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

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post10 Jan 2018, 22:59

CL223,

Very well said, I own 2 HK pistols and a Glock. No doubt HK makes some very nice products, but the cost is rather ridiculous. A few months ago I even went to my local gun store and held a HK MR556. Don't get me wrong, it's super slick. The price on the other hand is laughable. I'm sticking with DI, probably a BCM or similar. I've fired my friend's Colt SOCOM (put hundreds and hundreds of rounds through it) and not a problem. Granted it's not war; but it's FAR cheaper and parts are literally EVERYWHERE.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 04:25

charlielima223 wrote:
Honestly I just think its the USMC just trying to be special again. They are the smallest "branch" within the armed services (in quotes because they're part of the USN so technically there are 3 branches of the US Military, NOT 4)


The Marines have been recognized as an independant service since the National Defence act of 1947. which is also why the air force is not still the Army Air Corps. I have no idea why you are bringing it up rather than to be petty but I am about to see a lot of this I'm betting.

I did talk to a Marine in the know, and it is indeed the Marines constant commitment to try and improve our effectiveness in killing people. If that makes us special, then so be it.

Sorry the army failed at replacing the M-4, not our fault we didn't fall into the same traps.


Everyone else is sticking with either M16s already in service or moving towards M4s and M4A1s.


416 and its variants are being adopted all over the world. So everyone is sticking? ...no.

And who is "everyone else" anyway? No one cares about the Navy and USAF because they have no grunts. SOCOM has adopted HK416, MArines M27, A lot of nations are adopting HK416s.


Why the USMC wants to go down another path is beyond me.


It is? Didn't you mention how the army has tried and failed to replace the M-4? Why another path?

It really shouldn't be beyond your comprehension. The big advantage that the Piston guns have over DI is water and dirt. Both of which are common on these beach things. The HK416 series has lots of features (OTB) that are made for water. Marines as the name implies have a lot to do with water. beaches, etc. you yourself say we are just the navy..



First the USMC went with digital camouflage (with great success however. Though what was wrong with everyone using the same pattern and basic uniform layout?)


Digital is better. Sorry the other services are too stupid to make it work themselves. Hopefully in the future the Marines will be given more authority over the other services uniforms, which are clearly too stupid to design a basic uniform. We do our best, but we have our own problems too.

we take full responsibility for the navy's blueberryflage though one of the USMC's key jobs is trying to protect the navy from doing stupid stuff, but by god no one thought they would make a uniform that blended into WATER. :doh:


First they tried to pitch it as an alternative to the M249. Which is ridiculous if anyone understands the concept of sustained suppressing fire as well as fire and maneuver.


not at all ridiculous when you are dealing with the jamming and constant issues of a SAW of which Ive experienced many first hand. When you do the math, the sustained fire excluding the SAWs longer reloads and jams is about the same. And if the notion of a 30 round Squad auto is so horrible, I have to wonder why the M249 includes a magwell for M-16 mags.

Then they pitched it as a DMR. Which is another dumb idea because there is already another DMR in use [color=#FF0000] (though no longer being procured) that is also in 5.56 and is purpose built for the job; the Mk.12 SPR. They've been trying to sneak this through the back door for years. Now they just said "F it!" and want to introduce it as a service wide weapon. I stated how this was a bad idea both economically and practically IMO.


Its almost like it can do more than one thing. Multi-mission/role or something.

The procurement system sucks. This isn't a secret. The Marines, once again "breaking from the army" in the tradition of failing to replace the M-4 found a way to "F-18" this deal. Again. im sorry the army is not smart enough. Dont hate the player, hate the godawful procurement game. The SAWs are still around if needed BTW. And Im guessing when we are done with all the M27s we will begin that replacement program under a new name.


Another reason why I think this is not economical and as well as practical is because the M27 has proprietary parts. The last thing you want in a large force is to have a weapon system with proprietary parts. Smaller units in SOCOM however can get away with this because they are a smaller force and have their own budget (they spend their funds more wisely). Proprietary parts means more long term costs when it comes to service life. This would also be more difficult down the road if they want to improve the M27 because there isn't that many CoS parts for it.


You are confusing Non DI for Not COTS. Many militaries use the HK416 family, including ours (small numbers of course SOCOM) for over 10 years.

COTS parts are essentially irrelevant. Marines aren't at the local gun store buying replacement parts in ones and twos. These are huge contracts. COTS stuff can make an appearance but generally speaking its irrelevant as far as the government is concerned for better or worse.

If we adopted the SCAR, or G-36, or SA-80, or AKM, or anything else that wasn't the DI M-16 family we would be dealing with the same proprietary parts problem.


The US Army (despite its numerous and awful stumbles) had the better decision to upgrade current M4s in service to the M4A1 standard rather then going for a completely new weapon (which they tried and failed because nothing out there substantially outperforms the M4A1. They unfortunately also cancelled their M4A1+ program... however something interesting popped up. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -carbines/). USMC was already procuring the M4s, why not modify it to the M4A1 standard the US Army uses? USASOC is looking to improve their M4A1 SOPMODs through a new Upper Receiver Group that uses readily available CoS parts (US Military as a whole would be wise simply to let USASOC do their thing with it then piggy-back off of it later on).

keeping in mind the entire HK416 series is thanks to USASOC Specifically SFOD-D asking HK and industry for an improved M-4, the result was the HK M4, later renamed HK416 after Colt sued over the name.

So thanks USASOC. we should adopt what you choose, unless we don't like it.


One of the improvements that stand out is going from a carbine length gas tube to a mid length gas tube in their carbines. This is a great idea because the open civilian market has LOTS of mid length gas systems for the AR-15 and by all accounts improves the overall reliability of the rifle/carbine. This cannot be said of the M27s H&K short stroke gas piston system. If one looks at all the short stroke gas piston systems for AR-15s on the market, they would fine that no two are truly alike nor can you swap out parts. The US Military can take existing M4/M4A1s and with existing and more readily available CoS parts upgrade those weapons and it would still be cheaper then the M27 and would be a improvement over what is currently issued.


Lots of things could be an improvement over what is currently issued. unfortunately as the M-4a1+ system figured out, they probably won't be adopted. So yay for theory!

its great that they adopted a mid-length, but the notion that the Military is beholden to what it chooses based on the COTS market, and especially the civilian market, is absurd to say the least.

The Marines also aren't buying lots of piston guns. They are buying Just HKs so how the other pistons are done is irrelevant

Now we come to another wrinkle for the M27, the adoption of the M855A1. The USMC finally adopted the M855A1 after the US Army has been using it since 2010 (perhaps they just wanted to burn through their stock of Mk.318...). This presented a challenge for the M27. The M855A1 was tailored more for the M4 and M4A1 as well as the DI gas system that they use. The M855A1 showed that the M27 had feeding problems with the round (gen 2 and 3 PMags fixed that. M4A1s also had issues with the M855A1, again newer magazines fixed that) and that the M855A1 actually decreased its service life further then that of the M4A1 and M16s.


I heard the jury is still out on that one


Because the M27 is essentially an over gassed system, this creates more strain on parts. Matter the fact US Army testing showed that the M4A1 had the least amount of class 3 stoppages/malfunctions over piston driven counterparts using the M855A1. Originally the M855A1 had a chamber pressure as high as 62k PSI. From other people who are still in and have a finger on the pulse say they reigned it down to 55k psi. That is still a higher chamber pressure then the original M855 but lower then original M855A1 specs. This higher chamber pressure with the over gassed system of the M27 means a lower service when compared to the M4A1.
'

I have no idea how the HK is both overgassed and yet also a short stroke piston who's big claim to fame is using a piston to keep gas and fouling out of the chamber, thus increasing the lifespan of the parts and keeping heat from drying out the lubricants.

But hey! The soap box is out!

This isn't like the USMC procuring the F-35B which will significantly change their doctrine and how they fight when it comes to air power. The M27 offers no significant benefit over current M4A1s or M4A1s with CoS upgrades/parts. M27 will not have a significant effect on how the Marines fight their current and future conflicts but mainly just a restructure of their fire teams. Also a loaded M27 is roughly 2lbs heavier then a loaded M4A1. 2lbs and $3K for something that isn't significantly better then what is currently being used now.


I'm glad you brought F-35 up, because your entire post reads like a typical M27 lost to a M-4A1 in a dogfight post that we get to see so often regarding F-35. so thanks. right along with the why buy new when a slew of upgrades could be added to the old that make it almost as good! and just because you don't see or understand the improvements means you can't understand the additional cost.

Very striking similarities actually.


> M27 will likely have a higher service life cost


Possibly, but I actually doubt it.


> M27 has no major parts commonality to what is out there in the civilian market means limited path of future upgrades


The Marine Corps can't issue its grunts a new weapon, because its not Compatible with the future civilian market? really?

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?


and realistically how many "future upgrades" via the civilian world do you see in the M-4s future besides a mid-length gas system? Maybe they'll upgrade it with a piston or something? free float barrel the Army still hasn't bothered with after decades?


> M27 when coupled with M855A1 will have a lower service life cycle


again we will see.


M27 [color=#FF0000]IS NOT WORTH THE COST



Well allow me to summarize. I think its perfectly worth the cost. Its relatively cheap, I said the same thing as a PFC that for the price of one F-15E we could have a whole division decked out with the latest and greatest grunt stuff and frankly, its refreshing to hear General Neller say the same thing.

The Marines are happy with it. Its nice to see Grunts getting nice things for once. The Marines were roundly criticized for being late to adopt the M-4 and I'm glad to see that they are actually a step ahead for once. ACOGs are crazy expensive but worth every penny and I don't hear people whining about cost of those. the M27 is an improvement. By how much, for how much is going to be up for wide debate. The M27 is beach friendly, and the Marines are an amphibious force. Im a big fan of the M-4. I own a SOCOM barreled AR, and I have an Mr556 as well. Its same same to me because I don't take them in the shower and roll around in the dirt so they do what they do fairly same same.

M27 is not a perfect weapon. Its actually very very hard to beat a M-4A1 which is why the army has had a helluva time replacing them. but the M27 is going to be able to do a few key things that the M-4A1 can't in terms of abuse, water, and sand.

I understand that this is a firearms topic, so opinions, facts, and misinformation, and mistakes will all be blended and spewed.

But you don't get to have it both ways. Your arguments wreak of the same "its too much of a bomber to be a fighter, but it also sucks at bombing too-- its bad at everything and has no redeemable qualities while being too expensive too!" "Arguments" I've seen ad nausem with the Super Hornet and F-35. In fact much like them you are hitting the same talking points. almost verbatim in some cases.


The M27 has redeeming qualities but I'll be damned if you mentioned even a single one of them. We get it the M27 is bad and costs too much, and only the military's overwhelming desire to invariably buy the wrong thing, and spend too much on it in the process is simply insatiable.

COTS is nice but again the military should not base their decisions on keeping compatible with the civilian world. especially as --and brace yourself--, the civilian world of ARs is under constant threat of being banned and curtailed and cut off at the balls more than it already is now. The way things are trending we are going to have Cali style retard ARs or none at all. We are only one mass shooting while the right politicos are in office away. So if the military can adopt something already around, neato! but it should not be a requirement for approval.

You opening ranting against the marine was unneeded, but its always nice to bring up 1947. You can say I'm biased since I'm a Marine, but you are also clearly biased against us since this went well beyond the Infantry's new rifle.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 11 Jan 2018, 05:07, edited 4 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 04:37

f-16adf wrote:CL223,

Very well said,



LOL ok.

I own 2 HK pistols and a Glock. No doubt HK makes some very nice products, but the cost is rather ridiculous. A few months ago I even went to my local gun store and held a HK MR556. Don't get me wrong, it's super slick. The price on the other hand is laughable. I'm sticking with DI, probably a BCM or similar. I've fired my friend's Colt SOCOM (put hundreds and hundreds of rounds through it) and not a problem. Granted it's not war; but it's FAR cheaper and parts are literally EVERYWHERE.


well hell, you held one. Clearly the Marines who have taken them into Combat can take a back seat.

If you don't like the cost of the HK piston try Adams Arms for budget, LMT and LWRC have some great but more costly ones. You can also buy just the upper for around 1300. important note: all HK AR/M4s are pistons, but Not all pistons are HK.

Also one of the big reasons the MR556 is so expensive is trying to get around the german and US gun laws to get them for sale here makes things very convoluted.

obviously there are similarities but an M-27 and an MR556 (MR556 is a "Match Rifle" hence MR) are not the same beast, and you aren't a Marine grunt I assume. so its all irrelevant anyway in the since that most civilians won't have to use the features that make an M27 worth getting. Its the same reason I don't own an elephant gun, or one of the civilian FN M249s. I have no need. But I would never hold an elephant gun and then start telling an elephant hunter what an a$$ he is for preferring it.

Look Ive been nuts deep with the M27 and all the HK M4/AR variants learning everything I can. I'll tell you same things I say about the F-35. Most of what you hear is BS. It has issues, but not the ones you are hearing.

So good luck, thanks experts. I'm off to go do navy things with my boyfriend now since Marines are not an independent service.
Choose Crews
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 06:03

Actually, if you re-examine my post. I never said the HK was bad. All I pointed out was (in my opinion) the cost. If the US (whatever) wants to dump the DI M4. Hey, go ahead. I really don't care if they do or do not.

My first, and second pistols were HK. Third was a Glock. (Yes, pistols are a totally different story) But I can tell you that there is absolutely no difference between my Glock 30S and my HK 45C or HK P2000 (other than, the Glock probably looks "uglier" and cost). And as I said, HK does make a top of the line product.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 06:15

Hk416 is a hybrid or bastard or however one wants to describe it. It's a G-36 piston strapped onto an M-4. Maybe it's the P-51 after it got it's Merlin Engine. Maybe it's total compromise. Depends on who sees it and how.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to resort to these shenannigans we could have a nice all new build rifle that is super grunt friendly, with all the latest and greatest, new cailbre light weight features etc. But we don't live in that world.

At worst the Marines are overpaying for a full auto M-16. At best the service that emphasizes rifles above all else actually got positive feedback, and good results from the M27 and said "let's see if we can expand this further" after 7 years of using them, and the DI m-16 for over 4 decades and could compare and weigh the 2 and heaven forbid make a good decision that improves the lives of grunts.
Choose Crews
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1729
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 06:38

In a perfect world our GIs would have helmet cams and extensible cameras to poke around corners all networked to create a mini battlespace. GIs would fan out and robotic mules armed with computer-aimed firearms would augment their ability to direct fire at the enemy. One shot one kill by the robots. The GIs are inserted into the kill chain to authorize shots by the robots, and the robots are multidisciplinary extensions of the human squad as both a weaponized platform and as mules to tote loads. And because they are networked they can work together to cover wide spaces. And microphones networked together would give them the ability to quickly locate shooters. Maybe they even act as beacons to extend a short range ability to geolocate the GIs and feed them information to coordinate movements. F-35 tech on the local level.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 15:36

madrat wrote:In a perfect world our GIs would have helmet cams and extensible cameras to poke around corners all networked to create a mini battlespace. GIs would fan out and robotic mules armed with computer-aimed firearms would augment their ability to direct fire at the enemy. One shot one kill by the robots. The GIs are inserted into the kill chain to authorize shots by the robots, and the robots are multidisciplinary extensions of the human squad as both a weaponized platform and as mules to tote loads. And because they are networked they can work together to cover wide spaces. And microphones networked together would give them the ability to quickly locate shooters. Maybe they even act as beacons to extend a short range ability to geolocate the GIs and feed them information to coordinate movements. F-35 tech on the local level.



The way this needs to be done as was described to me, is that the ground forces have to stop conceding drones to the air services. Drones should start from the ground up instead of being an F-16 replacement, a cheapo drone for the squad leader. A slightly better cheapo drone for the platoon leader, a slightly better set of drones for the company commander etc. By the time you get to regimental level you have really nice drones with snazzy features. All of them interlinked of course so everyone is helping put the Intel puzzle together. The squadleadrr needs to know what's down the block, the platoon leader what's over the next hill, the company commander what's down the road 10 miles etc.

What the Russians are doing in Ukraine is a cheapo drone flies over and you have about 10 minutes to pack up and leave because the Arty is going to plaster the area. It's not some super amaze balls MQ whatever, but it shows where bad guys are and that's all they need.
Choose Crews
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1729
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 04:26

Signalling for localized drones could potentially be a liability. Do drones need to be all equipped to fly? I wouldn't mind if they had options based upon environment. Miniature boats might be appreciated in swamps and along bodies of slow moving water. Something low profile might skirt an enemy and allow you to get an edge flanking a hardened position. Something durable might draw fire to reveal hidden shooters or trip hidden mines placed to slow down an advance. I'd want robotic shooters to help hold positions. All of the stuff forming the proverbial 1,000-eye monster.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2754
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 04:28

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:In a perfect world our GIs would have helmet cams and extensible cameras to poke around corners all networked to create a mini battlespace. GIs would fan out and robotic mules armed with computer-aimed firearms would augment their ability to direct fire at the enemy. One shot one kill by the robots. The GIs are inserted into the kill chain to authorize shots by the robots, and the robots are multidisciplinary extensions of the human squad as both a weaponized platform and as mules to tote loads. And because they are networked they can work together to cover wide spaces. And microphones networked together would give them the ability to quickly locate shooters. Maybe they even act as beacons to extend a short range ability to geolocate the GIs and feed them information to coordinate movements. F-35 tech on the local level.



The way this needs to be done as was described to me, is;

.. a cheapo drone for the squad leader
..A slightly better cheapo drones for the platoon leader
..a slightly better set of drones for the company commander
..By the time you get to regimental level you have really nice (MQ) drones with snazzy features.

All of them interlinked of course so everyone is helping put the Intel puzzle together. The squad leader needs to know what's down the block, the platoon leader what's over the next hill, the company commander what's down the road 10 miles etc. ...


....that "Interlinked" thing is also a piggyback "comm node" to better enable those squad level radios/ data and "blue" identifiers!
...similar to the "switchblade" tube carried micro-drone; small, simple, expendable??
:)
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2586
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 09:15

Have you seen the SigSauer MCX Piston System & Dual Spring OverHead Operating System?

I really love that design and it has proven to be pretty reliable overall and accurate.

XanderCrews, have you tried out the SigSauer MCX?
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 15:53

MCX is nice, it does away with the buffer system. I don't know how reliable SIG rifles are, but they make a great pistol (although they tend to be a little heavy).
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 17:31

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Have you seen the SigSauer MCX Piston System & Dual Spring OverHead Operating System?

I really love that design and it has proven to be pretty reliable overall and accurate.

XanderCrews, have you tried out the SigSauer MCX?



Havn't had the chance.


For all you tinfoilers out there, and it brings up one of my favorite rant topics: Ya don't think the Marines moving away form a 22 lbs loaded SAW, to a 11 lb loaded M27 has anthing to do with women in the infantry, right?


Nah.
Choose Crews
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 21:51

XanderCrews wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Have you seen the SigSauer MCX Piston System & Dual Spring OverHead Operating System?

I really love that design and it has proven to be pretty reliable overall and accurate.

XanderCrews, have you tried out the SigSauer MCX?



Havn't had the chance.


For all you tinfoilers out there, and it brings up one of my favorite rant topics: Ya don't think the Marines moving away form a 22 lbs loaded SAW, to a 11 lb loaded M27 has anthing to do with women in the infantry, right?


Nah.


Infantrymen are already stupidly overloaded without considering female troops (the irresponsibility of shoehorning females into infantry roles is another matter entirely). The infantryman's basic load is usually about 100lbs, which destroys knees and joints - lots of disability being paid out as a result. Anything that meaningfully reduces that load is worth considering. As is, the SAW gunner is unable to keep pace with the rest of his fireteam, reducing the fireteam's effective speed.

Belt-fed weapons are also unsuited for use as individual weapons; they are better off when crew-served. An individual armed with a belt-fed will become task-saturated with operating their weapon, and is unable to employ it to its full potential. An assistant gunner would make the 249 a lot more effective.

I've done some fiddling with an M16-based SAW replacement of my own; it's in the 13lb class loaded and is actually designed to stay on target during automatic fire. I am severely partial to 20" rifle-gas barrels due to smoother recoil and reduced parts wear due to lower operating pressures.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post14 Jan 2018, 07:49

southernphantom wrote:
Infantrymen are already stupidly overloaded without considering female troops (the irresponsibility of shoehorning females into infantry roles is another matter entirely). The infantryman's basic load is usually about 100lbs, which destroys knees and joints - lots of disability being paid out as a result. Anything that meaningfully reduces that load is worth considering. As is, the SAW gunner is unable to keep pace with the rest of his fireteam, reducing the fireteam's effective speed.

Belt-fed weapons are also unsuited for use as individual weapons; they are better off when crew-served. An individual armed with a belt-fed will become task-saturated with operating their weapon, and is unable to employ it to its full potential. An assistant gunner would make the 249 a lot more effective.



It depends. The standard load for someone doing a single day of operation and patrol is pushing 60lbs. If you add the weight of a rucksack (a full rucksack can push up to 100lbs but I was always trained to keep it at 85lbs) you're looking at a 150lbs load out. What type of operation are your doing and the the estimated length dictates what you carry and how much. Are you out for a day or 3 days? Are you out for a week or are you out for the the long haul?

I wouldn't say belt fed weapons are unsuited as an individual weapon... we've done it before

M63
Image

If you want sustained and high volume of fire... the belt fed is the way to go. The training and application makes all the difference. In a traditional fire and maneuver you need a base of fire to provide sustained covering/supressive fire and a maneuver element... a lot of bounding movement. My last unit employed the the SAW with some slight differences. For instance we didn't have an AG for the SAW but someone would carry an extra belt or two of ammo. Also when doing urban operations, the SAW gunners were normally outside the building to provide exterior security until they fall back inside to provide a fixed firing position.
The SAW is definitely lighter than the M240 (which is considered a crew served weapon). I'd rather lug around a SAW then the 240 (even the newer 240Ls). The US military in general should look at newer, better, and lighter weight LMGs as a possible replacement to the SAW. Personally I think the US Military should look at the new KAC LMG (a very modernized and refined Stoner 63)

or the IWI Negev. Maybe even go old school and go back to the M60... look at the newer and very much improved M60E6. The M60E6 beat out H&Ks MG121 and became the Danish military's new GPMG. More accurate then the M240 (because of a "softer", more constant recoil, and lower cyclic). Its also shorter and lighter.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 798
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post14 Jan 2018, 08:14

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

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.

This is just going to be all encompassing.

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

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.

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. 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?

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.

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

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



And before someone goes off spouting the extreme dust test of 2007... guess who had something to say about it?

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/200 ... thers.html

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. USASOC is already looking at it...

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

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... eynote.pdf
PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests