Gunner Eby is at it again.
A man who holds more knowledge about small arms (and crew served weapons) in the tip of his pinky finger than most “experts” will learn in a lifetime, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeff Eby had one of his usual “couldn’t care less what people think” conversations with my alma mater, Marine Corps Times, which ran with a story from him saying that H&K had won the competition for the Corps’ Infantry Automatic Rifle.
Our friends at Soldier Systems piled on, saying they’d heard that shooters actually liked one of the Colt versions tested rather than the FN or HK ones.
I love Gunner Eby and have worked with him on stories in the past. He’s a treasure for the Corps as an institution and a boon for reporters trying to cover it. He’s a CWO5, so he’s safely in place and couldn’t care less what his commanders think about who he talks to or what he says. But he’s an advisor, not the final decisionmaker.
So Syscom wrote me back a vaguely-worded email response to a query about all this, seemingly denying that the service had made a final decision on the IAR and stating only that the Corps had ordered “24 weapons” from an “existing contract” that was let back in December ’08. That would most likely be the original contract to Colt, FN and HK for the IAR downselectees. They have not answered my follow up questions on which weapons (make and model) and whether, definitively, they have or have not decided on an IAR winner.
You could ask them yourself, maybe you’ll have better luck.
This vagueness could also stem from the service’s internal debate over whether to even go through with the IAR program. Loud voices within the Corps and the joint community argue against limiting a SAW gunner to 30 rounds, despite the weight boon from a rifle-style machine gun. Syscom seems less than enthusiastic about the program from the start, but one shouldn’t read their incomprehensible responses (or total lack thereof) to questions about this program as emotional.
UPDATE: Just got an email from Syscom stating that the order was for 24 more HK 416s and that the Marine Corps is “still testing the IAR” whatever that means.
– Christian
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
The idea of a machine gun to replace the saw is intriguing but shouldn't they be worrying about better drum magazines instead of which weapon first? I mean you can modify an M16/M4 with a heavier barrel strap on a drum magazine and it can be an effective LMG so why go a step back with a 30 round mag? It makes no sense and regardless of who wins they better bump up some time for the Drum Mag of C-Mag of some sort.
This IAR is a Assault rifle with full auto capability(and heavier barrel) . 90% of worlds armies that haven't limited themselves to single shot or burst mode have a full auto capable rifles .
The problem is not in magazine capaicity or Drums or belts its the barrel overheating that limits most such weapons,also machine guns mostly need to work with open bolts again helping the cooling of the barrel.Drum type mag can be fitted to any weapon but what good will it do if the weapon cant take that much shooting without overheating the barrel
Saw also out ranges most rifles due to being more stable shooting platform and having longer and heavier barrel. Brits,Germans,Austrians all have IAR type weapons in addition to their full auto capable rifles that not only have heavier longer barrel ,bipods and larger magazines.Soviet block armies never had a Saw like weapon but had IAR type weapons from WW2 onward mainly various RPK types which were AK's with long and heavy barrel and a bipod machine gun type stock ,feed by long 40rd mags or 75rd drums
The SAW did have a longer barrel. Most of the SAWs actually used as a SAW have the short barrel, even if they don't have the collapsible stock. Long barreled SAWs are on vehicles and watch towers. At least that is how the Army used them last year in Afghanistan.
The HK IAR does not have a "heavier barrel".
It is a standard HK 416
More like "BAR-light"
the saw is a "machine gun"
Not to be nitpicky but but a saw is a tool that cuts metal or wood, a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is a machinegun. At any rate, I understand the logic behind the IAR but it reeks a little too much of the BAR to me.
Not to be even nitpickier but a SAW is a SUB-machine gun as it uses small caliber (5.56) rounds. Also, the BAR was a fantastic weapon for its time. Dillinger even used a modified BAR to knock over banks/ shoot it out with the fuzz.
A sub machine gun gun fires pistol bullets not rifle bullets.
Thompson 45 ACP
M-2 45 ACP
Uzi 9mm
MP 40 9mm
USSR 9mm and 7.62mm
H&K 9mm/ .380/ .32.
All of the above mentioned, and dozens of other weapons all fire pistol rounds, not rifle rounds.
By the way I doubt very much if you have ever held a BAR let alone fired one.
BARs are nice to play around with, but in any combat situation they are a piece of shit when compared to what is available today.
duh i meant a new machine gun to replace the SAW sorry
This is to replace the M4?
Id love to shoot this baby (Las Vegas NV).
Nice.
But does this replace those M4s?
Someone needs to ban this guy…
Done…
Thanks Christian.
This project is complete stupidity. It is founded on the premise that the gunner will no longer need to suppress. How will one continually suppress with a 30 round clip? Better belt fed weapon or an improvement to the SAW is needed instead of this debacle waiting to happen.
Here is a good solution. Stick with an M-16A2. That weapon works just fine. You can shoot out to long range with the weapon plus attach on a bayonet as well for close quarters combat. Stick with the basics and keep the weapons simple.
Except for that fact that the HK shoots better, is lighter, is more reliable, features full length rails, can fire while submerged in water AND is available in a heavier calibre with much studier weapon components and larger MRBS.
But yeah if you dont want a better gun, just stick with the old stuff.
You're forgetting one thing, the IAR isn't intended to be an M16 or even an M4 replacement, it's meant to be a SAW replacement; the M16 doesn't even factor into here. And btw, we've since replaced the A2s with the A3 and A4 in the Army and the Marine Corps respectively although the Army relies primarily on the M4.
You're forgetting one thing, the IAR isn't intended to be an M16 or even an M4 replacement, it's meant to be a SAW replacement; the M16 doesn't even factor into here. And btw, we've since replaced the A2s with the A3 and A4 in the Army and the Marine Corps respectively although the Army relies primarily on the M4.
what the hell is with all the posts above from BereavedMil?
At this point in time it is not cost effective to implement to Big Army.
They are lucky they have the M4 as it stands.
I dunno, Back in the day we had M-16A1s and everybody could rock&roll if they wanted to. then the A2s came with the M-249s right behind, nobody really liked the three shot burst in the A2, Canadians wanted their A2s full auto capable, gas piston is better with say the HK-416, keeping all the heat away from the bolt face, other than that…saftey selector , magazine release button, charging handle is in the same place, back since the 50s, Eugene Stoner was way ahead of his time , with the Navy Seals and a small number of Marines tinkering around with the Stoner 63 rifle &light machine gun during Vietnam in limited use. myself carried the M-249 for 1.5 years, its was O.K, too cumbersome to move around say in urban area's or in the Jungle where the welded stamed metal reciever would rust right up during downpours and humidity, was wanting the M-16A1 back about then.
We`ll be back in the jungle again for sure and in the not too distant future, we need, want and deserve the very best infantry weapons in order to win and survive. Nothing less should be expected from the world`s most powerful military. There are plenty of great weapons, some old some rather new, out there in the vast international weapons marketplace. The US must act quickly and buy the very best (something most other countries cannot do), issue it, familiarize everyone with the new weapons, train train train and be ready for the next conflict wherever it pops up. It`s the ONLY way and in my opinion way overdue…..Timing is crucial here!!!!
maybe they should consider going back to the basics, and go back to the M-60 and M-14, and the Colt M1911 , or right, the powers to be don't think the soldiers of today can handle the recoil or carry the weight. they believe 3 or 4 rounds of 5.56 is better than one round of 7.65 in stopping a person
semper fi
Blackheart,
Now, I like your way of thinking! I was not a Marine, but a Navy Corpsman, and I saw more then my share of combat in Vietnam. When "corpsman up" was called, I really appreciated the Marines laying down their covering fire with the M-60's, and M-14's!! Nothing like a blazing field of fire with those 7.62 rounds to cover my ass! Serious stopping power! I say, bring 'em back.
Semper Fi,
Doc
Hey man much respect to you! I'm proud of our veterans and their service to this nation. That is why I have enlisted in the Marine Corps. Don't know what the marines would do without the navy corpsmen. Thank you for your service to America.
Semper Fidelis
Fewture Marine
Yes, however, NATO is in favor of lighter ammunition so troops can carry lots of it. Recently though, I've noticed a lot of new larger caliber weapons systems being developed such as the 6.8 and the Beowulf for shorter ranges. This new IAR is also being produced in the hopes of making squad gunners less of a target. Our enemy is elusive and we must have lighter weapons (while remaining reliable) in order to pursue our enemies effectively. They must also be smaller because of the urban warfare we are sure to encounter more frequently.
Kriss Super V weapons feature the new super v tech which allows more rounds on target accuracy. This works to our favor if married with NATO's smaller ammunition.
the US pushed 5.56 on NATO…6.8 is a mid range not short range cartridge it as well as the .50 beowulf .458 socom, .450 bushmaster 6.5 Grendel ect are COMMERICAL cartridges.
Kriss Super V is a tech demo, chambered in the PISTOL caliber .45 acp not the RIFLE caliber 5.56 which the us got NATO to adopt not NATO's cartridge.
i would go into base of fire, volume of fire, suppression, and over watch but i doubt you could follow.
Yes, lets think about operational action, I'd take a weapon into a firefight the looked like donald duck as long as it was accurate, easy to maintain and it would hold up under sustained avuse. Thats why I love my Glock.
Dear Fewture Marine;
It is always so nice to hear from the voice of teen age experience.
If you ever get into combat with anyone other than your parents, please let us know about how it came out. What sort of cammo were you wearing, etc.
Until then just shut up, and keep on reading your war comic books, and playing video war games.
If you ever get into the Marine Corps, you will grow up fast.
In the meantime I suggest that you concentrate on studying for your drivers license test.
Haha
Its funny because Zandor is being a hypocrite.
I got a feeling that you are, " Fewture Marine ".
If so:
You are nothing other than a pimple faced dateless dork watching a porno channel while holding on to your Cheeto orange colored dick.
Dream on little warriour, dream on.
Peace
" Not Zandor" is of course not the real Zandor.
" Not Zandor " is an obvious idiot.
Zandor tells the truth, and even though the truth hurts, it is nevertheless the truth!
" Not Zandor " simply blabbers away, and insults the truth teller.
Peace.
" Zandor" is of course not the real Not Zandor.
" Zandor " is an obvious idiot.
Not Zandor tells the truth, and even though the truth hurts, it is nevertheless the truth!
" Zandor " simply blabbers away, and insults the truth teller.
Peace.
[I fixed it for you champ.
No need to thank me.
Troll harder.]
Blackheart
first off, none of those weapons are even remotely related to the IAR, (except maybe the M14, and it's been established it is uncontrollable on automatic fire). If you have your own agenda, frabuous day, caloo calay for you, if it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand, save it for when it does. This isn't targetted specifically at you, keep in mind, it's just that the collective ADD on this site can get a bit tiresome
On the topic at hand, I'm with those saying that the current parameters for the IAR are flawed. Making a weapon that eats up ammo then giving it finger food to munch on is just retarded, there's no two ways about it.
On a side note to Not Zandor. Let's face it Zandor annoys everyone it's what he does. he's trying to get a reaction out of us. At the same time, even a broken clock is right twice a day, (unless it's digital, but i digresss,) fewture marine's comment reeked of gaming to the point where i could smell it here on the other side of the pond. He set himself up when he suggested a submachine gun could fill in the slot of an automatic rifle. But at the same time Zandor, this is probably falling on deaf ears, but picking on a kids enthusiasm before he even reaches the vaunted position of FNG is pretty fricking low.
The IAR fires from an open bolt on full auto, a closed bolt on semi, and has a very reliable 40 round magazine with the ability to use drum mags.
The idea of changing barrels on a SAW has always been a myth, in combat sustained aimed suppressing fires have carried the fight.
Honestly we also need to change the size of round we use.
i believe your referring to the SCAR entry. where is this 40rd mag and show me your mythical reliable drum mag. does it weigh less loaded than a belt box?
i guess you ll have to tell everybody that's been changing the barrels on their SAWs from the BREN until now that we hallucinating.
the saw is what provides the sustained part of the suppressing fires.
On the topic at hand the IAR has gone through a lot of testing and will probably continuo to go through a lot of testing. Let us all remember the amount of time it took to decide on a SOCOM pistol that was in the early 90’s with HK winning the contest and you still have other Spec Op units using Sig’s and 1911’s.
. The gas piston system from everything I have read and experienced is a far better working system that the present set up. The mechanics of the rate of fire can help control a rife the weight of the LAR on full auto. One of the biggest problems with a full auto weapon is fire discipline of your troops
The SAW from my experience had issues but at least it has been improved from the conversations I have had with active duty personnel using the weapon today. I do not have the knowledge on the M240 to speak of it, hell we had M60 Delta’s and Echo’s. I feel a dedicated belt or high capacity drum weapon is needed. Look at WII with the BAR up against the MG 40. I am not a fan of spray and pray but at time a base of fire to suppress a target is needed that is where a high capacity full auto weapon is needed.
If they can develop an IAR that is controllable on full auto great and train your men to use fire discipline. I due feel that a larger caliber may be another thing to go toward. Life, sad to say is about compromise and remember Murphy’s Law of combat your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
Why are we going backward to a Magazine fed Weapon in a suppressive fire role? The M249 (I can't stand it) serves its purpose well. If they are looking for a weapon that is more versatile than the 249, maybe they should take another look at the Stoner 63A. It could be tailored to each mission. Besides if it is set up for magazine fed, it puts the mag in the best possible place, on top of the weapon.
Did you know guys that the original M16A1 was developed out of a Dutch design?
The Dutch Army found it to expensive for it’s Army. Then the US bought the design and developled it to the M16.
pleuris, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
The M16A! was derived from the M16 which was derived from the AR!5 and the AR10 before that; all of which were developed by the Armalite Corporation and Eugene Stoner. You might want to do a little more research Pleuris before posting.
I read about iit a few years ago. but a can't find the article o the net. so I stand corrected, because i cannot follow up my claims
Interesting little article I found about a subject similar to this. http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature59...
Basically in a REAL firefight you cannot beat volume when talking about suppressing enemy fire. I n WWII the German squad was hard to beat because it centered around their MMG the MG34 or 42, the USA having Garands helped. Anybody who knows infantry tactics knows the only way to move is to suppress enemy fire. The best way to do that is to throw a large volume of rounds at the target. Then move before they return fire.
I think the idea of these new grenade launchers are to do just that. But adding those and taking away the LMG for an IAR is one step a head, 2 steps back.
The link doesn’t seem to work.
Is the IAR intended as a 1-for-1 swap for the SAW?
Grenade launchers aren’t a volume of fire weapon – if anything they’re the reverse; getting other section members close enough to put grenades into trenches/over walls/through windows is generally the point of suppressing fire. If you can do that without having to hand-throw the grenade, so much the better….
Ideally, an infantry unit needs four things;
1) The ability to generate sustained suppressive fire with a weapon that’s powerful enough to be threatening. That means either multiple full automatic capable rifles with drum mags or a number of light support weapons issued at section or fire team level.
If replacing a single SAW with multiple automatic rifles per section, I can fully understand – it distributes your ability to generate fire, which makes it less of an issue if the support weapon is jammed, damaged, or lying next to the corpse of its former operator. A one-for-one replacement with a less capable weapon makes less sense to me. As noted, drum magazines might help – the problem is that if generating suppressive fire a 30 round mag won’t last long enough for anyone to take advantage of it.
2) The ability to fire precise shots to actually drop a target – something suppressive fire is very unlikely to do (unless firing something extremely potent that can punch though the walls, like a genuine HMG). This used to be the job of ‘squad marksman’ types but more and more a decent optical sight has become standard issue and the more this trend continues, the better, as with (1); if everyone or nearly everyone in the squad can play machine-gunner or sniper as required, you are significantly more flexible in a surprise situation compared to a world war two model of nine grunts and two competent marksmen.
3) The ability to punt fragmentation and/or thermobaric grenades into cover; underslung grenade launchers mean less proximity required and less exposure to use them and hence less risk.
4) The ability to accurately mark a point or target for someone else – which means anything from smoke to laser designators (especially the latter for air or artillery precision munitions, given the seeming dislike airforces have for a low-and-slow with guns).
Drum mags.
Easy, problem solved.
Next….
Drum mags.
Easy, problem solved.
Next problem please….
I have never understood the reasoning behind the Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). Now that I've just finished reading the article discussing the Commandant's own concerns regarding the IAR in the 28 December 2009 issue, I am even more confused. IF the Commandant is not convinced that the IAR is a good replacement for the M249 SAW then WHY is the Marine Corps Systems Command still testing and on track to purchase this weapon in 2010? Not having been in an infantry battalion since 1994, I won't pretend to be an expert on the debate between the technical aspects of the IAR versus the SAW (weight, length, ease of field cleaning, immediate action, etc.) Although, the mini SAW used by the army comes to mind when debating mobility. However, I do have a couple of concerns regarding what the IAR brings to the tactical fight. First, where is the suppressive fire? Basic fire and maneuver requires suppressive fire. A 30 round magazine does not give suppressive fire, no matter how fast the magazine exchange. I would expect that the average magazine exchange on the M-16A2 during rifle qualifications is below 1-2 seconds. A reasonable pace in a training environment but not so good in combat. Second, the Automatic Riflemen's basic ammo loadout. The SAW gunner is typically carrying three 200 round belts with the SAW versus 12 – 18 30 round magazines with the IAR, 600 rounds versus 360 – 540. Three belts are easier to carry than 12 – 18 magazines.
I guess I'm not convinced that a magazine fed rifle will provide the fire power that we need in the current fight. Are we going to change our tactics to field a weapon? Sounds like putting the cart before the horse.
I guess the idea is more maneuver and less fire? I can attest that in some places (Iraq) the enemy isn't in one place long enough to suppress… and with your fire team built around the SAW, you move at his pace. However, I can imagine in other places (Afghanistan) where you are engaging hostiles sometimes in the open at max ranges, you probably would want a heavy steady belt fed beast.
Just remember that they're only talking of moving the 249's out of the fire teams … and that in the end, company commanders will still have discretion as to what squads use what rifles. Its just another option.
Though I get the feeling you're gonna see more and more Sergeants Major and Colonels walking around like the cool kids on the block with these things than you're gonna see lanky 18 year old squad automatic gunners with them…
I hope we buy American uppers and not those european stuff! Buy Colt, Ruger or one of the msaller US manufactures and ditch FN and HK.