M27 vs M4

Maggot

Laffin atcha unowho
Belligerents
Jul 27, 2007
10,183
4,915
219
Just read the Corps is getting outfitted with new HK M27's. any one have experience with them? How do they compare with the good old M4/AR 15? Am I going to have to trade in all my AR's?LOL
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
Piston vs DI.

Initially intended only for replacing M249 of AR in Fire Team position. Granted M249 has its problems but how mag fed is better than 200 rd belt escapes me.

Later USMC reports it wants everyone to have a suppressor and things made sense.

Tell Pentagon you want to replace all rifles to play better with suppressors to get new NSN - bean counters say fuck you.

Get limited number of guns in for specific purpose Pentagon says Okay.

Once in the system get everyone a new gun.

They still lack a belt fed LMG unless AR man is going to pack 240B.

MIC must be fed.

Thats my tin foil hat theory anyway.
 

Milf Dots

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 21, 2019
327
441
69
The M27 IAR is an HK 416, and the 416 is a select fire carbine too. What makes it an M27 are the configuration and accessories attached.

Like the m27/416, and FN SCARs, the three carbines the Army is testing as part of the NGSW are all piston driven and not direct gas.

Piston based weapons run better suppressed, and need less cleaning and lube in very dusty conditions. But handguard options are minimal because they're proprietary on piston rifles. DI is usually a few ounces lighter in the front end and some prefer their weight balance, and DI is arguably a hair more accurate. And again, handguard selection is HUGE for DI ARs.

Having had and shot both, I prefer piston because the BCG needs minimal cleaning, and because cleaning the gas valve assy is quick and easy.

 

cherokeefan03

Private
Hessian
Belligerents
Apr 18, 2017
156
133
49
They're fine. Not worth the money for an attempt to buy a Mil upper, and you will be hard pressed to find the parts to get to the Marine Corps configuration anywhere on the civilian market.

Piston vs DI.

Initially intended only for replacing M249 of AR in Fire Team position. Granted M249 has its problems but how mag fed is better than 200 rd belt escapes me.

Later USMC reports it wants everyone to have a suppressor and things made sense.

Tell Pentagon you want to replace all rifles to play better with suppressors to get new NSN - bean counters say fuck you.

Get limited number of guns in for specific purpose Pentagon says Okay.

Once in the system get everyone a new gun.

They still lack a belt fed LMG unless AR man is going to pack 240B.

MIC must be fed.

Thats my tin foil hat theory anyway.
Line companies retain saw's in the Armory for use at commanders discretion, and weapons platoon never lost them.

The M27 IAR is an HK 416, and the 416 is a select fire carbine too. What makes it an M27 are the configuration and accessories attached.

Like the m27/416, and FN SCARs, the three carbines the Army is testing as part of the NGSW are all piston driven and not direct gas.

Piston based weapons run better suppressed, and need less cleaning and lube in very dusty conditions. But handguard options are minimal because they're proprietary on piston rifles. DI is usually a few ounces lighter in the front end and some prefer their weight balance, and DI is arguably a hair more accurate. And again, handguard selection is HUGE for DI ARs.

Having had and shot both, I prefer piston because the BCG needs minimal cleaning, and because cleaning the gas valve assy is quick and easy.

It's a heavier, longer, dumber version of a 416. The Marines only wanted them to feel special.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
The fifth to seventh generation 416 supposedly fixed the issues they have running suppressed. They still break parts like triggers. All of the improvements basically come from improved materials science.

How the M27 can be considered the equal of the SAW is easy. They measured how many hits each weapon achieved and the M27 hits the target much more often. It’s also ten pounds lighter which lets you carry an extra 300 rounds. You lose the ability to burn up all your ammunition on cyclic but that’s a feature not a bug to some decisionmakers.

If you think peppering a hillside is suppression I can see how you’d want the SAW. If you prefer to engage known, likely and suspected enemy locations the M27 is an improvement.
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
The fifth to seventh generation 416 supposedly fixed the issues they have running suppressed. They still break parts like triggers. All of the improvements basically come from improved materials science.

How the M27 can be considered the equal of the SAW is easy. They measured how many hits each weapon achieved and the M27 hits the target much more often. It’s also ten pounds lighter which lets you carry an extra 300 rounds. You lose the ability to burn up all your ammunition on cyclic but that’s a feature not a bug to some decisionmakers.

If you think peppering a hillside is suppression I can see how you’d want the SAW. If you prefer to engage known, likely and suspected enemy locations the M27 is an improvement.

If you want hits fire semi-auto.

When you want suppression for fire and maneuver in the attack or hauling ass I want enough lead in the air that someone is frozen by the fear they will be hit, even if that may not be reality.

Was the Saw greater than 18MOA? If its that bad I can understand the issue. Shitty FN barrels or just too much heat for too rapid a release of rounds.

I know they had their issues in my day but generally belts fed fine and a knowledgeable user ran them pretty well.

Ill admit my knowledge is well aged and armchair general. I defer to your recent experience.


Regards the "cleanliness" of piston vs DI.

I was surprised a coworker recently issued a piston commented on its filth.

He and I both attended class to get issued DI guns.

His job required that he have the same rifle as some special guns so he turned in his DI carbine and received a Sig piston in .30 BO with suppressor.

He complained about gas blow by in he face and when cleaning said its way dirtier than his DI gun was.

Bad set up by my job?
 
Last edited:

cherokeefan03

Private
Hessian
Belligerents
Apr 18, 2017
156
133
49
If you want hits fire semi-auto.

When you want suppression for fire and maneuver in the attack or hauling ass I want enough lead in the air that someone is frozen by the fear they will be hit, even if that may not be reality.

Was the Saw greater than 18MOA? If its that bad I can understand the issue. Shitty FN barrels or just too much heat for too rapid a release of rounds.

I know they had their issues in my day but generally belts fed fine and a knowledgeable user ran them pretty well.

Ill admit my knowledge is well aged and armchair general. I defer to your recent experience.


Regards the "cleanliness" of piston vs DI.

I was surprised a coworker recently issued a piston commented on its filth.

He and I both attended class to get issued DI guns.

His job required that he have the same rifle as some special guns so he turned in his DI carbine and received a Sig piston in .30 BO with suppressor.

He complained about gas blow by in he face and when cleaning said its way dirtier than his DI gun was.

Bad set up by my job?
I mean man that's why we have Weapons platoon and Weapons Company.

But any gun is probably gonna have more gas blowback than normal when suppressed, even piston guns.
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
I mean man that's why we have Weapons platoon and Weapons Company.

But any gun is probably gonna have more gas blowback than normal when suppressed, even piston guns.

No its not.

Weapons company is for attaching heavier arms when you know a situation will require.

HMGs are for defense when on the tripod, offense when wheeled. 81s are for when you are dug in. I was a Dragon and we were for when you expected the armor to be coming. Shits too heavy to expect it to accompany every patrol and be readily mobile. Dragons were the most mobile of those three. Great high Asvabs got to carry two missiles, a tracker and a personal weapon (rifle).

The Fire team though is an independent unit of hell on earth. It should be able to wreak havoc and when in support of or from other Fire Teams it should be an assault group extrodinairre able to rip through enemy resistance by fire and maneuver acting independently yet part of the squad.

I dont think there are very many militaries that carry that concept of breaking the squad down into three individual independent groups.

The fire team needs its own belt fed LMG.

Something like the MG34 but not so heavy and finicky.

The M60E3 did its job just redesign the stupid cumbersome barrel.

People speak highly of the 240B but again weight becomes an issue.

How can the 240B succeed where the 249 fails so bad. Have FN fix that fucker or give all their contracts to colt again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheyenne Bodie

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
People think of belt feds as direct fire weapons.

In my day we were told they were just as important for raining pain down indirect fire to areas of defilade.

Suddenly that ravine they though gave them concealment is not so concealing when you have lead coming in like hail.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
If you want hits fire semi-auto.

When you want suppression for fire and maneuver in the attack or hauling ass I want enough lead in the air that someone is frozen by the fear they will be hit, even if that may not be reality.

Was the Saw greater than 18MOA? If its that bad I can understand the issue. Shitty FN barrels or just too much heat for too rapid a release of rounds.

I know they had their issues in my day but generally belts fed fine and a knowledgeable user ran them pretty well.

Ill admit my knowledge is well aged and armchair general. I defer to your recent experience.


Regards the "cleanliness" of piston vs DI.

I was surprised a coworker recently issued a piston commented on its filth.

He and I both attended class to get issued DI guns.

His job required that he have the same rifle as some special guns so he turned in his DI carbine and received a Sig piston in .30 BO with suppressor.

He complained about gas blow by in he face and when cleaning said its way dirtier than his DI gun was.

Bad set up by my job?
I’m an armchair general myself but had some contact with Marines involved in selecting weapons systems via a private forum and got a briefing on it. The M249 was putting lead out that wasn’t close enough to the enemy to suppress them, or perhaps more accurately the suppression per round fired and system weight wasn’t comparable to the IAR. Particularly when shooting at identified targets the SAW fell behind, which was an identified issue in LIC which is less so in MCO.

Fouling in suppressed guns comes down the bore and most piston guns are over gassed. That means they are extracting obturated cases and sucking debris back down the bore.
I'm just glad we have @RyanScott. He's a fucking expert at everything.
Thank you I’m here all day.
Last I knew all beltfeds were designed with dispersion built in.
The dispersion desired varies with the weapon and platform. The MG3/MG42 is a laser by design so they built the dispersion into the tripod.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
People think of belt feds as direct fire weapons.

In my day we were told they were just as important for raining pain down indirect fire to areas of defilade.

Suddenly that ravine they though gave them concealment is not so concealing when you have lead coming in like hail.
Everyone but the Marines have forgotten about indirect fire. Most seem to have forgotten about the need to direct fire at known, suspected and likely enemy locations. A building identified as housing the enemy must be engaged by firing into its fenestration instead of its two foot thick mud walls. Rock outcroppings used by the enemy are targets, not the whole hillside. Particularly with an AR rather than a machinegun section. No?
 

cherokeefan03

Private
Hessian
Belligerents
Apr 18, 2017
156
133
49
No its not.

Weapons company is for attaching heavier arms when you know a situation will require.

HMGs are for defense when on the tripod, offense when wheeled. 81s are for when you are dug in. I was a Dragon and we were for when you expected the armor to be coming. Shits too heavy to expect it to accompany every patrol and be readily mobile. Dragons were the most mobile of those three. Great high Asvabs got to carry two missiles, a tracker and a personal weapon (rifle).

The Fire team though is an independent unit of hell on earth. It should be able to wreak havoc and when in support of or from other Fire Teams it should be an assault group extrodinairre able to rip through enemy resistance by fire and maneuver acting independently yet part of the squad.

I dont think there are very many militaries that carry that concept of breaking the squad down into three individual independent groups.

The fire team needs its own belt fed LMG.

Something like the MG34 but not so heavy and finicky.

The M60E3 did its job just redesign the stupid cumbersome barrel.

People speak highly of the 240B but again weight becomes an issue.

How can the 240B succeed where the 249 fails so bad. Have FN fix that fucker or give all their contracts to colt again.
Yeah and doctrine evolves over time. That's why we're moving to changing the 13 man rifle squad, and 51's are getting disbanded because they are obsolete. We've been without organic SAWs since my unit got the HK's in early 2012, and we do fine. Not everything has to be organic to a platoon just because it would be nice to have.
31's in the machine gun section of weapons PLATOON, has the 240's and SAWs, and are the ones tasked out for most fire and maneuver activities, as they should be, as 31s actually know what the they are doing, compared to the boot that gets stuck with the SAW. And yes it's supposed to be a senior marine who had the SAW, but me and everyone else who has deployed in the last 20 years knows thats not how it happens.
I referenced weapons COMPANY just as another asset for suppression in maneuver warfare. and 81's do not need to be dug in to a mortar pit to be effective suppressing the enemy in the attack, and anyone who says that must not be aware of the speed and fire capabilites of a modern medium mortar crew. There is also nothing wrong with using CAAT teams as your suppressive element if the terrain allows.
The M60 has no place on the modern battlefield, the lima makes any complaining about the 240's weight mute while also being a much more reliable system. The SAW works fine if you maintain them properly.
 
Last edited:

Maggot

Laffin atcha unowho
Belligerents
Jul 27, 2007
10,183
4,915
219
Everyone but the Marines have forgotten about indirect fire. Most seem to have forgotten about the need to direct fire at known, suspected and likely enemy locations. A building identified as housing the enemy must be engaged by firing into its fenestration instead of its two foot thick mud walls. Rock outcroppings used by the enemy are targets, not the whole hillside. Particularly with an AR rather than a machinegun section. No?

Heh heh. Ryan said 'fenestration'. Heh heh.

Had to look that one up.
 

Son of Dorn

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2019
639
439
69
The fire team needs its own belt fed LMG.

Something like the MG34 but not so heavy and finicky.
Vektor SS-77, MG3, or HK21, maybe? The 21 is pretty light by comparison and was used by Delta for a while, IIRC.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
Cherokee is making a point that I thought was implicit but I’m glad he elaborated on it. The M27 in particular and the IAR conceptually replace the M249 AR not the M249 LMG. If you’re talking about IDF or plunging fire etc. you aren’t talking about an AR anymore.

I don’t think the idea of a 7.62 belt fed in the fire team can be taken seriously. The lowest level a 7.62 has been used at successfully is the squad level and that was off a tripod.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
Vektor SS-77, MG3, or HK21, maybe? The 21 is pretty light by comparison and was used by Delta for a while, IIRC.
That’s one way to slow a squad down and remove its firepower. Not to mention the HK21 was so expensive to operate that even JSOC dropped it.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
Quantify the difference in suppression between 5.56 and 7.62 and tell me that halving your ammunition load was worth it based on that. Remember it’s an AR, you won’t be firing a 1000 round destruction mission on a building with it. And since it’s not an LMG you won’t have an A-gunner or tripod.
 

Son of Dorn

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2019
639
439
69
Quantify the difference in suppression between 5.56 and 7.62 and tell me that halving your ammunition load was worth it based on that. Remember it’s an AR, you won’t be firing a 1000 round destruction mission on a building with it. And since it’s not an LMG you won’t have an A-gunner or tripod.
I think I'm a little confused since you're suddenly mentioning ARs?
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
An Automatic Rifle is a shoulder or bipod fired support weapon. An LMG has an A-gunner and optional tripod. The same gun can be both, depending on employment. The M27 doesn’t, and can’t, replace the M249 as an LMG.
 

Son of Dorn

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2019
639
439
69
An Automatic Rifle is a shoulder or bipod fired support weapon. An LMG has an A-gunner and optional tripod. The same gun can be both, depending on employment. The M27 doesn’t, and can’t, replace the M249 as an LMG.
Okay, I see what you were saying. And agreed, it can't. Even with 100-rnd drums or whatever, an M27 or Colt IAR or anything like that will not be able to reach the same level of usefulness.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
I’m not sure we are seeing eye to eye. The M27 is quantifiable better for a single shooter shooting upright or from a bipod. Add an assistant gunner and a tripod and the M249 is the better weapon...if the mission calls for the weight.
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
It's a good thread.

Nothing we say or believe about this matters because we are all likely speaking out our asses. Tommorow we will go to our jobs as interior space designers having for a moment thought we were cool tacticians.

It seems to have come around and there appears to be consensus there are "gaps" in the ability of all the guns discussed.

After WWII I think is when these "gaps" were created. We began to think in terms of wonder weapons that would save money by filling multiple roles.

That's an easy sell to an accountant but the guy using it finds he is lacking the right tool at the right time often.

When in doubt call in Air and use your laser designator.........oh wait ROE.
 
Last edited:

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
I’m not sure we are seeing eye to eye. The M27 is quantifiable better for a single shooter shooting upright or from a bipod. Add an assistant gunner and a tripod and the M249 is the better weapon...if the mission calls for the weight.
Standing on two feet firing AR is a capability every Marine should have.

That will be the advantage of the new system.

Throw all the 3 round BS away and expect a lot of training to keep people from using FA except for specific limited needs.

Otherwise we lose the skills that have reporters claiming Marines are executing people because of the high number of head shots and instead they become the people they are fighting doing mag dumps with the idea hits will come "If Allah wills it".

Train "walking fire" in the assault as well as going to the rear but otherwise leave the rifle on SA.

My thoughts on the AR man in the fire team revolve around "Give us a base of fire until we reach point A. Than the three of us lay down lead for you to join us." Repeat until the objective is met. That AR man is firing from a position of advantage and he should have the fire power equal to that of his three team mates while he is tasked with protecting them during rushes.

A squad with three LMGs in supporting roles has huge fire power and the excellent individual fire team ability to act independently.

That Fire team AR man needs an LMG not a rifle that is similar to the other three but with an extra safety position.

A BAR with a belt of sorts.

Seems like the commies and their surrogates have this in spades. They never cared about multi role weapons.
 
Last edited:

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
Next up.......

Do we like the M203 or is it time for the Grenadier to have something better to fulfill the role as Fire Team indirect fire/hardpoint reduction?

I always thought the M203 surprisingly accurate if you could estimate a good range and it is one of those multi use weapons that actually can do both even if it is kind of a bastardized Rube Goldberg configuration.

It would be a mistake to take away the Grenadiers ability to fire bullets and leave him with a single purpose weapon like the M79 yet is there something that performs better than the underslung 203?
 

Maggot

Laffin atcha unowho
Belligerents
Jul 27, 2007
10,183
4,915
219
^^^In my best Homer Simpson voice: Ummmmm grenades.

But dont they ave one that is remote controlled now?

 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
14,556
17,415
219
51
MA
^^^In my best Homer Simpson voice: Ummmmm grenades.

But dont they ave one that is remote controlled now?
When we fired those things at ITS using the iron sights I was shocked to be landing them inside the retired vehicles we were using as targets.

The weak point is the shooters range estimation.

The red dot looks cool, incorporate a ranging laser and it would seem Marine proof.
 

Son of Dorn

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2019
639
439
69
Next up.......

Do we like the M203 or is it time for the Grenadier to have something better to fulfill the role as Fire Team indirect fire/hardpoint reduction?

I always thought the M203 surprisingly accurate if you could estimate a good range and it is one of those multi use weapons that actually can do both even if it is kind of a bastardized Rube Goldberg configuration.

It would be a mistake to take away the Grenadiers ability to fire bullets and leave him with a single purpose weapon like the M79 yet is there something that performs better than the underslung 203?
The M320 the Army has been gravitating towards has some degree of better performance than the M203, I think, and due to its design can use a wider variety of ammunition than the M203. The Marines, for whatever reason, are the only branch aside from SOCOM to use the Milkor MGL and frankly I don't understand why. It's bulky and heavy, sure, but I reckon having up to six shots at a given time is preferable to just one.

But taking away the grenadier's ability to use anything aside from his launcher and a sidearm might be an overall disadvantage once those grenades were gone.
 

RyanScott

Sergeant
Belligerents
Oct 14, 2005
1,574
645
219
33
Houston
The Milkor can fire multiple rounds before targets can seek viable cover. Whether that’s worth the trade I can’t speak to but that concept carries through artillery, machineguns, mortars and grenade launchers.
 

WATERWALKER

0311 SHELLBACK
Belligerents
Apr 19, 2014
992
537
99
Deep in the Lone Star
The M249 SAW put assloads of rounds down range in a hurry, - if it worked. The single biggest issue in my experience was you’d charge it up, squeeze the trigger & hear “Ka-Klunk!” Fuck, that used to piss me off. Make no mistake, our SAWs we’re abused. They got their asses kicked every time out.

The M203s were a great tool at the time. We didn’t have anything better in those days & the only alternative was the M79. I’d agree that the individual user’s ability to range objects was it biggest weakness. It was very accurate using both the leaf & quadrant sights.

I can see how the Milkor MGL might be better in some ways, but it’s still another gun & weight to carry w/ the rest of your gear. The disclaimer is that I have no experience w/ the Milkor as it was not available during my time in the Corps.

I remember using the M60E3 in MCT, but being an 0311 that was the last I’d ever used it. Most of them ran worse than 249s & the 0331s we’re ecstatic to get their hands on the M240s. They seemed to really run well in any environment.

As for the new qual, go ahead & crush it. It’s more time on the gun lending to more practical experience shooting at closer ranges. It can’t hurt to shoot more rounds under time. I also think the KD Course has its place too. It’s valuable training that allows guys the confidence to make longer shots, wind calls, etc. It’s a win-win in my opinion.
 

ajv35XX

Random User
Belligerents
Dec 9, 2013
613
223
49
Every SAW I ran, would jam up on me. I hated the damn things. Your rip off a few rounds then KACHING, and have to resort to remedial action to clear it and hope it worked.

Now the 240, yeah she was a bit on the porky side (27 lbs or so if my braid/back remembers right) but when you needed to dump some lead down range, she would sing, and they are quite accurate if the Jarhead behind the trigger knew what he was doing. (I’m pretty sure at one point they were testing/considering a FCG that enabled single fire mode on top of full auto to take advantage of its accuracy).

I don’t get the wisdom at all in a suppressive-fire weapon that runs off of standard 30 round mags. Even 100 round drums. In a firefight, belt-feds rule for suppression.