PDA

View Full Version : IAR vs. M16


SFgiants105
06-02-2012, 12:56 PM
My friends and I went camping last weekend and we ran into some Marines who were on vacation. Of course, at some point we had a drunken conversation about guns. They said that they had the option to either use an M16 or an IAR, and they said that they preferred to use the M16 because it is what they trained with. Also, they didn't know if it was the HK or the LWRC; does anyone know which the Marines use (if not both)? Anyway, we started throwing around a baseball we didn't come back to to that conversation.

I was just wondering if anyone here has used the IAR and could explain why they would or wouldn't prefer it over the M16. I would think that an IAR would be a better choice since it has a piston system; also, I've heard that the 3-shot burst trigger parts cause an inconsistent trigger pull even in semi-automatic and that the parts break more easily. Also, if one wanted to use the rifle for suppression, the bolt hold-open feature of the IAR would make full-auto fire more reliable. Btw, what extra parts are used to cause the bolt to hold open in FA; would hitting the bolt release while firing in FA cause a malfunction?

MrPlink
06-02-2012, 1:01 PM
Sounds like they have no experience with it. And it is made by HK.

SFgiants105
06-02-2012, 1:10 PM
Sounds like they have no experience with it. And it is made by HK.

Yeah they didn't; I remember asking them "doesn't it feel exactly like an M16?" and they said they didn't know.

Are the Marines the only ones to use it, or is the Army going to use something like it?

guitar-nut
06-02-2012, 1:17 PM
Yeah they didn't; I remember asking them "doesn't it feel exactly like an M16?" and they said they didn't know.

Are the Marines the only ones to use it, or is the Army going to use something like it?

From what I've read it's only going to be the Marine Corp (thank god). Seems like a bad move to me, I think a squad needs a belt fed weapon for suppressive fire. This thing doesn't seem that different from an M4A1 as far as the role it will play.

Arkangel
06-02-2012, 1:22 PM
Unless I'm confused the M27 is the intended replacement for the M249, not the M16. I think you just heard some good ol fashioned BS. Or they where drunk and didn't know what they where saying.

RugerNo1
06-02-2012, 1:47 PM
I thought the official verbage for the adoption was that the M27 was to "supplement" not replace current squad belt-fed weapons...

guitar-nut
06-02-2012, 1:58 PM
I thought the official verbage for the adoption was that the M27 was to "supplement" not replace current squad belt-fed weapons...

From what I've read they're actually replacing the M249 with the M27. I googled it and this was one of the first links to pop up:

http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2012/05/16/m27-iar/

MrPlink
06-02-2012, 3:49 PM
I thought the official verbage for the adoption was that the M27 was to "supplement" not replace current squad belt-fed weapons...

yes, word arround the campfire is it was just a ploy by the MC to get them into their armories, but there was never an honest intention of having it replace any of the beltfelds.

RobGR
06-02-2012, 4:05 PM
From what I've read they're actually replacing the M249 with the M27. I googled it and this was one of the first links to pop up:

http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2012/05/16/m27-iar/

Some enjoyable comments below that article. But yeah, I get the "why", but really, why would they drop the M249 SAW? Someone didn't buy someone a mansion in the Bahamas I guess.

SFgiants105
06-03-2012, 3:27 PM
yes, word arround the campfire is it was just a ploy by the MC to get them into their armories, but there was never an honest intention of having it replace any of the beltfelds.

That's what it seems like. They were all saying how "sweet the M240 Bravo" was, and how the M249 is pretty much useless for anything out past 300-500 meters. That makes sense; many people think the 5.56 as an LMG round is kind of stupid, like it fills a niche role between the 7.62 belt-fed and 5.56 infantry rifle. The name IAR describes the role of the weapon pretty well if you ask me; it isn't an LMG, it only provides the option of suppression for a rifleman. If you think of it, the IAR is like an American RPK-74M, but shorter.

2YzGzeLh3mc

I guess some could argue that a 100rd or 125rd drum is more than sufficient to replace a belt-fed mechanism. Having not been in combat myself, I wouldn't really be able to say what any pros or cons of each would be.

Clearly the 249 is better suited to the LMG role since it has the capability of quick change barrels (I couldn't imagine lugging around extra AR uppers, esp with a rail and optics).

However, I think the IAR would be a clearly better choice for an infantry rifle since it's piston gas system is more reliable, easier to maintain, and the bolt hold-open design makes it function in FA much better. But, this is all in theory, which is why I wondered if anyone here is/was in the Marines and has used this weapon (either in or out of the field).