Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"

[eckherl]

@Chino

Kotay is correct, if they run out of 100 round pouches during a firefight then they will attach the 200 round shipping container right to the weapon until hostilities cease and they can replenish their pouches. My friend stated that even with 200 rounds it doesn`t take long to burn through that during suppressive fire.

 

[Tavarisch]

I was laughing when I read your post on 'place your weapons on safe'.nfloorl:

Sorry Chino/kotay. I'm always a little worried at the range, especially when one of the conscript drivers/cooks (I know, no more cooks in our army vocation list) have an IA, particularly, when they start to turn to me for help. The rifle also tends to move, with their request for help.

In context, most of our our medics and riflemen do not have to deal with chain fed weapons. Even our light machine gun (or section support weapon), the Ultimax is magazine fed. The only infantry weapon that we use that is chain fed is the GPMG. So not many of our guys are GPMG trained.

Speaking of the Ultimax, I've seen a picture of it with a bayonet lug and a bayonet? Can I ask why? I find it a bit funny to see a LSW with a bayonet. nfloorl:

(Just teasing.)

The Ultimax looks good though. Good to know that our Singaporean neighbors can independently(well, someone from Armalite helped) have their own national weapons. We Malaysians are getting there, hopefully.

 

[kotay]

Would this not be the same procedure for a SAW firing belts.

Goddit.

I had just assumed that since he was talking about loading, the clearing/IA part was already done ...

 

[kotay]

The Ultimax looks good though.

Looks good? It's an ugly weapon. Cheap stamped metal and big lugs of welds.

But it's a dream to operate. A case of function over form. Which is most probably why it didn't sell to the USMC ... the Yanks like their guns purdy.

Good to know that our Singaporean neighbors can independently(well, someone from Armalite helped) have their own national weapons.

Well, you should know we Singaporeans aren't shy about assimilating foreign talent.

 

[Chino]

@Chino

Kotay is correct, if they run out of 100 round pouches during a firefight then they will attach the 200 round shipping container right to the weapon until hostilities cease and they can replenish their pouches. My friend stated that even with 200 rounds it doesn`t take long to burn through that during suppressive fire.

Many thanks to both.

It does sound like either way:
a) putting a fresh belt into empty pouch on the weapon, or
b) removing the empty pouch, then attaching a new loaded pouch, or
c) removing the empty pouch, then attaching a loaded 200rd box...
and then threading the belt, closing feed cover, cocking etc...
is way more work than simply changing a magazine on an IAR.

Plus, a article in a gun mag state that a belt feed like the M249 has a higher chance of first round failure to ignite. (Though I don't know why.)

I reckon this could be a reason why the new role spelled out for the IAR emphasize mag feed. I imagine it would be pretty hairy running out of ammo in a tight situation (CQB?) when using the M249.

I know it is not SOP but I normally forego putting to safe !!:shudder!! when changing mags with the M16, I just release the empty mag to fall off, put i n a fresh mag, slap the bolt release and continue shooting. Pick up the empty mag later.

 

[Chino]

Looks good? It's an ugly weapon. Cheap stamped metal and big lugs of welds.

But it's a dream to operate. A case of function over form. Which is most probably why it didn't sell to the USMC ... the Yanks like their guns purdy.

My impression too. And the receivers rust pretty easily in those older, training weapons I came across. And the butt feel real flimsy.

It is the STEN gun equivalent of LMG.

But the Ultimax IAR prototypes look way more sturdy.

 

[Chino]

Speaking of the Ultimax, I've seen a picture of it with a bayonet lug and a bayonet? Can I ask why? I find it a bit funny to see a LSW with a bayonet.

Very practical reasons.

As I've said before, our Ultimax meant we were on to the concept of Infantry Automatic Rifle 20 years before the USMC. The Ultimax gunner is really an Automatic Rifleman, which is why he is also required to do rifleman things like bayonet charges.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

This is the latest in the news from the IAR program.It says the Marines will reduce the number of SAWs from 11,381 to 8000. So they are still going to use the SAW in many situations. It also has some input on the opinions of what some of the Marines think about using the IAR. Some support it well others want the 200 round belt SAW so they don't have to reload every so often such as abuses and such. The IAR is manly supposed to bridge the gap between the M16 and a machine gun. So they will still continue to use the SAW in a lot of roles but the IAR will be used in close cortors combat like room to room well the SAW will be used for other missions where they don't have to move fast on assaults like watching over rooftops and being part of a convoy.

This is what one marine said in the article.

"One infantry corporal with Camp Pendleton-based 1st Marine Regiment said that without the SAW, things would have been even more difficult when he deployed to Karma, Iraq, in 2006, considered by many to be the most dangerous city in the country at the time.

“If we wouldn’t have had it, we wouldn’t have had enough firepower to know what to do,” he said. “With the SAW, you’ve got a 200-round drum. I’d much rather have 200 rounds ready to go than to have to reload all the time. Not every shot is going to be on target, you know what I mean? I’d rather have more firepower, especially in an ambush.”

Wilcox and the corporal also said that any weight advantage achieved could be negated because Marines will need to carry more ammo to make up for the loss of the drums.

“How many magazines are you going to make me carry on my flak?” the corporal said."

 

[Driller]

I would have to agree with what the corporal said. At the end of the say its still only 30 rounds and wont suppress the enemy as well as a 200 round saw or m240 or mk48 etc.

 

[kotay]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/

“How many magazines are you going to make me carry on my flak?” the corporal said."

18 + 1

nfloorl:

 

[Chino]

In another forum I posted a timeline for the Ultimax's development and our attempts to sell it to the US military. I post a short version of it here:

"1983
Gen Paul Kelly of the USMC agreed to a further demo of the Ultimax by CIS (today STK).

1986
US Navy SEALS bought 20 Ultimax to begin 2-yr ops trialshttp://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Ultimax-100_IDR-Aug1989_2-2.jpg


1989
Product Improvement Programme (PIP) based on SEALS feedback results in production of Ultimax Mk 3.

Same IDR article also alleges that some of these PIP Ultimax Mk 3's will be supplied to SEALS. Unconfirmed whether this 2nd sale to SEALS actually took place."

...

A missing piece of the puzzle is finally available from the article F-15 Eagle posted and I quote:


"August 2001...grunts with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, in Twentynine Palms, Calif., purchased three commercial automatic rifle variants and pitted them against the belt-fed beast."


I would hazard a guess that one of these "commercial automatic rifle variants" would be the Ultimax.

 

[OPSSG]

@Chino, thanks for the Ultimax development time-line.

As a person who was GPMG trained and who comes from a family of former army soldiers (including some who were trained by the 'Mexicans'), we (meaning the members of my family who served and fired the Ultimax) all love the Ultimax. My family members have served in armour, armour recce, AI, infantry and as LRRPs - with appointments ranging from section commanders, to medics, to CSMs to XOs.

I think the things missing in our discussion of the Ultimax, thus far, is the patented 'constant recoil system' (which gives its ability to fire very accurate auto bursts) and its 100 round magazine, which leads users like Kotay and my family members to say that: "It's a dream to operate". I will be willing to put the Ultimax gun butt on my lips and fire this weapon at full auto setting (just to prove a point).

I do not work for STK, but I can also confirm that the patented 'constant recoil system' mechanism has been applied to other products. The only thing I don't like about the Ultimax is it's length (compared to a SAR-21).

Around 20 years ago, I operated an Ultimax Mk2 (?) at a section live firing (as part of leadership training). I was able to accurately shift fire at a wooden target board that flew away from its base (as it was flying) to ensure that my shots remain on target (that had been unintentionally moved because of my fire). It was so fun... For gun lovers who have never tried firing the Ultimax (I think we are at Mk 5 now), please go and try.

BTW Kotay, can you please PM a mod with your service credentials (I sent mine to GF), so that you can have a 'blue handle', I feel so 'pai say' (Hokkien for ashamed/shy) in my discussions with you since you do a better job at keeping yourself up to date on defence matters.

 

[kotay]

"August 2001...grunts with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, in Twentynine Palms, Calif., purchased three commercial automatic rifle variants and pitted them against the belt-fed beast."


I would hazard a guess that one of these "commercial automatic rifle variants" would be the Ultimax.

The other 2 would be the Colt AR and HK G36. Interesting ... I didn't know that the 3 test subjects were commercial variants rather than manufacturer sourced samples. Which may explain why they had (reported) defects with the U100 rear sights which I would have expected to be quickly rectified if they were manufacturer's samples.

The 2/7 test at 29 Palms would be the one published in the Marines Gazette where they tabulated the test results and also experimented with reorganising the USMC section.

 

[kotay]

As a person who was GPMG trained and who comes from a family of former army soldiers (including some who were trained by the 'Mexicans'), we (meaning the members of my family who served and fired the Ultimax) all love the Ultimax. My family members have served in armour, armour recce, AI, infantry and as LRRPs - with appointments ranging from section commanders, to medics, to CSMs to XOs.

wheee ... must be fun.

BTW Kotay, can you please PM a mod with your service credentials (I sent mine to GF), so that you can have a 'blue handle', I feel so 'pai say' (Hokkien for ashamed/shy) in my discussions with you since you do a better job at keeping yourself up to date on defence matters.

Thanks for the thought but I don't think it's necessary. Kinda funny for a conscript medic to be accorded "defense professional/analyst"

I'll let the quality (or lack thereof) of my post speak for themselves

 

[Chino]

"Commercial" variants could just be a broad term for anything not manufactured in the US by a US government-contracted source.

Regarding rear sight - I heard of one problem during trials which turned out to be the testers found the sights to be mounted too low for the bigger-built US troops, while it was not a problem for Asians.

PS Specifically, the testers reported the had trouble "acquiring target".

 

[kotay]

"Commercial" variants could just be a broad term for anything not manufactured in the US by a US government-contracted source.

could be.

Regarding rear sight - I heard of one problem during trials which turned out to be the testers found the sights to be mounted too low for the bigger-built US troops, while it was not a problem for Asians.

PS Specifically, the testers reported the had trouble "acquiring target".

Just went to re-read the article, you're right ... sights weren't broken. The specific reference to the U100 iron sights are:

"With the Ultimax, the shooters realized that the sights were set too low in the rear. Once they achieved stock weld the sights proved to be lower than the eye could see, forcing stock weld to be broken and causing the shooter to search for the sights"

and

"while the Ultimax sight system did not present to the eye at all. When the shooter laid his cheek on the stock of the weapon and achieved a proper stock weld he found the sights of the weapon lay below the line of sight capability of his eye"

Don't know about the Caucasian-Big, Asian-Small reason though. I don't remember having any problems with the U100 sights and I certainly didn't have any troubles with the M16 sights ... which I should have in reverse if it was that drastic a difference.

I wonder if that was thrown up by the SEALS trial. Oh well ... what could have been ...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I would have to agree with what the corporal said. At the end of the say its still only 30 rounds and wont suppress the enemy as well as a 200 round saw or m240 or mk48 etc.

Thats probably why their still going to keep 8000 SAWs but we will have to see if the IAR is going to work out at all.

18 + 1

nfloorl:

I don't get whats so funny?

 

[OPSSG]

I don't get whats so funny?

9x 30 round magazines (270 rounds), is our idea of an average/standard combat load for a normal rifleman (and not the SAW gunner - he carries more). 18 magazines (540 rounds) is double the combat load. The amount you carry depends on your mission profile.

18 + 1 magazines, carries the idea the we want you to carry double the combat load (plus 1 more magazine) just to break your back on a 20 to 30 km walk in a single patrol on foot. Plus you really start to run out of space on your pouches and the SAW gunner be reloading like crazy (to use up 19 magazines) to provide the required volume of fire. So it's a comedy of the absurd from a grunt's point of view.

The single most important limitation of our ability to patrol is not ammo weight. It's actually heat build up (with the bullet proof vest) and consequently drinking enough water. This means carrying your own water supply. If you operate in a hot humid climate with 95% humidity, you'll want water. I would typically carry 2 liters for a single 6 hour platoon or section level foot patrol.

Kotay, was a medic, so he's got to carry all that plus a stretcher. Plus most of our normal rifleman carries much more than just a rifle (some will carry an attached 40mm grenade launcher and some will carry a disposal anti-tank weapon).

IMHO, 18+1 is simply an exclamation of: It is sh!t heavy and not the most practical from a grunt's point of view.

 

[kotay]

I don't get whats so funny?

In response to the Corporal's comments, which most probably had a few choice expletives edited out.

2x200 round belts and a 100-200 round belt on the SAW may be heavy, but the form factor is manageable.

A near equivalent load will be 18x30 rnd magazine and 1 on the IAR ... I can imagine his response ... "how the **** am I supposed to fit that on my flak?". Yes it won't be all that bad since the IAR is supposed to be more ammo efficient and the 18 mags most probably will be >1 contact load and he'll get away with stuffing some into an assault pack. Jokes ain't funny anymore when you have to rationalise them.

Juggling 18 empty/full mags is also gonna be fun for him. I don't know what it's like for other army LBV's, but the one's I used when I was in the service were a snug fit for the mags pouches and without internal divisions. Which made combat reloads a pain if you tried to slot the empty mags into the pouches. I ended up chucking them down the front of my blouse (and later an "empties" bag) and sorting it out later. I can imagine "the corporal" trailing a blue cloud with 10+ empties down his blouse ...

 

[Chino]

Don't know about the Caucasian-Big, Asian-Small reason though. I don't remember having any problems with the U100 sights and I certainly didn't have any troubles with the M16 sights ... which I should have in reverse if it was that drastic a difference.

I can offer an analogy which goes something like:

I can drive a Mini Cooper or a 3-tonner equally comfortably.

But a larger or taller person than me would not do so well in the Mini.

But don't let this hijack the thread.