I was impressed by the M27 last night on Tac-TV. Thanks for the review Mr. Vickers! It was more accurate in Mr. Vickers hands than either the M16A4 or the SAW. The only thing that seemed to suck was having to reload alot more with the high fire rate when compared to the SAW. I wonder if the Marines will get a larger capacity magazine for use with the M27? I also couldn’t really tell what profile the barrel had? It didn’t look heavy, I thought that with such a high fire rate it would be a heavy barrel, but it might actually be I just couldn’t tell.
Does anyone else on here have any experience with it? I found it interesting that it had a 16" barrel? I don’t see alot of posts about H&K on here that they are either good or bad? I was thinking for my next rifle about getting one but I would like some firsthand experience from someone who has used it or the MR556A1(what us lowly civi’s can get). Again, thank you for the review Mr. Vickers. I also loved the factory tour at Mauser and the Daniel Defense torture tests(most recent and 1st). I hope your show lasts a long time as it more informative than the salesman show that Guns and Ammo and most other shows are.
I have to take “accuracy tests” that depend on firing without having the firearm locked in a rest with a grain of salt. Especially when the manufacturer of the firearm is a sponsor or otherwise has a compensatory relationship with the person doing the testing. I am not saying that there was anything intentionally misleading in this demonstration, but the potential is certainly there. Have you read more than one negative firearm review in a gun magazine? I haven’t. Probably one reason I do not read very many of them. I also tend to believe what I see on television almost as much as I do what I read on the internet. YMMV.
The impression i get from Larry vickers is that his integrity is more important than making his sponsors happy. While there is a chance the groups were mis represented, but if he did this for this show i would think it would be a theme. When he did the mile shot the show would have him hitting in a couple shots. When it took most or the 30min show.
I do not know Mr vickers at all, but i would not question his integrity. Im sure that maintaining the reputation he has built is far more important than how accurate the IAR is. Last time i saw the show hk was not even a sponsor.
I am going to put this in right now:
Larry Vickers is beyond question as far as integrity.
I wholly put my own reputation on this endorsement.
I might not completely agree with every single thing he has ever said, but I believe that he is/was working off of his best knowledge and extensive experience on anything he says or claims.
The M27 is basically the same as our HK416N, so some of the info I have given in the above thread (from page 4) can be relevant, although we use it as a general issue carbine, not as an automatic rifle.
Having seen an issued M27 fired side by side to an issued M16A4, the M27 is a hands down better weapon platform. The only serious drawback is the lack of compariative capacity to the belt fed SAW. This problem could be alleviated with using the 60 round Surefire mag, but not the cure-all.
Having talked with Infantry course instructors (both Os and Es), the key thing is fire discipline has to be ingrained into the Marines carrying M27s.
Comparing the accuracy of the M16A4 in burst while rested on the mag to the M27 fired in bursts using a good bipod is not a fair comparison.
While the episode is good and Larry is a wealth of knowledge I found the test biased. When doing accuracy tests anyone will tell you to remove as much of the human error as possible. Adding more human error and less stability to one gun is not a fair comparison.
I would have liked to see both the A4 and the M27 tested with a bipod and a magazine rest to see the accuracy in a fair comparison. Its pretty much a given that a gun will be less accurate when firing bursts when rested on the magazine vs locked down in a bipod.
one think i did not like about the Civilian version of the HK 416 that was on last week is the lack of a chrome lined barrel. We saw what issues we had with the 1st M16s in Vietnam with one of the main issues beign lack of a chrome lined barrel.
I find it amazing that a company who makes such great weapons as HK does would not chrome line the barrel of the 556a1
I think that the demo was a fair comparison as far as what the dude in the field will be able to do with issued weapons in their issued configurations.
I agree with you on that part given how each come issued and thats what was trying to be showed, but I was just pointing out that in order to draw a true decision on which is more accurate they must both be fired in the same manner meaning both rested on a bipod or magazine.
Thoughfor the purpose Larry was showing(which is more accurate with the gear your issued) it worked well given the M27 is issued with a bipod and a FF rail.
I had to trace down it’s next airing because my dvr lost all my scheduled recording info. The guide said that Monday was the first time it’s aired so it was a new show.
F2S is correct. Using a rest and eliminating the human factor only tests the mechanical accuracy of a rifle. For use in the field under dynamic conditions, how how accurate the shooter is with the rifle is more important. An extreme example is a rail gun. It’s mechanical accuracy is phenomenal but it’s practical accuracy in the field leaves a whole lot to be desired. A good number of members of this site spend quite a bit of money, time and effort to ensure their ARs are as accurate in field use as possible, without expending a dime to improve mechanical accuracy. To borrow an M4ism, that is what is called a “clue”
While true, they did compare a mag rested rifle to a bipod rested rifle. While that is a test of how they are issued its still an apples to oranges comparison.
Apples to apples would be both magazine rested and both bipod rested. However I do understand why the test was performed in the manner it was even if I personally consider it to be less than an even comparison.