We all know what it is. Its basically the HK416 with some accessories. I did a little review for you all

Basically what you see is what you get.
5.56 Piston Driven, closed bolt rifle
Trijicon TA11SDO-CP ACOG with Trijicon RMR on TOP all mounted on a LARUE TACTICAL QD Mount
Safe, Semi, Full Auto (FA switch has the typical HK selector marking with a "30" next to it which i thought was funny considering its replacing the SAW)
HK416 Collapsible stock
Free Floating 1:7 Twist 16.5" barrel with a A2 Flash hider (of course )
Bayonet lug
Larger charging handle latch
Quick detach 11" rail system (by QD i dont mean a lever, but a single screw that takes literally 10 seconds to take off)
Harris Bipod that has to option to swivel or be fixed with a LARUE TACTICAL QD mount
KAC Back up iron sights
Manta Rail covers (which i thought were actually really cool and easy, they are a mushy, flexible rail cover thats real easy to take off and has a nice grip)
KAC vertical grip with Manta grip cover just like the rail cover
Has a different buffer, not sure what the differences is but im almost positive its just a heavy carbine buffer.
Blue Force quick adjust sling (NOT PICTURED, because it sucks and i rather use my own VTAC Padded 2 point quick adjust sling)

Let me go straight into complaints:

1: First and foremost the thing that angers me the most and this was addressed a long time ago, HK decided they wanted to change the dimensions of the Magwell. Why? With a STANAG dimension magazine inserted the standard magwell, too much dust, sand, and crud could enter into the upper receiver, even with the dust cover closed. HK could not control magazine dimensions, so they solved problem by making a tighter and longer magwell, that reduced the amount of dust and sand that entered into the receiver. Companies like Magpul decided to make their own magazines, not of STANAG dimensions, were designed to seal up the space in a standard magwell among other things, so ultimately PMAGS or any magazine that isnt of STANAG dimensions, will not work or seat properly. If they do then its dangerously tight. The USMC never specified whether or not the M27 needed to be compatible with non mil-spec magazines so why would HK result to the old magwell?

I was issued 6 Brownell's AR Mags with Anti-tilt followers. Yeah they work but i would prefer Pmags with Windows. If im suppressing an enemy, especially on FA, i would want to be able to see how many rounds i have left considering it uses 30 round mags. It sucks that i cant use them, but you cant have everything right? It just doesnt make sense to me why HK would take into account Pmags considering they are almost at the point of being the "standard" in M4/M16/AR-15 magazines, but of course everything is based of NATO standards so what can we do?

Supposedly E-Mags work with this weapon, but i have not looked into it that much yet. I know Magpul designed these for foreign weapons and have won a contract as the standard issued mag for the British.

I am not sure if they addressed the Surefire 60/100 round mags but originally, because the magwell is LONGER, it did not accept the Surefire magazines because the magwell would HIT where the mag opened up wider. I HEARD they might have fixed them but im not really sure. It would be nice to rock the 60 round mags out of this thing.

The whole which magazine to use ordeal is a mystery to me. Its a weapon the USMC specifically asked for that needed better cookoff resistance for the required Rate of Fire. I guess for this standard they asked, limiting the capacity to 30 round magazines would make sense. I only imagine dumping a 60 round Surefire mag would render the cookoff resistance standard useless.

Fact is and long story short, when the IAR project started in 2005 (I think?) im pretty sure Pmags, SF Quad stacked mags and all these other poly mags, did not even exist. So it technically meets the standards we asked for. All i know is im not buying $50 HK SS M16 Mags I will stick with the Brownell's mags i was given.

2: Im not sure how the barrel will hold up to constant fire granted the situation calls for a high RoF. The RoF can crank up to 800-900 RPM at the cyclic rate as opposed to the SAW's 800 RPM at the cyclic. This is of course is based on holding the trigger down aka Cyclic Rate as mentioned. The SAW has a quick detach barrel and the IAR does not. Obviously mag changes can factor in. Of course im sure this has been through all the testing in the world so i dont think the barrel thickness will be an issue. As long as there are no glowing gas tubes from a DI M16/M4 I think there will be no issues. It would defeat the purpose of the weapon entirely if it was changed.  

3: I'm still not sold on the TA11SDO. On the SAW the "horse shoe" reticle was great for target detection and recognition, but on this rifle its not something i would want to use. I understand this rifle is supposed to be the new "suppression weapon" replacing the SAW but like i said above, i had to QUALIFY with this thing from 200,300, and 500m on an optic that doesnt even have a 200m BDC or post. You basically had to aim where the horse shoe was cut out right above the 300m and during the rapid fire portion of the qual it was kinda annoying to get a follow up shot on a cross hair that did not exist unlike the TA31RCO thats on the M4's and A4's. HOWEVER the RMR dot on top of the SDO is pretty neat. Pretty cool for MOUT room clearing.

4: There is no real fixed sling mount on the front of the weapon. Its comes with a Blue Force 2 point sling that I dont like. The front sling is mounted on a flat head screw mount thats mounted on the side of the rail. So if you LOSE that piece, you are pretty much screwed unless you find/buy something else to mount it on and im sure if you turn it in to the armory they might complain about it, not to mention if you get issued a different weapon, the next person who gets that rifle wont have a sling mount. The Rear sling mount however is nice and is PART of the buttstock on both the left and right side. It also have a loop on the top for "Hook" type sling adapters.

5: I cant really complain about the Harris Bipod by itself but the way these issued weapons naturally get handled and beat up, that thing will not last long before it breaks or gets damaged. On the flip side to that, is the QD mount made by Larue. If you dont want it or simply dont need it, just a flip of a switch and it pops off. Obviously that needs to be put back on when you return it to the armory. If i HAD to complain about the Harris on THIS weapon its that there are alot of adjustment points on the legs and being very familiar with the SAW, you might need to change bipod lengths REAL QUICK when you are in the heat of the moment. With all the adjustment points it might be a pain to get BOTH legs at the same position in a hurry. The situation obviously dictates. The other complaint is that no matter how tight you tighten the swivel on the bottom, eventually it starts to come loose, especially if you try to "dig" into the rifle in the prone to get a more stable position or need to lean. The fixed bipod on the SAW swiveled regardless and it made it easier to "walk" in rounds if you needed to. It also has a loose tolerance for when you "dig" into it so there isnt much stress on the joints. The M27 bipod and the SAW bipod both have their obvious pros and cons. It will also loosen real quick if you are doing things such as buddy rushes where you are constantly dropping into the prone in a short amount of time.

6: The A2 Flash Hider. Pretty sure the only reason why they have this thing on there is because of the Bayonet lug and the fact that there are no cuts on the bottom on the FH to kick up too much dust. The SAW however had its own FH and NO Bayo lug obviously, so why cant this one have a different FH or even a compensator? I guess this rifle serves as a middle man but just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

7: I do like the buttstock, dont get me wrong, but the curve on the end kinda sucks for getting steady accurate shots. I would prefer it be flat or curved in the other way. However if you are patrolling or doing MOUT style engagements, its good for "rolling" into the Ready position from the Alert when its shouldered. This is more of a personal preference.

8: The HK416 has a grenade launcher (AG416?) that mounts onto the 416 but as far as i know its not compatible with the IAR. Not really an issue, because thats not really what it was designed for right?

9: Election Port Cover/Dust Cover is made of a flimsy plastic. Lets see how long that lasts before it breaks.

Pro's:

Overall, in my honest opinion, it serves as an excellent General Purpose weapon somewhere in between the M4/M16 and the SAW. In a perfect world i would love to have all M16's replaced with the IAR and M4's replaced with a 14.5" HK416 with a TA31. The piston design in general whether it be on the 416 or any other after market AR-15 Piston kit, is a great idea. The quick detach hand guards on the M27 grants you quick access to the piston for cleaning and maintenance. There is alot less cleaning involved. The piston is very simple and quick to clean. No hassle at all. The chamber, receiver and bolt assembly is generally alot cleaner and easier to clean than its Direct Impingement counterpart that blows carbon straight into the receiver and its children. Its a solidly built, very accurate weapon system and i really have nothing bad to say about the craftsmanship of the Germans.

PICTURES:

Sorry for the crappy pictures and lack of detail. These were field pictures.









This little Cross looking screw is what holds the Hand guard in place.


The Bolt. Notice the differences? There is a lever that you lift to release the firing pin once the retaining pin is pulled out. The Bolt is spring loaded and the spring is located around the firing pin. The second picture you can see the hole and inside you can see the spring. Why is that hole there? No clue, maybe its for lubrication. The side of the bolt also does not have holes for lubrication from what i saw. Believe it or not...this BOLT itself is what you use to unscrew the Cross looking screw that holds the hand guard in place. I guess thats a good idea so you dont need an extra tool to get it out but i think it could have been done another way to minimize bolt face damage.




Once you take that screw out the handguard just slides right over top of the barrel like pictured exposing the piston.



The piston in 2 parts. The smaller pieces is what gets inserted into the gas block. Thats the only part that gets remotely dirty because of direct contact with gas. The other part is obviously the spring and everything that gets insert behind the smaller piece and into the upper reciever.



Reticle of the SDO



and a really crappy picture of what it looks like through the actual optic




That's basically my own evaluation of the HK M27 IAR based on my personal experiences and some facts i can remember off the top of my head. If you can google legit facts about some of the things i said, and the reasons why things are the way they are, then i would love to hear them....AKA If you are an HK fanboy and want to correct me, by all means.

Topic Moved

I don't believe this is correct.  The magwell was made to mimic the magwell setup on the SA80, which HK was working on an improvement package for which included a new magazine.  The extended front of the magwell is needed to actuate a lever on a special blank-only magazine IIRC.  Can't remember exactly where I got that info but it seemed well documented.


The lever is actually a firing pin safety, more commonly encountered in pistols.  The hole on the bottom of the bolt carrier IIRC is needed to machine the BC for the firing pin safety.

hmm interesting on the SA80 part. I recall reading something like that somewhere but im not sure where so i couldnt quote it. Either way, the IAR predates the Pmag.

Yes the firing pin safety is certainly an improvement incase of an AD.

That's a purdy rifle.  But, isn't EVERYTHING issued to our troops supposed to be MADE IN THE U.S.A.?  I noticed in the pic that it's stamped made in Germany.  I'm just making an observation.  Thanks DevilDog for your service and sacrifices though.  You guys are the real hero's in this world.  

Pmags didn't exist back then - the HK416 predates the Pmag by several years.  A more relevant question is why Magpul ignored the incompatibilites with existing non-AR but STANAG-compliant weapon systems.


E-Mags work with both the HK416 and SA-80.  Magpul has also recently recognized their mistake (or recognized the market shift, depending on how you want to interpret it), and for Gen 3 have redesigned their Pmag's to be fully compatible with rifles like the FN SCAR, FN FS2000, HK416, and SA-80 that are designed around the STANAG magazine spec.

cool, good weapon

The AG416 I believe is the same as the M320 as is now being issued to the Army. Got to handle some 320s at drill this weekend, and they rail mount, so I don't think there'd be any issues putting one on an M27

I am curious how much does the whole setup weigh loaded?

Magpul stated that in a GD thread awhile ago. I asked one of the folks over on HKPro that was on the design team for the 416 about it and they stated that that was malarkey.  The change made changing mags easier or some shit.  It's the internet, who knows.



The new PMAGs will work in the 416/IAR/MR556.  Whenever they decide to release them.



http://www.magpul.com/introducing-the-pmag-30-m3.html





 

Basically the E-Mag the same shit just dimensionally different to cater to the foreign weapons right?

Slightly under 10 lbs. The different is hardly noticable compared to a loaded M16A4. Obviously huge difference compared to the M4. Only thing is the M27 didnt have a PEQ-16 but im pretty sure they will add them on eventually. Ofc if you wanted to, you can take off the Harris Bipod and grip to lighten it but whats the point? Just another piece of gear getting lost.

Yup (well other than the price )





http://store.magpul.com/product/MAG241/2





I'm patiently waiting for the M3 though.




 

 

Magpul started by selling mags to cops and civilians and pursuing the US military market. The Emag was a success and now they are pursuing government contracts abroad. It's not a market shift because those weapons were in service. Since compared with the M4 there is next to no US market for exotics that isn't a good place to chase money.

Pretty much.

I'm surprised by the bipods. Those are very nice bipods, from what it looks like its the ones that LaRue mod. Is there a reason why you expect it to break?

Thx.....be safe and God bless

Surefire mags fit fine in the MR556A1

Excellent review! Stay safe!

Im basing this off of how much abuse a SAW gets. Despite the obvious weight difference in the M27, if these things get slammed around like the SAW did, i would expect to see replacement bipods at some time in the future.

Well atleast you know the mount portion will hold up

Here you can find out why some things in M27 are as they are. And why HK did not made any significant changes from HK416 to M27. Interesting read:

http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1322

Nice review it looks brand spanking new did you guys just get them?

Either way regardless though I still don't care for it.

No. The hole on the bottom is a drain hole for water ala the OTB certified 416s.  Same thing for the 3 holes at the rear of the receiver extension.  Not sure if the IAR has these, but it seems HK has simplified manufacturing by putting these on most 416s not just the OTB certified ones.

To the OP, not sure if you can get away with it in the USMC but the buttpad can be switched out to curve the other way (takes about 5 seconds).  Its a $35 part.  

beautiful machine, I have searched hard for the reason behind the magwell and have been told definitively several different things.  None of them came from Oberndorf so I don't care what people's thoughts are.  I just think it is odd and one of those things I know they wish they had not done.  The AR was already the most stabilized magazine well on any modern firearm.  

You can see that the Surefire 60 rd mags are different from the very first released pictures in the front area that nearly hits the loower, so they had made a tool change, and then it is so close that I don't think it worked 100 percent in the beginning.  

I love the weapon and I really love machine guns,
the SADJ article with Robbie is good in the handling of open bolt and accuracy,

Great things brough from the IAR
1-I still have no idea why the General Dynamics Ultimax didn't kill everyone.  Probably because of semi auto vs. full auto being used but in full auto there is no weapon on the planet with the hitting capability and it already had a very successful high capacity system just a change with the mag well on it would have been needed.
2-Open bolt closed bolt-no doubt there have been all kinds of schemes, but FNH I think nailed it and any weapons in the future shoud use it as a father design legacy, atleast if you drop the thermal reg you can just have an external lever for the control, other wise an open/closed system is a nightmare waiting to happen.
3-great historical designs of feed systems are coming to market which are making modular feeding high capacity an assault weapon a much more attractive option to the light machine gun for troops around the world.  

I am glad it was picked althorugh I thought the now HAMR would do more of a M249 replacement but I understand the role change as well.  If you can keep from cooking, you're much better off than going with open bolt, screw carrying extra barrels, I am not sure if that is even done that much anymore.  Kind of unneeded to have both open bolt and extra barrels unless the guy needs a workout.

M27 IAR is OTB rated by HK. Actually it kind of make sense with it being used by Marine Corps.

I don't know when the Surefire design was updated but the magazine in the picture is one of the first batch from Brownell's after the initial long backorder.

If the older ones don't fit, I bet there aren't more than a handfull floating around.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Did not know that.  Makes sense.  Thanks for the info.

It was deemed too costly and H&K could not gear up to produce enough M27 to replace the A4/M4 in any reasonable amount of time.

The A4 PIP with a free floating tube and collapsible stock gives you about 75 percent of what you get with an M27 at 25 percent of the cost.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Corps went to the M27 across the board...or a variant of it in the very near future.   Just say'n.....

Too expensive it was over a billion dollars to do and H&K would take something like 15-20 years to build the guns

MCOTEA looked at it and compared it with several PIP built A4s they found they got 75 percent the performance at 25 percent the cost.

Has the Marine Corps decided to search for a replacement rifle or are they going along with the Army and the 2-tiered approach?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

It is  a little more complicated, we are monitoring the IC but have somewhat committed to just PIPing our existing rifles and carbines with free floating tubes and new collapsible stocks for the A4s.

That's probably what the Army will end up doing since we're broke as a nation.





Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

It's a pretty neat weapon, I looked at 1 last year where I work.  We stored some for the USMC when they were here doing some T&E on them, and got 1 of the young NCO's to let us look at it, broke down and such.  He wouldn't let me take pictures of it for some reason, said it would violate some "opsec" stuff.  I said OPSEC?  You can go on the web and see more than I am looking at.  Anyway, my biggest drawback to this system is that it's like a M1918A2 BAR....no quick change barrel, but they are wanting to replace the M249 with this?  You can shoot only so many 30 rd mags thru them and they will start overheating...at least in a SAW, you can change the barrel every few minutes if needed, and spare barrels can be carried by the whole squad.  Just my opinion, but overall, it's a good system, but I don't think the Army will adopt it...I could be wrong though.

During testing the M27 was able to fire off 3-5 rounds ever 5 seconds for 600 rounds without overheating.

In my opinion, that ain't a whole lot of ammo...180 rds per minute into 600 rds just isn't a sustained firefight.  Right at 3 1/2 minutes +/- .  After it's all said and done, and millions of taxpayer $ have been spent buying, testing and fielding this overpriced puppy, give me a M249 and spare barrels and the belted ammo anyday.  

Where are you going to carry all that ammunition?

600 rounds was used as the standard because that is the combat load of a SAW gunner

That's true...but aren't you forgetting the rest of the squad, or if they are mounted, the cans of 800 rds of linked 5.56mm sitting on that HUMVEE?  I've carried 360 rds of 5.56 in 30 rd mags, 200 rds of 7.62 for the pig, and god knows what else you could put in a ruck.  If that was all that was fired and used as a test standard, all I can say is that the test was rigged to pass.  I've gone thru the above mentioned ammo load in about 12 minutes or so of good continous firing, and by the time cease fire was called, I had maybe 45 rds of 5.56 left and no 7.62.  If each member in the squad carries a 200 rd drum of 5.56 with them, that ads up real quick when it needs to.  The 1st few minutes of an engagement will probably determine the outcome of the fight.  For those of you wondering, none of this was in a combat environment, it was in immediate action and movement to contact drills back in the early 1990's after Desert Storm was over.  Not claiming to be a hardened trigger puller, but I've done my fair share of doing those drills.  Just stating my opinion on the OP is all I am doing, hoping it adds to the discussion.

for any active duty Marine out here, i have a question or 2;

is there any truth to rumors i've heard about you dropping the M16A4 and going with the army's M4 SOCOM?

is there at truth to the rumor about switching to 1 in 9 twist rates due to barrels burning out too fast with 1in7?

thanks.

No, both SYSCOM and PP&O are monitoring the IC program, but have neither comitted to it or believe the contract vehicle would be large enough for both services


I can tell you the exact percent of rebarrelled guns (pretty damn small) when I get to my work files, but for most part barrel wear is not a major concern within the Marine Corps

add:
"rifles are rebuilt at a 1.6% annual rate."

we were the only reserve unit to use them in afghan last year.  

the butt stocks since are more than one piece tend to brake a lot, those Bi-Pods were known to fall apart where the bolt holds the leg to the pivot point.  that bolt would come out.  i never got to fire them as i was at dog handler school, when they put 20k threw 5 of ours when they were showing them all off.  i know a lot of them took a hell of a beating but seemed to work fine as we never sent any of them out or had to do major maintenance on them.  i'm not a grunt, just an armorer so i can't say how they operated in the field but i've herd a lot of good things about them.  all the guys have a giant boner over them but i think that's 90% because they have no experience on other platforms or anything aside from USMC stuff.



this was on top of one

still worked

Neat stuff. I'm curious regarding the mechanism used to convert from closed bolt operation to open bolt. I'm familiar with the usual burst, full, and four position FCG's, but I've yet to see the FCG for the M27.

The M27 is a closed bolt weapon

And that's what I get for not pulling information from more that one source. *facepalm*

*looks some more* So, after managing to pry my size 12EEE boot out of my mouth, I'm seeing now that what I thought was an M27 is actually a LWRC (is that correct?) I'm still interested in how that closed to open bolt mechanism functions, if someone could point me in the right direction I'd be mighty appreciative.

See the title, it contains the M27's manufacturer

appreciate the review OP, heard some stuff over on the Army side about this. a lot of BS and misinformation.






nice review OP, nice to get the skinny from someone operating the system.
and to all the marines with first hand experience.

I was concerned about the quick change barrel as well, being a machine gunner by trade...it piqued my interest.
cool to hear the rates of fire it could sustain

Go to a medium profile barrel, 18" or so, and replace the burst FCG with Auto.  M16A5 or whatever they want to call it. Problem solved.  Probably the same cost as A4s with the rail handguards they're buying, and could rebuild old A2s or A4s also.

LWRC was one of the entrants for the IAR and have retained the IAR designation for the weapon. Colt, FN (which fires both open and closed bolt depending on temperature), and Ultimak, among others also develop and sell "IARs".

The LWRC IAR has both open and closed bolt modes, but I am unsure of the mechanism to achieve this. The M27 HK IAR is a closed bolt rifle; in essence it's a standard HK416 with a 16" heavy barrel and long handguard. Nothing more.