Usmc Iar
- Thread starter greentips
- Start date
The IAR concept fails pretty hard. How in the hell are you going to replace a SAW with a rifle that *can* fire from the open bolt position? The Colt HBAR SAW introduced the same concept, same miserable failure. Stoner 63, L86A1 - all history.
Colt has two IAR versions in the downselect.
With M230/M320, M240, and vehicle weapon support, the case is made that the M249 is not required.
USMC M249's (in fact most countries SAW's, except the Uk who just bought some to make up for their failure LSW) are getting worn out.
Frankly the current combat conditions make a IAR a better concept than a LMG.
IAR's are using a PIP BetaMag and other high cap mag designs.
With M230/M320, M240, and vehicle weapon support, the case is made that the M249 is not required.
USMC M249's (in fact most countries SAW's, except the Uk who just bought some to make up for their failure LSW) are getting worn out.
Frankly the current combat conditions make a IAR a better concept than a LMG.
IAR's are using a PIP BetaMag and other high cap mag designs.
Any way to find out why?
Vendors where told their failings.
I understood it did not do very well - its an arcaic platform as well that does not do well to updating.
I posted some thoughts I had over at M4C
KevinB Invisible vbmenu_register("postmenu_280546", true);
STAFF
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East Florida
Posts: 2,233
If I where the USMC, I would want a IAR that could also be seamless to their rifle/carbine, or future intent for a rifle/carbine system.
While I like my Hk416 uppers they are a drop on system using the M16FOW as a baseline - while this can be the easiest system to use it is self defeating if one is looking to a future NON M16FOW system in the next few years.
The FN system is the only surviving candidate that does not use the M16FOW architecture.
The question will be will the IAR and SCAR/Mk16 drive future weapon procurement or will the IAR become a casualty of the forseable M4/M16 replacments.
Secondly if I was the USMC I would have not ruled a smaller company out for the downselect, upon the agreement that they would work with a larger compan if the need required it.
I am however not the USMC.
__________________
"If you do not condem colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you making?"
-Ho Chi Minh
KevinBView Public ProfileSend a private message to KevinBSend email to KevinBFind all posts by KevinBhttp://www.m4carbine.net/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=buddy&u=550
However I think Trey Knight's comments after mine where much more interesting.
I understood it did not do very well - its an arcaic platform as well that does not do well to updating.
I posted some thoughts I had over at M4C
KevinB Invisible vbmenu_register("postmenu_280546", true);
STAFF
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East Florida
Posts: 2,233
If I where the USMC, I would want a IAR that could also be seamless to their rifle/carbine, or future intent for a rifle/carbine system.
While I like my Hk416 uppers they are a drop on system using the M16FOW as a baseline - while this can be the easiest system to use it is self defeating if one is looking to a future NON M16FOW system in the next few years.
The FN system is the only surviving candidate that does not use the M16FOW architecture.
The question will be will the IAR and SCAR/Mk16 drive future weapon procurement or will the IAR become a casualty of the forseable M4/M16 replacments.
Secondly if I was the USMC I would have not ruled a smaller company out for the downselect, upon the agreement that they would work with a larger compan if the need required it.
I am however not the USMC.
__________________
"If you do not condem colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you making?"
-Ho Chi Minh
KevinBView Public ProfileSend a private message to KevinBSend email to KevinBFind all posts by KevinBhttp://www.m4carbine.net/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=buddy&u=550
#120 
Yesterday, 04:05 PM
III Offline vbmenu_register("postmenu_280568", true);
Industry Professional
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 106
I think an interesting direction given the scope and cost of this program would be to look at the LSAT program. A case telescope round firing weapon with multiple chambers would not be much less susceptible to cook off issues. Given the time and money invested in the SCAR program perhaps we should be looking at an infantry rifle that can use a common round to the LSAT. The weight savings and potential reliability increase would make these large investments true "leap ahead" performance increase. Given it seems to be 5 to 10 years untill these programs get fielded we should start looking further "down the road". Just one persons opinion and I am not trying to offend anyone just trying to have intelligent conversation.
__________________
C Reed Knight III
Knight's Armament Co.
http://www.knightarmco.com/
Industry Professional
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 106
I think an interesting direction given the scope and cost of this program would be to look at the LSAT program. A case telescope round firing weapon with multiple chambers would not be much less susceptible to cook off issues. Given the time and money invested in the SCAR program perhaps we should be looking at an infantry rifle that can use a common round to the LSAT. The weight savings and potential reliability increase would make these large investments true "leap ahead" performance increase. Given it seems to be 5 to 10 years untill these programs get fielded we should start looking further "down the road". Just one persons opinion and I am not trying to offend anyone just trying to have intelligent conversation.
__________________
C Reed Knight III
Knight's Armament Co.
http://www.knightarmco.com/
Last edited:
Given all the past problems with drum magazine reliability and ruggedness has there been any dramatic leap in drum mag technology that would permit them to stand up to hard tour in the mountains in A-stan or dusty, rubble-strewn streets of Fallujah?
Given the improvements and performance of the FN system over the past two decades, it seems a like a step backward to return to a rifle/drum concept.
Given the improvements and performance of the FN system over the past two decades, it seems a like a step backward to return to a rifle/drum concept.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Sorry no intent to derail this thread, but isn't this the philosophy that the Russians took decades ago? Also, weapons that were issued to Iraq military follow this line of thinking don't they?
Iraq AK:
Iraq RPK:
And this philosophy even flows to their DMR weapon the Tabuk in 7.62 x 39:
Hi Kevin,
maybe you have some insight and/or experience with the SCAR.
I get how the upper receiver is the main modular piece, whereas the barrel can be swapped for a different length/caliber, the trigger/pistol grip unit with mag well can be swapped and etc....
However, doesn't one need to pop off the lower, the buttstock(which must detach completely), just for the user to get to the bolt group for cleaning?
That is arguebly one of the best parts of ARs: push a pin and you can get the bolt group whereas with the SCAR you have a few major pieces hanging around and care for that LITTLE CHARGING HANDLE PIN FOB.
I have no doubt that when all together it performs and for having a single architecture for multiple purposes, it probably makes sense but I can't get around some of the general maintenance/user compromises....
Tell me I'm crazy.
Sidenote:
I'd love to see some money and research backing help look into developing the Magpul/Bushmaster project.
Last edited:
