Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: More M27 IARs for USMC?

  1. #1
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA

    More M27 IARs for USMC?

    BREAKING: USMC Begins Process To Issue M27 IAR to Every Rifleman; Issues RFI To Industry

    Interesting report - I'd be curious to learn more about the results of the recent 29 Palms experiments with the M27 as a standard issue rifle (as well as the experiment with standard issue suppressors)...I've included links below for those who aren't familiar with some of the recent USMC developments...

    Military.com: The Marine Corps Is Experimenting With a New Service Rifle

    Military.com: Corps Wants to Put Silencers on a Whole Infantry Battalion

    Clearly the USMC views the IAR as versatile, having created a Designated Marksman course around employing the rifle.

    Marines Corps Times: West Coast Marines complete first M27 Designated Marksman Course

    I'm impressed with the USMC's recent willingness to push boundaries with their small arms (and adoption of equipment like the PMAG). Still, I’d like to understand better what advantages the M27 demonstrated as a general issue rifle during the recent 29 Palms exercise. What little I’ve seen is complimentary of the M27’s superior accuracy and effective range when compared to a standard M4, factors that are largely attributable to the free float handguard and rail system. I’d be curious to see how the M27 stacks up against a SOPMOD Block 2 M4A1, and whether simply adopting a free float handguard (like the DD RIS II) for general issue provides the sought after performance benefits (at a much lower price).
    Last edited by JSGlock34; 02-10-2017 at 03:15 PM.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  2. #2

    USMC issues RFI for HK M27 IAR

    #RESIST

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleLebowski View Post
    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-IARs-for-USMC

    jsglock started a thread on this already.

    why are we buying these made in germany products? someone please tweet trump to notify.

  4. #4
    hopefully the pmags drop free out of the IAR... we had issues in country in 2011 with the mags sticking, had to be harshly ripped out of the guns.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Quote Originally Posted by breakingtime91 View Post
    hopefully the pmags drop free out of the IAR... we had issues in country in 2011 with the mags sticking, had to be harshly ripped out of the guns.
    part of pmag g3 update specifically includes changes in shape/dimensions to work better in HK416/MR556, Scar light etc.
    i think they were released in early 2012 though, so i'd imagine the ones you were using in 2011 were gen 2.

    pmag g3 works fine in my mr556, my preference for all my 5.56 guns though are lancer mags

  6. #6
    We were using all sorts of mags. All of our GI mags had issues dropping free in the IAR

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Quote Originally Posted by breakingtime91 View Post
    We were using all sorts of mags. All of our GI mags had issues dropping free in the IAR
    troubling

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by fishing View Post
    troubling
    That's why I hope the adoption of the magpul were to address this. The IAR is an awesome rifle, the mag thing just drove us nuts

  9. #9
    Chasing the Horizon RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central FL
    Cool. I wonder if the expansion in Columbus GA was HK leaning forward in the saddle a bit on this.

  10. #10
    I'll say more or less the same thing here that I said on the SSD post.

    I love how the USMC is doing this, while the Army can't be bothered to actually execute the M4A1+ upgrade. The endstate the USMC seems to be striving for with pure-fleeting the M27 (more accurate weapon system for 03 series riflemen) is pretty much the same goal the Army was trying to achieve with the M4A1+ program. Seems to me that a joint upgrade program between the Army and Marines would be a better usage of taxpayer dollars, especially since it would be an accessory upgrade of a weapon system already fielded rather than a large scale purchase of the IAR. But, I'm not in acquisitions, so what do I know.

    In any case, good on the Marines for continuing to push the envelope.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •