The link has a photo of an M-4 (Strambo caught my error), not an M27.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...ure-not-getting-one/

All of the Marine M27 rifles are in ― if you’re not a grunt or working with them, you’re not getting one

By: Todd South   1 day ago

The Marine Corps is fielding thousands of its new M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles to grunts across the service and, for now, it’s not buying any more.

The last of the M27s come into the Marine Corps inventory this year and are expected to be in the hands of each infantryman from platoon commander and below by mid-2021, officials said.

The proven weapon has increased lethality among the infantry, experts said. And the 30-round capacity rifle can outrange the M4 by 100 to 150 meters. The Corps also has decided to use the same platform as its squad designated marksman rifle. That is the M38.

The M27 saw its origin story begin in the year 2000 as Marines were looking for a lighter, more accurate replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Five years later an initial request to industry went out and by 2010 the Corps had selected the Heckler & Koch 416 and dubbed it the M27 IAR.

Marines first took them on deployment to Afghanistan in 2011.

Some questioned its fire suppression capability over the SAW, but the weapon finally got the blessing of top brass.

Commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller liked what he saw enough to not only push for the M27 to replace the SAW but also the M4, at least within rifle companies and for those working alongside them, such as combat engineers.

The initial goal of getting 6,500 of the M27s into the ranks jumped to 11,000 and plans later called for 15,000 rifles.

Any of the figures would have worked, fitting well below the maximum procurement contract number of 50,184.

Ultimately, the Marines bought just over 14,000 M27s, Manny Pacheco, spokesman for Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times.

Those were purchased at an estimated 1,600 initial purchase followed by 2,600 in 2017, 2,900 in 2018 and 7,000 in 2019.

A little less than half of those, between 6,000 and 7,000, have not yet been fielded.

While Neller repeatedly has said that the weapon has received majority positive reviews from the infantry it has not come into the ranks without its own controversy.

In April 2018, members of the House Armed Services Committee told Neller that they wanted him to provide them an assessment of the service’s view of the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study and include near and long-term small arms modernization strategy for the Corps.

And future funding for the rifle could be cut or withheld if he didn’t provide that report.

At that point, the Corps had fielded 6,500 M27s.

During a March 2018 House Armed Services Committee hearing Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., grilled Marine leaders about why the weapon wasn’t being provided by a U.S. company.

Lt. Gen. Brian D. Beaudreault, deputy commandant of Plans, Policies and Operations, told the congressman that H&K, a Germany-based company, won the competition and changes now would put fielding behind by two years and substantially raise the price of the contract.

Despite its successes in fielding, certain elite within the Marine ranks decided not to take the new rifle and are sticking with the M4s.

Marine Special Operations Command Raiders continue to carry the M4 carbine. That has had to do both with the profile of missions requiring shorter barrels and also a need for a greater volume of fire they still get from the SAW, a MARSOC spokesman told Marine Corps Times in 2018.

“Given the smaller size of our operational units, the M249′s volume of fire provides a greater tactical benefit than the advantages provided by the M27,” said Maj. Nicholas Mannweiler.

Raiders use an M4 lower receiver, the trigger and housing, attached to a Special Operations Command-upper receiver, the barrel and bolt.

That way operators can swap out components in their weapon system to meet various mission demands.

The SOCOM upper receiver group and M27 lower are not compatible.

“If we need to do shorter suppressed barrels, that’s an option. If we need to have a certain number of weapons within a team or company configured for designated marksman duties, we can do that too,” Mannweiler said.

A 2015 report that was leaked online evaluated the use of the M27 as a designated marksman rifle, the role it has come to play in its M38 configuration.

That report found weapon stoppages at high cyclic rates ― a problem for what’s meant to be the squad’s machine gun.

But, retired Marine Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade, who worked closely with evaluation, testing and fielding of small arms and training in the Marine Corps, told the website Task & Purpose that the problems in that test were not with the weapon but rather with the aluminum magazines that had feed problems and with the type of ammunition that was being used ― the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Marines have since adopted a polymer magazine that does not have the feed problems and certain deploying units have obtained another type of 5.56 mm ammunition to correct for past problems with the EPR, he said.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sigmund,

So, what’s the difference between the M4 and M27—the latter has a longer barrel?

I thought it also switched to open bolt when it heats up to cool better. I'm not sure if thats accurate or still a feature though. I dont know that I'm crazy about the concept personally. As much as I didnt love carrying the Saw or 60 I do believe in the dedicated Squad Auto. I think trying to make an AR a machine gun is settling instead of having the best thing for the purpose. Again I have no direct hands on with the M27 though.

The M27 is basically an HK 416 with a 16.5" barrel. Oddly, the article link shows an M4 and says they are working with "M27s" so that makes it more confusing.

I think the M27 is a step back in the wrong direction from the SAW for a squad automatic weapon. Belt fed and quick change barrel are what is needed for a sustained suppressive fire capability. Not saying the SAW isn't long in the tooth, but I'd like to see an updated belt-fed QC barrel replacement.

It is a step up from the silly (IMO) M16A2 and A4 though.

Looks like they dropped the open bolt switching so yeah, unless I'm missing something its an HK M4 with a longer barrel.

The M27 / HK416 is a piston (not pistol, duh ) operated rifle, unlike the direct impingement M4.

While lots of the piston rifles (Hk416 / SCAR 16 / SIG MCX, etc) offer 'increased performance' in some regard (or at least touted by the manufacturers), it's very hard IMO to topple the AR15/M16/M4 for modularity.

In terms of M27 vs SAW, I don't see how they are remotely comparable and looking at MARSOCs choice to keep M4s and SAWs, it appears I'm not alone.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RHINOWSO,

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
The M27 / HK416 is a pistol operated rifle, unlike the direct impingement M4.

I am not familiar with the HK416 so didn't pick up on the operating system. Thank you.

Uh, the 416 upper will drop right on a standard m16 lower. And an m4 upper will drop right on a 416 lower.

I read the entire article, and I suspect this was a good move. The stated theory is that the enemy learns that moderately accurate full machine gun fire is not as deadly as it sounds. The Marines feel that more accurate, but lower rate, fire will be more lethal and more effective overall.

Additionally if the troops carry the same amount of ammo, they will be less likely to run low during a firefight.

I wonder why the POF gas gun was not able to compete effectively against the HK.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
I read the entire article, and I suspect this was a good move. The stated theory is that the enemy learns that moderately accurate full machine gun fire is not as deadly as it sounds. The Marines feel that more accurate, but lower rate, fire will be more lethal and more effective overall.

I have been following this a bit and your synopsis is absolutely correct as I understand it.

Also - from what I have read - the Infantry companies are not losing the SAWs. They will be retained at the company level and used / issued at the CO's discretion.

I could see some instances where they might be employed. Ie manning guard posts, check points, etc.

On a personal level (former Infantry) I can see more positives to this move than negatives.

-------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
I wonder why the POF gas gun was not able to compete effectively against the HK.

The general gist-
vault tec propaganda

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
I read the entire article, and I suspect this was a good move. The stated theory is that the enemy learns that moderately accurate full machine gun fire is not as deadly as it sounds. The Marines feel that more accurate, but lower rate, fire will be more lethal and more effective overall.

Additionally if the troops carry the same amount of ammo, they will be less likely to run low during a firefight.

I wonder why the POF gas gun was not able to compete effectively against the HK.

I don't buy it and would like to know how they came to develop their "theory." Same way they came up with the A2 being a swell idea?

As an IN Officer, what I really need from my MGs is for them to be able to sustain whatever rate of fire is appropriate to effectively suppress the enemy so that I can maneuver on them. Lethality from them is secondary, the real casualties will be either in the preparatory fires or in the assault. Plus, it isn't like a proper open bolt belt-fed MG is a slouch in the accuracy category. No, it can't shoot 1.5-2 MOA groups, but it will plug a torso at 800m and is quite frankly capable of whatever rate of fire the operator wants (more accurately, whatever rate the support team leader tells them). It can be shot slow and accurate as well.

I need the guns talking resulting in continuous fire until they shift and then lift for the assault. I don't see a mag fed, closed bolt carbine getting that done for me, even at just the squad level. Just my opinion though, glad the Army shares it (for now?)

That's going to depend on how the LMG's are positioned, and in what capacity.

'L' ambush? Center and ends, to both initiate the ambush,and to cut off egress. In that capacity, mobility is second to firepower.

Where a lighter weapon shines is when your machinegunners are expected to move with the assaulters, and continue effective fires.

quote:

Originally posted by gruntjim:
That's going to depend on how the LMG's are positioned, and in what capacity.

'L' ambush? Center and ends, to both initiate the ambush,and to cut off egress. In that capacity, mobility is second to firepower.

Where a lighter weapon shines is when your machinegunners are expected to move with the assaulters, and continue effective fires.

Agreed. If I was a USMC Company Commander, I'd probably (generically) configure my squads with an M27 in one fire team and a M249 in the other. That way, assault team can have the lighter M27. For larger ops, the M249s would be consolidated in the SBF position with the M240s. M27s in the assault.

It is no doubt a good weapon, but I'd way rather see a lighter belt-fed open bolt QC barrel SAW replacement. Just like a much lighter, modernized M60 was developed and yet the much heavier M240 was adopted. Politics of procurement.

It's amazing how much the M27 piston and operating system like the Magpul Masada/Bushmaster ACR gas system (except the M27 has a buffer) While there is surly something else different, it looks very similar