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.
Tags:
no subject
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.
no subject