M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle

[johns624]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

Well, HK makes ridiculously good stuff, as you said though, at ridiculously high prices. I remember that their handguns are extremely accurate and reliable, but mein Gott at what cost!

US Customs is not pleased with their P2000's. They wish that they still had their Glocks.

[Ogukuo72]

What was it they didn't like about the P2000?

[EDIT] The P2000s aren't the DAO versions, are they? That would suck.

[Nichols]

Originally Posted by american1975

This weapon makes no sense to me! Machine guns are for suppression/area denial or to slaughter a massed attack on the defense. What makes this new toy much better than the old M16 A1 on full auto???!!! Machine gun and the words "accuarte" or "pinpoint" should never mix, that is the whole purpose of the rifle IMHO. With the magazine feed 30 round clip, this looks like a huge step backward in squad level basic fire support to me...

We should keep in mind that altough the M-249 SAW is a light machinegun....the Marines really didn't see it as that. It was a weapon for the Automatic Rifleman (AR) in the fireteam. His MOS is 0311 (Rifleman) not 0331 (Machinegunner).

The AR man was never supposed to be a machinegunner. The machinegun is a crew served weapon. If the Company Commander hasn't designated a focus of effort, the three platoons in the company will probably have two M-240s in support.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

Well, HK makes ridiculously good stuff, as you said though, at ridiculously high prices. I remember that their handguns are extremely accurate and reliable, but mein Gott at what cost!

That is true with many European gun companies like H&K, Sako, Tikka, Steyr-Mannlicher etc. Great guns but priced through the roof. Although there are some exceptions like CZ and Glock. I think the stiff competition and large market make U.S guns good products at good prices.
CZ's are a great value even compared to U.S made guns. I have become quite a fan of CZ -great performance and great looks.

[Pruitt]

If the Marines want to rearm the AR and Assistant AR for urban combat, they might be better off going with an MP-5. Of course once in the Company Arms Room the enlisted men will have trouble getting these away from the officers!

Pruitt

[TacCovert4]

All officers under rank of ltcol are being issued m4s in lieu or in tandem with pistols.

I'm fine with it so long as the 249 stays around as a swapable option when needed. The 249 has a lot more endurance than the 27. But bigger to me is a need to increase heavy weapons deployment at the platoon level. As warfare has spread out and continues to spread out, the pc needs organic heavy weapons (mmgs, mortars/gmg, atgm/breaching weapons). A fourth squad, made up of respective sections of each is IMHO something that will continue to be more and more important.

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by Pruitt

If the Marines want to rearm the AR and Assistant AR for urban combat, they might be better off going with an MP-5. Of course once in the Company Arms Room the enlisted men will have trouble getting these away from the officers!

Pruitt

You might find this an amusing read, then.

http://loadoutroom.com/998/hk-mp-5-t...-of-the-1980s/

He's right you know. It's amazing how the HK sales team managed to sucker half the world into buying a design that is essentially a WW2 metal-stamped design without a bolt hold-open device and with a difficult-to-manipulate selector switch at German prices. In fact, HK should pay the SAS advertising royalties, since it was the SAS that kick-started the whole thing when they kicked down the door at the Iranian Embassy in 1980.

[Pruitt]

Well if the MP-5 has its foibles, what kind of 9mm Submachinegun would you recommend?

Pruitt

[Ogukuo72]

Originally Posted by Pruitt

Well if the MP-5 has its foibles, what kind of 9mm Submachinegun would you recommend?

Pruitt

I wouldn't. Stick with the 5.56mm M4.

[johns624]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

What was it they didn't like about the P2000?

[EDIT] The P2000s aren't the DAO versions, are they? That would suck.

Yes, they are the DAO version. The problem is that HK believes their own marketing about how great their guns are. They don't carry any spare parts so it takes months to get them. Also, there is premature wear to the frame rail inserts.

[Ogukuo72]

I never liked DAO pistols. Don't understand the rationale behind them apart from avoiding litigation by making the pistols more difficult to shoot.

Premature wear on frame rail inserts sounds like the steel used was too soft. I'm guessing that US Customs don't shoot their guns nearly as much as the US military? If so, it doesn't reflect well on HK's engineers. This sort of thing should have been figured out during the design process.

[andrewza]

back on topic.


Can some body pleas tell me how the m27 is better than a assault rifle.

[Pruitt]

Actually it is an assault rifle with a heavy barrel.

Pruitt

[Carl Schwamberg]

Originally Posted by Ogukuo72

That's interesting. So, in US Army and USMC doctrine, does the LMG gunner also clears the building with the rest of the squad? Or does the LMG post overwatch and perimeter security while the riflemen of the squad clears the building?

Either way for the Marines. It is up to the judgement of the local commander. Generally we trained (back in the 1980s) for the AR or SAW to cover the building/s while the riflemen went in. If the AR/SAW went in it was usually following and to cover any field of fire on the opposite side vs clearing the rooms, tho as always there are exceptions. Since the US Marines had the AR/SAW distributed though the fire teams that meant the teams were broken up with some members in the building and some outside. From reading Iraq veterans accounts hat was not a big issue with many of them. The squad leaders and members were intelligent and flexible enough to form different team configurations as needed.

While the USMC has stuck with a thirteen man squad of three fire teams on the books since WWII the actual battlefield practice is flexible with the commanders from battalion down to squad changing things around as the see circumstances requiring. There has also been some formal experiment with other squad configurations since 1945

Originally Posted by Nichols

We should keep in mind that altough the M-249 SAW is a light machinegun....the Marines really didn't see it as that. It was a weapon for the Automatic Rifleman (AR) in the fireteam. His MOS is 0311 (Rifleman) not 0331 (Machinegunner).

The AR man was never supposed to be a machinegunner. The machinegun is a crew served weapon. If the Company Commander hasn't designated a focus of effort, the three platoons in the company will probably have two M-240s in support.

Back when the Browning AR was used and the subsequent M14/M16 with bipods, the Marine AR man always had a designated assistant carrying extra magazines for that weapon. That went back to the 1920s & 30s when the BAR were grouped in a eight man squad carrying four BAR, and from 1943 when the BAR were relocated to the rifle squads fire teams. There was always a wing man designated to stick by the AR to feed him ammo, spot targets, and cover his flank/rear. Two man M249 teams were no different when we picked up that weapon in the 1980s.

I recall the US Army had a designated assistant AR man for the Browning back in the 1940s infantry book.

[Nichols]

Originally Posted by Carl Schwamberg

While the USMC has stuck with a thirteen man squad of three fire teams on the books since WWII the actual battlefield practice is flexible with the commanders from battalion down to squad changing things around as the see circumstances requiring. There has also been some formal experiment with other squad configurations since 1945

Actually we went with an eleven man squad in the mid 80's. It consisted on the Squad leader and two fireteams of five Marines. I didn't like running that squad T/O...major pain in the rearend.