Marine Corps Fielding More IAR's In Place Of SAW's.

Being a former Marine Infantryman and automatic rifleman I have a strong opinion on this. I am very disgusted with the Marine Corps for making this change. It seems to me that this is a huge step back for me. I mean, you take a weapon with a cyclic rate of 750-1000 rounds per minute, and is fed by a 200 round belt of ammo, and replace it with a weapon that has a rate of 40 rounds per minute and only has a 30 round magazine. The automatic rifle is part of a fire team for a good reason. You can't fully supress a target if you have to reload every minute.

The M249 SAW is an extremely formidable weapon. It is also essential to the infantry squad in my eyes. Now, I'm sure this new weapon is a good one, and maybe it should be employed into the infantry arsenal, but in my opinion it makes no sense to replace a high rate of fire belt fed weapon with a magazine fed weapon with a slower rate. What's next, are they going to trade in 5.56mm fo .22 caliber rounds.

I must add that I have talked with many active duty marines who have used this weapon and I have yet to hear on say they would choose this over a SAW.

www.marinecorpstimes.com...

The Marine Corps has fielded hundreds of new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles to units on both coasts, and will receive thousands more from the weapon’s maker this year.

The sleek 5.56mm IAR will replace the belt-fed M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in many infantry formations. There will be one IAR in virtually every four-man fire team, with three per squad, 28 per company and about 4,500 across the Corps. Nine SAWs will be kept in each company; they will be used at the commander’s discretion.

WTF????!!!
I am flabbergasted................duh!
Whats the plan?
What has this weapon got thats better than a minimi?
The SAW is the base of the fire a squad puts out.
Its suppressive quality is the reason its essential.....
With every rifle and automatic weapon, the solid stream of belt fed rounds from a SAW is what makes manouver possible for the other members of a squad.....
Without suppressing fire we will take an unprecedented number of casualties IMHO......bad bad Move....
It may be ok for rah tag talibans, but against a better organized and conventional force, they would be helpless without their SAWs
I fail to understand why????
Whats the reasoning?
Dont we already have thirty round m16 mags anyways??

Sadly it is about money. Whoever lobbies the most gets the contract and the IAR was probably marketed as a more cost effective weapon.

The US is not truly at war, if we were then we would have the draft reinstated. We are involved in conflicts in the name of profits for the MIC.

replace it with a weapon that has a rate of 40 rounds per minute and only has a 30 round magazine.

reply to post by usmc0311


40 rounds per minute? Where did you get that figure?

en.wikipedia.org...

Rate of fire 560 to 640 rpm

Don't see the point of this myself. The commonality of magazines is nice, but barring issuing everyone with c-mags, I don't see how the M27 can provide the volume of fire needed to effectively supress an opponent. Does this thing even fire from an open bolt? If not, even with a drum mag overheating could rapidly become an issue.

[rant]What a waste of resources.
What a shame that we invest so much into killing and creating walls.
What a shame some countries see it necessary to project themselves by force.

Why not try to be a leading light rather than the leading killer.

Disgusting.

Humans disgust me when we have so much potential and yet waste our talents on crap like this.


[/rant]

Back to your normal bloodlust warmongering warm and fuzzies...

reply to post by usmc0311


okay wait... The USA now again since the 1970's has a MBR thats full auto, couldn't we just order new bolt-carriers that makes the M4/M16a4 full auto?

NOW they want to kill off the SAW a BELT FED LMG- Not a magazine fed rifle. Belt fed ARE still around for a reason since before WWI. RAW FIREPOWER!!!!! sometimes you need that.

I ask myself..... Did the MARINES ask for a "NEW" weapon or did a contractor have a dollar to make and a friend in congress?

Originally posted by waveydavey

replace it with a weapon that has a rate of 40 rounds per minute and only has a 30 round magazine.

reply to post by usmc0311

 

40 rounds per minute? Where did you get that figure?

en.wikipedia.org...

Rate of fire 560 to 640 rpm

Ok, and at 640 rpm, a 30 round mag is emptied in 0.04 seconds.

That's even worse. You pull the trigger and empty the who magazine if it's on auto???

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by waveydavey

replace it with a weapon that has a rate of 40 rounds per minute and only has a 30 round magazine.

reply to post by usmc0311

 

40 rounds per minute? Where did you get that figure?

en.wikipedia.org...

Rate of fire 560 to 640 rpm

Ok, and at 640 rpm, a 30 round mag is emptied in 0.04 seconds.

That's even worse. You pull the trigger and empty the who magazine if it's on auto???

At 640 rpm you would fire 10 rounds per second so a 30 round mag would last 3 seconds.
A 200 round belt at 1000rpm would get you 12.5 seconds at full auto.

I understand the need for suppressing fire but surely accurately placed rounds at a lower rate is better in the long run?

Not the SAW, the SAW is a formidable weapon. Why would they downgrade?

reply to post by stirling


My guess as to why would be all about money. HK has been wooing the Corps for some time to expand beyond the MP5 and the M-16 Magazines they produce. This is what happens when non combat officers and civilians have a say in our firepower. Not that HK is a bad company, I mean, they make some very nice products, but the simple fact is that the M-249 SAW did and does not need to be replaced.

reply to post by jrod


Unfortunately you are right. Money I'm sure was the deciding factor in this deal. It's just a shame that the front line troops are not being considered in these decisions.

reply to post by waveydavey


Sorry, the sustained rate is 40. Either way the firepower of the saw greatly outweighs that of the new IAR. A SAW gunner can carry much more ammo due to it being belt fed. When I was active and carried a SAW, I carried between 600-1000 rounds. I very highly doubt that someone can carry that much readily available ammo for the new IAR. M-16s and DMR rifles are for pinpoint accuracy. A belt fed weapon is not.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


You bring up another great point. Overheating. At least with a SAW you can change barrels as well as adjust your rate of fire. Just a bad decision in my book.

Originally posted by aorAki
[rant]What a waste of resources.
What a shame that we invest so much into killing and creating walls.
What a shame some countries see it necessary to project themselves by force.

Why not try to be a leading light rather than the leading killer.

Disgusting.

Humans disgust me when we have so much potential and yet waste our talents on crap like this.

[/rant]

Back to your normal bloodlust warmongering warm and fuzzies...

It's shame that they are trying to replace a weapon for no reason other than money. If it aint broke don't fix it ya know.

And I'm no war mongerer or full of blood lust. I'm just a former Marine who is a firearms enthusiest.

reply to post by merkej23


The ideas behind some of these changes just baffle me. We never had a problem with our saws and thought that was the most important weapon in a squad. We were never asked if it should be replaced and neither did current Marines. It's just a crock of you know what in my book.

reply to post by waveydavey

I understand the need for suppressing fire but surely accurately placed rounds at a lower rate is better in the long run?

It depends on the situation that you are in. Often times a weapon like the SAW is used to pin down enemy forces while other elements close with and destroy those targets. It also used to supress enemy forces who may have your unit pinned down. In a situation like that you need a belt fed weapon. The new IAR just doen not have the sustainability to produce the same results as the SAW.

This debate has been going on for quite some time each weapon has its ups and downs and the SAW will always have its place. One big draw back to the m249 is in a CQB situation and its weight.

I look at the m27 more as a gap filler. Select fire, much lighter, quick mag changes, and I just like HK's. It will be a good addition in the long run that reflects the future of combat and how our troops will be used and where they will be deployed. The game is much different nowadays and into the future. Put more M27's into as many hands as possible and you have one hell of a primary weapon.

I'll stay out of the politics regarding why HK was chosen over others to produce this weapon format.

reply to post by jibeho


It is a fantastic weapon. I too am a fan of HK products. They should be replacing some of the M-16s and M-4s with this weapon instead of SAWs though. In my opinion that is. I would have loved to have one of those when I was active. Also the Marine Corps spent a fortune replacing the old SAWs with the newer Para-Saws over the last ten years. The Shortened lighterweight version of the SAW worked great in CQB situations as well any other situations we came across. That is one sweet rifle though. I want one for myself. It is simaler to the SAMR rifles we used to have. Those were M-16a4s with a free floating improved barrel, bipods and a nice leupold scope. The new one looks like a step up from that and that's how that weapon should be fielded.

reply to post by usmc0311


I know what you mean, I was army (for a short time thanks to a brain clot) and the SAW is more than able to kick ass and take names. it does much better than the old M60 (though she was a beast firing 7.62) I'm still baffeled by the need to replace the weapon.

As I said earlier all they would need is a new bolt carrier group for the M4 to go full auto. So their is no need to buy this weapon.

Semper Fi my friend.