USMC is seeking an Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)

[Ivy Mike]

Because HK is not an American company and we have several companies here that can make the better weapon while helping out our own companies as well as local and national economies.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Bring back the Chauchaut!

 

[dscottw88]

I Remember hearing about the first rifle pictured. It fires from an open bolt to help keep cool and prevent cook-offs.

 

[RP88]

just when you think you got something right in the Corp, or anywhere else in our forces, they change their minds.

"that M14 is too big, take this AR15"

"that AR15 is busted, take this M16"

"that M16 is busted, take this M16A2, 4, etc."

"that M16 is too big, take this M4"

"That M4 rattles and jams, take that dead guy's AK47 for now, but don't tell no one you did"

"that AK47 is an old commie weapon! Pick up your M4 NOW!"

"that M4/M16 shoots a wimpy bullet... man, I miss the good ol' days of the Garand and M14"

that is what I keep getting out of it.

 

[SFvet]

Ah the politics of our Armed Forces lol.

 

[Realbigo]

We had minor problems w/ our first 249's, but alot of those were operator error. I was never carrying one while under fire so I can't really give much of an opinion. I did get to shoot an Ultimax in Thailand, and I F'ing loved it! If I'm ever in a positin to own one, I won't hesitate for a second. It gets my Vote for an IAR

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The only problems I ever experienced with the SAW were the ones in SOI. And that was just because those poor things were so old and beat up.

 

[natescout]

I thought one of the reasons the infantry automatic rifle was replacing the m249 saw was that ememy snipers where singling out, saw gunners. With a rifle like the infantry automatic rifle a saw gunner looks just like any other rifleman.

 

[HorseSoldier]

That logic only works if they go with some Colt derivative. (Or, in the case of the FN entry, if the Corps converts over to SCAR-L for a service rifle/carbine which, I guess, is a remote possibility.)

Main complaint and logic for the replacement is strictly the mobility issue. I suspect they could probably make it work with new SAWs, if they kitted them out as Para-SAWs and possibly looked at something like the titanium receiver idea for the M240, but the USMC seems to want more of a rifle that can provide superior covering/suppressing fire than a 5.56mm LMG.

 

[Nolo]

Thought on the MOH and the BAR...

Just was watching some PBS program on the tele with my folks about local (San Antonio) Medal of Honor recipients. It was definitely a neat program.
Now...
Just as a little quip, and I am sure my conclusions will come as no surprise to anyone, this one guy got his medal by getting a BAR, charging through German lines, using the automatic fire from his rifle to cover his @$$ and systematically taking those positions.
Now, it took a ton of bravery to do that. But the mobile, automatic fire from the BAR really helped.
I believe this is the sort of thing the Marines are trying to accomodate with the IAR. Not just suppressive fire. But MOBILE suppressive fire.

 

[Rifleman 173]

Until such time as the military can keep the politicians from fouling up new military firearms and equipment nothing good will come from this effort. If you want to read horror stories, look what Ted Kennedy, the senator from Chappaquiddick, did to obstruct and bleed millions of tax dollars into Taxachusetts involving the M-1 tank. What the Army wanted was a decent and easy to produce armored fighting vehicle. Kennedy got his paws on the design plans and switched things all around to the point that it wasn't anything close to what was desired or needed.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The M1 works pretty well, actually. Much as I dislike Ted Kennedy, if he was involved in getting it to its final form, that's not much of a strike against him.

 

[Nolo]

The M1 works pretty well, actually. Much as I dislike Ted Kennedy, if he was involved in getting it to its final form, that's not much of a strike against him.

Ted Kennedy didn't have anything to do with the M1, from what I understand. He was however, dipping his fingers in the M2/M3 Bradley project, which is why that monstrosity looks nothing like an APC.
It would have been a terrible vehicle would it not have been for the efforts of USAF Lt. Col. James Burton.
But it still has problems (aluminum armor and centrally-stored fuel), which have largely not been fleshed out because of the absence of a conventional war.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Ted Kennedy didn't have anything to do with the M1, from what I understand. He was however, dipping his fingers in the M2/M3 Bradley project,

I was under the impression that any problems with the Bradley stemmed from the fact that the army decided to condense it's cavalry fighting vehicle and infantry fighting vehicles into a single platform. This is the first I've heard of congressional meddling into the requirements for the vehicle.

which is why that monstrosity looks nothing like an APC.

Who would want an infantry fighting vehicle to look like an armored personnel carrier.

APCs are under-gunned and function only as taxis for the guys in back. IFVs can engage and destroy enemy light armor (or in the case of the Bradley and other ATGM armed IFVs, any armored vehicle the enemy operates).

It would have been a terrible vehicle would it not have been for the efforts of USAF Lt. Col. James Burton.

I've seen the movie, too, but tend to get a bit intrigued when a member of one service becomes an outspoken critic of another service's projects.

But it still has problems (aluminum armor and centrally-stored fuel), which have largely not been fleshed out because of the absence of a conventional war.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Brad has a pretty good track record during Gulf War 1 and the conventional phases of the latest go 'round.

Having been a scout on M113A3s and M3s, I can definitely say the Bradley was a big improvement in a lot of ways.