HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
yep blank I did, great article. I would love to have one of those M27's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
I don't know who mparker is but he's now my hero:wink:

I can't tell you how many times I've confronted that dim bulb "sinless" on other boards where he is spreading his obvious hate for everything HK.

That was a fun read, I don't post over there any more because it is pointless to argue with people who can't maintain an IQ >25.

Thanks for firing that one off over there bermise!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
641 Posts
This concept was one of the choices using a Colt version many years ago. Now HK wins a big contract. As a former Infantry and Scout Plt Sgt I would actually rather have a belt fed weapon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
Just talked with a vet buddy who was a lcpl gunner in the marines, he and couple of his buddies were brought to the middle of mississippi to do test on a weapon to replace the m249. Guess these were what he was testing. He did say the majority of the offerings were all based around making the overall package lighter for the gunners. Because as anyone who has held one knows, m249's are not exactly light, although they lay down one hell of a cover fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Exactly. Everyone keeps asking why replace the belt fed weapon? This is NOT replacing the SAW 249. This is just a new addition for a more run and gun style Infantry rifle. Lighter and easier to maneveur.The SAW will remain in use in the Marines and is a great weapon for laying down covering fire.
 

·
H&K Certified Armorer
Joined
·
8,216 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Exactly. Everyone keeps asking why replace the belt fed weapon? This is NOT replacing the SAW 249. This is just a new addition for a more run and gun style Infantry rifle. Lighter and easier to maneveur.The SAW will remain in use in the Marines and is a great weapon for laying down covering fire.
The M27 IAR replaces the heavier, M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) which has been used by the Marines in Infantry Squads since the mid-1980s in the automatic rifle role. Both weapons fire the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge.

so its not being replaced? or is it? article seems to say it is...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Here is how I understand it.

The plan is to buy 4,100 IARs and reduce the number of SAWs in the Corps from 10,000 to 8,000, Cantwell said.

“We are still going to maintain SAWs in the company,” he said. “Only 2,000 SAWs will be replaced. The reminder will be kept as an organizational weapon for when commanders need them.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
The M27 IAR replaces the heavier, M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) which has been used by the Marines in Infantry Squads since the mid-1980s in the automatic rifle role. Both weapons fire the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge.

so its not being replaced? or is it? article seems to say it is...
It replaces M249 SAW in AR (Automatic Rifle) role, but does not replace it in LMG (Light Machine Gun) role. It is easier to understand in ex-Warsaw Pact countries, because we never used one gun to do all. We had RPK (and versions) in one role and PK (and versions) in second role. Since M60 US wanted to have "do all" weapon that is both AR and LMG. And when something does everything, it does nothing good enough.

ETA: Disclaimer: Of course Warsaw Pact doctrine of infantry was different from US / NATO but some similarities in concept of AR and LMG come from common experience for WW2.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,248 Posts
It replaces M249 SAW in AR (Automatic Rifle) role, but does not replace it in LMG (Light Machine Gun) role. It is easier to understand in ex-Warsaw Pact countries, because we never used one gun to do all. We had RPK (and versions) in one role and PK (and versions) in second role. Since M60 US wanted to have "do all" weapon that is both AR and LMG. And when something does everything, it does nothing good enough.
Well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
It replaces M249 SAW in AR (Automatic Rifle) role, but does not replace it in LMG (Light Machine Gun) role. It is easier to understand in ex-Warsaw Pact countries, because we never used one gun to do all. We had RPK (and versions) in one role and PK (and versions) in second role. Since M60 US wanted to have "do all" weapon that is both AR and LMG. And when something does everything, it does nothing good enough.

ETA: Disclaimer: Of course Warsaw Pact doctrine of infantry was different from US / NATO but some similarities in concept of AR and LMG come from common experience for WW2.
FYI the M249SAW didn't replace the M60 in the squad machine gun position, that was the 7.62mm M240b. M249 is the automatic rifle position at the team level. The M249 SAW only replaced the M60 in support units like signal, supply, etc.

A basic infantry squad is (or atleast was) made of the machine gun team (.30 cal), radio man, squad leader, and two teams. Each team has a team leader, grenadier, automatic rifleman (5.56) and a few basic riflemen.

ETA: The marines are replacing *some* M249 automatic rifles with the new version. It's not a complete abolition of the SAW. I forget the numbers, but there will still be a significantly higher number of M249 than the new IAR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
FYI the M249SAW didn't replace the M60 in the squad machine gun position, that was the 7.62mm M240b. M249 is the automatic rifle position at the team level. The M249 SAW only replaced the M60 in support units like signal, supply, etc.
I know. M60 was even more "do all" than M249 SAW. It was GPMG in role of MG, LMG and AR. M249 SAW was tasked only with LMG and AR duties :)

Also here PK and PKM was/is workhorse on several levels. Actually in People's Army of Poland we had highest number or them per unit that rest of Warsaw Pact, since we did not adopt RPK in role of AR. And we did not use PK/PKM in role of AR. Here every soldier was considered Automatic Rifleman with AKM. Even grenadier with kbkg wz. 60 was AR at same time. We just had more Machine Gunners.

Disclaimer: this is simplification of course.

Personally I think IAR is a great idea, regardless it came from HK or from someone else, as long as properly executed in design and make.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Personally I think IAR is a great idea, regardless it came from HK or from someone else, as long as properly executed in design and make.
I couldn't agree more. I actually hated the SAW when they came to my unit. It was big, bulky, and I thought the whole afterthought of a magazine well added to the side of a belt fed gun was ridiculous. It's only real benefit was being belt fed, and the increased rate of fire. I definitely do understand USMC's desire to have something that is more mobile.

Also, I guess I could have been a little clearer. In basic infantry units, the M249 replaced full auto M16s in the AR role. I can't say that I ever heard of the M60 being used as an AR. It was always a crew served MG.

Marine spokesman Major Joseph Plenzler in a press statement in June said:
“After a rigorous testing process, both in garrison and deployed environments, and in-depth consultation with weapons experts through the Corps, the commandant approved the fielding of the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle,”
I look forward to hearing about USMCs experiences with this platform. Does anyone know if there has been anything published about any of the testing involved?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
My father did 3 tours in Vietnam and 2 tours he was infantry and the last tour a Cobra pilot. He said the M60 was a great weapon to have when out numbered and was a great weapon for suppressive and covering fire. He did tell me the biggest problem his platoon saw was the M60 barrel over heating during more intense combat. He told me stories of guys swapping barrels during conflicts and some guys pissing on barrels to cool them down. I love the sound of a M60 in full auto fire!!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top