The Marine Corps is Experimenting With a New Service Rifle - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73

Thread: The Marine Corps is Experimenting With a New Service Rifle

  1. #41
    Requiescat in Pace
    G3Kurz's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2005
    Location : Where the rivers meet
    Age : 60
    Posts : 3,807
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fargo007 View Post
    Can anyone call BS on the $3000?

    Last I heard, LE pricing was around $1600, but that may not be true anymore.
    Good posts on what that $3000 buys. Not just the rifle.
    Soldier Insurance (SGLI) for survivors is what - $250-400K now?
    That's 83 - 133 better, more reliable, more accurate and capable rifles in the hands of those "at risk".
    Had the paratroops at Wanat had M27's and not M4's if is highly likely their guns would not have quit due to overheating and some or all of the 9 killed would still be with us today.
    For the cost of one F35 ($98M) the USMC could field 33K M27's to one 5th of their active duty Marines or most or all of their front liners.
    G3Kurz
    Last edited by G3Kurz; 11-22-2016 at 02:57 PM.

  2. #42
    Unrepentant HKHolic
    SudS's Avatar
    Join Date : Jan 2001
    Location : Northern, VA
    Posts : 8,082
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G3Kurz View Post
    For the cost of one F35 ($98M) the USMC could field 33K M27's to one 5th of their active duty Marines or most or all of their front liners.
    G3Kurz
    Funny you should say that, buddy of mine is on that F35 negotiation team...and it's going into the claim process because they couldn't come to an agreement. May end up costing more rifles before it's all done. The thing about buying the best for the warfighter, cost is always a factor, and paying a premium generally involves some real good trade-off analysis, especially when the premium is significant and the likelihood of a protest great.

  3. #43
    HKPRO Professional

    Join Date : Jul 2003
    Posts : 1,116
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G3Kurz View Post
    Good posts on what that $3000 buys. Not just the rifle.
    Soldier Insurance (SGLI) for survivors is what - $250-400K now?
    That's 83 - 133 better, more reliable, more accurate and capable rifles in the hands of those "at risk".
    Had the paratroops at Wanat had M27's and not M4's if is highly likely their guns would not have quit due to overheating and some or all of the 9 killed would still be with us today.
    For the cost of one F35 ($98M) the USMC could field 33K M27's to one 5th of their active duty Marines or most or all of their front liners.
    G3Kurz
    There are people willing to take very long walks in order to exonerate the M4 from what happened at Wanat.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    HKPro.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #44
    Junior Member
    nunez2196's Avatar
    Join Date : Nov 2016
    Posts : 31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer27 View Post
    No it's about right. Cost four times what an M4 costs.

    In response to the whole M249 vs M27 debate that still continues....

    The M27 is an Infantry Automatic Rifle. The M249 was the Squad Automatic Weapon. Now the M249 is designated a/the LMG, Light Machine Gun.
    These are night and day differences, we're not replacing an apple with an apple we're substituting an apple with an orange.

    The M27 enables:
    1) Better ammunition compatibility. If your M249 goes down you now have thousands of rounds that are not immediately usable. If you need to feed your M249 with a magazine you're rolling the dice; there's a reason the capability was eliminated from SOCOM's Mk46.
    2) Better accuracy. Suppression is more than just a beaten zone. The best suppression is the enemy seeing his buddy's head explode. Moreover, I don't need a continuous belt of 200rds. Firing prolonged bursts is for ISIL. "Talking guns" is how you work suppression and the magazine change is arguably easier to deal with than having to work a gun with two people.
    3) Lighter. Better for the Marine in all stages. And it just plain sucks to fast rope with a machine gun.
    4) Blends in. You're not the weirdo with different pouches and a shiny belt hanging off your obviously larger weapon. Now you're just another guy with an AR.

    Other considerations:
    1) If you need a machine gun, take an M240 on a tripod with a dedicated machine gun team. That weapon system then goes in a support by fire position. Your M27's go with your maneuver element. If you understand that, combined arms, and what an internal base of fire really is, there really is very little lost by eliminating the M249 from the rifle squad.
    2) The M27 is hindered by the optic. If it had a better, more modern optic the weapon would be exceptionally versatile and more effective.
    3) Higher capacity magazines would be beneficial for the M27, but not at the expense of logic (I'm looking at you Surefire 100rd banana).
    4) 3rd burst is needlessly complicated and a hindrance, full auto was the right choice.
    excellent post sir, everything you said lines up exactly with what i've observed and know as an IAR Gunner. The M27 is loved by Riflemen for a reason. I especially like how you mention the M240, we rarely pull or even train with M249s when the superior M240 will fill Machine Gun roles far better. I don't know if I agree with you on the optic, I quite like it.

  6. #45
    Priest of the P7
    bastardsonofelvis's Avatar
    Join Date : May 2012
    Location : Colorado
    Posts : 4,641
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FS1 View Post
    From a Taxpaying citizens point of view. I think the US armed forces should have the best infantry weapon available. No matter the cost. I would not want my kids fighting for their Country and lives with anything less. JMHO
    As a stingy tax payer who gets bent over harder than many, I agree with you. Our dollars are pissed away on a lot of garbage and pork and this would be a relatively very small expenditure by our government. But we're too busy paying people to be lazy and paying billions for jets that don't work to replace ones that worked just fine.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

  7. #46
    Member
    patriot_man's Avatar
    Join Date : Sep 2012
    Location : CA
    Posts : 75
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G3Kurz View Post
    Not true.
    It was developed for 16.5" barrels and no issues there.
    It has also been fired in 11.5 and 14.5 inch barrels.
    G3Kurz
    Thanks for the info! Would love a commercial offering of .264 USA in the near future.

  8. #47
    Member
    Hammer27's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2016
    Location : Virginia Beach
    Posts : 98
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nunez2196 View Post
    I don't know if I agree with you on the optic, I quite like it.
    I wouldn't have as much of an issue if the SDO was made for the IAR. The stadia lines don't match up to the ballistics of the rifle because it was meant for the M249. An iteration of the RCO calibrated for the IAR (IE "RCOM27" vs "RCOM4") would be a step in the right direction. And that is ignoring any issues with the Trijicon as it stands now.

  9. #48
    Junior Member
    nunez2196's Avatar
    Join Date : Nov 2016
    Posts : 31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer27 View Post
    I wouldn't have as much of an issue if the SDO was made for the IAR. The stadia lines don't match up to the ballistics of the rifle because it was meant for the M249. An iteration of the RCO calibrated for the IAR (IE "RCOM27" vs "RCOM4") would be a step in the right direction. And that is ignoring any issues with the Trijicon as it stands now.
    ah, that's a good point you bring up especially since the IAR is supposed to be a precise rifle. I guess I just really like how I get an RMR while the other guys don't (really nice during MOUT) that and i'm never expected to have DM level accuracy, so i often fire and adjust anyways.

  10. #49
    Desperately Needs Treatment
    M995's Avatar
    Join Date : May 2010
    Location : Canada
    Posts : 1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by G3Kurz View Post
    Not true.
    It was developed for 16.5" barrels and no issues there.
    It has also been fired in 11.5 and 14.5 inch barrels.
    G3Kurz
    Thanks G3Kurz for the update regarding the potential characteristics of future US small arms and info on the .264 USA. I do hope that the US fields either the .264 or .277 USA starting in the 2020s period for its combat troops.

    In a previous post in this thread, you mentioned a USMC assessment of alternative calibers. Was that USMC assessment the Joint FBI/USMC Test Evaluation Report For the Alternate Ammunition Study Phase 1 from 2006 which concluded that both 5.56mm barrier blind projectiles and larger calibers offered improvements in performance over the then current 5.56mm rounds and that if an alternative optimal caliber is identified, then that caliber should be designed in a barrier blind configuration in order to create optimal rifle ammunition?

    Also, may I ask you a question on compact carbines in larger intermediate calibers because I don't know much about the performance of .264 and .277 USA from subcompact weapon barrels. Was .264 USA tested in the 11.5" barrel configuration rather than a shorter barrel length because the test guns used the DI operating system so a 10.5" barrel DI would have around 40% less dwell time than their 11.5" counterparts and is therefore less reliable than a 11.5" barrel when all other factors are equal. Or is 11.5" the best barrel length for a .264/.277 USA caliber subcompact weapon due to excessive muzzle blast, potential issues with blown suppressors, (From what I read online, there have been reports of blown suppressors on 7.62x51mm 12" barrel weapons but please correct me if this is wrong or if the issues have now been fixed), etc with barrels shorter than that length?
    Last edited by M995; 11-25-2016 at 07:36 PM.

  11. #50
    Requiescat in Pace
    G3Kurz's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2005
    Location : Where the rivers meet
    Age : 60
    Posts : 3,807
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M995 View Post
    Thanks G3Kurz for the update regarding the potential characteristics of future US small arms and info on the .264 USA. I do hope that the US fields either the .264 or .277 USA starting in the 2020s period for its combat troops.

    In a previous post in this thread, you mentioned a USMC assessment of alternative calibers. Was that USMC assessment the Joint FBI/USMC Test Evaluation Report For the Alternate Ammunition Study Phase 1 from 2006 which concluded that both 5.56mm barrier blind projectiles and larger calibers offered improvements in performance over the then current 5.56mm rounds and that if an alternative optimal caliber is identified, then that caliber should be designed in a barrier blind configuration in order to create optimal rifle ammunition?

    Also, may I ask you a question on compact carbines in larger intermediate calibers because I don't know much about the performance of .264 and .277 USA from subcompact weapon barrels. Was .264 USA tested in the 11.5" barrel configuration rather than a shorter barrel length because the test guns used the DI operating system so a 10.5" barrel DI would have around 40% less dwell time than their 11.5" counterparts and is therefore less reliable than a 11.5" barrel when all other factors are equal. Or is 11.5" the best barrel length for a .264/.277 USA caliber subcompact weapon due to excessive muzzle blast, potential issues with blown suppressors, (From what I read online, there have been reports of blown suppressors on 7.62x51mm 12" barrel weapons but please correct me if this is wrong or if the issues have now been fixed), etc with barrels shorter than that length?
    Hello David:

    How was your Thanksgiving? It was a pleasure meeting you at the 2016 Day with HK.
    ALL future combat cartridges must be barrier blind (until of course we fight against a nudist colony).

    .264 USA was developed for 16.5" barrels. However it will be tested in 2017 in 11.5"and 14.5" barrels. I am confident it will perform well from those barrel lengths based on th BTB projectiles that will be loaded in it at 108-135 grain weights. While it may suffer from lower launch and strike velocities it is still going to be a projo at 2 the weight of 5.56mm.

    G3Kurz

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

 
 

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

isil

Click on a term to search for related topics.