USMC future IAR - A flawed concept?

R

Rythm

New Member
With regards to the USMC adopting a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" with 30-round Magazine that can fire from both open and closed bolt, to substitute their older Minimis. What is your idea of this concept?

IIRC the Brits are now back to arming their squads with Minimis too, after having tried a concept of two LSWs per squad and no belt-fed weapon at all for some time.

Personally i think we will find the Marine Corps going back to belt-fed weapons rather sooner than later. From my experience, i would never substitute belt-feds with Magazine-feds in my squads, it would too drasticly reduce the capacity of supressive fire.
 
R

regstrup

Member
Rythm said:
With regards to the USMC adopting a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" with 30-round Magazine that can fire from both open and closed bolt, to substitute their older Minimis. What is your idea of this concept?
Click to expand...
Well, this has already been discussed quit passionately in the tread Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"
I just know, that the danish army had a similar concept with the Diemaco LSW, which is not popular with the danish soldiers.

But it is yet to be seen, how the concept will work in practise with the USMC ;).
 
W

winnyfield

New Member
They're not ditching the m249 (belt fed).

The USMC uses a larger squad/section, 13(?), so there's still going to be a lot of bullets flying around. (The US Army is not going to for the IAR)

I sort of understand why they might want the the IAR but the elephant in the room is why no full-auto for the ordinary grunt.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a move to get a new Assault Rifle into service through the backdoor...

The procurement program of the US when it comes to assault rifles is a little bit of...weird.
The US maybe give their infantry platoons the most sophisticated toys and this planet but they are still running around with the choice between a full auto short AR or a 3 round burst full length AR...
 
F

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Rythm said:
With regards to the USMC adopting a "Infantry Automatic Rifle" with 30-round Magazine that can fire from both open and closed bolt, to substitute their older Minimis. What is your idea of this concept?

IIRC the Brits are now back to arming their squads with Minimis too, after having tried a concept of two LSWs per squad and no belt-fed weapon at all for some time.

Personally i think we will find the Marine Corps going back to belt-fed weapons rather sooner than later. From my experience, i would never substitute belt-feds with Magazine-feds in my squads, it would too drasticly reduce the capacity of supressive fire.
Click to expand...
I made a thread about this a year ago I think and had some interesting debates.

regstrup said:
Well, this has already been discussed quit passionately in the tread Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"
I just know, that the danish army had a similar concept with the Diemaco LSW, which is not popular with the danish soldiers.

But it is yet to be seen, how the concept will work in practise with the USMC ;).
Click to expand...
Ah you beat me to it.;)

winnyfield said:
They're not ditching the m249 (belt fed).

The USMC uses a larger squad/section, 13(?), so there's still going to be a lot of bullets flying around. (The US Army is not going to for the IAR)

I sort of understand why they might want the the IAR but the elephant in the room is why no full-auto for the ordinary grunt.
Click to expand...
I think they have 11,000 or so SAWs and they are going to keep 8000 of them, so they would have 8000 SAWs and 4100-6500 IARs.

Waylander said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a move to get a new Assault Rifle into service through the backdoor...

The procurement program of the US when it comes to assault rifles is a little bit of...weird.
The US maybe give their infantry platoons the most sophisticated toys and this planet but they are still running around with the choice between a full auto short AR or a 3 round burst full length AR...
Click to expand...
I hate the procurement system that the Pentagon has when it comes to buying weapons. It is rather flawed.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Not exactly the IAR, however if true......(disclaimer: this is from wiki so not sure how accurate)

During the test, the SCAR suffered 226 stoppages ranking second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but less compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233. This test was based on two previous systems assessments that were conducted using the M4 Carbine and M16 rifle at Aberdeen in 2006 and the summer of 2007 before the third limited competition in the fall of 2007. The 2006 test focused only on the M4 and M16. The Summer 2007 test had only the M4, but increased lubrication. Results from the second test resulted in a total of 307 stoppages for the M4 after lubrication was increased, but did not explain why the M4 suffered 882 stoppages with that same level of lubrication in the third test.[8][9]
Click to expand...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

Their reference confirms it.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Okay, anyone still doubts that the USMC just wants to introduce a new assautl rifle through the backdoor?

I mean heck, what else is a minimal modified H&K416?
 
F

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Waylander said:
Okay, anyone still doubts that the USMC just wants to introduce a new assautl rifle through the backdoor?

I mean heck, what else is a minimal modified H&K416?
Click to expand...
I know thats what its all about, they could care less for the IAR, in fact they might just replace it in the future, they want to replace their M4/M16s with the 416 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top