New Marine Corps weapon to replace SAW

[JASmith]

Stan,

LRRPF52 did not say that no SAW gunner would enter the building. Not that he indicated that a SAW gunner from a trail team will help provide cover. That team and gunner are probably not visible in the footage you refer to.

[LRRPF52]

Not sure what you mean by that. The IAR was not proposed by HK. It was a USMC idea. IIRC, we discussed it on the old forum several years ago. There was a Marine Corps Gazette article, the original of which is no longer accessible, but a copy is at:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=813478

Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them. The HK had the worst hit probability of all, but was determined to be statistically insignificant. The main complain with the Ultimax was that they couldn't obtain a proper sight picture for some reason.

I wonder if they pooled a bunch of SAW gunners and told them to use the standard support hand grip, which places your support hand under your cheek, thereby raising your eye height for other machinegun designs that had too high of a sight line.

"Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249 SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for its automatic fire suppressive capability. Given the results of this assessment, accuracy alone is not a strong enough reason to replace the M249 SAW. However, most would argue that accuracy was never the problem with the M249 SAW. The problem with the M249 SAW was the lack of mobility when manned by an individual while attempting to move at the pace of a rifle team."

While reading the test results, it became clear to me the tests were structured by some bean-counter who has very little conceptual understanding of the practical considerations of employing LMG's in the Infantry Fire Team. I don't care if they've been polishing USMC campaign hat brims for the past 3 decades, there is a major disconnect in the tests, but the actual soldier comments cut through all that BS anyway, which is good, and it's exactly as I have been saying all along...

We need a platform closer to the AR/M16 in weight & maneuverability, with the firepower of the SAW. Those two words sum up what is needed: Maneuverability + Firepower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2yJeeyn5A

[LRRPF52]

Stan,

LRRPF52 did not say that no SAW gunner would enter the building. Not that he indicated that a SAW gunner from a trail team will help provide cover. That team and gunner are probably not visible in the footage you refer to.

The only reason why soldiers and Marines are lugging around SAWs in MOUT is because they have to...that is what is issued to young hooahs after being a rifleman for a while. You don't get to say, "Sarge, I'd actually like to keep that M4 or M16, since the SAW is a heavy little pig that doesn't really work that well."

[stanc]

Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them.

Yeah, I knew you'd like that part.

"Infantrymen feel strongly about replacing the M249 SAW with a true AR inside the fire team but feel just as strongly about keeping the M249 SAW for its automatic fire suppressive capability."

And that's exactly what has been done. The Corps is putting an AR in the fire team, but retaining the M249 at higher levels.

I don't care if they've been polishing USMC campaign hat brims for the past 3 decades...

Uh, I'm pretty sure nobody polishes campaign hat brims.

[LRRPF52]

That's two separate weapons representing a capability split in each of them. The soldiers want both capabilities in one, not a SAW back in the arms room, with an empty-mag IAR in-hand. Reading these things without a raw contextual foundation will make them basically a foreign language. You have to live, train, and fight with these tools for significant periods of your life to know what to look for, and what questions to ask, as well as how to sift through the BS.

You got me on the Campaign hat, but I think you get my point. The only way we'll get a real deal test of any value with this stuff is if a group of guys with enough experience carrying and fighting with these tools conducts them in a private capacity, with the truth and the best system as the only motives, without millions of taxpayer money wetting the palates of foreign and established small arms companies. There also needs to be an engineer connect to the soldier perspective, versus a paper design approach to problems from a desk-driven position. The military should facilitate a program with contractors so that select soldiers transfer into employment with defense contractors, carrying their institutional knowledge with them into the development of products that address real problems from their experience base. All the parts are there, just no dots really being connected.

[stanc]

Point taken. I just hope they didnt end up throwing away 24 million dollars

Well, it isn't as if it'd be the first time that DoD has wasted a few million bucks.

However, while my personal opinion is the same as LRRPF52, that something like the KAC LMG or Ultimax 100 would be a better choice for a squad auto, I expect the M27 IAR will prove to be usable as a fire team support weapon.

After all, we did manage to fight a couple of wars with a magazine-fed automatic rifle in the fire team and rifle squad...

[video=youtube;nK0C-cCvBmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK0C-cCvBmA[/video]

[stanc]

That's two separate weapons representing a capability split in each of them. The soldiers want both capabilities in one...

No doubt they would. But, it seems to me the capability split is unavoidable. By definition, an automatic rifle is magazine fed, and therefore lacks the ability for the sustained fire role. A belt-fed machine gun is (or so I've been told by guys who've BTDT) a poor choice for building entry and room clearing. The Ultimax attempts to address these issues, but 100 rounds in a drum still has more weight and bulk than the same amount linked.

I've not seen any info regarding reliability of the Ultimax drum in field conditions. Have you? I also haven't heard why the Ultimax wasn't selected to be the M27 IAR. Perhaps it didn't perform all that well in testing?

The only way we'll get a real deal test of any value with this stuff is if a group of guys with enough experience carrying and fighting with these tools conducts them in a private capacity, with the truth and the best system as the only motives...

Sounds good. How would you get it implemented?

[LRRPF52]

I knew the BAR would come up. It's a perfect example of both a maneuverability and firepower problem, and is one heavy, long sun of a gun! Endless scores of air sorties and indirect fire is what caused the most casualties in WWII. Because the BAR was there does not support the claim that it was somehow an influential force in allied victory.

On the other hand, the Suomi Kp31 9mm Submachinegun was an influential instrument in the Winter War of 1939-1940, even though it lacks effective range, but thousands upon thousands of Russians didn't know the difference. The Kp31 represented both firepower with its 72rd drums, reliability, and compactness for both trench-clearing and suppressive firepower.

There was an issue in the past with licensing from Singapore for the Ultimax, even though it is James Sullivan's design, but I doubt Singapore is well-versed in the politics of dealing with the Pentagon and US T&E/contract system...definitely not as well-versed as FN and HK or Colt. I suspect these determining factors have more to do with what was selected, despite the inconvenience of a bunch of actual Marine SAW gunners preferring the Ultimax over what was probably already pre-determined before the "tests" even began. Call me cynical, but you can't run a constant-recoil LMG against traditional impacting operating system guns and say they're somehow better. There are some Latin American Special Ops units that use the Ultimax as their go-to LMG's, since they could choose what they wanted based on professional soldier input, not Pentagon politics.

[stanc]

I knew the BAR would come up. It's a perfect example of both a maneuverability and firepower problem, and is one heavy, long sun of a gun! Endless scores of air sorties and indirect fire is what caused the most casualties in WWII. Because the BAR was there does not support the claim that it was somehow an influential force in allied victory.

That ain't what I said.

All I was saying is that an automatic rifle was used for support at the fire team level in the past, and therefore could be again.

Is a mag-fed AR the best choice? Not in my opinion.

But, is it usable for the intended purpose? I think it is.

Time and experience will either validate the selection, or not.

Call me cynical, but you can't run a constant-recoil LMG against traditional impacting operating system guns and say they're somehow better.

You can if the constant-recoil guns don't work as well in adverse conditions.

There are some Latin American Special Ops units that use the Ultimax as their go-to LMG's, since they could choose what they wanted...

I'd be a lot more impressed if it were US spec ops units choosing to use the Ultimax.

Since you didn't answer my question, I take it that means you don't know how well (or poorly) the Ultimax and its 100-rd drum fare in actual or simulated combat use?

[pinzgauer]

when they try to insert the Surefire 60rd mag in the unique HK mag well, which is not compatible with PMAGs, and then see what happens. We had to force one into a 416 the other day, just to see if it fit. It wouldn't drop free either, and had to be pried out with force.

Not to defend the IAR, but the PMAG is out of spec. The HK was built per the documented STANAG (NATO) spec for the AR mags. And it works flawlessly with proper spec mags.

The problem is Magpul made the PMAG a bit oversized (over spec) to tighten the feel in the AR. Which is also what HK did with the 416, but for spec mags. Which then creates problems in rifles which are on the snugger end of the mag well spec. It's not only the HK that PMAGS are tight in, there are other AR's which have the same issue. (Typically billet receivers which work just fine with spec mags)

End result either way is a problem, but the HK development predated the pmag, and specifically it's usage in major military forces.

I don't have specific details, but I've seen references to various active duty units banning use of pmags due to the snugness factor totally independent of the 416/IAR.

[SBBW]

"Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them. The HK had the worst hit probability of all, but was determined to be statistically insignificant. "

LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds. I find it hard to believe almost any Marine, even one with a Pizza box could not make above average hits. As I understand it, there is talk that they may change the distances that tables are shot in the Corps to a longer distance because the IAR made it too easy due to it's accuracy. At least in the issued version. As far as functionality, You and I had a recent conversation about optics, in that conversation we discussed what optics that Tier One units were using. To the best of my knowledge, a lot of them are using HK 416's, which with a couple of modifications, is an IAR. I doubt they would bet their life on it if wasn't better than what they had an option to use.

As far as the belt vs mag issue, you are correct. A higher capacity would be more suited in this role, but I would bet that most guys would rather have something they can make hits with, that worked as close to 100% of the time, than something less. The surefire 60s may be a solution in the near future. They seem to run in the 416s, at least some of them. Agreed, that a bigger issue is who is going to carry his spares and not use them when the going gets hot. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to offer an additional view.

[YutYut]

We only qualify with the M16, with the exception of E-6 and above. they use the M4. Not sure where you heard that the IAR was used to qualify with. http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO%203...02K%20.pdf

-Grunts do qualify with em but its not for score.

[LRRPF52]

"Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them. The HK had the worst hit probability of all, but was determined to be statistically insignificant. "

LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds. I find it hard to believe almost any Marine, even one with a Pizza box could not make above average hits. As I understand it, there is talk that they may change the distances that tables are shot in the Corps to a longer distance because the IAR made it too easy due to it's accuracy. At least in the issued version. As far as functionality, You and I had a recent conversation about optics, in that conversation we discussed what optics that Tier One units were using. To the best of my knowledge, a lot of them are using HK 416's, which with a couple of modifications, is an IAR. I doubt they would bet their life on it if wasn't better than what they had an option to use.

As far as the belt vs mag issue, you are correct. A higher capacity would be more suited in this role, but I would bet that most guys would rather have something they can make hits with, that worked as close to 100% of the time, than something less. The surefire 60s may be a solution in the near future. They seem to run in the 416s, at least some of them. Agreed, that a bigger issue is who is going to carry his spares and not use them when the going gets hot. Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to offer an additional view.

My understanding is that certain folks prefer the 416 because of the "cool factor", and units have adopted them within certain levels. I know that LAV doesn't really use them in his courses, and from a handling perspective, I can totally see why. Something just does not feel right under recoil in that gun, suppressed or naked. When I see the guy who was the end-user driving a lot of the development of the 416 preferring not to use it in his practical, daily work, I start to scratch my head. Same thing goes for the Masada/ACR. When do you see that many guys from the team that designed it using it in their courses? I've seen Drake a few times, but DI AR's dominate in carbine classes and will, even as op-rod system flood the market. You can't get away from the superior handling of an in-line operating system that has no torque off the bore axis.

Back to LMG's: I forecast that the IAR will supplement belt-fed systems, and never replace them, especially when hiccups start to occur with the SF mags and dust. IF the SureFire mags prove as reliable as 30-rounders, I will be more than pleasantly surprised, by history is not on the side of reliability and coffin mags. I really hope the SureFire mag works out though, honestly, since Russia seems to be interested in making them for the AK100 series, as well as the An-94. No fight inferred at all...I'm just one guy who has only walked in one set of boots in my life at a time. Maybe I'm totally out of it on my assessment of the 416, but I have to tell you that it recoils more than my AR10's, and I know how to muscle a gun to the point that I can pull the trigger as fast as mechanically possible and still keep all my hits on a 7" circle at 7yds with a 5.56, lightweight carbine, using zero muzzle brakes or special recoil-elimination devices..just standard parts. I cannot do that with the 416 as of yet, and the ones I've shot have heavier barrels, and way heavier fore-ends.

I imagine the IAR has a smoother impulse with a rifle-length gas system, and from a bipod would be steadier, but unless they found a way to make it constant-recoil, it will never touch an Ultimax or KAC LMG, and those are some lightweight systems with smaller profiles with the commando barrels than the IAR. The shorter IAR variants might really show some promise if the SF60rd mag works long-term. I still like belt-fed, especially when it comes to resupply and consolidation & reorganization on the objective. That 100rd SF mag is out of the question for obvious reasons though.

[stanc]

"Did you read the results of the tests? The Ultimax was the most preferred weapon by the horde of entry-level Marines that participated in them. The HK had the worst hit probability of all, but was determined to be statistically insignificant. "

LRRPF52, not sure at what stage the above quote came in the test and evaluation. The IAR kept sub 2" groups after being shot for 25000 rds.

The HK in the quote was a G36 used in preliminary testing a number of years ago, not the M27 IAR that was adopted.

[Observer]

I'd be a lot more impressed if it were US spec ops units choosing to use the Ultimax.

The SEALs were the ones who cooked up the PIP for the Mk3. There was a Jane's article by Andrew Tillman (Tilman?) on it, maybe a websearch could turn it up?

As far as I know, the biggest problems of the Ultimax are 1) the sights, as it was designed to be a "mobile fire support point" and fired from the shoulder on the move, so when you go prone with it, the sights end up very low, but I believe the problem will correct itself with P-rails and attached optics which will automatically raise the sight level higher, and 2) it hates blanks.

The drums seem to be OK as the people who claimed to have used them never brought up any jamming complaints, but TBH, I'm not sure how well the system will age. What may work from years 1-5 may start to go wonky in year 6+, which I suspect is the main reason for many current 249 jams.

Something interesting. Ultimax in AR configuration.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9U6nRjA1Bo"]

Pity it doesn't have a 60-75 round drum, I can see a combat load of 2 60-round drums in place of water bottles, shift the water to the back pouch, one drum or mag on gun and 4 30-rounder mags in vest, that's 270-300 rounds. Might work for a short engagement.

One of my most memorable sights of this gun was one guy drawing on the range bunt with 100 rounds of tracer at night. Looked like something out of Star Wars.

Anyway, back on topic, didn't many people try the IAR thing back in the 70s with the H-Bar M-16? And didn't it fail miserably? On the bright side, the LSAT may be coming out soon, so if this fails, at least something's able to replace it.

Just don't hold your breath, asphyxia's a nasty way to go.

[stanc]

Something interesting. Ultimax in AR configuration.

[video=youtube;N9U6nRjA1Bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9U6nRjA1Bo[/video]
Fixed it for ya.

[SBBW]

We only qualify with the M16, with the exception of E-6 and above. they use the M4. Not sure where you heard that the IAR was used to qualify with. http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO%203...02K%20.pdf

-Grunts do qualify with em but its not for score.

Yut, never said they, USMC, did use IAR to qualify, but it is a natural progression to use the IAR in the same role as an M4 or M16 and run the same type of evaluations, ie shooting the tables.

[SBBW]

My understanding is that certain folks prefer the 416 because of the "cool factor", and units have adopted them within certain levels. I know that LAV doesn't really use them in his courses, and from a handling perspective, I can totally see why. Something just does not feel right under recoil in that gun, suppressed or naked. When I see the guy who was the end-user driving a lot of the development of the 416 preferring not to use it in his practical, daily work, I start to scratch my head. Same thing goes for the Masada/ACR. When do you see that many guys from the team that designed it using it in their courses? I've seen Drake a few times, but DI AR's dominate in carbine classes and will, even as op-rod system flood the market. You can't get away from the superior handling of an in-line operating system that has no torque off the bore axis.

Interesting thoughts on the recoil factor. I agree with the masada/ACR comment.

Back to LMG's: I forecast that the IAR will supplement belt-fed systems, and never replace them, especially when hiccups start to occur with the SF mags and dust. IF the SureFire mags prove as reliable as 30-rounders, I will be more than pleasantly surprised, by history is not on the side of reliability and coffin mags. I really hope the SureFire mag works out though, honestly, since Russia seems to be interested in making them for the AK100 series, as well as the An-94. No fight inferred at all...I'm just one guy who has only walked in one set of boots in my life at a time. Maybe I'm totally out of it on my assessment of the 416, but I have to tell you that it recoils more than my AR10's, and I know how to muscle a gun to the point that I can pull the trigger as fast as mechanically possible and still keep all my hits on a 7" circle at 7yds with a 5.56, lightweight carbine, using zero muzzle brakes or special recoil-elimination devices..just standard parts. I cannot do that with the 416 as of yet, and the ones I've shot have heavier barrels, and way heavier fore-ends.

I tend to agree with the supplement vs replace. I have seen the Surefires run great in the 416. I have also seen them fail more than 50% of the time otherwise, no matter what the rifle. I hope that it works and proves reliable in all platforms it would be a great addition for several reasons. I will try to shoot the IAR/416 vs the AR10, side by side. Never have done that.

I imagine the IAR has a smoother impulse with a rifle-length gas system, and from a bipod would be steadier, but unless they found a way to make it constant-recoil, it will never touch an Ultimax or KAC LMG, and those are some lightweight systems with smaller profiles with the commando barrels than the IAR. The shorter IAR variants might really show some promise if the SF60rd mag works long-term. I still like belt-fed, especially when it comes to resupply and consolidation & reorganization on the objective. That 100rd SF mag is out of the question for obvious reasons though.

Having never shot an Ultimax, I can't comment. I agree on the hundred round mag, it is freaking huge, although the way some guys have the front of their kit loaded up, they could still probably shoot it prone. LOL, I know I can't unless i was shooting up a mountain.

[LRRPF52]

When I was a SAW gunner, I had two well-stretched 30rd M16 mag pouches with the tape nylon dividers removed so I could fit a 100rd nutsack in each. I also had two SAW pouches with 2 100rd nutsacks per, for a total of 600rds on my fighting load, with the remaining combat load in my assault pack and within the team. As the Molle gear was adopted, SAW gunners were carrying variations of this load in the utility pouches and SAW pouches, many of which were individually-purchased.

If the chance of a slugging fight is likely, I want to have a minimum of 600rds on my person in that duty position. A constant-recoil system would facilitate less rounds expended per effective suppression, since you can write your name with them.

The M240 also can't fire blanks for crap, but it eats live rounds like nobody's business, and you don't hear a lot of complaints about its reliability from the troops. I was also an M60 AG for a little while as a PFC in Korea before going to the Scout Platoon, a 240 gunner, and a Weapon's Squad Leader at different stages of my service, so I really learned to deal with the dismounted belt-fed role from squad and platoon-level perspectives, with my sniper training as a better foundation from which to distribute trajectories, spot for gunners, and so forth. I always felt that the SAW was our weakest link in portability, but very effective in firepower when it worked. The M60 was great for portability, but absolutely blew chunks for reliability...probably worse than the SAW. The newer M60E3 & E4 seem to have corrected the reliability issues at least in short term initial demo of capability, but like you said, how will a system be running 6, 7, & 10 years down the line...

[YutYut]

talked to a few buddies who are using the m27 and they said they love it. it works 99% of the time which is something they weren't used to with the M249 lol. And they are using 60 round mags and have not had any problems.