Talk:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

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[edit]

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)

M249 Replacement[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg 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[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

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?[edit]

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)

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 barrel[edit]

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)