Best Choice for USMC Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR)?
-
Time to play more lobbying games by hiring ex Marine Generals to the Board of VT?
In short, you want the arms deals, you get the right fellows who have the ears of those in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon power players.
It's easier to bid for Marine contracts than Army, because the jarheads are less likely to play around with their equipment. However, you must appeal to their patriotic sentiments.
-
I am impressed with the Colt IAR's flexibility to fire from both closed and open bolt...
For a LMG/SAW, to have option for single-shot and to able to fire from closed bolt is not really an advantage... because you will be firing suppressive auto fire at full auto mode, the incremental accuracy of a closed bolt is not really an advantage...
If the Marines are fighting coventional warfare, maybe they would need a "straight" LMG like the Ultimax.
But if you look at the video as well as the current situation they are facing in Iraq... they are looking at a "FIBUA" type of scenario. In this scenario, a "longer" and "heavier" LMG might not be the best fit, they are not going to set it up on a hill as a firebase and then lay down full auto suppressive fire on the opposing hill.
If their need is a weapon that pretty much "look" (training) and "feel" (weight) like a rifle and is "capable" of suppressive full auto fire then the Colt IAR with is a hybrid AR and LMG will be suitable.
The "legendary" low recoil and accurate full-auto fire from a Ultimax is not really that much of an advantage in an urban environement,
my two cents. -
IMHO we don't stand a chance against the lobbying power of Colt Ind. Otherwise the M4 would have been thrown out long ago.
Now for the SF community the U100 acceptance will be easier due to less public oversight. -
Agree. In any case, I've seen my SAW gunners display tremendous accuracy sequentially taking out a row of single targets with double taps ... at 200-300mOriginally posted by spencer99:I am impressed with the Colt IAR's flexibility to fire from both closed and open bolt...
For a LMG/SAW, to have option for single-shot and to able to fire from closed bolt is not really an advantage... because you will be firing suppressive auto fire at full auto mode, the incremental accuracy of a closed bolt is not really an advantage...If the Marines are fighting coventional warfare, maybe they would need a "straight" LMG like the Ultimax.
I don't have figures for the Colt's IAR, in what way do you feel the U-100 to be heavier or longer than the Colt IAR?
But if you look at the video as well as the current situation they are facing in Iraq... they are looking at a "FIBUA" type of scenario. In this scenario, a "longer" and "heavier" LMG might not be the best fit, they are not going to set it up on a hill as a firebase and then lay down full auto suppressive fire on the opposing hill.
If their need is a weapon that pretty much "look" (training) and "feel" (weight) like a rifle and is "capable" of suppressive full auto fire then the Colt IAR with is a hybrid AR and LMG will be suitable.
Look and feel is something the end-users can get used to once the policy decision has been made. Just like we did with the SAR-21. The proposed designs for US Future infantry weapon systems certainly did not see the need to have any legacy look or feel.The "legendary" low recoil and accurate full-auto fire from a Ultimax is not really that much of an advantage in an urban environement,
This is the part where I totally disagree.
Fighting in Urban terrain is on where you will frequently be forced to fire from an off-hand postion. It is because of this that a more controllable weapon will prove it's superiority over an auto weapon that isn't as controllable.
Try firing a U-100 round the corner with the butt hanging in the air ... now try that with an M-16. You tell me which will provide more accurate auto fire? -
I agree the ultimax controllability and accuracy will win hands down. But as in my earlier post, I feel the need for a magazine adaptor to take non-modified M16 mags will be a big sore point.Originally posted by kotay:This is the part where I totally disagree.
Fighting in Urban terrain is on where you will frequently be forced to fire from an off-hand postion. It is because of this that a more controllable weapon will prove it's superiority over an auto weapon that isn't as controllable.
Try firing a U-100 round the corner with the butt hanging in the air ... now try that with an M-16. You tell me which will provide more accurate auto fire?
And also, the folks at LWRC are on to some inside info by making their IAR come in a short barrel for urban. And its advantage is great parts and operation similarities with the existing AR used by USMC.
I'm sure the short barrel version of our Ultimax will do very well, too. And the ability to switch easily between a long and short barrel is a GREAT plus that the LWRC IAR doesn't have (I think). But how much will a short barrel on the Ultimax increase the recoil and affect the accuracy? -
IIRC, there is a para version of the U100 . Not sure if it is still produced.
Someone actually made a website for the Ultimax vs M249 Minimi comparison.
http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/Ultimax%20100%20Models.html
And the Ultimax Mk4 (or what its supposed to be, in this image)
Note the common rail system, front grip and a different buttstock and the Tri-Picatinny Rail at the fore (for vertical grip, lights, lasers, etc.) -
the "para" version looks simply like one fitted with a shortened barrel and the butt removed that's all .... -
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It's a matter of how you spin it ...Originally posted by chino65:I agree the ultimax controllability and accuracy will win hands down. But as in my earlier post, I feel the need for a magazine adaptor to take non-modified M16 mags will be a big sore point.
It can be viewed as a deficiency in original design necessitating an adaptor. It can also be viewed as a potential failure point.
OTOH, the magazine adaptor can also be viewed as a plus point. Allowing the weapon to accept different magazines without a need to do an A2 version. It allows the weapon an expansion path should bigger/better magazine designs be developed down the road.But its advantage is great parts and operation similarities with the existing AR used by USMC.
The parts similarity and lack of need for re-tooling is a big plus though.
At the end of day, unfortunately, the politics of procurement will most probably mean that the U100 will not get selected. It will most probably play bridesmaid again ... -
Just thought I add ... this is what I wished they had done to the U100;
i) Retain the working mechanism but do a polymer body (ala SAR-21) that'll accept the SAR-21 polymer mag.
ii) Redesign the drum mag to have a removable back cover so that rounds can be reloaded by simply slotting them in. Then load the spring by a hand crank ... QED?
iii) Collapsible stock like the para version of the M239 Minimi.
iv) and for LL ... pic rails at 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'clock. :p -
12 o'clock?Originally posted by kotay:Just thought I add ... this is what I wished they had done to the U100;
i) Retain the working mechanism but do a polymer body (ala SAR-21) that'll accept the SAR-21 polymer mag.
ii) Redesign the drum mag to have a removable back cover so that rounds can be reloaded by simply slotting them in. Then load the spring by a hand crank ... QED?
iii) Collapsible stock like the para version of the M239 Minimi.
iv) and for LL ... pic rails at 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'clock. :p
That's way extra. -
what? no 12 o'clock rails? How you gonna mount optics?
-
The more I learn about the LWRC IAR the more I like it.
Contrary to what I thought, the LWRC IAR is piston-driven.
So altogether, it has 3 great improvements over the original M4: Piston, open-bolt, and heavier barrel.
But, the more LWRC IAR videos I watch, the more I see how massive the recoil can be on full-auto. Controllability and accuracy on fullauto must not be its strong points.
LWRC should try to reduce its rate of fire on fullauto.
...
So if the USMC is listening, here's my recommendation:
Phase in the LWRC as standard infantry Individual Weapons to gradually replace all M16's and M4's.
For IAR, adopt the Ultimax with the following modifications:
Be able to take M16 magazines as standard. For 100-rounds use C-mags.
Adjustable length AR butt for body armour. Short 16-inch barrel.
Remove current bipod and foregrip and replace with the P-rail version that's a grip/bipod all in one. Retain iron sights but P-rail for optics and other stuff. -
I don't know if an "improved" m4 is the right description. The IAR essentially a SAW built from an M4. Different role despite similar environment of operation.Originally posted by chino65:The more I learn about the LWRC IAR the more I like it.
Contrary to what I thought, the LWRC IAR is piston-driven.
So altogether, it has 3 great improvements over the original M4: Piston, open-bolt, and heavier barrel.
But, the more LWRC IAR videos I watch, the more I see how massive the recoil can be on full-auto. Controllability and accuracy on fullauto must not be its strong points.
LWRC should try to reduce its rate of fire on fullauto.
...
So if the USMC is listening, here's my recommendation:
Phase in the LWRC as standard infantry Individual Weapons to gradually replace all M16's and M4's.
For IAR, adopt the Ultimax with the following modifications:
Be able to take M16 magazines as standard. For 100-rounds use C-mags.
Adjustable length AR butt for body armour. Short 16-inch barrel.
Remove current bipod and foregrip and replace with the P-rail version that's a grip/bipod all in one. Retain iron sights but P-rail for optics and other stuff.
I'd like to see the IAR take in Beta-C mags though. -
Eh paiseh.Originally posted by kotay:what? no 12 o'clock rails? How you gonna mount optics? 
-
LPPL.Originally posted by Shotgun:I don't know if an "improved" m4 is the right description. The IAR essentially a SAW built from an M4. -
I thought they've chosen the Minimi already?
-
Apparently, they are not very happy with the Minimi for reasons unknown officially that is and thus the introduction of the IAR program.Originally posted by wonderamazement:I thought they've chosen the Minimi already? -
The Colt entry outwardly looks little different from the LWRC entry.
At this point little is known about the Colt IAR other than it is also piston-driven and probably fullauto only. -
I thought their requirements for an IAR can be read also as reasons why they don't like the Minimi.Originally posted by tankee1981:Apparently, they are not very happy with the Minimi for reasons unknown officially that is and thus the introduction of the IAR program.
I don't know how accurate this is but here's what I found...
The key requirements:
* Weighs no more than 12.5 pounds empty
* Has MIL-STD-1913 rail interface
* Min. 36rpm sustained rate of fire -- 75rpm desired
* Feed from a detachab le 100 round magazine
* Accepts standand M16 magazines
* Capable of both semi and full auto fire (select fire)
* Has folding collapsible stock
* Has magaine with visible round count
* Can be operated by an individual Marine -
Great pic! And here's the LWRC.Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:
The Colt entry outwardly looks little different from the LWRC entry.
EDIT: And here's a pic of the Ultimax Mk4 with folding butt and a clear view of the adaptor.
-
I do recall a system called SHRIKE...
-
More on SHRIKE
http://www.dndguns.com/shrike.htm
In my opinion...not so good as its even lousier than the Minimi which it is supposed to replace. Reason being it is belt fed like the Minimi something which the Marines is apparently going to change.
Secondly, at least the Minimi is designed from the start to be an auto weapon while the SHRIKE is more like a conversion kit for existing M4 weapons.
Comments? -
LPPL urself la. I have justifications for saying that.Originally posted by chino65:LPPL.
The M4 is essentially a carbine. The IAR is an urban combat SAW. The IAR has a heavy barrel and an open bolt system to facilitate accurate sustained fire. Does that describe an M4?
Its the same reason why an M-16 is not called an M4 or vice versa. Same reason why an AR-15 differs from an M-16.
The makers of the IAR will kill their marketing team for selling it as an "improved M4."
NLNT -
It is still LPPL cos we are talking about the same thing.Originally posted by Shotgun:The M4 is essentially a carbine. The IAR is an urban combat SAW. The IAR has a heavy barrel and an open bolt system to facilitate accurate sustained fire. Does that describe an M4?
Its the same reason why an M-16 is not called an M4 or vice versa. Same reason why an AR-15 differs from an M-16.
The makers of the IAR will kill their marketing team for selling it as an "improved M4."
You are not happy with the way I describe it, tough. But hey, not everybody's opinion here need your approval.
It's been a good thread so far and the last thing we need is for you to start some beef over a choice of words. So are we cool?
-
wrong thread