Initial post OEF deployment feedback on the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. - Page 1

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Initial post OEF deployment feedback on the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 2/23/2012 8:45:20 AM EDT

Well the first battalion back from OEF to report on the usage of the M27. The interviewed sample was made up of all the Battalions rifle squad leaders and they stated that it had little or no negative impact on the squads' fire power or ability to gain fire superiority in fire fights. Most touted aspects of the gun was accuracy, reliability and having a common ammo source for the rest of the squads M16 series weapons. Several of the Squad leaders recommended the squad keep 1 SAW just in case.

It was universally recommended by the squad leaders of the battalion that the M27 be fielded to every Marine in the squad because of its accuracy and versatility.

Posted: 2/23/2012 8:48:12 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Well the first battalion back from OEF to report on the usage of the M27. The interviewed sample was made up of all the Battalions rifle squad leaders and they stated that it had little or no negative impact on the squads' fire power or ability to gain fire superiority in fire fights. Most touted aspects of the gun was accuracy, reliability and having a common ammo source for the rest of the squads M16 series weapons. Several of the Squad leaders recommended the squad keep 1 SAW just in case.

It was universally recommended by the squad leaders of the battalion that the M27 be fielded to every Marine in the squad because of its accuracy and versatility.

Just in case of what? Did they say?

Posted: 2/23/2012 8:54:03 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well the first battalion back from OEF to report on the usage of the M27. The interviewed sample was made up of all the Battalions rifle squad leaders and they stated that it had little or no negative impact on the squads' fire power or ability to gain fire superiority in fire fights. Most touted aspects of the gun was accuracy, reliability and having a common ammo source for the rest of the squads M16 series weapons. Several of the Squad leaders recommended the squad keep 1 SAW just in case.

It was universally recommended by the squad leaders of the battalion that the M27 be fielded to every Marine in the squad because of its accuracy and versatility.

Just in case of what? Did they say?

Most likely because the M16 platform was not designed for sustained rates of fire the way that the SAW was and might not actually fill that role.

Just guessing.

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:07:21 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Well the first battalion back from OEF to report on the usage of the M27. The interviewed sample was made up of all the Battalions rifle squad leaders and they stated that it had little or no negative impact on the squads' fire power or ability to gain fire superiority in fire fights. Most touted aspects of the gun was accuracy, reliability and having a common ammo source for the rest of the squads M16 series weapons. Several of the Squad leaders recommended the squad keep 1 SAW just in case.

It was universally recommended by the squad leaders of the battalion that the M27 be fielded to every Marine in the squad because of its accuracy and versatility.

I find this part interesting. IIRC someone here on one these threads theorized this was a roundabout way of getting a new infantry rifle for the marines.

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:19:11 AM EDT

[#4]

What magazines are issued with the M27?

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:29:34 AM EDT

[#5]

im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:36:09 AM EDT

[#6]

ok......now what?

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:41:34 AM EDT

[#7]

also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:50:15 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

I'd be curious too, since I recently observed an M16A4 experience a cookoff after firing seven mags in rather quick succession. It was not a speed-reload contests however, as the rifle was passed between about four shooters. Most of the fire was in three-shot burst mode, with some semi-auto fire as well. That's the only time I've ever seen a cookoff.

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:54:35 AM EDT

[#9]

A magazine-fed weapon does not equal suppressive firepower capability. If you read the trials for a new IAR, the actual SAW gunners preferred the Ultimax 100 over the others.

I've shot the HK416, and it is a POS. If the M27 is anything like it, that unit needs a urinalysis.

Posted: 2/23/2012 9:55:05 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

I guess when they replace all their M4s with these that won't be a problem. I think that's what they were going for from the start of this project.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:03:33 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

I guess when they replace all their M4s with these that won't be a problem. I think that's what they were going for from the start of this project.

Just what they need.... a heavier carbine?

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:07:02 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I find this part interesting. IIRC someone here on one these threads theorized this was a roundabout way of getting a new infantry rifle for the marines.

Yup...

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:10:09 AM EDT

[#13]

The individual service rifle/carbine that the Marines need is the M4A1 SOPMOD Block II, with a rifle-length handguard, and maybe a 16" barrel length at the most.

The LMG they need should be along the lines of the KAC LMG, not the HK.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:17:29 AM EDT

[#14]

What's this thing do that a full squad of full auto M16s can't?

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:21:03 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
What's this thing do that a full squad of full auto M16s can't?

A full squad of Riflemen should not be using their blasters on the AUTO or BURST mode of fire anyway.

M16A4 with A5 stock...that would be more appropriate.
M4A1 Block II SOPMOD...even better
HK anything, not so much.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:22:51 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
What's this thing do that a full squad of full auto M16s can't?

Build a fence 1000 yards long that you push the enemy into.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:23:58 AM EDT

[#17]

so this will replace a beltfed?
this fucked up idea will get many of our soldiers killed.
belt feds have a purpose

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:26:29 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The SAW is open bolt, so no round in chamber. I don't get how the USMC could go with a weapons that could be cooked off! It's gonna be like having a BAR again!

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:27:02 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The M27 fires from an open bolt as well, doesn't it?

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:27:44 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

I guess when they replace all their M4s with these that won't be a problem. I think that's what they were going for from the start of this project.

Just what they need.... a heavier carbine?

I don't know, maybe just M4A1s. The only thing that makes sense of this is an end goal of more FA rifle capability and their predictable results kind of support that. I'm all for it.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:28:37 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
so this will replace a beltfed?
this fucked up idea will get many of our soldiers killed.
belt feds have a purpose

agreed, except the saw sucks in general anyway

they need either a new belt-fed 556 lmg

OR

a side fed magazine/snaildrum fed 556 automatic rifle with a quick change barrel, fires open bolt in full auto, and a good dustcover

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:29:43 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The SAW is open bolt, so no round in chamber. I don't get how the USMC could go with a weapons that could be cooked off! It's gonna be like having a BAR again!

yea thats my point....i was wondering how well this thing can keep up with the saw in sustained fire...mag changes aside

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:32:36 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The M27 fires from an open bolt as well, doesn't it?

my understanding is that it does not, which has always been my biggest objection to it......guys rarely do barrel changes in real life.....and you can get bigger mags/get better at mag changes.....but i think cookoffs could be a potential real problem especially if trying to break contact or establish fire supiriourity

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:36:32 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
so this will replace a beltfed?
this fucked up idea will get many of our soldiers killed.
belt feds have a purpose

I agree.

I've carried the SAW as a SAW gunner in an Infantry Squad, or dismounted small unit. I'm still failing to see how a magazine-fed AR is going to fill the role that I performed with a belt-fed LMG. Granted, I hate the SAW, but a belt-fed LMG that is much lighter is what it needed.

In the movies, they can make a BAR look like a viable suppressive fire weapon by cutting the mag changes out of the action sequences. In the real world, not so much.

The SF60rd mag is also a major failure, which really disappoints me and others, but I saw that one coming from a mile away.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:39:06 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The M27 fires from an open bolt as well, doesn't it?

my understanding is that it does not, which has always been my biggest objection to it......guys rarely do barrel changes in real life.....and you can get bigger mags/get better at mag changes.....but i think cookoffs could be a potential real problem especially if trying to break contact or establish fire supiriourity

You are correct it does not.

It's a closed bolt weapon.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:46:34 AM EDT

[#26]

Interesting. One M249 per squad would probably provide sufficient firepower for the Marines with a couple of M27s supporting, as they employ 3 fire teams per, rather than the Army's 2. A belt fed in each squad with a couple of M240s at the platoon level is still a tremendous amount of lead slinging potential. And I'm sure the M27 probably does enhance mobility. I admit, I was mildly surprised to see these Marines really want these as standard issue for all members of the rifle squad.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. If they indeed want a heavy barrel carbine/rifle with the ability to use full auto, this is a somewhat strange way to go about getting it. But it may just end up working. Nonetheless, if the Marine grunts in the field truly want this weapon (or something with similar capability), then we should equip them with it.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:49:27 AM EDT

[#27]

I suspect HK at work here again, not a natural, widespread grassroots demand for a new weapon system.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:51:40 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

They were in Now Zad and Musa Qalah

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:52:33 AM EDT

[#29]

We're not going to be fighting low intensity conflicts forever. A magazine fed rifle with a fixed barrel is as dumb of a long term doctrine decision as you can fucking get.

If we get into a REAL war, we're gonna need belt feds when fighting against a much larger force when you REALLY need to gain fire superiority.

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:57:12 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I suspect HK at work here again, not a natural, widespread grassroots demand for a new weapon system.

The Infantry weapons officer community has been pushing for them since 2001

Posted: 2/23/2012 10:58:39 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

A magazine-fed weapon does not equal suppressive firepower capability. If you read the trials for a new IAR, the actual SAW gunners preferred the Ultimax 100 over the others.

I've shot the HK416, and it is a POS. If the M27 is anything like it, that unit needs a urinalysis.

The Ultimax seems like a pretty nifty weapon.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:07:50 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The M27 fires from an open bolt as well, doesn't it?

my understanding is that it does not, which has always been my biggest objection to it......guys rarely do barrel changes in real life.....and you can get bigger mags/get better at mag changes.....but i think cookoffs could be a potential real problem especially if trying to break contact or establish fire supiriourity

You are correct it does not.

It's a closed bolt weapon.

I coulda sworn last time around someone posted a video showing that with the selector in the full-auto position, the rifle fired from open bolt.

Selector in semi-auto = closed bolt.

Am I thinking of something else?

ETA: It appears I am:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

The finalists diverge most clearly when it comes to their operating systems. Only FNH’s IAR fires from both the open- and closed-bolt positions, a requirement to keep the heat down when the Corps initially announced the competition. Cantwell said “that restriction went away” as officials surveyed their options.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:17:15 AM EDT

[#33]

Somewhat off topic here , but I've been thinking about a concept for a SAW. It seems to me that instead of just a quick-change barrel, there could be more of a quick-change "upper" that incorporates a 200-400rd belt (or drum, or whatever you can make work) as well as a barrel. Allows for a quicker reload, and "forces" the barrel change. The whole thing could work like the upper on the AR system. Get to the end of the belt, pop two pins (or throw one cam lever) , remove upper, replace upper, push two pins, rack charging handle, you're back in the fight with ammo and a cool barrel.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:26:44 AM EDT

[#34]

Although I am still a bit of a skeptic of the M27. I would have say that the majority, like 99 percent, of fires for fire superiority and volume of fire put out in fire fights is nowhere near close enough to have any real effect on the enemy. Anyone can wildly put 1000 rounds down range without having any effect at all.

This may not be the weapon when you just want to put rounds down range for intra-unit psychological effects of making noise, but this seems to be effective at putting somewhat accurate fire down on targets.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:29:48 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Somewhat off topic here , but I've been thinking about a concept for a SAW. It seems to me that instead of just a quick-change barrel, there could be more of a quick-change "upper" that incorporates a 200-400rd belt (or drum, or whatever you can make work) as well as a barrel. Allows for a quicker reload, and "forces" the barrel change. The whole thing could work like the upper on the AR system. Get to the end of the belt, pop two pins (or throw one cam lever) , remove upper, replace upper, push two pins, rack charging handle, you're back in the fight with ammo and a cool barrel.

Interesting. So while the G/AG kick ass, somebody in the gun team then 'reloads' the upper with another 200rnd drum so that it is ready again?

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:30:38 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Somewhat off topic here , but I've been thinking about a concept for a SAW. It seems to me that instead of just a quick-change barrel, there could be more of a quick-change "upper" that incorporates a 200-400rd belt (or drum, or whatever you can make work) as well as a barrel. Allows for a quicker reload, and "forces" the barrel change. The whole thing could work like the upper on the AR system. Get to the end of the belt, pop two pins (or throw one cam lever) , remove upper, replace upper, push two pins, rack charging handle, you're back in the fight with ammo and a cool barrel.

So, you want to attach a barreled receiver to each belt of ammunition?

That sounds cost effective. They'll probably do it.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:37:23 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

They were in Now Zad and Musa Qalah

I thought they were in garmser, in any case in think now zad is pretty quiet and musa qalah is as well (except for the huge ied problem) and the north and south edges of the AO

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:39:31 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I suspect HK at work here again, not a natural, widespread grassroots demand for a new weapon system.

The Infantry weapons officer community has been pushing for them since 2001

I had heard that the Gunner pushing this was not too popular among the Gunner community and when he landed a gig at the warfighting lab he finally got the chance to ram this down everyone's throat. Im not sure If that is accurate but I heard it from a couple of senior Gunners over chow one night.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:44:24 AM EDT

[#39]

So, you want to attach a barreled receiver to each belt of ammunition?

That sounds cost effective. They'll probably do it.

More like attaching a belt of ammo to each barrel. The gun could still maintain the ability to be reloaded normally. Also, the barrel/upper unit would of course be reusable.

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:45:29 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

They were in Now Zad and Musa Qalah

I thought they were in garmser, in any case in think now zad is pretty quiet and musa qalah is as well (except for the huge ied problem) and the north and south edges of the AO

You are thinking about 1/3 this was 2/4. I don't know how many TICs they got in but I did see numerous named operations and large percentage of GSW related wounds

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:45:37 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

also wasn't the battalion that evaluated them in a less kinetic area? For that a lighter, more accurate weapon might actually be better.....but it might be a problem when someone actually needs a good amount of suppression

I guess when they replace all their M4s with these that won't be a problem. I think that's what they were going for from the start of this project.

Do you mean A4s?

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:49:17 AM EDT

[#42]

Ok, ive got a question for some of the guys who are intamently familiar with the process, is the procurement of new small arms a screwed up process in general?

Posted: 2/23/2012 11:50:03 AM EDT

[#43]

The gunner who got the ball rolling on this went to Joint Non-Leathal Lab. The gunner who got the H&K into the system went to work for Trijicon

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:02:10 PM EDT

[#44]

Betcha H&K bribes enough people to get it issued in massive numbers.

I know first hand that the H&K ARs are poorly designed in many ways. They shine in a few areas, but there is a lot of really poor engineering and planning on that platform (see: plastic dust cover, unnecessary parts incompatibility, pointless change to the magazine well, carrier tilt issues still unsolved, excessive wear with good supressors).

But I'm sure the fanboys who have never touched an HK 416 will be ecstatic.

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:05:00 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Somewhat off topic here , but I've been thinking about a concept for a SAW. It seems to me that instead of just a quick-change barrel, there could be more of a quick-change "upper" that incorporates a 200-400rd belt (or drum, or whatever you can make work) as well as a barrel. Allows for a quicker reload, and "forces" the barrel change. The whole thing could work like the upper on the AR system. Get to the end of the belt, pop two pins (or throw one cam lever) , remove upper, replace upper, push two pins, rack charging handle, you're back in the fight with ammo and a cool barrel.

Or just have 12 SAW's. Do you realize how much shit they would have to carry to just get a few reloads? What happens when uppers start getting dumped like mags and links? The enemy picks them up and reuses them with captured weapons.

Who polices up the barrels? What happens when the squad has to haul ass to somewhere else? So you want riflemen from the squad pulled off to reload these barrel/upper contraptions? Who provides accurate fire and movement while the gunner pins down the enemy?

As far as the M27, sweet the USMC is already thinking about fighting "the last war". So the next time we have a REAL fighting force to deal with, we'll have BAR's like WWII. Full retard.

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:14:33 PM EDT

[#46]

A full auto, closed bolt 5.56 weapon with a 30 round capacity. Never been done before. Game changer.

So back 25 years ago when every troop carried a full auto closed bolt 30 round capacity weapon, was there any need for a squad automatic weapon?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:37:06 PM EDT

[#47]

I don't get it. How can that thing replace the SAW? Might as well have just given them an auto M4 instead and saved some money.

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:41:42 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
A full auto, closed bolt 5.56 weapon with a 30 round capacity. Never been done before. Game changer.

So back 25 years ago when every troop carried a full auto closed bolt 30 round capacity weapon, was there any need for a squad automatic weapon?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Now back home in the UK we lost our GPMG's (M240 to you) we got the LSW (long barreled L85), then the sand box happened away with the LSW in with the M249 and back comes the GPMG.

I see where the future lays for the USMC!

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:43:40 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
im curious, anyone know how long you can shoot this at the sustained rate of the Saw (85 rd/min) before it starts cooking off arounds in the chamber or otherwise malfunctions?

The M27 fires from an open bolt as well, doesn't it?

my understanding is that it does not, which has always been my biggest objection to it......guys rarely do barrel changes in real life.....and you can get bigger mags/get better at mag changes.....but i think cookoffs could be a potential real problem especially if trying to break contact or establish fire supiriourity

You are correct it does not.

It's a closed bolt weapon.

I coulda sworn last time around someone posted a video showing that with the selector in the full-auto position, the rifle fired from open bolt.

Selector in semi-auto = closed bolt.

Am I thinking of something else?

ETA: It appears I am:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

The finalists diverge most clearly when it comes to their operating systems. Only FNH’s IAR fires from both the open- and closed-bolt positions, a requirement to keep the heat down when the Corps initially announced the competition. Cantwell said “that restriction went away” as officials surveyed their options.

Yup - bingo - each manufacturers guns were a little different. The HK version that was adopted as the M27 is closed bolt.

Posted: 2/23/2012 12:44:42 PM EDT

[#50]

I'm in the SSP of one of the Battalions that evaluated these, if you guys have any questions I would be happy to answer them.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Initial post OEF deployment feedback on the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us