Jump to content


Photo

Video: M27 Critique By Former Marine User


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0018 AM

But Army will mump.
  • 0

#42 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0041 AM

Maybe HBAR's are the wave of the future.


  • 0

#43 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,719 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0105 AM

But Army will mump.

It's the Navy the USMC has to convince, not the Army.  


  • 0

#44 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0645 AM

Is there any lightweight 5.56 LMG bipod that's all-round fine?

  • swiveling
  • adjustable
  • robust
  • lightweight
  • alright ergonomics of folding/unfolding/carrying while folded
  • springs not messed up by dirt

  • 0

#45 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,978 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0905 AM

Pick any 3 of those requirements. 4 if it is really legendary good.


Edited by bojan, 07 January 2018 - 0905 AM.

  • 0

#46 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0942 AM

 

On optics, it was interesting to see the Forgotten Weapons chap, with his other hat on, on InRange talking about how much more effective rifle shooting was with a low-power optic. I think that this was in the context of a comparison of German and British WWI "sniper" rifles - actually more along the lines of DMR - where the lower powered scope was a better balanced tool when trading off acquiring a target quickly against hitting it at long (for regular infantry) range.

 

On that note, what sort of fields of view do the favoured low-power optics have nowadays?

 

It depends what you mean by low powered - the non powered reflex sights have an effectively unlimited FoV, but I guess you mean magnified to some extent. The TA31RCO-M150C 4x32 ACOG used by the US army on the M4 carbine has an FoV of 7 degrees or 36.8ft at 100 yards. The USMC variant has the same FoV. Some ACOGs can be used with both eyes open using the "Bindon Aiming Concept" explained here: http://www.thenewrif...-bac-practical/

 

There is a trend to piggy-back non magnifying reflex sights onto magnifying optics. The British Army has done this recently with both ACOGs and ELCAN Specters. The ELCAN is also 4x and has an FoV of 6.5 degrees.

 

 

Disadvantage to a scope with a wide field of view is that then the eye relief is very short. Laws of optics cannot be avoided after all. Hence many shooting with their eye nearly touching the ACOG scope to see anything.

 

The ELCAN Spectre has a longer eye relief, but smaller field of view then of course. Bloody laws of nature..

 

 

Take a pice of thread, knot it into a ring and twist it once so you have an 8 in front of you. then you have the field of view on the one side and the ey relief on the other and you can move it around. a wide field of view makes the ocular side small and vice versa.


Edited by Panzermann, 07 January 2018 - 0951 AM.

  • 0

#47 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 07 January 2018 - 0949 AM

Maybe HBAR's are the wave of the future.

 

There has been a trend towards thicker barrel profiles recently. Look at the M27 or M4 A1 carbine with their thick barrels. also the current german solicitation calls for a thicker barrel. But I think this is going the wrong direction, it adds weight and assault rifels are not machineguns. never will and will fail if pressed into lot of fully automatic fire, because the supporting arms are not there. No small mortars, no proper machineguns on tripods, bigger artillery only a radio call away. A rifle is mostly for self protection and to sweep up the rests and clean out enemy positions. Not for supporting fires. No need for a heavy barrel that weighs down the rifle. and material and manufacturing technologies have come a long way and even so called "pencil" profile barrels if properly stress relieved can take some heat and not distort. The advantage of a thin barrel is that a thinner barrel cannot hold as much heat and cools faster than thicker barrels.

 

So in the end what does the expected firing schedule look like? and what does it look like in the real world?


  • 0

#48 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 07 January 2018 - 1043 AM

USMC should stop playing games and just adopt a variation of the M27 as the standard rifle/carbine already. Clearly it's what they want.

 

ye wish shall be granted, said the djinni:

https://www.military...ine-grunts.html


  • 0

#49 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 January 2018 - 1844 PM

https://www.military...ine-grunts.html


This does de facto confirm the theory that the M27 was a way to get a M16/M4 successor into the USMC. I preferred that theory for a long time because the M27 wasn't really close to a LMG. Nop high capacity mags, no clearly heavier barrel, no QCB - and it was reported almost from the start that it did in reality not replace ther M249, but was used alongside it (kinda RPK-to-PKM-style).

 

I wonder why every rifle/carbine replacement problam failed, but they saw a chance with this. Did they figure that the maximum quantity that could be sold (and thus maximum tunrover & profit) would look so much smaller this way that less interference would occur?


  • 0

#50 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 08 January 2018 - 0128 AM

HBAR is so 2008. A heavy barrel is not needed. This is why it has largely vanished as a commercial offering apart from the target shooting crowd who don't actually move with their rifles. The holy grail is the lightest possible profile that can milk as much accuracy you need with your service ammunition. The obvious next engineering move for M27 is to ditch the quadrail for a lighter M-LOK rail. This can retrofit back into the fleet. Less easy would be a M16 magwell lower. which HK does make but it would require the destruction of the old receivers as a'repair'. This handily resolves all magazine compatibility issues and lets MC buy into any other US AR magazine contract. Finally, they can just 'surplus' the butt stock assembly as genuine USMC stocks at a premium to fanbois and buy any stock they want.


  • 0

#51 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 08 January 2018 - 0402 AM

Even if they do adopt the M27 as standard it is still rather lacking as an automatic rifle especially compared to some of the other offerings which had quick change barrels, heat sinks, or would automatically switch to open bolt if the temperature got hot enough.

 

The failure to get a nice quad-stack magazine for the thing is also odd. I've heard mixed things about the 60 round Surefires but they do prove it's a viable option. If it's not good enough issue a request for proposals and see who can build the best one.

 

I guess those Magpul 60 round drums are supposed to be pretty nice too despite the usual reputation AR-15 drum magazines have?


  • 0

#52 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 08 January 2018 - 0449 AM

Open bolt automatic was offered By at least one IAR entrant. On auto it was open bolt. On semi closed.

QCB is a non starter on an autorifle. It adds weight and is impractical to do without a no. 2. This wrecked ACR.

The colt entry had a big ass aluminium heat sink and cooling fin like on a cpu. needs regular maintenance with thermal paste and has differential heating issues. As it was....not needed.

DMag60s work ok but they are a bitch to carry. like all drums.
  • 0

#53 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2018 - 1242 PM

Interesting discussion...

Regarding the quick change barrel - it certainly adds weight, but does not require a number two, at least in my experience.

The LSW/SAW was issued and employed as an individual weapon, with the operator carrying the gun, spare barrel, and 800 rounds. Easy enough to do your own barrel changes.

USMC doctrine may differ, however.
  • 0

#54 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 January 2018 - 1833 PM

US Army used to issue the M249 as 2 distinct line numbers one TOEs- one as an automatic rifle and one as a light machine gun. The version in the rifle squad was an AR, most other uses that I saw (field artillery batteries, HHCs, etc) were in the LMG role.

 

The LMG was authorized a bunch of ancillary equipment, including spare barrels, that the LMG was not. I'll have to dig around and see if this is still current.


  • 0

#55 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,191 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2018 - 2351 PM

The torture tests of the M249 shooting 800 rnds cyclic, are the guns and barrels permanently ruined or would a barrel swap render it good to go again?


  • 0

#56 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 09 January 2018 - 1648 PM

Open bolt automatic was offered By at least one IAR entrant. On auto it was open bolt. On semi closed.[/quote]

 

the FN entry based off of the SCAR had a bimetal thermal switch in the bolt carrier that changed open or closed bolt operation depending on temperature.

[quote]
QCB is a non starter on an autorifle. It adds weight and is impractical to do without a no. 2. This wrecked ACR.

The colt entry had a big ass aluminium heat sink and cooling fin like on a cpu. needs regular maintenance with thermal paste and has differential heating issues. As it was....not needed.

DMag60s work ok but they are a bitch to carry. like all drums.

 

Even back in 2000 or so when the first articles circulated about the IAR, I thought that it was just an assault rifle and the conception clouded by BAR nostalgia.

 

Case in point: the M27 is an HK416 with bayonet lug. wow. much different.

 

 

Now this seems to have shifted to sneak in a new standard rifle to get something going and not having to wait for the US Army.


  • 0

#57 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 09 January 2018 - 2025 PM

HBAR is so 2008. A heavy barrel is not needed. This is why it has largely vanished as a commercial offering apart from the target shooting crowd who don't actually move with their rifles. The holy grail is the lightest possible profile that can milk as much accuracy you need with your service ammunition. The obvious next engineering move for M27 is to ditch the quadrail for a lighter M-LOK rail. This can retrofit back into the fleet. Less easy would be a M16 magwell lower. which HK does make but it would require the destruction of the old receivers as a'repair'. This handily resolves all magazine compatibility issues and lets MC buy into any other US AR magazine contract. Finally, they can just 'surplus' the butt stock assembly as genuine USMC stocks at a premium to fanbois and buy any stock they want.

 

Yes, Bushmaster markets their HBAR's as competition/target rifles. They apparently continue to sell well.


  • 0

#58 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2018 - 0256 AM

The torture tests of the M249 shooting 800 rnds cyclic, are the guns and barrels permanently ruined or would a barrel swap render it good to go again?


Once had an hour or so to expend excess ammunition: six guns, 38,000 rounds of link with orders not to bring any back. Despite factory-fresh guns, barrel changes every 200 rounds, three of the guns were rendered beyond economic repair....
So, barrel changes will only get you so far, I guess.
  • 0

#59 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,644 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 10 January 2018 - 0400 AM

Receiver on the Minimi is too short. It's also built to not last.
  • 0

#60 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 January 2018 - 0844 AM

What 900 rds torture test does to a gun:

 

 

I think that was actually a LMG36 prototype (heavier barrel), not G36 - not only because of the mags used.


Edited by lastdingo, 10 January 2018 - 1352 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users