Not so sure about this

[unixronin]

The USMC has apparently backburnered the new FN SCAR-L rifle (which would be issued to all riflemen in place of their M16A4s and M4s) in order to free up funds for replacing the M249 SAW, a 5.56mm belt-fed light machine gun with a quick-change barrel that fires from an open bolt to avoid cook-offs, with a new M27 5.56mm heavy-barrel rifle that fires from a closed bolt, has no provision for barrel changing in the field, and currently feeds from a standard 30-round magazine.

Sure, the M27 is reported to be more accurate than the SAW.  But isn't that what rifles are for?  And can the M27 actually put down the sustained volume of fire needed for the support role?

This seems like a generally bad idea to me, for a variety of reasons.  The grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been saying they need more firepower.  As far as I can tell, this is going to give them less.  And the USMC probably wouldn't be planning to hold back one in three M249s if they didn't already have doubts about the M27.

Comments

[robhansen]

So, let me get this straight:

The British field an awful SAW, the L86A2 LSW. Heavy barrel, check. Closed bolt, check. No quick change barrel, check.

The British have such an awful experience with the L86A2 that it is ultimately outright removed as the standard SAW and replaced with the FN Minimi. Existing L86A2 stockpiles are being converted into either designated marksman rifles (taking advantage of the heavy barrel) or are being chopped and converted into L22A1 PDWs.

After watching the British nightmare with mag-fed, closed-bolt, no-quick-change-barrel SAWs, what does our military do?

Adopt mag-fed, closed-bolt, no-quick-change-barrel SAWs!

My God, we’re in the military version of the Underpants Gnomes sketch.

[unixronin]

After watching the British nightmare with mag-fed, closed-bolt, no-quick-change-barrel SAWs, what does our military do?

Adopt mag-fed, closed-bolt, no-quick-change-barrel SAWs!

...To replace the exact weapon that the British replaced the awful L86A2 with because the L86A2 couldn't cut the mustard.

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

There's an old saying, "Money talks..." and this would seem to exemplify that. Why order 1000 units of a combat-proven weapon when you can order 15000 units of something new? To me, this looks like nothing less than some manufacturer pitching their new product, and the General who was responsible for ordering saying something like, "Ok, but I have to find a way to justify it." Which probably means that the unnamed General in the purchasing office got a kick-back.

Jackasses should have that toy rammed up their ass.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Program officials acknowledge that a 30-round magazine cannot produce the high volume of fire the M249 is capable of when loaded with a 200-round belt. The Corps is considering high-capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 rounds of 5.56mm ammo, but Marines that deploy with this first batch of IARs will carry only 30-round magazines.

"The initial limited fielding will not include a high-capacity ammunition source, but that remains an option," Clark said, explaining that such magazines will have to undergo a separate round of testing.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, it's better than sending 1873 black-powder Springfields up against Mausers . . .

[montieth.livejournal.com]

I rather gather that the M249 has issues. I'd thought it was supposed to be a good weapon but a number of people I know have expressed issues with it. I think some of it relates to cutting them down to a very short length to help save weight and the corresponding range limits that imposes.

[vetpsychwars.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised if politics were involved. Once enough of these things fail in the field (hopefully not to the detriment of the Marines carrying them), they can field something else/better.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

It sounds like you are pretty sure about it. The military is deliberately abandoning a weapon, that looks like it will work, in favor of one known to not work. It smells like politics. A true pessimist and cynic could think it was a set of politicians, who dislike the military, deliberately harming mission capability in order to discredit the military, who they dislike. (No, that could never happen...)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

To be fair, there have been complaints about the M249 SAW in Iraq and Afghanistan, notably regarding its accuracy (which is a little difficult to understand given the M249's reputation for almost rifle-like accuracy) and to adverse functioning under heavy dust-and-grit conditions (although unlike any off-the-shelf M16 variant, it has an adjustable gas valve with a setting specifically for coping with such adverse conditions). I have heard some of the complaints attributed to the US "shortening" the barrel of the M249 "to save weight", though the M249 SAW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun) actually has a barrel 2.7" longer than the standard model FN Minimi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi), and fully 7.3" longer than the Para model, making the M249 1.9lb heavier (unloaded) than a standard Minimi and 2.5lb heavier than the Para. It's unclear exactly which US modifications to the M249 are responsible for the added pork, but there's too much of it to be attributable solely to the extra 2.7" of barrel, which can't be contributing more than about 0.4lb. The Minimi has an excellent reputation, and is in service with 27 nations (counting the US), including the majority of NATO.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the US has waited for NATO to standardize on something (and, in the past even urged and pressured NATO to adopt a particular standard), then turned around and adopted something different and frequently incompatible.

Due credit to USMC Commandant General Conway — the scuttlebutt is that he's dubious about whether the M27 can do the job and whether the reduced firepower at the fireteam level is viable, and will permit the M27 to go into the field only if it passes his standards first.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Something is not adding up. I really do doubt that a Marine officer would allow their troops into battle with a deliberately inadequate piece of equipment on purpose. Trust from those in your command is just too precious to lose.

The most wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.