Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USMC is seeking an Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Lucky, Aug 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    30-round magazines are the minimum feed devices, expect larger magazines to come about. I'm not much of a military buff but I guess it's because of the structure of the Marines and them putting 249's in fire support teams because they slow down rifle teams.

    Here is an example of one entry (also see the Ultimax and SCAR): [​IMG]
     
  2. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    Didn't the USMC field HBAR M-16's for this very purpose 10 or 20 years ago? Other than the flat top and rails, the piece in your picture doesn't seem too awfully different from what they had back then.
     
  3. Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,486
    In my "2 lsw 1 gpmg" thread, I was explaining how the IAR/LSW can be used with certain tactics and other weapons. But then I realized that if weight is the biggest reason for the use of a IAR/LSW, why not start ground up with a belt fed that's designed to be as light as possible? The MK46 is only 12.5lbs after they took out the vehicle mounting lugs, magazine well, and gave it a shorter barrel and lightened that too with fluting.

    I'd say just put a belt feed mechanism on the MK4 Ultimax.

    There also seems to be a loss of total ammo load with IAR/LSW's. Take for example the RPK-74 and those quad stack 60rd mags. Say the gunner can carry 8 of those, that's only 480rds of ammo. The M249 box holds 200rds and that means the MG can have 200rds on it and the gunner can carry another 2 boxes for a total of 600rds! That's 120rds more than the RPK gunner.

    The loss of ammo count and loss of firepower is too much. The best way to go is creating a very light weight belt fed MG like the LSAT telescopic cased LMG. That thing weighs 9.2lbs unloaded! It's ammo is about half the weight of 5.56mm NATO too.
     
  4. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    In general it probably isn't too different. I've seen Vietnam vets post that only 1 man in their team or squad was allowed to fire full-auto with his M16, and if anyone else did they'd receive a cash fine. That one guy was designated Automatic Rifleman. Just seems that the USMC seems like the most practical of the US forces (from outsider perspective), and they seem to do rational things a little at a time. What they've got isn't working, so they fix it. Aiui they have groups of 4 guys, 3 rifles and 1 SAW. And the SAW can't keep up, and can't reload while moving, and can't really use AR magazines well. (and the guns are all wearing out so might as well buy better when you buy new)


    Monkey aiui belts are not good for this use. They'll keep belt-fed weapons in another group. Like said, they're noisier (200 box especially), slower to reload, and can't reload while moving. Also limits interchangeability among the team.


    That's the LWRC entry, their page says:

    The barrel-cooling is suppose to be sort-of secret, though, so they don't really say how that works. Open/close firing sounds interesting.

    Dutch marines have been using an AR for years, and the only thing they want is bigger magazines [​IMG], though general consensus is that may not be a great idea.
     
  5. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    I was going to say, this looks a lot like a lot more of the same, dressed up a bit differently. That's what we civilians do with the platform. Why not the military?

    OTOH why is this a big fat contract for somebody? Is that the best way to spend my tax dollars and provide the best weapons for the troops?
     
  6. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    The cost of rifles is **** all, relatively. The question is why it wasn't done already. Suppose you buy 10,000 at $2000 each, that's a whopping $20million. Not big nor fat. Suppose you invest in a Crusader artillery system, or a Comanche helicopter, or FCS, $20mil won't buy hubcaps.
     
  7. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    the problem is the Corp doesnt get the budget of the army or navy. the corp doesnt have money to blow everytime a Apache flys into a hill side

    marines need the best bang for the buck. and that comes at a differant price tag. human cost. men, medical, training, and in some cases lives.

    a Marine with a rifle/at4/whatever can easily compare with a multi billion dollar "weapon system" thats made to adress the same problem
     
  8. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    That was my question too, if you read what I wrote.

    I'm wondering why this has to go through this process, hemorrhaging scarce funds into a few defense contractors' pockets for R&D, eating up precious time in the middle of an active shooting war, when all I have to do as a civilian is get on the Web and order up some parts for a few hundred dollars to get the same thing. That's with retail markup added, too.

    Why not empower the Marines to do this themselves? Seems like it would be cheaper and it would get more guns into the hands of more troops a lot faster.
     
  9. Harley Quinn

    Harley Quinn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,490
    Location:
    No. CA.
    Not to get to picky but it is Corps.
    Now if they want to have a new one it is because it is needed I'd say.

    They love the rifle, and if it does not do the job, it needs to be fixed.

    The USMC is just that, and because others call themselves Marine does not make them the Corps.
    Semper Fi.
     
  10. Detritus

    Detritus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,078
    Location:
    Central NC
    Yeah, the germans tried it with the FG-42.

    adds a layer of complexity to the gun, that isn't really needed.

    designers need to make a choice open bolt or closed bolt firing, there is little to no REAL utility from having both, and doing so opens up new ways for the weapon to fail "at a most inoportune time".
     
  11. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,579
    Location:
    Alabama
    I was squadded last week at Camp Perry with several USMC rifle team members. Great guys. Always helpful, always polite, great examples of the best America has to offer. Most of them have deployed at one time or another. As part of the typical pit pig talk, one of the Gentlemen told me about his participation in some rifle concept. This may be it.

    From what he told me, the Marine Corp is looking for something compact as the marines are doing one heck of a lot of kicking in doors and clearing rooms and houses in Iraqi. They also want something that can have controlled full auto fire, (not 308), have parts common to what is in inventory, and fires the .223 round, because that is in inventory.

    This picture sure looks like something that fits that bill.
     
  12. fal 4 me

    fal 4 me Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    What advantages would an infantry automatic rifle have over just returning the full auto mode to the m-16 and issuing larger mags?
     
  13. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    fal 4 me:

    The amateur in me is thinking~
    weight versus barrel-heat dispersion, relative to task.
    That's just for boodocking.
    Once you start MOUT'ing, then barrel length becomes an issue too.
     
  14. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,686
    What about that Spanish .223 version of the MG-42?
     
  15. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    Do they even still make the AMELI?
     
  16. Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,486
  17. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    I read somewhere recently that the AMELI was rather fragile.
     
  18. Harley Quinn

    Harley Quinn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,490
    Location:
    No. CA.
    Someone mentioned where the 06 was not effective at 800 yds yet they mention the 223 is effective at 1000m:rolleyes:

    Range: 1000m (effectice)

    Users: Mexico, Spain

    Spanish are full of it for sure, right next to Mexico, we are in trouble I can see that, there .223 will reach further than our stuff LOL...
     
  19. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    Joe Demko,
    Hi. I'm thinking that if operational failures fall under "fragility", then the AMELI
    sorta compensates by moving away from a lot of gas-op fouling issues.

    And hey, it just occurred to me: The AMELI used to be made by
    Empresa Nacional Santa Barbara de Industrias Militares.
    ENSB was bought 2-3 years ago by a US company: General Dynamics.
     
  20. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,515
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    They need a Lewis gun in 5.56. Think about that!
     
  21. ATW525

    ATW525 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    Colebrook, NH
    Interesting, because General Dynamics is one of the companies getting funding to develop an IAR submission.

    ETA: The IAR competitors and how much they received from the IAR project (Source)

    Leitner-Wise $10,488
    FN Herstal $247,095
    General Dynamics Armaments & Technical Products $311,386
     
  22. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    Yeah, first thing I thought of was the CETME MG-82, but it does look like they just want an automatic rifleman's weapon.

    Open bolt AR...next.
     
  23. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    2,919
    Location:
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    I think that was for the Ultimax. Aiui GD owns EVERYTHING that's not nailed down.

    Sorry ArmedBear, I mis-read.
     
  24. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    Why is it that every time the military invests in or "invents" a new gun, it just ends up looking like an AR-15 with new furniture attached to it?
     
  25. Devonai

    Devonai Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    3,836
    Location:
    Connecticut
    They need to bring back the Bren in .308 and smoke 'em a little harder in basic! :neener:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page