USMC to get rid of M249?

drache

BANNED
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
BANNED
Rating - 98.2%
54   1   0
Goodbye SAW, Hello IAR

The decision has been made: The Marine Corps will replace the venerable M249 Squad Automatic Weapon — long the bulwark of fire superiority in the Marine infantry squad — with the more accurate and reliable M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle.

Military.com has the exclusive breaking story this morning on how the Corps has made up its mind.

Marine infantry squads will replace their M249 light machine gun with a highly accurate, auto rifle geared for fast-moving assaults. In late May, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, approved a plan to field the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle to all Marine infantry battalions.

The lightweight auto rifle, made by Heckler & Koch, is a variant of the 5.56mm H&K 416. It weighs just under eight pounds unloaded — almost 10 pounds less than the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

The decision comes after the Corps fielded 458 M27s to five battalions as they prepared for upcoming deployments to Afghanistan.

“We wanted to get through the limited fielding and get the feedback before we moved ahead with the full fielding,” said Charles Clark III, who oversees infantry weapons requirements at the Corps’ Combat Development and Integration office in Quantico, Va.

But there are a couple of pullouts I thought Kit Up! readers would be interested to see.

First, gunners and other infantry experts recognized that since you can’t change barrels on an M27 like you can a SAW, the rate of fire needs to be kept down — particularly in hot weather (read Helmand summers).

And because gunners cannot change out over-heating barrels on the M27, they will likely keep sustained rates of fire at nearly 40 rounds per minute for 600 rounds on days with mild temperatures. They will have to reduce that to 28 rounds when the temps climb past 100 degrees.

And while the Corps still hasn’t decided on a high-capacity magazine option for the IAR, they’re tipping their hat to the Army which developed a new magazine last year that’s a lot better than its predecessor.

Marine weapons officials also maintain that the improved 30-round magazine that the Army developed for the M4 carbine and the M16 is working well in the M27.

Some are concerned that M27 gunners are not being issued higher-capacity magazines. Program officials have not ruled this out as a possibility for the future, but for now, gunners will carry about 22 of the standard 30-round magazines for a basic load.

The story says infantry companies will keep nine SAWs in reserve in case leaders want to beef up their firepower (we’ll speculate that this could be for defending a position like a COP)…but the die is cast, the SAW is largely done.



http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz1PHDZ5pQo
 
I've been surfing the interwebs for a bit trying to see WHY they're doing this... I'm not in the forces, but it seems bizarre to replace a LMG with a carbine...

So it's an HK416 with a 16.5" heavy barrel that's not changeable? Standard mags? WTF? I don't get it.
 
M27

But why? Can't really call that a SAW...
Single barrel (and only 16.5''), 30 rds mags, no decent bipod

Of course the M249 is heavier...
But is is a SAW...
28rds a minutes for sustain fire in Afg is not much for that type of weapon.
They will burn barrels like crazy
 
Give me 3 boxes of 200 linked ball over 22 mags any day. Who cares about accuracy for a LMG anyway, that's not the purpose of that weapon. I guess they don't have a need for sustained fire anymore.

I miss my C9, never cared how heavy it was and after a while you learned how to wear the barrel scabbard so it didn't smack you in the head every time you hit the dirt.;)
 
from marinecorpstimes- “What they found was that the SAW had definite advantages, but it also had definite disadvantages, and the two (disadvantages) that they noted were employment speed and accuracy,” Cantwell said. “So they recommended that we go for an automatic rifle for infantry units.”

“The idea is that it’s supposed to bridge the gap between the M16 and a machine gun for small units and fire teams,” Cantwell said. “What we found was that the SAW gunner ends up slowing down an assault, or the SAW gunner ends up getting put in a support fire position, neither one of which is really the ideal use for a fire team.”

In the coming years, the Corps plans to reduce the number of SAWs in the Corps from 11,381 weapons to about 8,000, officials said, causing a variety of changes for grunts."

“The biggest problem is it’s a mentality issue, and the issue [that] a 30-round magazine will go through too quickly,” Cantwell said. “That’s very true — if you use the same mentality that we use right now with the SAW, which is to pull the trigger at everything.

“There will be some training that goes into this,” he said. “We’re looking for a well-aimed shot, and then occasionally shooting a burst into a troop formation or an area target as opposed to what we do now, where we’re much more (laying) area fire with the SAW.”

That’s why the Army, which also uses the M249, has ruled out a soldier version of the Marine IAR.

second article -

“We are not considering adopting an auto rifle for the infantry squad,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga.

Army infantry officials maintain that switching from a 200-round belt to a 30-round magazine would cause Army squads to lose the high rate of fire they have with the M249.

“Volume of fire is important,” Radcliffe said. “The Marine Corps thinks it can get that out of a magazine-fed weapon. We don’t think the Army can.”

The M249’s sustained rate of fire is 85 rounds per minute. The requirement for the IAR calls for the weapon to fire 36 rounds per minute for 16 minutes, 40 seconds. The IAR also will be able to fire at a higher rate of 75 rounds per minute for eight minutes, Cantwell said.

"Unlike the M249 — which relies on a quick-change, spare barrel to keep the heat down — the IAR will have no spare barrel, Cantwell said. It will rely on the slower rate of fire and other features to manage the heat, such as the requirement that it fire from both the open- and close-bolt position."

"An open-bolt operation allows more air into the receiver and reduces the chance of a round cooking off in an overheated chamber, Cantwell said. The close-bolt mode offers more accurate fire and lowers the risk of a negligent discharge from the bolt slipping forward as a gunner maneuvers, he said."

"Cantwell conceded that “there is a sacrifice of the volume of fire,” but the ability to move fast and fire accurately outweighs it. With the IAR, “you have a more maneuverable weapon that, we hope, allows the Marine [gunner] to be more effective.”


just kinda copied and pasted the good stuff -

h t tp://w w w.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/
ht t p://w w w.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/09/marine_iar_091308/

does anyone else see surefire making a huge bid with the 60 and 100 round extended capacity mags in the (very soon) future?
 
I've been surfing the interwebs for a bit trying to see WHY they're doing this... I'm not in the forces, but it seems bizarre to replace a LMG with a carbine...

So it's an HK416 with a 16.5" heavy barrel that's not changeable? Standard mags? WTF? I don't get it.

All I see is that the IAR is supposed to be more accurate. But about half the firing rate of the M249. The IAR can use a 100 round C-Mag but they have yet to be approved by the USMC so stuck using 30 round magazines. Granted the IAR weighs less....



Here's something snapped up from Wiki:
The Marine Corps is planning to purchase 4,100 IARs to replace 2,000 M249 light machine guns currently employed by automatic riflemen within Infantry and Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions. Approximately 8,000-10,000 M249s will remain in service at the company level to be used at the discretion of company commanders.
 
STRAIGHT GROM A GOVERNMENT WEBSITE:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a8698386e4300ceee7bc1067a71dab5c&tab=core&_cview=0

Synopsis:
Added: July 14, 2005
The United States Marine Corps is currently seeking information for a non-developmental, 5.56mm, Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR).

CAPABILITY DISCUSSION. The IAR will enable the fire team to rapidly suppress point and area targets of immediate concern. The IAR will replace the infantry’s M249 Squad Automatic Weapons (SAWs) with an automatic rifle easily operable by a single infantry Marine that emphasizes lightweight and portability in order to maximize dismounted maneuverability.

SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES. The attributes that follow describe some of the specific characteristics that are required to provide the desired capability. Some attributes include threshold and objective criteria. A threshold criterion is defined as a mandatory requirement and an objective criterion is defined as a desirable (but not mandatory) requirement. System Portability. The IAR (excluding the magazine and accessories) shall weigh less than 12.5 pounds empty (Threshold), 10.5 pounds (Obj! ective). Ammunition Commonality. The IAR shall fire 5.56 mm ammunition. Interoperability. The IAR shall possess a military standard 1913 rail interface. Sustained Rate of Fire. The IAR shall be capable of a sustained rate of fire of 36 rounds per minute (Threshold), 75 rounds per minute (Objective). (Sustained rate is defined as the rate at which a weapon can fire indefinitely without experiencing a major malfunction such as [but not limited to] a cook-off or a significant degradation in accuracy.) Magazine. The IAR shall utilize a magazine with a capacity of 100 rounds (Threshold). The magazine shall permit rapid visual determination of the number of rounds remaining (Objective). Magazine Compatibility. The IAR shall accept and function with the current Marine Corps service rifle (the M16A4) 30 round magazines. Firing modes. The IAR shall be capable of both semi-automatic and full automatic firing. Collapsible/Adjustable Bipod. The IAR shall possess a robust, ! detachable, collapsible, and adjustable bipod.

VENDOR RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. Information Sought By The Government. Vendors capable of providing a weapon system that demonstrates the attributes stated above, in whole or in part, are invited to submit a response to this notice. Vendors capable of meeting the attributes stated above by making minor product modifications are encouraged to respond to this notice. Vendors should submit detailed descriptions of any candidates to include drawings, pictures, brochures, etc. that will convey the operating principles as well as general and specific system capabilities behind the submissions. Vendors should submit production cost estimates for 4000 weapon systems (to include weapon, magazines, and additional accessories). Vendors should describe any past or current contracts whose deliverables satisfy items covered in this announcement, either in whole or in part. The Government’s intent is to pursue future ! competition in production. Presentation of Information To The Government in Hard Copy Format.
 
yeah both the links I used are taken from the references for the wiki page.

looks like the amount of ammo expended per fire fight is starting to get to the big wigs...
 
Only a moron would replace a belt-fed with a mag-fed "automatic rifle".

The (original?) story was that the IAR would suppliment the SAW so that there would be more firepower on tap.

But anyone who has played with both a Bren and then was issued a C2 will tell you that the Military (generally) is filled with stupid procurement personnel, who make bad decisions which result in dead combat personnel.
 
Yes, this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

The whole point of the M249 is to be able to lay down suppressive fire while the squad advances toward the enemy. I don't see how the IAR can do the same thing when it's limited to 30 rnd mags. Granted, the IAR is lighter than the M249, but I think the weight savings would be eaten up by the gunner having to carry 22 magazines.
 
I never liked the C9, even when I had one that ran well. The only thing I could ever think to say about one when I was carrying it was "At least it's lighter than a C6". Others have often disagreed with me. Many folks really like the C9 for their own reasons. But I'd rather hump a C6 along any day for the benefit of all it can do! I only wish we had better versions of the C6 to employ.

I am not surprised that they are going to this M27. It wasnt long ago that section level support came from a Bren gun or BAR. Compared to them, the M27 is a godsend. Lighter, easier to repair, easier to feed, and you can haul a ton of ammo. Its also got some pretty handy modularity to it too. That's probably the greatest strength of the platform. Its not the be-all and end-all in any particular category, but it does most everything reasonably well.

Also, don't forget, the Marines are not intended to be an occupying force. They are like a naval version of the airborne, mandated to perform shorter duration, highly aggressive missions with little support.

They aren't the gunners in the bunker at Omaha. They are the guys trying to get up the beach. Which would you rather carry?
 
How does the IAR give you more firepower than an M4? Just a heatsink and full auto? They aren't replacing the SAW, they are just eliminating it.

Supposedly its just slightly better for full auto. But I think the MC was trying to get around the system to get a piston rifle. To be honest I never understand why can't they change the upper receiver to the point it can accept quick changing barrel. This is something Steyr AUG still beats AR to this day...
 
How does the IAR give you more firepower than an M4? Just a heavier barrel and no tri-burst? They aren't replacing the SAW, they are just eliminating it.

See there's the kicker. The USMC generally carries the M16A4 with three round burst or the M4 Carbine with three round burst.

So why not just equip the Marines with an M4A1 with a heavier barrel and be done with it? The M4A1 actually has a higher rate of fire than the M27....

M27 - Rate of fire 560 to 640 rpm
M4A1 - Rate of fire 700 to 950 rpm
 
See there's the kicker. The USMC generally carries the M16A4 with three round burst or the M4 Carbine with three round burst.

So why not just equip the Marines with an M4A1 with a heavier barrel and be done with it? The M4A1 actually has a higher rate of fire than the M27....

M27 - Rate of fire 560 to 640 rpm
M4A1 - Rate of fire 700 to 950 rpm

Didn't they try something like thiswith the M16 back in the "60'-"70's and it didn't work?

As I said before, it was rumored to be trying to circumvent the system of procuring another rifle

Supposedly its just slightly better for full auto. But I think the MC was trying to get around the system to get a piston rifle. To be honest I never understand why can't they change the upper receiver to the point it can accept quick changing barrel. This is something Steyr AUG still beats AR to this day...
 
Back
Top Bottom