Talk:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle

SCAR Article

This page should be reinstated in the SCAR article IMO. Koalorka (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The M27 is an HK416-derived firearm. It has nothing to do with the SCAR. Spartan198 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with HK416

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge the articles. Based on the discussion here, there is clearly no consensus to merge. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Unless some source can show some real difference between them, there is no reason this should have an article of its own. BP OMowe (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep it separate to future proof both articles. Its a US military system and is bound to be tinkered with in future. To try and keep the article updated would make the HK416 a mess (and too US-centric). 124.168.47.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging with HK416 is not a good idea because it can ruin that page. minjeus02 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If HK 416 and M27 IAR are joined, then others like M4 Carbine and Mk12 SPR will need to be combined. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep the articles separate. Rackham (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep them separate. They're meant for different purposes. Are we going to join the HK416 and HK417 articles as well? After all, its only a caliber and barrel length difference. No, we aren't. Stratocaster27^t@lk 06:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

They should be separate, as the M27 has real difference - the piston chamber is a few millimeters wider than on a 416, a modification requested by the USMC to make the weapon more reliable when sand/small particles get in the piston system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.153.167 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M249 Replacement

Using the Military.com article as the source, I am adding a paragraph to "History" section regarding the adoption of the M27. It may be significant enough to merit its own section, or at least to divide the History section into pre- and post-adoption subsections. I won't do it now, but it's worth thinking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRSpeshul (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:M27 IAR LMG.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:M27 IAR LMG.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate of fire?

Am I the only one who notices how it can't be 580-640 rpm if it's a variant of the HK416 (850 rpm)? Someone please provide a source. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 12:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because another variant fires at 850 RPM doesn't mean this one does. It needs a source for any RPM figure, yours or the other. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why isn't the semi-automatic fire mode mentioned in this article?

http://www.hk-usa.com/-images/shared/SADJ_M27%20Article%20Part%202.pdf

It looks a lot more like a replacement for the M4 than the SAW. Hcobb (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A rate of fire of 580-640 rpm would make zero sense for a squad automatic weapon role. How can it be used in than role if its rate of fire is lower than that of the standard assault rifle? Of course, the idea of a squad automatic weapon that relies on 30-round magazines is also nonsensical, so really the entire procurement is a boondoggle, but that's another topic entirely. 69.73.47.181 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It was designed for less of a fire rate and more for accurate shots. 107.191.0.59 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Most weapons of Russian/Soviet origin have a fire rate of ~600 rpm, including the RPK, which can be classified as a SAW. It is not rate of fire, but whether automatic fire is used. Most assault rifles are kept on semi-automatic for controllability. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) The rate of fire is roughly 720 rounds per minute.

The rate of fire is roughly 720 rounds per minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.153.167 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The barrel

Do M27 use heavy barrel? Its heavier than M4/M16 barrel but according to some sources [1], it uses standard barrel profile, not heavy barrel and its barrel and the HK416 D16.5RS barrel have the same barrel profile. Is M27 barrel heavier than 16,5" HK416 barrel? - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to your source, it has the same barrel as the HK416, which is not a heavy barrel. Maybe it has to do with the HK416 barrel being heavier than M4/M16 barrels, while not being technically a "heavy" barrel. America789 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

From my reading, the barrel is the same as the 416D, which is somewhat heavier I believe... --108.20.153.167 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Displacement Speed ?

Anyone care to expand on what 'displacement speed' means (1st paragraph) ? ahpook (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard the term...I'll remove it for clarity. Stratocaster27^t@lk 17:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe displacement speed is how fast the soldier can get up and move from his spot. Physics tells us that a ~10 lb. rifle will enable better displacement speed than a ~22 lb. machine gun. Insert "oh, really, Einstein" comment below. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy bias?

Does anyone else feel that there is a bias towards the M27 over the M249 in the article? Whenever it mentions suppressive fire the article always says how the M27 has better accuracy, ignoring the fact that while undoubtedly more accurate in inch grouping, the M249 should be able to miss just as closely? Assuming of course that an M249 can hit any standard paper target at ~100 yards/meters.

Not to mention that accurate suppressive fire is in the "close enough to count" category rather than Blaser 93 Tactical.25 MOA accuracy. Meaning the machine gun gets within a couple of feet and the sniper rifle gets within 1/4 inch.

I just mean to call into question the validity of promoting the M27's accuracy, since it is supposedly used for suppressive fire. Once again, while probably accurate, I am sure that an M249 is just as capable of putting rounds within 2 feet of a guy.

Food for thought: Does the M27 represent a shift in military theory/tactics from firepower to precision, or does firepower still have a place? It seems the M27 supporters say "accuracy over firepower" and the M249 supporters say "firepower over precision".

Maybe I am the only one who thinks so, but to me it seems that the article is biased towards the M27 instead of having a more equal footing. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree there seems to be some bias in favour of the M27 over the M249 and M16A4, and some liberties taken with some statistics - talking about a squad automatic weapon being capable of 2MOA accuracy and supposedly being more accurate than the M16A4 rifle, which is supposedly only a 4.5MOA weapon - all the M16s must be worn out if that is all they can do. Is it a fire support automatic weapon or a designated marksmanship weapon (DMR). Two very different roles are being conflated here. Also, accurate single shots at 800m might be possible on a target range with special loads but in combat is very optimistic for any 5.56mm weapon. That is why some armies issue a 7.62mm DMR. Strangways (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

MG to AR

Does anyone else realize that the Marines got rid of a machinegun, replaced it with an HK416 with a 16 inch barrel, and said that they increased the capabilities of a unit? Why not just get rid of the machinegun and give the gunner an in-stock M4 from the armory instead of spending money on testing, buying, retraining, etc.? Argue all you want over this, they took a machinegun and replaced it with an assault rifle masquerading as a machinegun. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what it is, is a bunch of USMC stupidity. No one in this talk page or in the article itself seems to reflect over the fact that this "squad automatic weapon" can fire with rifle accuracy, because it is a rifle. And it can use full auto at short ranges, just like an assault rifle. So why is this so amazing? Because the USMC uses M16A2 and M16A4, which have the full-auto capability removed. So they are basically replacing actual light MGs like the M249, with actual assault rifles, like the M16 versions used by the US army.... And the "two weapons in one" comment kind of solidifies that. Because it's accurate in single fire at long range like their M16s, and it has the full auto capability for short range, like their M4s (and the M16s the army uses). - Nehcrum (talk)) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good points, why not just use M16A3s or switch over entirely to piston operated guns rather than Stoner oddball gas system. Perfectly illustrating the difference between private industry and government bureaucracy. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And now they are figuring out that it actually is an assault rifle. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/02/23/marine-raiders-dont-want-any-m27s/ The M27, also known as the infantry automatic rifle, or IAR, was originally developed to replace the heavy, belt-fed M249 squad automatic weapon, or SAW, with a lighter, more portable automatic weapon system for the infantry. Now, the Marines’ use of the M27 is expanding to replace the M4 as the standard issued rifle to be carried by grunts because many Marine Corps officials believe the M27’s long barrel affords longer range and better accuracy than the M4. - Nehcrum (talk) 17:21, 25 Feb 2019

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513051338/http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3928 to http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3928

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515184801/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/marine_newsaw_020109w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706213650/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/09/marine_iar_091308/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/09/marine_iar_091308/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207193902/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_IAR_120209w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_IAR_120209w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714034706/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/07/marine_IAR_070110w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/07/marine_IAR_070110w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019050037/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-m27-infantry-automatic-rifle-062911w/ to http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-m27-infantry-automatic-rifle-062911w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308060325/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/04/marine_iar_041910w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/04/marine_iar_041910w/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308033204/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/08/marine_iar_080810w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/08/marine_iar_080810w/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://search.dma.mil/search?proxyreload=1&numgm=5&filter=0&q=%22infantry+automatic+rifle%22&site=USMC_all&proxyreload=1&numgm=5&proxyreload=1&numgm=5&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=USMC_frontend&proxystylesheet=USMC_frontend&numgm=5&proxyreload=1&sort=date%3AD%3AR%3Ad1&entqr=0&ud=1&ip=96.17.171.29&access=p&start=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021084012/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110719/NEWS/107190309/IAR-wins-over-skeptical-Marine-infantrymen to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20110719/NEWS/107190309/IAR-wins-over-skeptical-Marine-infantrymen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150730224707/http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/27/marine-officials-endorse-infantry-plan--ditch-m16--m4/30145257/ to http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/27/marine-officials-endorse-infantry-plan--ditch-m16--m4/30145257/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130142554/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/11/marine-corps-bans-polymer-rifle-magazines-112612/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/11/marine-corps-bans-polymer-rifle-magazines-112612/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Muzzle Velocity

The listed muzzle velocity for the M27 with a 16.5-inch barrel is 2550 fps which is slower than the muzzle velocity of a round out of an M4 with a 14.5-inch barrel. Obviously, this is incorrect as the M27 is supposed have a greater range which is not going to happen with a slower bullet. I found one site that listed the velocity as 890 m/s which converts to 2920 fps. The actual muzzle velocity using Nato standard 5.56 should be verified and page callout corrected accordingly. 100.15.70.150 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)