Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: USMC M27 to be fielded

  1. #1

    Default USMC M27 to be fielded

    So I tried a search, but M27 and IAR were both too short to be included which made it hard and looking around I couldn't find this yet posted, surprisingly.

    http://www.military.com/news/article...placement.html

    The Marine Corps will field its new, lightweight auto rifle this fall to five combat battalions preparing for war-zone deployments.
    Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in four infantry battalions and one light armored reconnaissance battalion.
    The limited fielding is a final test to find out if the Heckler & Koch-made weapon performs as well in an operational environment as it has in testing, said Charles Clark III, who oversees infantry weapons requirements at the Corps' Combat Development and Integration office at Quantico, Va.
    "The battlefield test will be a verification of what we have already established through extensive operational testing," Clark said. "We want to get a user assessment prior to full-rate production."

  2. #2
    Senior Member Arnie100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    5,977

    Default

    I still think this is a bad idea...

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arnie100 View Post
    I still think this is a bad idea...
    I think it has potential, once a larger capacity magazine and possibly an interchangeable barrel are incorporated.

  4. #4
    Senior Member HollywoodMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of the Angels
    Posts
    7,020

    Thumbs down

    That's not potential... that's a new weapon system and magazines suck when firing full auto. Thumb down!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,696

    Default

    Larger capacity magazine seems a must. I mean, they've been mucking around with squad automatic weapons since the BAR in WW2 and the conclusion has always been "more ammo for sustained fire".

  6. #6
    Senior Member Arnie100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    5,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakki View Post
    the conclusion has always been "more ammo for sustained fire".
    How are they gonna do that with what is essentially a heavy-barreled rifle?

  7. #7
    Garand Member Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,316

    Arrow

    I really have my doubts about this as well. That being said, an armchair ordnance geek like me is in no position to second-guess the guys who do the real deal every day. And I must admit, this concept is similar to the Russian RPK in significant ways, and I do not see the Russians dumping that weapon because it lacks an interchangeable barrel. I just hope that this works out for the best.

  8. #8

    Default

    It has been said before and will be said again before the day is done. But we tried this with the L85/LSW combination it didnt deliver enough fire to surpress and it took two campaigns in Iraq and Afgan to eventually convince those holding the purse strings that we needed a belt fed section weapon. This of course ended up being the LMG or M249 as the USMC is replacing. I can appreciate the desire to lighten the load and increase speed of movement but I just wonder if it wont cause casualties in practice. I really hope not.

  9. #9

    Default

    guys its pretty obvious they are only calling it an IAR to sneak piston rifle procurement past congress.

  10. #10
    Going Rogue seraosha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9,919

    Default

    M60

    next?

  11. #11
    Krachslhuaba He219's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    23,087

    Default

    The HK416 was recalled because of extended-use carrier tilt damage.
    M27 would seem to magnify the issue...

    If the USMC wants to go HK - then they should just go for the MG43!


    Direct Impingement still has my vote over off-axial piston impacts to the carrier of an AR platform.
    AR piston technology still needs a few more years to be perfected.
    Last edited by He219; 07-02-2010 at 01:08 PM.

  12. #12

    Default

    Why MG4?? Either stick to the SAW (which is just as good as the MG4) or take the IAR (in order to sneak into the piston movement)....

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by He219 View Post
    The HK416 was recalled because of extended-use carrier tilt damage.
    M27 would seem to magnify the issue...

    If the USMC wants to go HK - then they should just go for the MG43!


    Direct Impingement still has my vote over off-axial piston impacts to the carrier of an AR platform.
    AR piston technology still needs a few more years to be perfected.
    Ive never had so much as a hiccup from my 416 but to be honest we put hundreds rather than thousands off rounds through them. I wouldnt like to use it in a support role or for suppression. Im assuming they will use something other than the Harris bipods we use though.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Sabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,694

    Default

    Hmmm....we've effectively completely ditched the L86 now in favour of the minimi. It seems the USMC are choosing to go the other way. Not sure why though.

    Give me a GPMG and spare barrel any day of the week.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    defending rockall for the evil empire
    Posts
    4,538

    Default

    well the weapon seems very nice but your getting a heavier rifle not sure how long it will last as does'nt appear to bring anything extra to the fight

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •