- Location
- The Orion Arm
Thank you for that
The USMC is trying to get another 11,000 IAR
- Thread starter greentips
- Start date
HK416 is heavier than the typical M4 because it has a thicker barrel and a thicker gas block, the same as the C8 SFW. C8 SFW is not any lighter than the HK416 if a railed hand guard is attached with reinforced SAS style gas block. A lot of HK's weight also comes from the fat heavy buttstock that HK uses vs the skinny stock Colt uses.
If this new IAR becomes an RFP, it will be open to everyone not just HK. The proposed spec is already out there, the weight needs to be at 8.14lb, which is the weight of the current IAR.
Colt USA can totally enter this trial with a heavy barrel 16" unmodified carbine, and will be able to stay within that proposed spec. Not sure if the USMC will stipulate "close bolt " only this time.
It will be interesting if Colt USA will just enter a plain jane Hbar M4 carbine to go against the HK416. The one they submitted with a huge heat sink will not beat the weight requirement. This will be an Epic final HK416 vs M4 battle
If this new IAR becomes an RFP, it will be open to everyone not just HK. The proposed spec is already out there, the weight needs to be at 8.14lb, which is the weight of the current IAR.
Colt USA can totally enter this trial with a heavy barrel 16" unmodified carbine, and will be able to stay within that proposed spec. Not sure if the USMC will stipulate "close bolt " only this time.
It will be interesting if Colt USA will just enter a plain jane Hbar M4 carbine to go against the HK416. The one they submitted with a huge heat sink will not beat the weight requirement. This will be an Epic final HK416 vs M4 battle
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I concur with what Greentips mentioned regarding the accuracy of the C9/M249. Watching the accuracy of the C9 on paper at modest distances 100-500m was a real eye opener. In my mind, the C9, at least the ones I've used, are glorified noise makers.
"Only hits matter" as they say.
"Only hits matter" as they say.
Last edited:
I have been out of land operations for many years, but have some experience with different DI and piston platforms. I am so old that I used the FN C1 and C2 for my first years of service and saw the value in a piston system and the wisdom of having the section level weapons being able to swap parts, mags and ammo. I was happy to see the FN C1 go and the C7 platform come into service as it was simply easier to use for all shooters. However, the C-9 is an awkward weapon to carry, with only ammunition being interchangeable (yes you can use the C7 mag on a C9, but good luck getting it out in a panic). The idea behind the M27 IAR is good, but going from open bolt belt fed to a closed bolt being used in the same role will require fire control retraining. For those of us that have extensive experience firing closed bolt on full auto, a cook off is an unwelcome feature that I wish I could say has not happened to me. The "rounds down range" ethos will need to be replaced by "accurate rounds down range." The role of the LMG/SAW is to provide cover fire when advancing on the objective, and not necessarily accurate fire on a specific target. It's one of the reasons the placement of the Elcan C79 optic on the C9 was questioned. This will change with a system that isn't designed for 200rnds out in short order. But what do I know....I am certainly not versed in tactics and weapon requirements of current units.
Last edited:
Same boat, I am thinking the same way.
It is quite interesting how inaccurate the c9 is. I actually smiled when I heard the Marines were ditching the m249 for the m27. That's a lot of weight to carry around with so little accuracy. I always was curious as to why they put the c79 optic on the c9.....Just seemed like a waste, the feed cover moves as the action cycles.
I'm not so sure about that. When I was in I was rather impressed with the C9. Perhaps you guys needed new barrels with the ones you were shooting.
One thing I will say if the reports on the new M855A1 round are true they will be recking a lot of gun fast. Budget for new parts will double, I guess that will be good for gun makers, but not good for entities the USMC budget.
Is it possble that the C9's mentioned had well worn barrels?
Were they like that when new?
Were they like that when new?
The USMC has always placed a heavy, heavy emphasis on marksmanship, to the point where the motto is "Every Marine is a Rifleman first". You don't even graduate from boot camp until you score at least Marksman on the known distance range.
Why anyone ever thought than an open-bolt machine gun would ever be as accurate (or even close) as a closed-bolt rifle is quite beyond me. That chunk of steel sliding forward before the round fires does nothing for first-round accuracy.
Why anyone ever thought than an open-bolt machine gun would ever be as accurate (or even close) as a closed-bolt rifle is quite beyond me. That chunk of steel sliding forward before the round fires does nothing for first-round accuracy.
The Brit seem to have followed a similar line of thinking for their LMG as well. The L86 LSW seems to be an interesting take as a support weapon, and fulfills the same roles as the IAR. The results of this can be seen on the DCRA website for the 2014 CAFSAC LMG results.
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I get what you're saying but I don't think it's impossible to make an accurate open-bolt gun. Now, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not an expert, but is the Bren an open-bolt design with a reputation for stellar accuracy?
The issue isn't with inherent accuracy, but with practical accuracy.
Mechanically, there's no reason why an open bolt design can't be just as accurate as a closed bolt design.
The issue is really about practical accuracy - how accurate you're going to be when you take the gun out of a benchrest vice and shoot it in normal field conditions. The problem with open-bolt guns is lockup/dwell time, and the movement that happens during that time.
With a closed bolt, you pull the trigger, and a tiny little firing pin moves at high velocity and smacks the primer, lighting off the cartridge almost instantly. It has a negligible dwell time.
With an open bolt gun, you pull the trigger, and a heavy bolt starts accelerating forward, strips a round from the magazine/belt, slams it into the chamber, smacking the primer as the gun goes fully into battery. The lockup time may only be a fraction of a second, but that's still time between when you pull the trigger and the bullet goes "bang"... And during that time, a fairly heavy object is in motion, the physics/inertia of it all making it difficult to hold everything steady during that time. It may not be much time, and much motion, but tiny fractions of an inch of barrel motion make for inches of difference downrange.
The LMG and IAR debate is kinda like a "what people think I do, what my mom thinks I do, and what I really do".
The reality is that you kinda need both. If I am to hunker down and take a beating from a mechanized force, I probably want a LMG for that mad minute to take down dismounting infantry. If I want to control an area and make it a no-man land, I would like to have a LMG with a 200 round box.
If I am on an assault force/ on patrol, and have to maneuver, IAR will be my choice. If I have advanced night fighting capability, I will also forgo the need to walk rounds to the targets by tracers in closer distance. If you don't have enough NODs to go around, you will need to use volume to put enough tracers down range to walk the fire to where you want it to go.
Part of the issue is that Minimi / C9 in general is a bullet hose and have too much dispersion. Machine gun theory works and it is great, but it doesn't mean the machine gun should shoot like a shotgun. The user should have some control of the size and shape of the beating zone using his/her own muscle over the gun. It is like you should be moving the garden hose side to side to have some control over where the water is going and have enough water entering each patch of grass, instead of using the widest spread shower head to cover the entire area but not enough water is hitting the lawn
The reality is that you kinda need both. If I am to hunker down and take a beating from a mechanized force, I probably want a LMG for that mad minute to take down dismounting infantry. If I want to control an area and make it a no-man land, I would like to have a LMG with a 200 round box.
If I am on an assault force/ on patrol, and have to maneuver, IAR will be my choice. If I have advanced night fighting capability, I will also forgo the need to walk rounds to the targets by tracers in closer distance. If you don't have enough NODs to go around, you will need to use volume to put enough tracers down range to walk the fire to where you want it to go.
Part of the issue is that Minimi / C9 in general is a bullet hose and have too much dispersion. Machine gun theory works and it is great, but it doesn't mean the machine gun should shoot like a shotgun. The user should have some control of the size and shape of the beating zone using his/her own muscle over the gun. It is like you should be moving the garden hose side to side to have some control over where the water is going and have enough water entering each patch of grass, instead of using the widest spread shower head to cover the entire area but not enough water is hitting the lawn
