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

[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.