Tango01 | 20 Dec 2016 9:52 p.m. PST |
"Preliminary results of an Army test to see how the service's M855A1 5.56mm round performs in Marine Corps weapons show that the enhanced performance round causes reliability and durability problems in the Marine M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, service officials say. The Marine Corps in March added the M27 and the M16A4 rifles to the Army's ongoing testing of M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland after lawmakers questioned why the Army and the Marines use two different types of 5.56mm ammunition. "One of the reasons we were doing that test was because of congressional language from last year that said 'you two services need to look at getting to a common round,' so we heard Congress loud and clear last year," Col. Michael Manning, program manager for the Marine Corps Infantry Weapon Systems, told Military.com in a Dec. 15 Interview…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
John Treadaway | 21 Dec 2016 4:28 a.m. PST |
On a related issue, (ammunition aside, and following a read up on wikipedia) if the M27 is less capable, volume of fire wise, than the SAW (but more accurate) and the military doctrine says that this means that the US Marines then suffer from a lack of ability to throw supressive fire, why would the doctine not change from 1 SAW gunner per squad/team to two M27s to increase the amount of fire that can be put downrange? John T |
Garand | 21 Dec 2016 7:25 a.m. PST |
ISTR when I first heard of the new Marines AR, that they were going for a "toolbox" approach and that the SAWs are not being traded in, but kept in the armory. The Marines would deploy with the most appropriate weapon for their mission. Well it SOUNDS good at least… :) Damon. |
zoneofcontrol | 21 Dec 2016 8:31 a.m. PST |
""Preliminary results of an Army test to see how the service's M855A1 5.56mm round performs in Marine Corps weapons show that the enhanced performance round causes reliability and durability problems in the Marine M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, service officials say." Well the obvious Pentagon solution would be to add a second barrel to accommodate the problematic round. Of course you will want to add an additional magazine, receiver and bandolier. If that makes the weapon too heavy, you can add a wheeled carriage with protective armor plating. This may require deploying an additional team member to crew this newly configured system. To accommodate this, a retractable tent shelter with food and water dispensers will be needed. Since this may result in it becoming a larger target, a mortar tube should be added to enhance the defensive capabilities. Of course this will require adding a mortar-gunner and ammo bearer to the team. Etc…. |
Irish Marine | 21 Dec 2016 11:05 a.m. PST |
The saw is a horrible weapon I carried it and used it my platoons in Iraq had them and they suck. The M-27 is a far better alternative. |
hocklermp5 | 21 Dec 2016 11:44 a.m. PST |
Irish Marine….Please elaborate on why the SAW "sucks". I've seen more than a few similar comments but little detail. Users in the war zone are the ones most qualified to critique the weapons they are issued. |
Irish Marine | 21 Dec 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
Ok here goes. The M-249 SAW (squad automatic weapon) which fires the same round as the M-16 series but isn't loaded the same way. The classification was as a automatic rifle but it is in name only, being little better than a light weight (right) machinegun. The SAW empty weighs 17Lbs, 22 pounds loaded. The drum of 200rds weighs about 5-6 pounds. Now for a little more weight you could have a real machinegun firing a 7.62 NATO round which packs a nice punch. The SAW ammo is linked and even though it's billed to accept rifle mags it will destroy the magazine in the process. The M60E3 which weighs in at 23lbs fires the round I'm writing about. The 7.62 has a much better penetration then the 5.56mm. I carried it as a LanceCorpral and it takes two Marines to operate it needs lots of ammo that in a pinch you can give to the riflemen when you break off the metal links but the plastic ammo boxes are noisy and heavy, the gunner carrying three, one on the weapon and two on his belt, not to mention the spare barrel it needs. It fires open bolt which is a serious disadvantage and has a high profile signature when firing. It's ungainly in vehicles especially if you need to fire from one. Now the M60E3 isn't much better but it's a true machinegun with true machinegun values such as distance, high volume of fire and hitting power. The SAW had to do everything a rifle did like clear rooms, which in the long run can be utterly exhausting. There are pro and cons to all weapons but if you are selling me on a automatic rifle which acts like a very light machinegun I'd just rather have the real deal. And before someone asks I was in Panama, Kuwait, Somalia and Iraq. |
troopwo | 21 Dec 2016 1:58 p.m. PST |
The M27 s a strange bird in the section. The USMC wanted a new rifle,and the defense Department couldn't see enough of an improvement in anything available that justified moving on from the M16/M4 family. Natuaraly, they made up a need for something that could be used for sniping and for automatic rifle fire as well, after all we don't need a light machine gun in every situation. That is what the justification went like. Funny, no one thought of giving the M16A2 the old , safe fire and automatic option ionstead of burst. That i what the Navy came back up with for the M16A3, So the USMC wound up with one member of each four man fire team carrying the M27. It was lighter and shorter than everyone elses' long M16A2 or M16A4. Then the USMC switched and now they are carrying M4s for everyone. Any old timers remember when the section had a designated automatic rifleman who differed only in being designated an automatic rifleman. He was carrying the M16A1 just like everybody else. Only he was expected to burn out his barrel using nothing but full auto fire??? A bit silly since everyone else with an M16A1 had full auto as an option too. The UK tried to save money and had a version of the SA80 rifle they used for a whie as a light machine gun. That went over like a lead balloon and they bought the Minimi too. Problem is the SAW or M249 is not a rifle. It is an lmg. There is nothing wrong with the design. For the same weight it comes in a MK48 in 7.62 as well. The M240 is an even heavier weapon than either the M249 or the M60, and it is incredibly more reliable as well as an open bolt design too. Don't let nostalgia for the M60 fool you. The point of 5.56 is one standard ammo for the squad or section. Mags for a M249 are meant as an emergency only. The problems with the M27 are not specidific to this M855A1 round but to the weapons themselves. Units worldwide are discovering the same flaws. Sadly HK has as much of a cult following as Colt. |
Mako11 | 21 Dec 2016 2:52 p.m. PST |
Seems to me if the Marine rounds work fine it their gun, perhaps it will in the Army gun as well, so they should just adopt the Marine one. He (the auto rifle man) did get a little bipod, IIRC. I agree with the premise. They should have one round for all the weapons. |
troopwo | 21 Dec 2016 3:32 p.m. PST |
Once again, it is not the ammo. The M27 or HK 416 are breaking. It is happening to groups world wide that use them. They are used hard and are starting to suffer failures as a result. Blaming the ammo is pointless. |
Dn Jackson | 22 Dec 2016 12:06 a.m. PST |
I don't believe the Marine Corps ever used the M16A1. We went from the M16 to the M16A2. |
Irish Marine | 22 Dec 2016 8:30 a.m. PST |
|
troopwo | 22 Dec 2016 10:14 a.m. PST |
The problem is that most users use the M27 as a light machine gun with full auto fire only. That is a lot of stress on a rifle. It can take it for only do long. Given the Vietnam War and the use of full auto in M16s and M16A1s, it was not so much of a problem. There was a war on and the production was ramped up like crazy. It was expeced to burn through a percentage of the weapons as a part of wastage of being at war. Fifty years later, the standards of production are pretty high and so is the testing. The use of full auto in the long run for the M27 has been having a telling effect. Given the experimentation in trying the new rounds as well, they are discovering problems with the specific weapon types, not with the ammo. |
paulgenna | 22 Dec 2016 2:22 p.m. PST |
|