USMC chooses H&K to make SAW replacement

[Pathfinder]

They're replacing a machinegun with a rifle. How stupid can they get?

Well, considering who is the Apologizer Commander in Chief these days, what do you think? ? ? ? 

[JdePietro]

I am by no means top brass in the Corp but I think the crux of the issue is portability. SAW's or M249's are heavy bulky rifles, they don't pack well in troop carriers and cost the operator speed. The reload time for a SAW is a far bit more than just a mag change and the belt isn't as full proof. While the saw can be fired the from the standing position it is difficult and cannot be acomplished on the fly. Most Marines report the need to go prone to attain any level of effective accuracy. Try keeping up with your squad when you keep doing belly flops just to be able to send rounds that count. Lastly the current mil stradegy is changing, the recent move to the M110 to replace the m24/40A3 has a similar goal and that is to make the troops blend in and thus take away some of the "high value" target concept.

It pays to listen. 

[Neon Knight Anubis]

Well, considering who is the Apologizer Commander in Chief these days, what do you think? ? ? ? 

The project started a few years ago because of the urban fighting in Iraq. LWRC had a prototype on Futureweapons a couple of years ago but they weren't given the contract.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVHLvtArC_g&feature=related

[warhawke]

Mag-fed SAW's work better than belt-fed in a fast moving combat environment. Belts hang-up, get twisted and are hard to transport even neat plastic boxes, especially when you have 200rds of ammo, does weigh a bit too. Mag-feed on the M249 has always sucked and the position makes it hang up a lot. The USMC wants an easily portable unit that integrates better in a squad with M-4's and makes shoot and scoot easier. 

[Pathfinder]

Disclaimer: I have not looked into this more than a quick look this AM when the story appeared.

MY question is this - what the heck is the difference between and IAR and an M-16 on full-auto?

[Sponsor]

[fullautovalmet76]

Disclaimer: I have not looked into this more than a quick look this AM when the story appeared.

MY question is this - what the heck is the difference between and IAR and an M-16 on full-auto?

These might help:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXZMepn3SI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I

[Badgersmilk]

The right amount of corporate money, in the right polititians pocket, and our whole military would be carrying:



You think the AR beat out the M14 for legitimate reasons?

[r_w]

416 is basically a piston AR, right?

Sounds like a way for mid-level brass get piston guns into the squad w/o dealing with politicians.

[Pathfinder]

These might help:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXZMepn3SI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I

OK, the H&K 416 is an interesting weapon. However, let me rephrase the question:

What is the difference between and IAR and an M-16 on full-auto when used as a SAW?

I see no real difference in firepower, capacity, rate of fire, or anything else between them. One's a piston and apparently can fire with the receiver underwater and the other (actually, an M4 and I asked about the M-16) explodes rather nastily if you try it.

But as a SAW, what is the difference between the IAR and the M-16A3 as used by the Marines? What will the Marines get if they replace the SAW in a squad with a handful of IARs? I don't see the value.

[tombogan03884]

 Or maybe they HAVEN'T.

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/12/h-k-woops.html