USMC Experimenting by Suppressing an Entire Battalion

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post14 Jan 2018, 09:14

https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/01/ ... runts.html

Neller has in the past expressed reservations about investing in new weapons and technology for Marine grunts. The IAR, based on the Heckler & Koch HK416, offers a longer effective range and better accuracy than the M4 carbine currently fielded to infantrymen, but it also has come with a steeper price tag: about $3,000 a piece compared to less than $1,000 for the M4.

That may no longer be the case.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade, the gunner for 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, told Military.com that competition and economies of scale have pushed the cost of the M27 down significantly.

"The price for that rifle is comparable to what we paid for the M4s the riflemen currently have," he said. "These companies are competing against each other. And we now have bought the finest infantry rifle for the same price the current infantry rifle is."


If Glock can sell Glocks to LE for $100 / piece, HK can sell the IAR for $1K / rifle.

The Marines' new 5th-generation fighter, the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, costs roughly $100 million per copy, Neller told troops at one of a dozen town hall-style addresses he gave in the span of seven days in late December.

"I could kit out every grunt in the Marine Corps with the coolest s*** head-to-toe for $100 million," he said. "And I intend to do that."

For what else may be coming for the infantry, look to the "Über Squad," an experiment started this year by Wade.

This summer, the 13-Marine unit from 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, was kitted out with M27s, suppressors, and high-tech Ops-Core helmets borrowed from Marine Corps Special Operations Command that feature built-in hearing protection, but also magnify other sounds to improve situational awareness.

The Marines used light MARSOC body armor and advanced AN/PVS-31A night vision devices. They also got 60-round Magpul drums, allowing them to increase the amount of ammunition they carried.

Wade said that the high-end night vision equipment had proved its worth recently during a nighttime exercise at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, California.

"That rifle squad moved faster at night than the live fire-safety chaperones," he said. "[The Über Squad moved too fast for them to keep up because they had better night vision goggles."


Early efforts to pursue suppressors are also underway.

In September, the Marine Corps published a request for information about a commercially available suppressor that could be used on the M4, the M4A1, and the M27-- effectively covering all service weapons used by the infantry. While an early effort, the document instructed prospective suppliers to be ready to supply in large numbers.

"Future procurement quantities of suppressors could span between 18,000 and 194,000," the RFI reads.

Wade said he's not yet happy with the suppressor currently in use by the Marine Corps for specialized jobs. He plans to start tests on a flow-through design that reduces signature, he said.

Add to all that one more key piece of gear: a variable power optic that, combined with the M27 and a suppressor, would essentially kit out every Marine in the squad as a designated marksman. Wade said he wants to equip infantry squads from different platoons with various optics and compare their performance to make the case for more powerful equipment.


HK416 platform is pretty well optimized and thoroughly combat tested running suppressors.

In an address to Marines with the Black Sea Rotational Force in Romania, Neller hinted at future developments.

"Helmets, [ear protection enhancement], lighter body armor, boots, utilities, everything on the infantry from head to toe is probably going to get changed," Neller said. "Every Marine's a rifleman, but not every Marine's a grunt."

The infantrymen in the room roared.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 04:30

charlielima223 wrote:Aside from all my poo talk of the USMC (it is just for what the "hell why not" and inter service rivalry fun)


It made you look foolish and ignorant of what you spoke of.



This is just going to be all encompassing.


hooray.


Statement - SOCOM uses it so it must be good
Rebuttal - Yes SOCOM did acquire the Hk416 in limited numbers for their higher level SOF units (CAG/SFOD-D and DEVGRU) though the vast majority of units within SOCOM use the M4A1. Also SOCOM has stopped procuring and has since defunded the Hk416. The procurement of the Hk416 was mainly because the Mk.18 by NSWC-Crane Division was still in development. For all intents and purposes it was a stop gap measure and that the Hk416 was more readily available at the time. Mk.18s in service now can essentially do everything the Hk416 can.


People should use what SF uses unless its the 416. Got it.

Same arguments as F-35 If its so good why isn't blank using it, while ignoring all the folks who do.

If you recall you are the one promoting SF as the trailblazers that main stream army should be following.


If USSOCOMs procurement of the Hk416 is an endorsement, then what about British SAS still using the M4A1?


Bulletproof logic.If the SAS are using M4A1 is an endorsement why are Russians still using AKs? :doh:



Statement - Other people use the Hk416 and piston operated assault rifles.
Rebuttal - However in more recent developments other nations have moved away from gas piston assault rifles to DI assault rifles. More notably the NZDF replaced their Steyr AUGs with a DI operated AR-15 developed by LMT. It is also worth noting that many SOF units for other nations use the M4A1 is still their go to weapon of choice. Notably British SAS and Australian SASR. There is no doubt that other nations use the Hk416 yet there are many more that use the M4 or M4A1.


and many have moved towards them. I really don't care whether the HK family is "trending" or not. we can play all day the but so and so uses this game. I really don't care. The MArines aren't basing their decision on what works for the SAS. My only point was that the 416 is actually picking orders up as well, the latest big users being the French and the USMC.


Statement - M27 is better for amphibious and maritime operations.
Rebuttal - This is not completely true nor is it completely false. USN SEALs, AFSOC, USMC Force Recon (or MARSOC... I don't know what they're calling themselves now), and USASOC units have used their M4A1 for YEARS in amphibious and maritime operations with no issues.


no issues? really? well Okey dokey!

The M27s and Hk416s "over the beach" feature is often overstated, over hyped, and over rated. With a few choice modifications, the M4A1 can handle amphibious and maritime operations just as well as M27 or Hk416. Besides how often are you going to see Marines storming a beach head treading and swimming through water? I thought that is what LCACs and Amphibious Assault Vehicles are for. Do we still intend to storm onto beach front property in Higgins Boats?


And to think I wasted all that time with swim qual and water survival and combat training. You are truly the Master of Maritime operations. and I bow down to your obvious knowledge of the USMC's operaitions

All these Marines can just STFU now, since youve made your ruling.

Statement - Gas pistons AR-15s handle dirt, dust, debris and mud better then DI
Rebuttal - The statement that a gas piston AR pattern rifle/carbine handles dust and dirt better is often over hyped without much research or experience by the individual making the claim. Here is fun video by InRangeTV dispelling this myth that a DI gas operated AR-15 can't handle adverse conditions.

Here is a video by MAC with sand

The gas system for piston operated AR pattern rifles/carbine have no real relevance on actual reliability in adverse conditions. If debris manages to enter the trigger group and BCG, it will cause ANY AR-15 pattern rifle/carbine to fail regardless of gas operating system it uses.


And yet, somehow the Marines are convinced.

Statement - Gas piston AR-15s run cleaner there for will operate better and will be more reliable
Rebuttal - This is false if you're a dialed in user with experience of both piston operated systems and DI AR-15s. Here is a fun read of an old article.
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4 ... nreliable/
From personal experience I have implemented the same drop in parts to my Colt 6920 and have since seen an overall improvement during long courses of fire. From personal experience again, having a clean or dirty AR-15 has no real effect on how my AR-15 operates. What it really comes down to is periodic parts inspection. I can have a clean BCG and chamber properly lubed but if I have a weak extractor, buffer spring, gas rings, or a bad gas key; it doesn't matter. Same goes with gas piston systems. If the rod is bent or piston spring is crap; it wont work


Yep its all the same, got it.


Also if someone thinks a gas piston system is easier to clean, try cleaning a SAW or 240... both are essentially gas piston systems and are a real B to clean.


your comparing cleaning an M-27 to a 240 or SAW? Really? You know how I know you don't know anything about M27s other than what someone said on the internet?

Simply put you're just dumping gas and its fouling from one area to the other.


Nope. Guess again

Grunts cleaning their weapons is a way for command and leadership to keep them out of trouble (idle hands are the devils workshop). Instead of drilling soldiers and marines to clean their weapons, how about teaching them how to inspect parts on their weapons as well. Clean weapon only help in smooth mechanical operation.


The do, regardless I blame the scourge of the M27 for this as well. Global warming too.


Statement - M27 is beats out M4A1 in full auto operation
Rebuttal - Not really. Though the M27 does have a better barrel, the M4A1 used by the US Army and SOCOM also have heavy profile barrels to better handle heat. Again I point to youtube.
This is an M4A1 model that did not have the new heavy profile barrel


DI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw&t=2s
Piston

The round count before failure between the two are very comparable



Don't care.

For the price, the M4A1 costs the US Military between 600-700 dollars and with a few off the shelf parts can make that standard issue M4A1 even better and it would still come in cheaper then a 3k wunderwaffe.


And there it is. its german and it costs. the real problem

According to the article Citinon posted much like the F-35 the cost is going to come down as the production scale ramps up (deja vu! Hooray I'm making the same arguments!)

For the record you can put an M-27 upper on a regular M-4 lower, one need only change the buffer and buffer spring

USASOC is already looking at it...

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/08/us ... its-m4a1s/

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... eynote.pdf[/quote]

oh crap if USASOC is looking into it!! I'm sold!!

You are really hung up on this one huh? anyway

Lets crown this one the king. I just have a feeling this is going to work better than the gov profiled M-4, SCAR, HK416, SOPMOD Blocks, all thsoe other SOCOM flavor of the weeks. etc. This is true love I can tell. The army should adopt this immediately. Everyone needs to be like SOCOM and USASOC except for the times they shouldn't be just like them like when they adopted the 416 for example. Youve been clear as mud on this. Get it together big army! and follow SF's lead before they change their mind again.


The debate between M27 and M4A1 is something to be discussed and NEEDs to be discussed. No, this is not like the F-35 vs F-16 scandal. This is a different beast with different issues.


Your posts are carbon copies of the exact same arguments made against the F-35 with the same logic:

It costs too much!

I've made up my mind, and won't consider the other side!

ITs too much X and not enough Y. Except when its Y! then it has too much Y! And not enough X!

The actual Operators of these platforms don't know the differences-- but I do!

So and So isn't using it! Nevermind that Others are!

M-27 the wrong gun for XYZ!

The proof is in these youtubes!!

I'm patting myself on the back since I have the courage to discuss this, and my opinion is critical!

We could take what we have now and just upgrade it!

It costs too much!

Would you like to start your own blog? How about Best Firearm 4 Corps? You can really jerk off at your own work and when people like me point out the holes in your logic or that your wrong on details or that we are actual Marines, you can have us banned from BF4C?

IT NEEDS to be discussed? it has been discussed! you not being there, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed. And by people with knowledge of both weapons and first hand experience in combat in the Corps. Can you explain to me how the USMC is not qualified to pick its own god damn rifle and is somehow not capable of comparing to systems and arriving at its own conclusions and the ability to make judgements on infantry combat? The decisions been made, and without your imput. How does that make you feel?

I'll put it simply. I'm betting the USMC realized they could get more M27s at better cost and was getting very positive feedback from the Marines carrying it and are using FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE from ACTUAL OPERATIONS probably decided in their audacity that they would make up their own mind rather than rely on the internet's opinion. If that bothers you

Image


Here is their Email:

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/


Make sure you open with the "zingers" you used on me. You're sure to be taken seriously especially when you start telling Marines they don't operate in water and don't know about firearms.

The Marines have been defending the M27 from day one and have made in my mind some pretty solid points. They are readily available to the public if you care to read them. The Marines are not army, they are not (as of yet) going to requip the entire force, Just the 03s and even then select 03s if the CMC is being listened to. They are getting a bulk discount it appears. If the Marines are happy with it and it does have advantages (whether you care to acknowledge them or not.) and it costs about the same what the hell is the problem? Ive seen the USMC do some stupid things, but this isn't one of them.

Ive really been enjoying your posts, your first hand knowledge on the M27, which gets key details wrong and is clearly based on what someone else said on the internet said, that you are regurgitating says more than any real evidence ever could. Way to Parrot. A Passionate parroting, indeed.

I can't believe how much time ive already wasted on this, and I may not be able to waste any more between this and the Gripen fanboy so I'll close with two of my favorite qoutes:

It’s really our way of patting our guys on the back and saying, ‘We’re not going to change anything, no matter how much you bitch, but thanks anyway,’”


and

It's just like having ***** with Kobe Bryant. You can kick and scream all you want...but it's gonna happen

Enjoy!
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 11:09

There was no secret plan to use the IAR project as an end-around to replace the standard service rifle. What the 'Corps was trying to accomplish & the reasons for it has been well documented.

While the weight of the M249 was a concern, a bigger issue was not wanting to rely on an open bolt/belt fed weapon in the assaulting element. Belts are significantly slower & more difficult to reload than magazines. Ever try to load a new belt while moving or even just standing? It's a bitch.

The Marine Corps had always wanted an automatic rifle in the fire team & begrudgingly accepted the M249 because it had no choice when the Army adopted it in the mid 80's.

That being said the M249 is a fine weapon when properly utilized. I've carried one in combat. It runs like a champ when maintained. Most of the current complaints within the 03 community stem from the 'Corps not investing in spare parts & maintenance during the 90's & early 00's. It also doesn't help that it's far too common for the SAW to get shuffled off to the boot or shitbird because no one wants to hump it. Contrast that with how the SAW is viewed by the Rangers. Being a SAW gunner is a privilege and dudes bust their a$$ to get to carry it. When Army SF needs more firepower, they grab Rangers with SAWs.

The IAR may not be groundbreaking like the F-35, but it is coming on the tail end of a paradigm shift within the Marine infantry community that absolutely was groundbreaking. Putting a magnified optic on every rifle has profoundly changed the capabilities of the average infantryman. That sea change is what makes the IAR a game changer now when it hasn't been in the past. If you can lay far more accurate automatic fire, you need less of it.

Ironically the M27 didn't particularly stand out during the IAR trials, except in two areas. It has an amazing barrel when compared to the ancient mil-spec setups everyone else brought to the table, and it is a very accurate platform. As an automatic rifle it's profoundly mediocre. The cyclic rate is too high, and it's higher recoil impulse is far from ideal. The ability to lay accurate fire is what sets it apart from older systems regardless of their method of operation (M249, RPK, Colt LSW etc), and the massive jump in barrel life was enough to push the right buttons of certain bean counters.

Once it was out in the fleet the 'Corps quickly realized it's a pretty good jack of all trades and the benefits of everyone having a rifle that does everything at least reasonably well is pretty damn useful. Essentially the USMC stumbled onto the same idea that made the SPR & recce rifle concepts take off in SOCOM.

HK was initially rebuffed when they tried to use the M27 as a foothold to leverage a larger contract. The idea of replacing every M16A4 with M27s made a lot of people shudder. Not only the cost, but concerns over HKs ability to actually fulfill the contact. Their track record wasn't great at that point.

This is where things get political. There was a strong movement to replace everything else with an upgraded M4. A modern free floated barrel, monolithic rail & quality fire control pack gets you everything the M27 does at significantly less cost.

That isn't just the wet dream of AR fanbois on message boards. The numbers were run by the 'Corps, SOCOM is going to do it, and eventually big army is going to do it as well. It absolutely is a workable plan. It's also more complicated in the eyes of certain people.

At the same time the 'Corps is having severe training issues. There are Marines who haven't been to the range in 3-4 years. That's an entire enlistment. The glut of new mandatory classes & safety stand downs are pushing actual training to the back burner. So for the first time in decades you are seeing a split in mindset, where you have officers openly saying "well maybe not every Marine NEEDS to be as proficient" which of course feeds into the inferiority complex of the 0311 community's "only riflemen are REAL riflemen" crap.

So somewhere up the chain it was decided "**** it, we'll just focus on new rifles for the grunts" and the Marine Corps approached HK with the potential of buying M27s for the line companies. Which brings us mostly up to date.

Touching on some random things thrown out in this thread...

- The issue with the M855A1 chamber pressure is real. It absolutely reduces the life of various parts on the M27. The Norwegians stopped using it for this reason. HK has stated it's a known issue. The 'Corps has acknowledged it and then mostly hand waved it away.

- The problem with the chamber face being gouged was mostly rectified with the Gen 3 PMAGs. There is still a small potential for it to occur, but it is reduced to the point where it won't severely affect the life of the barrel.

- A couple of units within SOCOM purchased the HK416 early on because it can reliably handle a range of ammunition types while suppressed. It it is not in general issue and is no longer being purchased because the role can be accomplished cheaper with newer systems.

If the HK is delivering the M27 at a competitive price, I'm fine with the choice but I'm still more than a little skeptical at their ability to provide long term parts support for a reasonable cost.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 14:30

pmi wrote:There was no secret plan to use the IAR project as an end-around to replace the standard service rifle. What the 'Corps was trying to accomplish & the reasons for it has been well documented.

While the weight of the M249 was a concern, a bigger issue was not wanting to rely on an open bolt/belt fed weapon in the assaulting element. Belts are significantly slower & more difficult to reload than magazines. Ever try to load a new belt while moving or even just standing? It's a bitch.

The Marine Corps had always wanted an automatic rifle in the fire team & begrudgingly accepted the M249 because it had no choice when the Army adopted it in the mid 80's.

That being said the M249 is a fine weapon when properly utilized. I've carried one in combat. It runs like a champ when maintained. Most of the current complaints within the 03 community stem from the 'Corps not investing in spare parts & maintenance during the 90's & early 00's. It also doesn't help that it's far too common for the SAW to get shuffled off to the boot or shitbird because no one wants to hump it. Contrast that with how the SAW is viewed by the Rangers. Being a SAW gunner is a privilege and dudes bust their a$$ to get to carry it. When Army SF needs more firepower, they grab Rangers with SAWs.

The IAR may not be groundbreaking like the F-35, but it is coming on the tail end of a paradigm shift within the Marine infantry community that absolutely was groundbreaking. Putting a magnified optic on every rifle has profoundly changed the capabilities of the average infantryman. That sea change is what makes the IAR a game changer now when it hasn't been in the past. If you can lay far more accurate automatic fire, you need less of it.

Ironically the M27 didn't particularly stand out during the IAR trials, except in two areas. It has an amazing barrel when compared to the ancient mil-spec setups everyone else brought to the table, and it is a very accurate platform. As an automatic rifle it's profoundly mediocre. The cyclic rate is too high, and it's higher recoil impulse is far from ideal. The ability to lay accurate fire is what sets it apart from older systems regardless of their method of operation (M249, RPK, Colt LSW etc), and the massive jump in barrel life was enough to push the right buttons of certain bean counters.

Once it was out in the fleet the 'Corps quickly realized it's a pretty good jack of all trades and the benefits of everyone having a rifle that does everything at least reasonably well is pretty damn useful. Essentially the USMC stumbled onto the same idea that made the SPR & recce rifle concepts take off in SOCOM.

HK was initially rebuffed when they tried to use the M27 as a foothold to leverage a larger contract. The idea of replacing every M16A4 with M27s made a lot of people shudder. Not only the cost, but concerns over HKs ability to actually fulfill the contact. Their track record wasn't great at that point.

This is where things get political. There was a strong movement to replace everything else with an upgraded M4. A modern free floated barrel, monolithic rail & quality fire control pack gets you everything the M27 does at significantly less cost.

That isn't just the wet dream of AR fanbois on message boards. The numbers were run by the 'Corps, SOCOM is going to do it, and eventually big army is going to do it as well. It absolutely is a workable plan. It's also more complicated in the eyes of certain people.

At the same time the 'Corps is having severe training issues. There are Marines who haven't been to the range in 3-4 years. That's an entire enlistment. The glut of new mandatory classes & safety stand downs are pushing actual training to the back burner. So for the first time in decades you are seeing a split in mindset, where you have officers openly saying "well maybe not every Marine NEEDS to be as proficient" which of course feeds into the inferiority complex of the 0311 community's "only riflemen are REAL riflemen" crap.

So somewhere up the chain it was decided "**** it, we'll just focus on new rifles for the grunts" and the Marine Corps approached HK with the potential of buying M27s for the line companies. Which brings us mostly up to date.

Touching on some random things thrown out in this thread...

- The issue with the M855A1 chamber pressure is real. It absolutely reduces the life of various parts on the M27. The Norwegians stopped using it for this reason. HK has stated it's a known issue. The 'Corps has acknowledged it and then mostly hand waved it away.

- The problem with the chamber face being gouged was mostly rectified with the Gen 3 PMAGs. There is still a small potential for it to occur, but it is reduced to the point where it won't severely affect the life of the barrel.

- A couple of units within SOCOM purchased the HK416 early on because it can reliably handle a range of ammunition types while suppressed. It it is not in general issue and is no longer being purchased because the role can be accomplished cheaper with newer systems.

If the HK is delivering the M27 at a competitive price, I'm fine with the choice but I'm still more than a little skeptical at their ability to provide long term parts support for a reasonable cost.



Appreciate this
Choose Crews
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Missouri

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 20:02

pmi wrote:This is where things get political. There was a strong movement to replace everything else with an upgraded M4. A modern free floated barrel, monolithic rail & quality fire control pack gets you everything the M27 does at significantly less cost.

That isn't just the wet dream of AR fanbois on message boards. The numbers were run by the 'Corps, SOCOM is going to do it, and eventually big army is going to do it as well. It absolutely is a workable plan. It's also more complicated in the eyes of certain people.


This is most of my issue with the M27 - the same can be accomplished for a lot less by upgrading M4s. An M4A1 with a free-float rail and something like a Geissele SSF fire control group, coupled with a TA31/RMR combo is pretty much state of the art. The rail (let's assume a free-float KAC RIS for $350) and FCG ($450) will hugely improve mechanical and practical accuracy of the infantry carbine for $800. That's $800 at single-unit civilian retail pricing, economies of scale will drop that down by a few hundred bucks.

A magnified optic will further improve practical accuracy (remember - just because a rifle is capable of shooting MOA or below, does not mean that its sighting system makes this feasible under all but ideal conditions!). The ACOG is tried-and-true; a lot of civilian shooters have moved to low-power-variable optics. In my experience, variable-power optics are far more difficult to use efficiently in force-on-force exercises, and optic durability suffers. High-end, durable LPVs are available, but they cost a pretty penny. As a general-purpose carbine optic, a fixed-power unit in the 2-4x realm with an intelligent reticle is pretty much ideal in my experience. This can be coupled with a reflex sight or irons for CQB.

Why bother purchasing M27s when upgraded M4s can yield the same practical accuracy at significantly less cost? The heart of an M16-family rifle, when considering reliability and accuracy, is the barrel, BCG, trigger, and optic. Everything else is secondary.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Online
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2606
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 21:15

Does anybody have thoughts on traditional Variable Power Optics vs Variable Zoom Setting Optics from the Elcan Specter line?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 21:31

southernphantom wrote:
pmi wrote:This is where things get political. There was a strong movement to replace everything else with an upgraded M4. A modern free floated barrel, monolithic rail & quality fire control pack gets you everything the M27 does at significantly less cost.

That isn't just the wet dream of AR fanbois on message boards. The numbers were run by the 'Corps, SOCOM is going to do it, and eventually big army is going to do it as well. It absolutely is a workable plan. It's also more complicated in the eyes of certain people.


This is most of my issue with the M27 - the same can be accomplished for a lot less by upgrading M4s. An M4A1 with a free-float rail and something like a Geissele SSF fire control group, coupled with a TA31/RMR combo is pretty much state of the art. The rail (let's assume a free-float KAC RIS for $350) and FCG ($450) will hugely improve mechanical and practical accuracy of the infantry carbine for $800. That's $800 at single-unit civilian retail pricing, economies of scale will drop that down by a few hundred bucks.



The army is welcome to show us how its done. improved rails, triggers, BCGs etc have been around for years and years now and we are still waiting.

This is my problem. M27 arguments aside . I'm getting a little sick of all the amazing aftermarket stuff that is around that big army is "totally could adopt tomorrow for the M-4 at a low price too!" And they still havn't adopted it.

I'm not holding my breath anymore, folks. I am aware of it. You are aware of it. The army is aware of it. The personnel are aware of it when they are home on leave and shoot uncle bucks AR that is more tricked out, accurate, and with a nicer trigger and grip.

Image

Sometimes bad decisions get made. But even when its patently obvious, it might take years to unscrew those mistakes, or even admit them
Choose Crews
Offline

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1024
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Missouri

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 22:17

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does anybody have thoughts on traditional Variable Power Optics vs Variable Zoom Setting Optics from the Elcan Specter line?


The instant variable zoom setting on the SpecterDR is a much better system, in my opinion, due to its relative ease of operation. An individual carbine optic should be extremely simple to use; LPVs, especially those using second-focal-plane reticles, are not quite so easy to use. Variable-power optics are sort of fiddly in my experience - the infantryman needs to be moving, shooting, and communicating, not wondering whether the stadia lines on his optic read correctly at a given magnification. The Elcan optics are not light - 23.3oz for the 1x/4x model - but are comparable in weight to most LPVs. Cost is another matter entirely; the things are $2300. They seem to be popular with SOCOM, but are not seen elsewhere.



XanderCrews wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
pmi wrote:This is where things get political. There was a strong movement to replace everything else with an upgraded M4. A modern free floated barrel, monolithic rail & quality fire control pack gets you everything the M27 does at significantly less cost.

That isn't just the wet dream of AR fanbois on message boards. The numbers were run by the 'Corps, SOCOM is going to do it, and eventually big army is going to do it as well. It absolutely is a workable plan. It's also more complicated in the eyes of certain people.


This is most of my issue with the M27 - the same can be accomplished for a lot less by upgrading M4s. An M4A1 with a free-float rail and something like a Geissele SSF fire control group, coupled with a TA31/RMR combo is pretty much state of the art. The rail (let's assume a free-float KAC RIS for $350) and FCG ($450) will hugely improve mechanical and practical accuracy of the infantry carbine for $800. That's $800 at single-unit civilian retail pricing, economies of scale will drop that down by a few hundred bucks.



The army is welcome to show us how its done. improved rails, triggers, BCGs etc have been around for years and years now and we are still waiting.

This is my problem. M27 arguments aside . I'm getting a little sick of all the amazing aftermarket stuff that is around that big army is "totally could adopt tomorrow for the M-4 at a low price too!" And they still havn't adopted it.

I'm not holding my breath anymore, folks. I am aware of it. You are aware of it. The army is aware of it. The personnel are aware of it when they are home on leave and shoot uncle bucks AR that is more tricked out, accurate, and with a nicer trigger and grip.

Image

Sometimes bad decisions get made. But even when its patently obvious, it might take years to unscrew those mistakes, or even admit them


I think you're preaching to the choir. SOCOM is doing it - there looks to be a move towards Geissele Mk4/Mk8 FF rails, SSF FCGs, et cetera for the next round of M4A1 upgrades. The regular Army appears content to stick with RIS, M68 CCO, and milspec FCGs. For how the Army operates, this is fine - rifle upgrades don't win wars - but the failure to adopt significant, low-cost COTS improvements is just stubborn.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Jan 2018, 23:13

southernphantom wrote:[
I think you're preaching to the choir. SOCOM is doing it - there looks to be a move towards Geissele Mk4/Mk8 FF rails, SSF FCGs, et cetera for the next round of M4A1 upgrades. The regular Army appears content to stick with RIS, M68 CCO, and milspec FCGs. For how the Army operates, this is fine - rifle upgrades don't win wars - but the failure to adopt significant, low-cost COTS improvements is just stubborn.



M-4A1 is almost a victim of its own success, it's so good that it's always good enough "as is." It's solid for just about every application. So big army isn't going to spend too much to fix it up. Actually pretty amazed everyone is getting the A1 upgrade to an honest.
Choose Crews
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post16 Jan 2018, 04:09

@XanderCrews

Okay. I get it. You don't agree with my views and opinions. However instead of countering my claims and assertions with anything meaningful you ignore everything put forth making strawman stances while throw a temper tantrum like a petulant spoiled child. You then go onto accuse me of being as bad as the commentators over at BestFighter4Canada. Yet it is your actions and response that made YOU look more like those individuals then I. If you can't come up with anything meaningful instead of insults and a southpark gif, don't try and join the conversation.

That being said...

My opinion on the matter is that the M27 for the cost and what it offers is nothing significant over what is currently being used by the US Military. This isn't like the USMC procuring the F-35 (a decision that I wholeheartedly agree with and support) because the F-35 will change and revolutionize how USMC fights in the air and even on the ground in the near future. What does the M27 really offer? As I am seeing it from personal experience and what I've been reading... nothing.

The M27 was first being touted as an alternative to the M249 SAW. IMO this is a terrible idea and foolhardy. The M27 cannot provide the sustained fire the SAW can nor can it provide a high volume of fire. The standard load for the SAW gunner 600rounds. In contrast the standard load for a rifleman is 240 rounds (personally I always had 270 or 300 rounds). In a very real sense the M27 is the modern day equivalent to the BAR, which is I think a step in the wrong direction. If the US Military really wanted a suitable replacement to the M249 then I think they should take a look at the Negev and the new KAC LMG.

The M27 was then said to act as a DMR. In this regard I think the M27 (though more accurate then the standard M4A1 or M16 due to a better barrel and freefloat handguard) still falls short of being a DMR. The M110 and M110K1 has been in that role and is better suited. If they wanted a DMR in 5.56, why not stick with the Mk.12 SPR? From my understanding the Mk.12 with the matchgrade Mk262 ammo is very accurate. I would think that with the M855A1 the Mk.12 would be just as accurate (according to a report the M855A1 has matchgrade like performance out of a matchgrade barrel). The standard M4 upper receiver can be swapped out with the Mk.12 upper receiver with no change in parts due to the fact that the Mk.12 came out of the M4A1 SOPMOD program.

Now the USMC wants to adopt it as a general issue weapon. For the cost and what it offers I don't believe this is a wise decision. For one the weapon cost 3k per unit. USMC states that they can bring that cost down close to $1000 but I am highly skeptical of it. H&K isn't known for making weapons that are considered affordable. Even IF they manage to bring that cost down, it would still be either $300-$400 more expensive then the baseline M4A1 the US Army and SOCOM uses. The US Army upgraded/modified their older M4s already in inventory for combat units to the M4A1 for the tune of $120million. The US Army being a larger force then USMC, thats a good price. These modifications involved a thicker barrel, full auto selector, and a ambidextrious safety selector.
Further more with the recent adoption of the M855A1 EPR, the M27's service life would be reduced. The M27 is already an overgassed system. With the higher pressures created by the M855A1, this would lead me to believe the M27 would have a significantly shorter service life than the M4A1 which is already in wider service. In a US Army testing where they used the older M4 as a baseline comparison against the M4A1 and 3 other rifle/carbines submitted, the M4A1 walked away with the lowest number of class 3 stoppages/malfunctions (class 3 stoppages/malfunctions are the worse type and require an extensive fix at armory level, parts replacement, or a complete replacement of the platform itself). All 3 other submitters were given 10k rounds of M855A1 to fine tune their platforms before submission. It is believed that one of the weapons submitted for testing was the HK416 which had the least amount of class 1 and 2 stoppages/malfunctions (these could be cleared by immediate action in under 10 seconds) yet had 4500 rounds before a class 3 stoppage/malfunction while the M4A1 went 6000 rounds before mechanical failure.

As I see it the M27 doesn't offer anything noteworthy or substantial performance improvement to warrant such a high price tag (Current M27 per unit cost $3000. M4A1 per unit cost $640-$700). If the USMC really wanted to, they could upgrade all their M4s and M16A4s already in service with more readily available commercial after market parts and still be cheaper than the M27 and they would be better than what they currently have in service.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post16 Jan 2018, 05:49

charlielima223 wrote:@XanderCrews

Okay. I get it. You don't agree with my views and opinions. However instead of countering my claims and assertions with anything meaningful you ignore everything put forth making strawman stances while throw a temper tantrum like a petulant spoiled child. You then go onto accuse me of being as bad as the commentators over at BestFighter4Canada. Yet it is your actions and response that made YOU look more like those individuals then I. If you can't come up with anything meaningful instead of insults and a southpark gif, don't try and join the conversation.



You got me there! I'm the one who opened up with a "soap box" rant that said the Marines are just the Navy, then proceeded to dismiss everything having to do with water! I'm clearly the immature instigator here!

I honestly just don't think you really approached the subject with any kind of evenness, I also think you made several irrelevant or just outright wrong statements. And honestly, you know how much of the responsibility for explaining that in your own words the M27 is both overgassed, and yet also a short stroke piston. You said that the Piston just moves the grit and grim from one part to another... well yes sort of. The piston gets dirty the piston rod, some carbon on top the barrel yes, but the rest is vented out the hole in the gas port. So unless the air is a part of the rifle... And I've cleaned my share of M-16s, SAWs and MR556s to know that there is a difference there.

"But but the 240 and SAW are pistons and look at them!" REally? This is where I have a problem. Because cleaning an M-27 or 416 or MR556 is cake. its stupid easy. And you are comparing it to the SAW, just shows me you are either ignorant of what you speak of or just trying to muddy the waters. The whole purpose of the HK416 family is that all the gas and grime don't go back into the receiver-- thats its entire reason to exist. There is no gas tube so I honestly have no clue how its getting back there. Can you tell me? please? They are completely different actions. Youre comparing a Mig-23 to and F-35. They both have single engines and MiGs suck!

This is my point. You don't get to say "oh well they are just as grimy as a SAW so whats the difference? There is none! and thus they are overpaying!." they aren't as dirty, thats the difference. and you dismiss that outright. Its funny how the Differences between the 416 family and the other rifles only pop up when its negative?


So really how much time am I supposed spend to explaining everything when you have made up your mind and are throwing little cheap shots about ?
not being a real independant service
I'm sure heard this one before, you give respect to get respect.




That being said...

My opinion on the matter is that the M27 for the cost and what it offers is nothing significant over what is currently being used by the US Military. This isn't like the USMC procuring the F-35 (a decision that I wholeheartedly agree with and support) because the F-35 will change and revolutionize how USMC fights in the air and even on the ground in the near future. What does the M27 really offer? As I am seeing it from personal experience and what I've been reading... nothing.


PMI explained it well, Hes got more patience it would seem.

I guess you get to have it both ways because on one hand the M27 doesn't offer any significant difference to the Marine Fireteam, and yet its lighter, better for urban ops, gets rid of the need for an Agunner and linked ammo and hauling around spare barrels, Is more accurate and fits with the big picture of manuever warfare doctrine and actually does go back to the concept of a lighter and more manageable fire team overall. IT also necks down on different weapon types, which again is the same concept behind that wacky F-35.

Other than that its "no difference" as PMI explained. And If you don't understand what he is telling you(both the good and the bad) I don't think I can really articulate it either. So we are probably at an impasse.

For the weight of the SAW You might as well just give me a 240, I take the extra 4 pounds and have an actual MG

The M27 was first being touted as an alternative to the M249 SAW. IMO this is a terrible idea and foolhardy. The M27 cannot provide the sustained fire the SAW can nor can it provide a high volume of fire. The standard load for the SAW gunner 600rounds. In contrast the standard load for a rifleman is 240 rounds (personally I always had 270 or 300 rounds). In a very real sense the M27 is the modern day equivalent to the BAR, which is I think a step in the wrong direction. If the US Military really wanted a suitable replacement to the M249 then I think they should take a look at the Negev and the new KAC LMG.


We all know how cheap KAC is amiright!? why pay 3K when KAC can do it for 5 or 6K? The Marines were never a fan of the SAW. I never was personally I was shocked at how heavy and cantankerous the whole thing was. I used to joke it was triple the weight of an M-16 at only double the firepower! But I was a 203 guy mostly so what do I know.

Here is a bit of an article from the crazy fact that they had a competition, they didn't just go sole source NO KAC to be found:

Today, a variant of the Heckler & Koch HK416 rifle is the standard squad infantry automatic rifle (IAR) of the United States Marine Corps, as the M27. At one time in the mid-2000s, though, companies from Colt to LWRC competed against each other in a competition to see which weapon would be the the Corps’ choice to fill the role, supplanting the belt-fed M249 as the squad’s automatic fire support capability. These weapons took a variety of approaches to meeting the USMC’s needs, from the constant recoil Ultimax MG, to the heat-sink equipped Colt IAR, to the open bolt full auto, closed bolt semiauto LWRC IAR. Ultimately, simplicity won out, and Heckler & Koch’s quite unambitious HK416-derived entry was selected to be the M27.


Firearms blog

The M27 was then said to act as a DMR. In this regard I think the M27 (though more accurate then the standard M4A1 or M16 due to a better barrel and freefloat handguard) still falls short of being a DMR. The M110 and M110K1 has been in that role and is better suited. If they wanted a DMR in 5.56, why not stick with the Mk.12 SPR? From my understanding the Mk.12 with the matchgrade Mk262 ammo is very accurate. I would think that with the M855A1 the Mk.12 would be just as accurate (according to a report the M855A1 has matchgrade like performance out of a matchgrade barrel). The standard M4 upper receiver can be swapped out with the Mk.12 upper receiver with no change in parts due to the fact that the Mk.12 came out of the M4A1 SOPMOD program.


Again I think its about making it a more versatile weapon. I know it sounds silly to use weapon to replace the M4, SAW, and DM rifle. just like how no one would adopt one platform to replace the Harrier, F-18, and Prowler.

Now the USMC wants to adopt it as a general issue weapon. For the cost and what it offers I don't believe this is a wise decision. For one the weapon cost 3k per unit.USMC states that they can bring that cost down close to $1000 but I am highly skeptical of it. H&K isn't known for making weapons that are considered affordable. Even IF they manage to bring that cost down, it would still be either $300-$400 more expensive then the baseline M4A1 the US Army and SOCOM uses.


You do realize that early on M4s were in the quadruple digits right?

And The Marines like it and think its worth the expense.

Its a clear case of them liking something you don't like, and liking it enough to pay more. Heresy

The US Army upgraded/modified their older M4s already in inventory for combat units to the M4A1 for the tune of $120million. The US Army being a larger force then USMC, thats a good price. These modifications involved a thicker barrel, full auto selector, and a ambidextrious safety selector.


I know, I caught that the first time you said it. Youre saying the Marines could have gone a different way and paid less. And they went with something else.

Further more with the recent adoption of the M855A1 EPR, the M27's service life would be reduced. The M27 is already an overgassed system.


explain what you mean by overgassed please. And be specific. And Im serious because our definitions must be getting crossed.


As I see it the M27 doesn't offer anything noteworthy or substantial performance improvement to warrant such a high price tag (Current M27 per unit cost $3000. M4A1 per unit cost $640-$700).


At one point M-4s were in the 4 digit cost mark and it wasn't the A1s. Once again I bring up the cost of an LRIP F-35 and compare it to an F-16 20 years into production, youre not going to like the cost disparity. But of course early F-16s weren't cheap either.

Compare apples to apples.

M27s are barely 8 years new and you are comparing them to rifles that have been produced for decades in the hundreds of thousands. Millions if you count M-16s.

]If the USMC really wanted to, they could upgrade all their M4s and M16A4s already in service with more readily available commercial after market parts and still be cheaper than the M27 and they would be better than what they currently have in service.


They sure could, but they don't chose to so now what? the army can also do the same, they chose not to. So now what? The Marines aren't interested in doing that, they don't have any desire to. They picked something else. The Army seems to have no desire because reasons I guess.

Again Ive been hearing for f**king years how the mainstream Army could benefit from Civtech. And at one point, I just quit holding my breath. See my last post. I know. You know. they know, and yet it still hasn't happened. The list of things the military could to improve a bonestock M4 could go on for pages. But they aren't doing that. So why am I obligated to bet heavily on something they constantly disappoint in? At one point do you realize thats not going to happen. And I am a hopeless romantic! One big advantage of the M27 is its "different" in the sense that its not another upgrade program to kill off. The MArines even cleverly backdoored the procurement.

Again if the Marines are happy, if they feel like its closer to their operational desires, and if the cost comes down, whats the problem? It really doesn't matter that you see no difference. They see the difference. People have explained it here, the Marines have mentioned it, its in teh googles, I mean what more do you want? Its clear youre never going to like the answer. So how much time and effort am I to dedicate to this?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5512
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post16 Jan 2018, 17:53

Ive said it before but I want to clarify:

I undestand that one can change and improve an M4 from the stock all the way to the muzzle device and everything in between with nice camo paint to match. and my point is, M27 aside-- That still has not been done yet. Even when some of those change are cheap and done with no tools and can be done in seconds. Switching out a BCG and charging handle can be done obviously by the individual soldier obviously.

Even the m4A1 upgrade is not civtech. IT features a Heavy barrel (for full auto) with M203 cuts and flats (like all the civiies use right!) and a full auto trigger (again like civies!)

I don't think one should fault the Marines for not waiting on the surely the "next FY we will upgrade with more reliable parts and finally free-float barrels! "

The Army not upgrading its rifles with civ tech should probably be its own thread, the Marines should not be blamed for also not doing what the army did in waiting on civtech that hasn't come, while simultaneously being chastised for not doing what the army did in upgrading the M4. Can't win I guess! Clearly the Marines should have upgraded to M4a1. Then crossed their fingers that eventually they would get a free float barrel in the future. Do this like the army should, not that like the army should. Be like SOCOM, unless you should not be like SOCOM-- piece of cake!


In the end someone has to pony up all the dough to put all the civtech through its paces, run competitions, select winners, and sign contracts, and from there getting it consistently produced and then finally distributed to the troops.

Im sorry but after about the 15th time I've been burned, I start to get a little cynical. Thats where I am at with the army civtech M4. I Recognize that just because somethng COULD be done is not the same thing that it will PRACTICALLY, and ACTUALLY get done. The list of things the government could do to improve itself is miles long, and well within its capabilities, but does that mean it will get done?!

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1413
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post25 Feb 2018, 04:21

charlielima223 wrote:

The M27 was first being touted as an alternative to the M249 SAW. IMO this is a terrible idea and foolhardy. The M27 cannot provide the sustained fire the SAW can nor can it provide a high volume of fire. The standard load for the SAW gunner 600rounds. In contrast the standard load for a rifleman is 240 rounds (personally I always had 270 or 300 rounds). In a very real sense the M27 is the modern day equivalent to the BAR, which is I think a step in the wrong direction. If the US Military really wanted a suitable replacement to the M249 then I think they should take a look at the Negev and the new KAC LMG.



I'm just an Army dog, but I think the USMC is onto something here. The paradigm is shifting. Volume of fire is great, but wasteful. Recent experience in Iraq and Asscrackistan has shown you can still lose the gunfight even if you're getting more rounds down range. With the 5.56mm NATO round (even the 70+ grain spec ops rounds) you reach a point of diminishing returns. You won't shoot through much and you won't have the range. Belt fed volume of fire is best served by 7.62mm NATO rounds found in the M240B. They will at least shoot through sandbags, walls, brick, mortar, heavy vegetation and more types of body armor. You get double the range too. The M27 allows them less volume, with much greater accuracy in a more common and lighter round. They like the M27 enough to use it as a DMR (not to be confused with sniper rifle). That has given birth to the M38, which is a DMR mod of a standard M27.
Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest