Jump to content

VFC M27 IAR RIS Kit


aznriptide859

Recommended Posts

The stickers are a nice touch. I predict that we will be bickering locally about whether the IAR qualifies as a support gun under our rules. I will argue that it does not, but if I'm overruled I'll buy one (and throw out my M249).

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern as well, as our state's rules state that mag-fed support weapons are tightly defined (since most support weapons have to be belt-fed).

 

For milsim airsoft (midcaps only for riflemen) balancing purposes, I agree that the squad gunner should haul a belt-fed weapon. OTOH, we limit the number of SAWs per side so it's not like everyone would have one, and while the MG36s have pretty much been weeded out there's always an RPK or two and no one bats an eye. I've even seen Shrike kits specifically excluded as SAWs--someone decided they were just a little too handy.

 

So from a game designer perspective I'd call the M27 a rifleman's gun, but as a SAW gunner I'd be the first to show up with 850rd Surefire highcaps if I was overruled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For milsim airsoft (midcaps only for riflemen) balancing purposes, I agree that the squad gunner should haul a belt-fed weapon. OTOH, we limit the number of SAWs per side so it's not like everyone would have one, and while the MG36s have pretty much been weeded out there's always an RPK or two and no one bats an eye. I've even seen Shrike kits specifically excluded as SAWs--someone decided they were just a little too handy.

 

So from a game designer perspective I'd call the M27 a rifleman's gun, but as a SAW gunner I'd be the first to show up with 850rd Surefire highcaps if I was overruled.

 

What was involved in the weeding out process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the local evolution of the hobby I suppose. While some teams are far more milsim oriented than others, whoever hosts the scenario makes the rules and MG36s were excluded in private games often enough that they sort of faded away.

 

Is there evidence of actual Marines using anything other than 30-rounders in the IAR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who's been a part of game staff and game design committees for several big OPs on the west coast, I've seen and heard a lot of the discussions regarding why X was allowed but Y wasn't. Regarding what constitutes a SAW, that definition was built around a singular issue. The issue being that a lot of milsim games nowadays are trying to limit the volume of fire riflemen are capable of sending down range. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that hicaps resulted in less realistic game play, and while game design wanted low capacity magazines for riflemen, it was determined that midcaps was an acceptable capacity limit for riflemen. Once that was decided, they had to figure out what to do about SAW gunners. SAW gunners obviously would have to have a higher capacity ammo source than riflemen to make their position valid, which meant that their options were either hicap mags or box mags. Since riflemen weren't allowed to have hicap STANAGs, and to ensure that SAW gunners didn't accidentally "loan" a hicap to a rifleman, hicaps were banned outright. Which meant that SAW gunners could only use box mags. But then there were concerns over what was a "SAW gun". Obviously anyone could take pretty much any gun on the market today like an AR, G36, heck even an MP5, and shove a box mag into it as those are on the market. The last thing game control wanted was for a rifleman to grab a box mag and claim they were a SAW gunner since the number of SAW gunners on the field was supposed to be limited. So a short list of approved SAW guns was created. The general criteria for a gun to get on that list is in large part, the ease at which it can be identified as such at a distance. SAWs which are Assault Rifle based (like the IAR) or Battle Rifle based, while designed to be a SAW, just look too similar to what a rifleman would use. Which is why purpose-built belt-fed SAW replicas were generally deemed as the only SAWs allowed on the the field. Occasionally, exceptions are made, such as the MG36 and RPK and I haven't seen some events allow them but usually on a case by case basis. The M27 IAR on the other hand simply looks too much like a regular assault rifle at a glance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That mentality is mostly for milsim events where the cost for admittance is higher than what you'd find at a weekend walk-on, a mimimum age requirement (18, 16 generally with parent/guardian), and greater expectations for in-game maturity. Cumulatively, that tends to lessen the crowd that are fresh and new to the hobby and the base demographic tends to accept limitations for certain game MOS. Conversely, if you go to an average walk-on game on a Saturday and Sunday with none of the above requirements, you'll find all sorts of players and kit. Which is fine, not my preference, but to each their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess we're luckier than I thought, to have enough like-minded teams organizing private events every week or two. If I had to go to walk-on "babysitter" fields every weekend I would have quit a long time ago.

 

In addition to riflemen being limited to non-winding magazines, at our games only the support weapons can fire in bursts longer than about a second. That's a lot easier to monitor than checking everyone's mag, and really makes the SAW gunner an asset (and a juicy target).

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my general area for "mil-sim" games we limit riflemen to semi--automatic and the number of SAW gunners per squad with hi-caps being banned for riflemen. Hi-caps as opposed to box magazines is a grey area. I know some guys run them through RPKs and I ran them through a L86A2 LSW. To me the 40rd AK mags and 60rd Surefire mags are pretty easy to discern from a distance.

 

I want a M27 because in a set of rules claiming mil-sim it should be able to go fully automatic. Because the same games don't allow full auto inside of buildings which handicaps the SAW gunner and thus your fire team. Also, the tactics of me and my guys don't really warrant the long sustained fire the M249 is capable of laying down. Whereas the the M27 would fill a much better role for quick suppression and flanking.

 

I get the potential to break rules but in my experience, if someone is going to cheat they are going to cheat either way. Their capacity for cheating stands as a testament to that. The best solution is to quickly deal with these people when discovered. With the proliferation of helmet cameras it's getting increasingly easy to spot and ID transgressors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my general area for "mil-sim" games we limit riflemen to semi--automatic and the number of SAW gunners per squad with hi-caps being banned for riflemen. Hi-caps as opposed to box magazines is a grey area. I know some guys run them through RPKs and I ran them through a L86A2 LSW. To me the 40rd AK mags and 60rd Surefire mags are pretty easy to discern from a distance.

 

I want a M27 because in a set of rules claiming mil-sim it should be able to go fully automatic. Because the same games don't allow full auto inside of buildings which handicaps the SAW gunner and thus your fire team. Also, the tactics of me and my guys don't really warrant the long sustained fire the M249 is capable of laying down. Whereas the the M27 would fill a much better role for quick suppression and flanking.

 

I get the potential to break rules but in my experience, if someone is going to cheat they are going to cheat either way. Their capacity for cheating stands as a testament to that. The best solution is to quickly deal with these people when discovered. With the proliferation of helmet cameras it's getting increasingly easy to spot and ID transgressors.

 

This basically, an RPK drum mag will fit in any other AK variant, players can, in fact, disguise hi-caps easily enough. Or just stick them in their backpacks.

 

It's best to let the weapons be what they intended as RS weapons, but limiting number rather than 'look' for example the MG36 is fine yes, but you can't have that AND an M249, pick one or the other for your squad.

 

In airsoft, there's no real disadvanage to carrying a SAW, some 'para' saws are shorter than a lot of rifles. Keeping them limited to outside use (not allowed in buildings (or at least firing in buildings) ) allows them to maintin a a tactical use beyond throwing BB's, the same should apply to an MG36 or M249 regardless of if it HAS a semi-auto function.

 

Belt-fed only I feel punishes players unable to shell out for an expensive SAW. Certainl for my first few years as a 'softer I couldn't have afforded any of the SAWs I wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what it won't go on the older generation of 416s? I'd rather stick it on a clone since the internals would get an overhaul anyway but if it some proprietary design that's out.

 

I believe the old school VFC 416s were just glorified M4s, but the new V2 guns have a fake gas piston assembly and slightly different barrel attachment method. The New RIS would be difficult to screw on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what it won't go on the older generation of 416s? I'd rather stick it on a clone since the internals would get an overhaul anyway but if it some proprietary design that's out.

According to WGC shop:

NOTE: Kit does not fit old version VFC 416 AEG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for pointing out what I already read. I asked WHY. Because if I knew that, I might be able to come up with a way to work around it.

Oh sorry I misread. I looked upon pics of the gen 1s and 2s and couldn't really find anything that looked too different(aside from the stock and the grip). Can't you tell any differences by looking at pictures of the newer ones and yours? Maybe try asking someone in the VFC HK416 thread if he has the new one and ask for some pics about the rail attachment parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.