The Marine Corps has awarded a limited contract to three rifle manufacturers for a weapon to replace its M249 Squad Automatic Rifle.
The contract awarded Dec. 19 calls for a minimum of 10 weapons from each company to conduct further evaluation for an eventual down-select to one weapon. The final manufacturer could garner nearly $27 million for 6,500 of the so-called Infantry Automatic Rifles.
Ashburn, Va.-based Heckler and Koch USA and FN Herstal of Belgium won two of the contracts, with West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense winning two separate contracts for two different weapons they offered.
Representatives of the three companies were not available for comment.
The Corps plans to replace its entire inventory of FN Herstal-made M249 SAWs equipped to rifle squads and Light Armored Reconnaissance scout Marines with the 5.56mm IAR beginning in 2010.
“The IAR seeks to enhance the automatic rifleman’s maneuverability and displacement speed while providing the warfighter the ability to suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team,” said a Marine Corps release announcing the award.
Unlike the belt-fed SAW, the IAR will pull its ammo from an attached magazine. Most of the 10 original candidate systems had a low-profile, M16-like appearance since the Corps wanted the IAR to be easier to maneuver “through constricted terrain” like houses and buildings.
The SAW weighs nearly 17 pounds without its 200-round ammunition box and has an overall length of 41 inches. An M-16A4 weighs about nine pounds and is 39 inches long.
The Corps also asked for IAR systems that could fire from both a closed and open bolt feed.
“The IAR shall provide accurate automatic or semi-automatic fires against point (550 meters) and area (800 meters) targets in all light, environmental, and terrain conditions,” Marine Corps Systems Command told Military.com in October. “The IAR will be operated by a single Marine and employed from all doctrinal firing positions [and] demonstrate improved portability, reliability and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW.”
The Corps hopes to take delivery of the first 10 weapons from each candidate by mid-March 2009 and conduct evaluations and operational testing — including endurance and reliability testing at “government facilities” — to decide a winner. The Corps hopes to have its first units equipped with IARs by 2010.
–Christian
Really the SAW? That’s what we need to spend out money replacing. Really? I mean we can’t think of a single tool of battle we have that could use $27m to improve. I don’t know about the rest of your all here but I have yet to hear of one real problem with the SAW. Sure they have problems from time to time like anything else but not a real problem. Why this weapon?
It’s so amazing… I have to accept that my country is a hostage of corporate interests. For instance, we had to bought that flimsy tiger eurocopter, and we had no option but the h&K G4 as a SAW.
But USA, and specially the Marine corp… I just cannot realize why Ultimax has be directly rejected, as it is a totally proven system with a clear advantage compared with the selected ones in the role of Automatic Rifle.
I think this is outrageus. If I would be American, I would feel REALLY bad for this kind of election: instead of the BEST system to let the fighters fight, systems sustained by corporate interest. Like Colt elections, once and again, offering just not the best possible system by far.
So long as we have political parties and we allow corporations to throw financial support towards politicians we will have this kinda crap going on, regardless of political party association. We need to make political positions a civic duty not a business for those in office.
I just cannot realize why Ultimax has be directly rejected, as it is a totally proven system with a clear advantage compared with the selected ones in the role of Automatic Rifle.
Uses a drum mag, doesn’t it?
And.….….….… Who got the contracts?
For which weapons?
Are they upgradable to a decent cartridge? (Personally, I think if you had one in 6.5G you could all but replace the 240Golf as well in most applications)
Details please!
For those wondering why the SAW is being replaced, it comes down to this: They’re BEAT. Old and worn out. While they’re at it, they’re getting something that fits the way the Corps fights a little better as the SAW is just a little to large and bulky for the firepower it delivers.
Semper Fi.
Exactly. And the constant recoil principle in which it is based make the ultimax a clear outgunner compared with heavier competence.
Now compare it with any known Colt System, with direct impingement and no significant recoil reducer. You can call it an Automatic Rifle, but no more than any ASSAULT rifle fitted with a heavy barrel.
Hummm… lemme see, there is going to be a so-called competence, with HK proposing a derivative of HK36, FN Herstal proposing an adaption of good ole minimi fitted with drum, and two absurds made by colt with direct impingement.
I can see a winner: colt with direct impingement. Obscene quantities of dirt coming directly into the receiver, as the system is going to be used as a support weapon. Then, in some critical situations, that piece of crap is going to stop working.
It’s ironic that it is going to happen to the corps, which were the last to drop M14.
I just cannot understand. When our CETME L showed deficiencies (nothing as serious as direct impingement problems, just bad materials used in furnitures and bad quality magazines, remember that it used a roller-delayed blowback mechanism), our army branches dropped the weapon just after 15 years of using it and adquires a better weapon, the HKG36. Ok, we don’t have money for cutting edge, high cost major systems, but at least our army branches are worried for the efficiency of the individual weapon.
But US army branches, after 45 years are still attached to a weapon with unsolvable failures, a weapon that fails more than the competence and forces its users to waste a unnecesary quantity of time for maintaining it.
And this “evaluation” just seems to be the same outrageus results as the prior “evaluations” for individual weapons. And some immoral people will still talk with tofflerianisms while the soldiers are not equiped with the best posible system, period.
I cannot believe they are not testing the Ultimax 100.
The system is superior and is exactly what they are looking for. I’m sure some simple modifications can be made to make is more compatible with the weapons in our inventory. In fact The company did just that and it was featured at Defense review.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1187
They will never learn.….if you study history this has been going on since the Civil war. The bean counters who have never seen combat deciding on what’s best for the war fighter who’s life depends on these weapons.
Does the Ultimax use the STANAG 4179 magazine? I’m not even going to go into caliber conversion, but I recall the hubub over the IAR earlier being that it was specified as using a standard (or compatible) 30-round magazine.
As far as I remember we infantry medics in Singapore usually just pass our loaded M-16 mags to the SAW(ultimax) gunners because we have no time to use our weapons during training.
As far as I remember the IAR isn’t supposed to be a one for one replacement to the SAW, but rather a bridge to the performance gap between the SAW and the M-16. I don’t want to speculate on the corporate interest part in this, but I can see the upside of selecting manufacturers with facilities in the US, namely HK, FN and Colt — the Corps can work with them directly during development.
As for me personally, I feel its the loss of USMC to not allow more competition in this selection.
hey Jason, because they are not restricted by a small brain?
Jason, I’m a former Marine, so listen up:
STAY IN YOUR LANE. You contribute nothing. With friends like you…
To our friends in Spain and Singapore, interesting comments. I wish we like Spain could admit when a weapon or caliber is not optimal, and adopt another. Small arms are relativly cheap, compared to jets, subs, and satellites.
So: We should adopt an HK416 varient in 6.5 Grendel, and a true LMG in 6.5 Grendel as well.
This 5.56 IAR is a bad idea.
Magazine fed? Check.
Standard cartridge? Check.
Light weight? Check.
Open/closed bolt? Check.
Straight line stock? Check. (inferred)
Congratulations; the Corps has just described the “Johnny Gun”, the Johnson M-1941/1944 LMG, but it had a quick change barrel as well.
Probably Ultimax was rejected because it cannot fire from a close bolt, one of the requirement for IAR?
BTW the FN entrant in the IAR competition is a heavy-barreled version of the SCAR.
@Wes: I’m not sure if the election of HK G36 instead of our local roller-delayed blowback CETME L was an objetive decision or a political one in our funny European club. I mean, SA80 was quite less reliable that our CETME L but it was refurbished by HK, and CETME L problems AFAIK were minor material ones: foregrip, stock, magazines. Anyway, although there are a lot of things that are honest subject of criticism in Spain’s army, at least our soldiers have been equiped from more than 100 years with RELIABLE weapons: Kar98, CETME C (from which HK G3 was evolved), CETME L and now this HK G36.
Soldiers are the people who wins battles, wars and peace. I just cannot realize why they receive any other tool than the best that every army can afford. If a decision is not optimal (such as 50’s selection of 7,62NATO for battle rifles), well, mistakes are unavoidable. Indeed, one mistake 7.62NATO, was “corrected” by another, 5.56. SS109 was just a cosmetic change, and once and again this varmint bullet showed that it hasn’t enough stopping power.
Each change of both individual weapon and caliber has costs involved, obviously, but these are ridiculous compared with each generation of submarines and jet fighters. But no one with official voice argues against those changes.
So, an IAR will not be optimal if its caliber continues to be the Eternal Joke. I totally agree with your preference of 6.5 grendel, since it is optimal for an universal role instead of the speciallization of 6.8mm.
BTW, FN entrant is a good joke too. Fantastic, a heavy barrelled rifle with standard magazine. Since marines are still going to be equipped with M4, that would means the rejection of the main advantage of a heavy barrelled rifle: pieces commonality with assault rifle. Spanish Army directly rejected MG36, the heavy barrelled derivative of G36, since they looked for a true machine gun. I’m not sure if that HK4 is the best possible one, but at least seems to work well. But its weight would make space for a lighter IAR between assault rifle and machine guns, and in that role Ultimax is just the only rational option. You just need to watch youtube videos of ultimax in action.
BTW, another interesting topic: SCAR is a derivative of FN FNC. FN FNC is outdated in the Belgian Army, which are substituing it with the FN F2000.
Does anybody know why this SCAR is even evaluated for US ARMY?
Magazine fed? Check.
Standard cartridge? Check.
Light weight? Check.
Open/closed bolt? Check.
Straight line stock? Check. (inferred)
Congratulations; the Corps has just described the “Johnny Gun”, the Johnson M-1941/1944 LMG, but it had a quick change barrel as well.
So no LWRC IAR, huh. They had a lot of hype for that system.
I would really like to know how the FN system is going to work, specifically how the system knows to
Just an observation, I fully believed the Ultimax should have been the logical choice as it has been proven time and again, it however did not meet the requirements set forth in that it operate from both an open and closed bolt. Why the requirement only someone from Marine Corps Systems Command would know. This brings up the LWRC entry, conventional layout (M4) with the requirements set forth in the RFP. My only guess would be ability to meet production requirements as the reason for being dropped. Evaluation officer from Marine Corps Systems Command would know for sure. The 3 remaining entries, big corporations with established gov’t contracts and facilities needed to meet productions needs, no brainer why they got the go ahead. All 3 provided variants of production weapons tailored for the competition. All 3 utilize a gas piston system (yes the Colt entry does to) and meet the requirements set in the RFP. I believe however that the issue of an anemic cartridge should be addressed before awarding another weapons contract.
I myself prefer the 6.5 Grendel over the 6.8 SPC, and being as it is magazine fed functionality becomes a non-issue.
Good Morning Folks,
I would like to come in on this discussion. The M-249 was a legacy system of the cold war that according to a GAO report of 06, was an under performer as a weapon.
Some of the problems with the M-249:
Accuracy, the M-249 was unable to successfully engage point targets beyond 300 meters and at 500 meters its beaten zone was way to large.
Size and weight: The M-249 was designed for use by Heavy Infantry who would be transported and discharged from large APC’s like the M-2 Bradley, the Marines in fact used a different variant of the M-249 then the Army, it was less bulky. With the muse of up armored HUMVEE’s and MRAP’s the M-249 was a hassle to exit the vehicle with and many squads let the M-249 behind. The Army even purchased a smaller and light variant of the M-249. Its size also made the M-249 a problem when trying to fight from an AFV.
System maintenance: The service life of the M-249 was much less then what was expected and the weapon was unsuited for the amount of rounds of ammo that that they typical M-249 was firing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also there was a weak pin in the receiver that would break and the user was limited to using electrical ties/throw away handcuffs to hold the M-249 together when this pin broke.
Lastly: The Marine Corps is changing it TO&E for the rifle squad. The standard Marine Infantry Rifle Squad is to be reduced from 11 men to 5 men. A dedicate slot for the SAW M-249 gunner had to be cut, where as the replacement IAR”s could be assigned one each to a rifle squad and perform more tasks.
In conclusion the M-249 was operationally a marginal weapon in the type of fighting the War on Terror is demanding of the Marines. The close quarter house to house of Iraq and the extended ranges often faced in Afghanistan are outside of the operational limits of the M-249.
As to the question of the right ammo be it the current 5.56mm M-855, the 6.5mmC., the 6.5mm G or the 6.8mm SPC, thats up to the Marines to decide, not arm chair Generals.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I wish they would decide on a better round than the anaemic 5.56mm before they start selecting more infantry weapons. I would go for Grendel 6.5 as well. Good mass (typically 123grains, but 110–144 as well), good BC (.510) which means less drop. Better range (supersonic at 1,000 yards).
The 7.62mm has too much recoil in auto/burst. Trying to reduce that, causes too much dust/debris to be thrown up ie. giving away your position.
Yes, the 5.56mm has been successful, but there are too many reports from Vietnam thru Iraq/Afghanistan of multiple shots to put people down to dismiss. I haven’t seen people complain about not stopping people with the 7.62mm.
A one bullet that fits all would be logistically great, if proved suitable.
Israelis bought old M16’s. Now Iraq and Afghanistan. Plenty of people will buy them which will recover some of the cost.
This round/bullet situation has gone on far too long. 40-years. They need to get a grip !!!
Why not a full-auto option on rifles? It’s not a conscript military anymore. Individual skills have never been better.
From what I understand, there are full-auto variants (of the M16A2/A4 and M4) used within the military… as to why they’re not more commonly issued, that’s a question “above my pay grade” (as a civilian).
You know, I’d rather not have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT have the primary responsibility for feeding kids…that’s what PARENTS are for.
The baby mommas have the money. They just ain’t spending it on food for the kids. Think big-screen plasma TVs and cable. And Bling of course.
The recoil from the 6.5 Grendel is negligable.
I saw a “Weaponology” show that showed LWRC’s version of the IAR. Full auto from a 30 rnd mag. How do you substitute a 200 rnd drum? Will this new weapon be able to handle a C-mag? You can burn up 6 or 7 30 rnd mags real quick. Doesn’t the G-36 convert to a LMG? Oh well..I still don’t like the 5.56mm anyways. Choose carefully Marines.
Here’s another question, regarding ammo…
Even assuming that the small arms technology remains static and that 5.56x45mm remains standard (instead of 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm), what’s the matter with simply using Mk262 ammo more widely than just SOF?
Good Morning Folks,
Edward ask the question of what about the Black Hills M 262 77gr. round for general use by the military.
The most likely answer is that this is a hallow point round that violates the provisions the 1899 Hague Convention on small arms ammunition that is still in effect today.
The current M 855 62gr. steel penetrator round is even dicey and doesn’t quite meet the requirements of Hague 1899. I assume the reason no body mentions this is that the Soviet/Russian 123 gr. 7.62x39mm is of a similar design.
My guess is the legal reason for the Russians is that the treaty predates the formation of the Soviet Union (1917) and thus they are in a technical sense not a signee to the Hague Treaty of 1899.
I know it really sucks to be a nation of laws that before George Bush obeyed international treaties that they signed.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I’m no expert…
But the way I see it is, they are letting the fatcats in the governmnet create these req’s and make decisions on a weapon without consulting the troops who will use it.
To me, take a handful of grunts off of the line who have seen combat and have used their weapons in battle and use them as your control group. Not some lab technician or politician with everyone’s hands in his pockets.
Let the grunts tell you what they want/think of a weapon choice. Use their input to develop a weapon. Geesh, seems like common sense to me.
Good Morning John,
I think you are missing the whole concept here. The idea is to get a weapon developed and tested in the most realistic environment tat can be created, BEFORE it is fielded and put into the hand of of the Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman, where a malfunction can be deadly.
The feed back on the M-249 has been negative since the start of the wars. The example of a weapon that started out as a problem child for the Marines, was the Javelin, it wanted to attack parked cars instead of buildings, was with drawn from service, the Marines went back to the Dragon, the Javelin was reworked by Raytheon and returned to service and has since gotten raves from the Marines is the Javelin. It can work both ways John.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Byron,
I remember seeing somewhere that the United States is not a signatory. However, since we are a part of NATO and pretty much every other NATO country is signatory and capable of interchanging ammo, “tainting” potential ammo supplies with non-compliant bullets is probably a big no-no.
Sure, in combat you’ll take any round you can get…
In any case, I wonder if blended metal is technically covered.
Good Morning Charles,
I think you are right about the U.S. singing the 1899 Hague agreement, at the time we were not considered a world power, That said though, with the introduction of the 30–03 Cartridge. (later to become the 30–06 Cartridge) the U.S. had adhered to Hague.
Something not considered here is the effect of wounding vs. killing an enemy soldier. When a soldier is killed, it’s all over but a wounded soldier is likely to require other soldiers to stop fighting and care for him/her. This reduced the fire power that the enemy can deliver, so a bullet that is more likely to would then kill might be a better choice for combat.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I remember when I was a SAW gunner with 7thESB Hellbent Charlie in ’90, those babies were heavy, especially with I was carrying one drum on the gun, two drums on your belt and six full mags, but that’s how I obtained my current civilain, however a lighter wepaon would allow for Marines to carry other essential items such more water and food depending on their location.
Drum that b*tch or dump that b*tch. I like being covered by a dude who can rain lead.
I agree with JOE, a 30 rnd mag vs a 200 rnd drum? There has to be a way to design this weapon so a C-mag can be used. 30 rnds..and reload? How many mags can 1 carry? Nice idea, it needs a little more thought though.