Marine grunts to get a makeover "from head to toe", starting with M27s

shoobe01 posted:
SPDSNYPR posted:

...I think if they reworked an M4 with a new, really good barrel, a really good forend system, and a better trigger at the same barrel length, you'd have a competitive system for less cost...I bet you put a good upper assy and drop a Geissele trigger into an M4 or A4 lower, you're going to have similar performance for less cost and weight...

So it's been mentioned many times before, including a couple times in this thread, that leadership doesn't get that systems like the AR-15 are modular, and can be upgraded without buying all new guns. 

Is there ANY weapon system that any branch thinks is modular like that? Cause if there was a way to classify it as suck—from procurement policy to arms room management—then if there was one thing to do to improve the common issue rifle, it would be that: allow to be modular to infinite upgrades and customizations in the future. 

I am going to take a wild guess that although you are factually correct, once you add in cost factors like the labor required to install that new barrel, trigger pack, and rail system, store the weapons while awaiting shipment to users, etc., the cost gets above what it would take  to just procure a new one.  That happened when MARSOC exploded in size; the Corps couldn’t continue to cobble together MEU(SOC) 1911s to oufit the users, so it purchased a new variant.

For example, at the School of Infantry-West armory, they have one of the biggest inventories (I think The Basic School has the largest armory) of service weapons in the Marine Corps.

There are barely enough armorers to keep the on-hand weapons (which go through extremely high round counts) operational.   Overhead costs like manpower are another pro  (X armorers x pay + housing + medical + dental + commissary + SGLI + etc., etc. adds up to a hefty price tag) for just purchasing new weapons once old ones reach their service life.

If we were talking about doing a depot-level upgrade or service life extension program on a LAV-25, Amphib Assault Vehicle, or M109 tracked howitzer, yeah, you strip the hulk and slap in new internals, suspension, etc.  Small arms?  Not so much. 

Aren't they already paying those guys anyway? And treating them like crap (everyone hates anybody that has anything to do with the armory).

Anyway- this could be alleviated somewhat by just snapping on a new upper group, and zeroing the optic to it.  The trigger is harder, but not that much harder. It's two pins. I understand I wouldn't want to install it on everyone's rifles, but changing the specs on the upper can be done, have them delivered, throw on the optics and PEQ and go back to work.

Anyway - this has become a full-told thread derailment on the M27.  I should note that I didn't understand most of the words used to explain why the NODs are still so expensive, but I was impressed by them.   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy to make assumptions about puppies strapped to missiles, but good science requires research.

 

Joined: 12-2005          Location: Central OK

SPDSNYPR posted:

Reading that article didn't give me a warm fuzzy, and kinda confirmed some of my suspicions about it. The M27 seems like a decent package, but is heavier and much more expensive. I think if they reworked an M4 with a new, really good barrel, a really good forend system, and a better trigger at the same barrel length, you'd have a competitive system for less cost. The breaking lugs early in tests is no bueno, and the requirement to replace the whole bolt assy sucks. 

I bet you put a good upper assy and drop a Geissele trigger into an M4 or A4 lower, you're going to have similar performance for less cost and weight. 

Another thing I can't get out of my head is the M27 is such a new system relatively. How will it work in 20 years? 30? When/where/how will it fail? Will it be harder to fix when it does? Because you know there are still gonna be dudes rolling with rifles at least twice their age in future conflicts. 

Someone really does need to do an apples to apples comparison of a REALLY upgraded M16 system vs the M27 - not colt trying to be cheap. 

Make sure you factor in compatibility with suppressors for the upgraded M16/M4 for the comparison.

If the Corps is going for an integrated weapons system, then having a piston system makes sense.

Having a quad picatinny rail that’s backward compatible with existing mounts would also be more cost effective in the short term than adopting Keymod or M-Lok right off the bat.

Add Reply

Likes (5)
chrisletchtreehoprSinisterSPDSNYPRMOJONIXON
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2016
×
×
×
×
×