Comments on: IAR Additions

By: Mang

Mang — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:09:56 +0000

Here’s a link to a Defense Review post on the latest iteration of the Ultimax SAW. Picatinny rail, folding stock, integrated M16 mag well.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1187
I think the writer over at DefRev could really use a copy of the MLA Handbook, but they’re dependable for current media releases from small arms manufacturers.

By: AMMOAMN

AMMOAMN — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:08:57 +0000

Regardless where you put it, a 40 rd. mag will always pose an issue when you’re trying to use a weapon with efficiency. Top fed, it gets in the way of the sights, or it has to be specially made for that weapon (P-90). Side fed, it will either get in the way when firing from around a corner, or stick way out from the corner, giving you a larger profile. Ever shot at a full seated magazine?
I just requal’d on the M-16A2 yesterday, and even the 30 rd mag sometimes gets in the way in prone supported.

By: drm

drm — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:31:50 +0000

if 40 and 50 round magazines are a problem, why not have side or top-mounted magazines, like the FG42 or Bren.

By: James

James — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:43:33 +0000

I wonder if the Marines have considered arming the assistance automatic rifleman with this weapon. If I remember my doctrine correctly the assistant is armed with a standard M-16 and his role is to assit the Automatic Rifleman(AR) or take over in the event the AR is incapacitated. If the assistant was equiped with an IAR the fire power of the fire team would be increased with a minimal impact on the team in terms of logistics and magazine commonality. Not to mention the added benefit of having the extra firepower immediatly available and not stripping the squad of 1 or 2 of its SAWs

By: Edward

Edward — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:19:21 +0000

If the C-Mag is the way to go for an IAR (again, if it’s a valid concept in terms of being separate from a SAW), then I hope that it’s improved over when members of the 82nd Airborne Division were trying it:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2003/a072803b.html
“C-MAG Results:

By: tontochoc

tontochoc — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:01:06 +0000

really like the concept of the IAR, and have seen the Future Weapons video on it. Regardless, 30-round magazines are not good enough for even a lightweight machinegun. Currently, aftermarket vendors offer 40-round magazines for AR-15/M-16 rifles; that is a readily available step in the right direction.
Posted by: P.J. Busche at October 9, 2008 07:50 PM
40 round magazines are a real bitch when trying to maintain a low silouette when firing laying down. They tend to ‘tripod’ with the bipod and are clumsy when changing magazines laying down.

By: P.J. Busche

P.J. Busche — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:50:40 +0000

I really like the concept of the IAR, and have seen the Future Weapons video on it. Regardless, 30-round magazines are not good enough for even a lightweight machinegun. Currently, aftermarket vendors offer 40-round magazines for AR-15/M-16 rifles; that is a readily available step in the right direction.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:37:30 +0000

Ooops, my blog is at: http://americanmohist.blogspot.com

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:36:26 +0000

Concur with Steve that you always do 3–5 rnd bursts in auto fire, to maintain accuracy, unless you are in final protective line fire mode.
This conflict of assault rifle/auto rifle vs light machine guns has been with us ever since the Germans invented the assault rifle. Once you put automatic fire into the assault rifle, the question comes up, why do you need a dedicated light machine gun? And what is the difference between the LMG vs an Auto Rifle?
On the squad level, there is very little difference. It is nice that the Marines are challenging the orthodox LMG with some experimentation here.
See my blog for more exploration on the historical roles of the machine gun and LMG/AR future development.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:24:26 +0000

stephen russell: Yeah, the next thing you know Texas and California will be annexed by illegal immigrants, oh wait, that was us.
It’s not the ammo use that was the deciding factor for the switch. Assault rifles are best used in two to three round bursts when used on full auto at all. Changing the sear mechanism to stop at three just made it far easier than training someone to control it manually. We were always trained that the only person who had his M16 on auto was whoever was on point. Besides you can just keep drilling a target with rapid single shots.
An automatic rifle should be a different design all together. It has to be designed to fire 3 to 5 round bursts of relatively accurate fire as opposed to a battle rifle which is designed to be fired semi mostly but capable of full auto fire. Everyone on the squad can’t carry the same toys, it’s a team and a system of interlocking roles. IIRC, the US hasn’t had a real weapon (M16s with cheesy sheet metal bipods don’t count) for this role in a long time, but, there’s often a slot listed on the fire team.