Big Changes in Marine Corps Weapons and Marksmanship Training.

[Art]

The Marines are going to issue every infantryman the new M27 rifle which is a Heckler and Koch manufactured piston operated variation of the M16 rifle. It was originally going to replace the M249 Squad Automatic weapon but the current program is to issue them to every Marine except some support troops who will continue with the M4 weapon. I don't see how this weapon can replace a squad automatic weapon, other such attempts have been tried and failed (remember the M15) but heck, it's why they make the big bucks. Also the Marines are ditching their organic armor, yep, no more Marine Corps Tanks. I am attaching two videos, both basically propaganda pieces by the DoD on the M27 and the new training course, but it gets the doctrinal changes across.

I noticed in the training/qualification video the troops shown are mostly shooting M16A4 weapons. I think the new course will be an improvement over the old static course of fire.

In the M27 video they talk about the Marines ability to "service targets." That's the biggest piece of PC, BS I've ever heard in my life. I'd like to see someone ask a bunch of wounded and dying enemy soldiers if they were happy with their service .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EIo8GcL36Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNLwncz0BM8

As issued the new weapon with the 8x sight will weigh more than an loaded M1 including the sling, combo tool and cleaning gear.

[lyman]

interesting video,

on the shooting vid, seems like the new program is a blend of Rattle Battle (start far, work in) and 3 gun ,

noticed a few variations of M16's\M4's, and a few styles of shooting,

one or 2 going old school hard holding for offhand,
most seem to be using the Vertical grips if one was on the rifle, except one that was using a clamshell hold with the grip far forward,


on the other vid,, was some of the MG vid showing M240's,,, didn't look like belted 556 to me in a few scenes, (and the weapon a bit different)???



noticed how both vids downplayed the connection to the M16, stating the M27 was a variant of the other HK,,

while of course, what they really have is a variant of the AR18

[Mark in Ottawa]

I may have a false understanding of the role of a SAW but is it not correct that such a weapon is purposely designed to have a large beaten zone? In that case, the comparisons of accuracy between the old and new firearms are a false comparison. They are comparing apples and oranges. I am also a bit skeptical about their claim for accuracy at 600 yards with that cartridge. They seem to imply that everybody can achieve that accuracy.

[Art]

I may have a false understanding of the role of a SAW but is it not correct that such a weapon is purposely designed to have a large beaten zone? In that case, the comparisons of accuracy between the old and new firearms are a false comparison. They are comparing apples and oranges. I am also a bit skeptical about their claim for accuracy at 600 yards with that cartridge. They seem to imply that everybody can achieve that accuracy.

Your understanding as far as the SAW goes is correct. Also, 600 yards is about the limit of the weapon/cartridge platform to hit a target the size of a man, however, everybody is now shooting with an optic and the new optic is going to be 8x instead of 4x. I understand that the Marines are also going to put suppressors on all of the M27s. The Marines have gone all in on the M27 at the cost of not just a machine gun at the squad level but their armored component as well. We'll have to see how it works when the balloon goes up next time.

I do like the more challenging qualification course.

[barretcreek]

Art,
Back in the '90s sat next to a guy on a plane. Said he "managed violence for the DoD".

[Art]

The new look of the Marines, the M27 rifle with the 8 power optic.

USMC-120427-M-SR181-035.jpg

[barretcreek]

Is that a red dot/holosight on top?

[lyman]

Is that a red dot/holosight on top?

yup, it was mentioned in the article,


guessing Quad Rails may make a come back?

[dryheat]

That's a lot of junk on a rifle. I got to fire a SAW at a gun shop. A buddy of mine worked there. I liked it. Got to fire a couple of M-60's out on a long range. There's that lag: Bup bup bup bup and then the whap, whap whap. I grew up next to an army base. Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. But the whap stuff was here in Arizona. The other M-60 was in the old days when they would let civilians fire blanks. Not many grownups participated, but us kids lines up to fire them prone. Swiped a lot of brass and links to take home and make fake belts.

[dogtag]

My Squad's auto was a Bren Gun. Did the job and highly accurate.
Mag on top made it great for prone shooting. Easy barrel change.
Nostalgia.

[Vern Humphrey]

I may have a false understanding of the role of a SAW but is it not correct that such a weapon is purposely designed to have a large beaten zone? In that case, the comparisons of accuracy between the old and new firearms are a false comparison. They are comparing apples and oranges. I am also a bit skeptical about their claim for accuracy at 600 yards with that cartridge. They seem to imply that everybody can achieve that accuracy.

In WWI the US troops were trained by the French, who had a concept called "Marching Fire" -- as you went forward, everyone shot in the general direction of the enemy. French squads had an automatic weapon, the Chauchat, which was miserable. John Browning designed an American "automatic rifle," the M1918 BAR. In 1936, the US Army adopted the M1 rifle -- head and shoulders the best infantry weapon of WWII -- which virtually negated the advantage of the heavy BAR.

In the mid-50s, the US Army adopted the M14, the "perfected Garand." A full automatic version, the M15 was adopted as the replacement for the BAR. It was a flop. Various modified M14s were tried, and none were worth the extra weight. We went through the Viet Nam War with no replacement for the BAR -- and no one complained. But hope springs eternal -- and in the '80s we adopted the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). I spoke to the "experts" at Benning about this wonder weapon:

"It's more powerful than the M16, right?"

"Well, no. It fires the same cartridge."

"But it's lighter and you can carry more ammo, right?"

"Well, no. It's heavier."

"But it's more accurate, right?"

"Well, there's a problem with vertical stringing."

"Then why do we need it?"

"Well, it's full auto."

"Congratulations! You've solved the problem of having too much ammo left over at the end of the firefight."

[Art]

In reality the M60 machine gun stepped into the BAR role when it was belatedly declared obsolete and the M15 (BAR wanna be,) failed. The M60 and its successor the M240 were deemed not suitable to the Squad Automatic Weapon role due to their use of the 7.62x51 cartridge. The SAW on the other hand, was supposed to be a 5.56mm M60/M240 (sort of) but the Marines became increasingly unhappy with it (the Army and Air Force still seem ok with the SAW.)

The BAR was neither fish nor fowl. It was not a general purpose machine gun like the MG34 or MG 42 and it was inferior as a squad automatic weapon to the true light machine guns like the British BREN or Japanese Types 96 and 99s. For the life of me I can't see why the 'gubmint wanted to continue with a BAR like firearm. Late in WWII the Army started putting two BAR's to a squad to compensate for its deficiencies. By WWII almost any automatic weapon was superior to the BAR when it came to achieving fire superiority, (which is what its supposed to be all about) but then we had the M1 as our primary infantry rifle which covered a multitude of sins.