Comments on: Corps Taps Three for IAR

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:06:55 +0000

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.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:05:10 +0000

Drum that b*tch or dump that b*tch. I like being covered by a dude who can rain lead.

By: Cartwright

Cartwright — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:53:07 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:24:12 +0000

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

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:36:09 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:01:39 +0000

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

By: John

John — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:32:35 +0000

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.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:31:17 +0000

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

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:06:42 +0000

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?

By: Rhyno327/lrsd

Rhyno327/lrsd — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:14:50 +0000

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.