keep it running and the guns are back up in no time. However if they had listened in the first place they wouldn't have broke at all!

Any who...I like the SAW it works and you just don't mess with what "works".

IAR doesn't do anything that an M4/A4 can't do already... IMHO.
 
is gone from the front line it will be missed and wanted back rather quickly I might add.

Yea, just like we felt about the M14.

I hope which ever way this goes, the troops get the best of what THEY NEED, not the brass. In my day, NCO's, SNCO's, and Officers were ORDERED not to complain about the new POS. That order started at CMC.

Some things never change.

Go figure.

Fred
 
It's probably worth noting that the British adopted the L86 -- an automatic rifle version of their assault rifle -- the same time they adopted the L85 rifle. It was supposed to be the fire team's base of fire element, and was supposed to do this with a 30 round magazine.

I'm not sure you could draw a better parallel with the M16/IAR combo the Corps sees as the primary answer to their needs. Consequently, the fact that once they actually got some combat experience with their kit the Brits replaced the L86 as the fireteam's base of fire weapon with (drum roll please :rolleyes:) the Para-SAW.

It's like God looked down from heaven and decided to compensate all us poor army guys for the ACU camouflage disaster by inflicting a compensatory attack of moronitis on the USMC's leadership. Our camouflage may bite, but at least even Big Army is making pretty good decisions about guns.
 
Short barrel have been around since late 2006 IIRC and are pretty much standard right now. However the SAW MUST keep the two long barrels AND the fixed stock with it (or in the armory). The short barrels and collapsible stocks are considered "unit" property and the unit CO has the authority to convert "his" SAWs if he desires.

RE: reliabilty.... I'll beat this horse again..there is nothing wrong with the SAW and it works fine as-is. It does what it's designed to do and does it well. The new "IAR" is NOT a SAW and never will be. Once the 249 ( is gone from the front line it will be missed and wanted back rather quickly I might add.

As long as it's "properly" maintained by unit armorers it will run like a raped ape...like anything else mechanical they get wore out and reliability drops. However in the military the armorers (the majority of them) look down their nose at the SAW and HAVE NO CLUE how to properly inspect and repair and keep the weapon in top condition. THAT is 90% of the problem with the SAW right there.

MY 249s ran and ALWAYS worked....some other units...well..they don't want to listen to me and I watch their "down" 249 numbers increase and here them talk junk about it. I gather up my crew go over and fix the majority of them on the spot with a few minor parts that are REQUIRED to keep it running and the guns are back up in no time. However if they had listened in the first place they wouldn't have broke at all!

Any who...I like the SAW it works and you just don't mess with what "works".

IAR doesn't do anything that an M4/A4 can't do already... IMHO.
I wasnt trying to say the SAW was bad. I carried one in 2003 for the invasion and mine ran well. Some of the others in my unit, not so much. But I gotta agree it was probably a maintenance issue as our SAWs were old. I got out in 2006 so I got to see the adoption of the short barrels for a little bit. They turned the unreliable SAWs into reliable ones, who knows why.... I wasnt an armorer.

I would like to see something like a scaled down M240 in 5.56 and see how that runs. I always fealt the SAW was a bit overly complicated inside, probably due to the mag feeding ability. The M240 seemed to be a much more simple design.

Being in a Mech unit, we used the hell out of our M240Cs and they hardly ever had problems. The only time I ever got a M240 to jam up was when I didnt take the belt fully out of the cardboard box and it started feeding the box. Even then it got that box in there pretty good before it didnt fire. LOL

Some pics of my SAW and I.
iraq032.jpg

Im on the right.
03.jpg
 
The reason why the new barrels worked better than the old ones is mainly due to the fact the gas ports weren't clogged and the gas cylinder itself wasn't full of caked on carbon preventing a good gas seal like an old barrel.

I've seen M240s neglected just the same....the gunners are given the tool to clean the gas port in the barrel....but do they? I had to take a 1/8 punch and DRIVE the block of carbon out of the gas port into the bore THEN break it off with a cleaning rod to get the remainder of the carbon out. Also replaced the gas plug with a new one since it was too far gone to clean. Once that was done...it ran like a champ again...

M240 in 5.56? Nah..not needed...again both 240 and 249 work fine as-is...

Here is a little secret for some those who don't know....

the M240 is the best of all the WW2 guns rolled into one... MG42, BAR, 30cal BMG, Bren
the M249 is very similar but it's mostly just an AK47 turned upside down....one of the key reasons it VERY reliable.... so in a way the US HAS been using an AK type weapon for 25 years now! :D
 
DISCLAIMER: All I know is what I read on the internet.

Ok, isn't having to stop and reload frequently a MAJOR issue for a gun whose main point is to provide sustained suppressive fire?
Right now, Marines 13 (sometimes 12) man squads patrol with 3 M-249s, and usually squads have an assistant gunner with each M-249 gunner, to carry extra ammo belts and barrels. I believe they plan to replace these 6 Marines with 6 IAR gunners, working in 3 pairs. Each pair lays down suppressive fire in alternating bursts (“talking machine guns.”) One Marine in each pair has the first magazine half loaded, so when he needs to reload his partner is still firing. They practice keeping up firing while alternating reloads.

And since the IAR is light enough to run with, the IAR gunners can switch from suppressing to maneuvering/assaulting, as required.

No effort going into an improved highcap mag/drum for the new gizmo?
It can take 30 rounders, or 100rd or 150rd drums, and Magpul's upcoming quad-stack 60 rounder design is probably intended specifically for IARs.
Make it a 100 or 150 round drum and i would say its good to go.
And then design an AR drum magazine that is reliable.

I understand the US Military field tested C Mags in Iraq? Afghanistan? and did not like the results. I get the impression the 30 round mags are working and no one in the military wants to take the chance that something new will not work.

Don't the germans use the MG version of the G36, the MG36 with 100 round dual drum magazines?
Yes, I think it is the C Mag. And I understand this was envisioned for the XM-15 project to replace the M-16 and M-249 (before that project was delayed indefinitely.)

yeah for some reason after i read the first couple of paragraphs a BAR with a tripod came to mind
Exactly. The IAR is supposed to function like the old BARs.

Why not put your M-16 on rock and roll and you have that.
That is fine for the first 2 or 3 mags, but M-16s start to overheat after that, and the fire rate has to slow down or you start risking ammo cook-off. The IAR is basically a gas piston M-16 with additional features to delay heat buildup, allowing a high rate of fire for a longer time than the standard M-16.

A M-16 has a sustained fire rate of 12 rounds per minute or a little more (can be fired indefinitely at this rate.) The M-249 has a sustained fire rate of 85 rounds per minute. The IAR can fire 75 rounds per minute for the first 600 rounds, basically the limit of what one IAR gunner will carry on patrol. After that the IAR has to be slowed down to its sustained rate of 15 rounds per minute.
Source: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

The Marines decided they needed the IAR after years of trying to chase down insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and being too slow to catch them. They are keeping a lot of M-249s, to use in static operations, in both the current wars and in case a future war is against a more heavily armed enemy. Since the IAR is a modified M-16, it is not really a new weapon but an evolution of an existing one.
 
I've got just the deal for you Mr Marine!
How about some of these babies. They only weigh 14.5 lb, which is almost down to your max, and they are sorta reliable. They have 30 round magazines rather than a belt, a rear pistol grip, and none of that pesky quick change barrel nonsense either!

imagesa80l86a2.jpg

Haha, don't kill me, I kid, I kid.
:neener:
 
I wonder why the Shrike was not considered?

A lightweight belt-fed automatic rifle with controls similar to that of the standard infantry rifle seems like it would be a strong contender. It doesn't give up the belt-fed firepower of the SAW, but cuts the weight in half. If it proved to be durable and reliable enough for sustained fire, it sounds ideal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_Shrike_5.56
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top