How about we cut to the chase and get an upgrade.
We're currently rocking M4's and M-16A4's. They've been serviceable but they're lacking in many areas. If we drop the concept of a hyper accurate Squad Automatic Weapon with limited capability to lay down suppressive fire and redesignate this weapon as our new M-16A5 I think we'll have a winner.
A couple of things will have to happen though. First we're gonna have to admit (well someone is going to) that the concept for the Infantry Automatic Rifle is stone age thinking. In hindsight its quite obvious that we don't need a modern day Browning Automatic Rifle.
Next we're going to have to admit that we lost something when we gave up automatic fire on our service rifles.
OK, I'll do it. We fucked up and now its time to correct the mistake. Let's get this done gents.
Consider it a necking down of our Infantry weapons...no more dual stocks of M4's and M-16A4's....just the M-16A5 formerly known as the M27 and life is good. Well except for qualification day. Standards are going to have to rise again. But that's a good thing.
I agree fully. The weapon is solid.
ReplyDeleteThis is good data. I'm bookmarking this one for future reference.
ReplyDeleteThere's been speculation since early on that the USMC, knowing that they would never get funding for an M-16 replacement, just called it an IAR to get it into service.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, the USMC put a lot of thought and testing into the IAR concept. I am very skeptical of the correctness of the thinking, but they did develop a coherent IAR doctrine and then went looking for a weapon rather than the other way around.
IIRC it had a lot to do with the USMC's urban experiences in Iraq where both individual soldier mobility and the number of riflemen available to surround / move through an area was very important but the firefights were fleeting so sustained firepower was less important.
yeah and that's where the concept breaks down. remember semi-automatic sniper rifles are designed for the urban environment.
ReplyDeletethey can talk about an IAR gunner being able to move with the squad more easily but that's a misnomer. if you're talking about establishing a base of fire then you can't beat the SAW in that role especially in light of some of the incidents in Fallujah.
the Marine Corps might need to make better use of the designated marksman concept...the Army has and that's why they're not interested in the IAR.
but the Army is about to pick up an improved M4. the IAR has a heavier barrel, fires from an open bolt and uses existing M16 mags.
its a few inches longer but thats a good thing. the M27 would be the perfect weapon for the Army and the Marines as the next standard battle rifle.
It's also piston driven sol, very reliable, has great accuracy and still remains weight friendly. It's a good replacement and we already have it, just make a larger order....and preferabley get them in tan.
ReplyDelete