Soldier Systems: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

[JSGlock34]

Soldier Systems: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/)

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

I certainly understand the argument for overmatch capability and the growing interest in intermediate calibers, but I'm skeptical about any program seeking an 'interim' solution, especially for general issue. Interesting to watch as the Marines consider the M27 IAR for broader issue, while the Army ponders a completely different caliber. Meanwhile, modest upgrades to the M4 can't seem to gain traction (anyone remember the M4 PIP?), and we still haven't resolved M855A1 vs. Mk 318...

Does anyone have insight into this proposal?

[GuanoLoco]

Soldier Systems: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/)

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

I certainly understand the argument for overmatch capability and the growing interest in intermediate calibers, but I'm skeptical about any program seeking an 'interim' solution, especially for general issue. Interesting to watch as the Marines consider the M27 IAR for broader issue, while the Army ponders a completely different caliber. Meanwhile, modest upgrades to the M4 can't seem to gain traction (anyone remember the M4 PIP?), and we still haven't resolved M855A1 vs. Mk 318...

Does anyone have insight into this proposal?

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-24947587498613_2461_266627999.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9754mmR


The 7.62×54mmR is a rimmed rifle cartridge developed by the Russian Empire and introduced as a service cartridge in 1891. Originally designed for the bolt-action Mosin–Nagant rifle, it was used during the late Tsarist era and throughout the Soviet period to the present day. The cartridge remains one of the few standard-issue rimmed cartridges still in military use and has the longest service life of all military-issued cartridges in the world.[4]

7.62x54R - kicking imperialist ass since 1891!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[JHC]

Interim. I read that as soon vs 20 years hence so I'm good.

[Wondering Beard]

If I remember correctly, aside from a moisin nagant manual bolt action rifle, the only other rifle using the 7.62x54R, still in use today, is the SVD (and its variants) semi auto which is a sort of sniper/DMR rifle.

So, US soldiers with an M4 are overmatched by either soldiers/jihadis/insurgents fighting with a bolt action rifle or snipers using an SVD?

Which enemy of ours uses primarily M91s and/or SVDs that our guys have to worry about being overmatched? because if there isn't any, then it's about worrying about snipers and I'm not sure that changing rifle rounds will have much of an effect.

[Mike C]

PKM's are still used and are chambered in 7.62x54r. They suck shit to be in the receiving end of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rick62]

If I remember correctly, aside from a moisin nagant manual bolt action rifle, the only other rifle using the 7.62x54R, still in use today, is the SVD (and its variants) semi auto which is a sort of sniper/DMR rifle.

So, US soldiers with an M4 are overmatched by either soldiers/jihadis/insurgents fighting with a bolt action rifle or snipers using an SVD?

Which enemy of ours uses primarily M91s and/or SVDs that our guys have to worry about being overmatched? because if there isn't any, then it's about worrying about snipers and I'm not sure that changing rifle rounds will have much of an effect.

I think the PKM would present a bigger, or at least more commonly encountered, threat.

Edit: I type slowly- addressed above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wondering Beard]

PKM's are still used and are chambered in 7.62x54r. They suck shit to be in the receiving end of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had forgotten about the PKMs

So we want to equip our guys with a rifle caliber that can go toe to toe with a machine gun?

[JSGlock34]

The bolt action SV98 is slowly supplanting the SVD in the Russian armed forces (starting in the VDV units). I agree that the PKM (and the newer PKP Pecheneg) is the significant threat.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLmtmBV9po

http://www.breachbangclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/images_penchang4.jpeg
PKP

[JHC]

I had forgotten about the PKMs

So we want to equip our guys with a rifle caliber that can go toe to toe with a machine gun?

Precision effective fire at distances beyond M4 legs.

[Mike C]

Can't speak for all or the intent of the change Wondering Beard. Way above what this peons pay grade ever was but in IRQ there were metric ass tons of the PKM's. 9 times out of 10 if we took small arms fire in mass it was always from a PKM & various AK's. Every blue moon we'd see an RPD or RPK. For the places I've been I was fine with what we were issued minus ammo. But, I've never been to AFG or Syria. If I was deployed there I can see the desire to have something with some more ass on it. If your firing from one side of a valley to another or hilltop to hilltop wind could be a bitch, more so when your shooting a pea shooter throwing 62gr pills. The other part of that is that cover degrades quickly or ends up being only concealment largely dependent upon engagement range and caliber. Engagement ranges are largely taken into consideration in every circumstance. If you can be effective at a longer range that your enemy why not? It allows you to stay out of their effective range while still being able to put the hurt on them.

Will be interesting to see which way this goes.

Edited to add:
Looks like they didn't get the memo about Eotech being hot garbage.

[JSGlock34]

Edited to add:
Looks like they didn't get the memo about Eotech being hot garbage.

They seem to really like the EOTech - they were well represented in the Vickers video on the Alpha AK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxhTNZ1wAsc). There is also a Russian copy in use that presents a similar appearance. Here's a "Little Green Man" with an EOTech equipped AK in the Ukraine.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k165/nolantwky/Russian%20Troops%20in%20Crimea/eotechandbrake_zps6fa5ab46.jpg
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k165/nolantwky/Russian%20Troops%20in%20Crimea/eotechandmagpul_zps50f38aed.jpg

[Redhat]

Round and round we go. How is the 7.62 x 51 overmatch against the 7.62 x 54R?

[Jay Cunningham]

Overmatch.

Reminds me of the AirMechStrike lunatic from a few years back.

OUR ENEMIES WITH THIRTY CALUBER RIFLES

[Jay Cunningham]

SHOCK ACTION

[El Cid]

I fail to see how a few soldiers in an element having .308's is a counter to a PKM. That's why we have M240's right? I've been out of the .mil for over a decade so I freely admit I could be missing something.

And it doesn't matter what caliber the big Army selects... do we really expect them to provide adequate training on it? Just like the MHS, 3 round burst, handgun caliber changes, etc. I view this as them trying to solve all problems with new gear/weapons.

[JSGlock34]

I imagine if the Army is seeking an 'interim' solution, it means that they don't expect LSAT to bear fruit anytime soon...

[Inkwell 41]

Soldier Systems posted this... http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf ... on the 4th. It was a presentation by Jim Schatz. Plays in to the "interim" part of the 7.62x51 acquisition.

[Kyle Reese]

Didn't the Brits adopt the LMT MWS a few years ago with a similar application in mind?

[Duelist]

Every time I've heard about the Army changing rifles or calibers or both since I joined in the 90s, it's turned out to be nothing but noise and money spent on R&D and no real material change in the end.

The 6.8x43 and 6.5 Grendel are specialty cartridges in the civilian world, and whether or not anybody in the .mil is still using them, it's not general issue. M16A2 rifles became M16A4 rifles because rails and scopes, and from the sounds of things, M4 carbine's are issued more. They have new 5.56 ammo. That's great - but again, it's probably only an incremental difference, not a sea change, not something really new.

If I may make a prediction? My grandchildren, should either of my offspring manage to reproduce, will be issued an M16 variant at basic training. And it will probably chamber the 5.56 cartridge.

[JSGlock34]

Soldier Systems posted this... http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf ... on the 4th. It was a presentation by Jim Schatz. Plays in to the "interim" part of the 7.62x51 acquisition.

LSAT has been working for over a decade on next generation intermediate ammunition. Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan - Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiHsdWp1I7TAhWniFQKHQk-AKcQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fget-tr-doc%2Fpdf%3FAD%3DADA512331&usg=AFQjCNHA74gfai92OTRKZL-yjXHeDjMrZg) is getting close to 10 years old. Why do we need an 'interim' solution? Why can't we just go to an intermediate cartridge and skip the middle step?

[JSGlock34]

Every time I've heard about the Army changing rifles or calibers or both since I joined in the 90s, it's turned out to be nothing but noise and money spent on R&D and no real material change in the end.

Let's see...I'm too young for the Special Purpose Individual Weapon, but I remember Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Individual Combat Weapon (and XM8), Individual Carbine...

[Inkwell 41]

I don't know... But my guess is that it's the Army, the home of institutional inertia?

[Drang]

Have any of those proposed improvements actually born fruit? Or have the improvements been so incremental and the costs too high that no one whose career hopes weren't completely tied to program success could see the point? Because that's the way it's looked to me, on the outside since 2000.

[JSGlock34]

Have any of those proposed improvements actually born fruit? Or have the improvements been so incremental and the costs too high that no one whose career hopes weren't completely tied to program success could see the point? Because that's the way it's looked to me, on the outside since 2000.

Kinda? Have they produced a widely adopted service rifle? No. Have pieces of the various programs entered service? Yes. The first time I ever saw an ACOG was on the AAI entry to the Advanced Combat Rifle program. Now there's one on every Marine's rifle. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon was an overweight monstrosity, but the program spawned the XM25 which has seen some service in Afghanistan.

http://i.imgur.com/g1cEUri.jpg
Advanced Combat Rifle (ca. 1990)

[DocGKR]

XM25 has been a useless abortion....

The solution has been known for over 125 years--ask TR and the Rough Riders how those 7mm Mauser's were on San Juan Hill. Remember the British Pre-WWI .276 Enfield. Review the Pre-WWII US .276 Pederson. Look at the post-WWII British .270/.280 options.

A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile in a cartridge holding at least 40 gr of current technology propellant is ideal (yeah...6mm is cool to for punching paper at range, but it has a bit more problems with barriers than 6.5-7mm). Think .264 USA/6.5 mm NATO as an attempt to capitalize on this knowledge. Make sure whatever is selected conforms to the 8 Points of Light. Upgrade and over-match complete for rifles and LMG.

Go with a .338 Norma MMG and Sniper Rifle (yes, the .300 Norma is a bit better at long range, but if I was just going to pick one, I'd go with the .338 for greater general purpose versatility).

In short:

9 mm pistol
.264 USA rifle and LMG
.338 Norma MMG and sniper rifle.

Done.

[LittleLebowski]

Textbook need for the 6.5 Grendel since "training" is not an option, not ever.

[DocGKR]

6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...

[Trukinjp13]

6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...

Could the grendel be further into development by now? Just wondering if they have discovered any better loads by now or weights? I do not know, one way or another. Just seems like how 9mm has come along maybe it has evolved some?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Could the grendel be further into development by now? Just wondering if they have discovered any better loads by now or weights? I do not know, one way or another. Just seems like how 9mm has come along maybe it has evolved some?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grendel would require a new weapons system. It doesn't feed or run reliably enough in the AR platform for any sort of serious use. It requires a fully curved magazine likely function much better in a AK based platform.

[HCM]

6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...

Isn't that why you see some of these same organizations running .260 as opposed to 6.5 Creedmoor? I.e case shape affecting reliability?

[HCM]

Textbook need for the 6.5 Grendel since "training" is not an option, not ever.

Since they are talking 7.62x51 sized systems why not 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Rem ?

It is basically just a rebarrrel for the 7.62x51 guns.

[Mike C]

Round and round we go. How is the 7.62 x 51 overmatch against the 7.62 x 54R?

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.

As a small example one of the last squads that my group of guys killed on an SKT mission we had 1 240 and they had 2 RPG's, 2 PKMs and 2 AK variants. A PKM is easily capable is suppressing a squad, just like we use our 240's. Make that two from opposing sides plus RPG fire and AK fire and it's makes for a bad day. More so when add significant distance or barriers to that.

I think Doc is spot on as always. I would love to hear more about the .264 USA. It looks very promising from the little I have found about it. Doc do you have anymore resources on it, or is it all first hand lab info you have?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redhat]

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.

As a small example one of the last squads that my group of guys killed on an SKT mission we had 1 240 and they had 2 RPG's, 2 PKMs and 2 AK variants. A PKM is easily capable is suppressing a squad, just like we use our 240's. Make that two from opposing sides plus RPG fire and AK fire and it's makes for a bad day. More so when add significant distance or barriers to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks but my question was about comparing capabilities of the 2 calibers.

Regarding what you described, couldn't that be addressed by changing the mix of weapons in the squad? Also, if the enemy squad was "heavier" than yours, how were they defeated?

[LittleLebowski]

Since they are talking 7.62x51 sized systems why not 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Rem ?

It is basically just a rebarrrel for the 7.62x51 guns.

***edited because I misread your response***

I think it's because 7.62x51 is already in the Big Army supply chain (I'm well aware of SOF usage of .260).

I recommended the 6.5 Grendel because it is an upgrade for the AR15 pattern rifles, not the AR10 pattern rifles. It gives the user near .308 performance in an AR15 sized package. It stomps the 5.56 in every way ballistically speaking.

[LittleLebowski]

6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...

Strongly recommend you give SLG a call regarding his personal usage of the 6.5 Grendel.

[TiroFijo]

XM25 has been a useless abortion....

The solution has been known for over 125 years--ask TR and the Rough Riders how those 7mm Mauser's were on San Juan Hill. Remember the British Pre-WWI .276 Enfield. Review the Pre-WWII US .276 Pederson. Look at the post-WWII British .270/.280 options.

A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile in a cartridge holding at least 40 gr of current technology propellant is ideal (yeah...6mm is cool to for punching paper at range, but it has a bit more problems with barriers than 6.5-7mm). Think .264 USA/6.5 mm NATO as an attempt to capitalize on this knowledge. Make sure whatever is selected conforms to the 8 Points of Light. Upgrade and over-match complete for rifles and LMG.

Go with a .338 Norma MMG and Sniper Rifle (yes, the .300 Norma is a bit better at long range, but if I was just going to pick one, I'd go with the .338 for greater general purpose versatility).

In short:

9 mm pistol
.264 USA rifle and LMG
.338 Norma MMG and sniper rifle.

Done.

I think the .mil reaaally wants a larger leap in technology (spend once, not twice, in a reconversion), and they are hoping some sort of lightweight cases and a caliber change to have the cake and eat it.

Here is the TFB interview with Kori Phillips, head of the LSAT proyect: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/25/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-3-development-6-5mm-ct/

But apparently this promising technology is still not ready for prime time, thus the indecision that lasts forever...

[JHC]

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus one or two SAW?

[Mike C]

Thanks but my question was about comparing capabilities of the 2 calibers.

Regarding what you described, couldn't that be addressed by changing the mix of weapons in the squad? Also, if the enemy squad was "heavier" than yours, how were they defeated?

Things like TOE, ALO and MTOE control what can or can't be had which breaks down all the way to team level. Maybe SF, Rangers and other specialized units have more control based on geographical location/operational need but standard infantry units have what they have and often can't get more. At least that's how things worked in my experience. Pulling an extra MG from another squad was like asking to have sex with someone else's wife. There are also ROE limits that can often hamper your ability to whip out bigger guns as well. For example something like a 25mm on a Brad. This especially holds true in built up urban settings.

To answer your last question in short speed, surprise, and violence of action with heavy doses or marksmanship sprinkled on top. Thinking faster, team tactics and again marksmanship make all the difference. No sarcasm intended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

XM25 has been a useless abortion....

The solution has been known for over 125 years--ask TR and the Rough Riders how those 7mm Mauser's were on San Juan Hill. Remember the British Pre-WWI .276 Enfield. Review the Pre-WWII US .276 Pederson. Look at the post-WWII British .270/.280 options.

A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile in a cartridge holding at least 40 gr of current technology propellant is ideal (yeah...6mm is cool to for punching paper at range, but it has a bit more problems with barriers than 6.5-7mm). Think .264 USA/6.5 mm NATO as an attempt to capitalize on this knowledge. Make sure whatever is selected conforms to the 8 Points of Light. Upgrade and over-match complete for rifles and LMG.

Go with a .338 Norma MMG and Sniper Rifle (yes, the .300 Norma is a bit better at long range, but if I was just going to pick one, I'd go with the .338 for greater general purpose versatility).

In short:

9 mm pistol
.264 USA rifle and LMG
.338 Norma MMG and sniper rifle.

Done.

How is the development coming on that .264USA cartridge coming? Any updates on that?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[HCM]

***edited because I misread your response***

I think it's because 7.62x51 is already in the Big Army supply chain (I'm well aware of SOF usage of .260).

I recommended the 6.5 Grendel because it is an upgrade for the AR15 pattern rifles, not the AR10 pattern rifles. It gives the user near .308 performance in an AR15 sized package. It stomps the 5.56 in every way ballistically speaking.

I'm aware of the ballistics on the 6.5 Grendel but even with dedicated AA magazines the 6.5 G ARs I've seen and shot won't run reliably with more than 10 or 12 in the mag. It retains the case taper of the original rounds it was based on. The taper in the case just does not play well with the trannaition into the straight feed portion of the AR mag.

Same reason 7.62x39 never really works right out of ARs.

It would likely work well out of say an AK type mag with a full curve magazine. Something like a SIG 550 series in 6,5G might work

[joshs]

If I had to engage dudes in tiny huts and guys a mountain top away with a PKM, I'd love to have a 6.5 SR-25 and a low power variable optic, but how much would that significant investment in hardware increase hit probability without a substantial change in the way Soldiers are trained in rifle marksmanship? Without making the needed changes to training, wouldn't the Army just be saddling Soldiers with a bulkier, heavier, and more expensive weapon system that the average Soldier can't take advantage of?

[spinmove_]

If I had to engage dudes in tiny huts and guys a mountain top away with a PKM, I'd love to have a 6.5 SR-25 and a low power variable optic, but how much would that significant investment in hardware increase hit probability without a substantial change in the way Soldiers are trained in rifle marksmanship? Without making the needed changes to training, wouldn't the Army just be saddling Soldiers with a bulkier, heavier, and more expensive weapon system that the average Soldier can't take advantage of?

There you go using that silly logic thing again...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Hambo]

I've got the solution: Garands in .280 AI.

[DocGKR]

"Strongly recommend you give SLG a call regarding his personal usage of the 6.5 Grendel."

We talk about it all the time--even he states it is only for sporting purposes and would not be reasonable for military use in a current AR15 type rifle.

Recent US military combat use of .260 Rem has proven the efficacy of the 6.5 mm projectiles.

There was a link above from Jim Schatz's NDIA presentation which addressed .264 USA.

In 1940, the prototype P51 Mustang successfully flew just 178 days after the initial order had been placed. Now in the 21st century, despite the efforts of many smart folks, few small arms improvements seem to get rapidly completed and expediently fielded--there is a significant gap between what we KNOW and what we actually DO for our warriors. If such glacial procurement had occurred during WWII, the war would have ended before any new weapons were fielded. SALVO, SPIW, 6 mm SAW, ACR, XM29, XM8, XM25...even with modern engineering, CAD/CAM techniques, and new materials, many proposed U.S. small arms and ammunition improvements cost tens of millions of dollars, years of RDT&E, and then rarely seem to ever actually reach the field. Millions of dollars are poured into next generation small arms technologies with no near-term potential to improve combat capability, like caseless, telescoping, and air-burst ammo, while simple innovative incremental advances that can immediately make an impact in combat operations, like barrier blind ammunition and intermediate calibers, get minimal funding or are ignored. DOD replaces computer hardware and software every 3 or 4 years, yet does not offer the same type of incremental improvements for small arms weapons and ammunition, despite similar costs.

I sent an email on 23 Nov 2004 to JSSAP and Kori Phillips re. LSAT that starts as follows:


"Please forgive my bluntness: Do you really want to rapidly develop an expeditious, cost-efficient, combat effective LMG system or is this another B.S. spiral-development, pie-in-the-sky waste of tax-payer funds that will keep sucking money into testing and justify everyone's jobs, but never deliver any useful weapon to the troops in the field?"

13 years later, despite great promise, no effective and viable LSAT has been fielded to combat troops, despite significant input of our tax dollars...

[TiroFijo]

Wow, Doc... stop beating around the bush and tell what you really think! What did she answer? :D

I remember Jim Schatz was also involved with a company making conventional looking bottleneck polymer cases (with brass head) that also provided a lot of weight savings, and apparently the guns could be made/tuned to fire both these cases and conventional brass cases. Thus, a new caliber could be adopted, and still get the weight savings when/it the lightweight cases "issues" are ironed out.

Perhaps this? the company is http://www.macammo.com/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/07/26/potd-the-polymer-cased-264-usa/

The 50 BMG version was fielded a while ago, how was the experience? Are they still in use?

In your opinion, is it worthwhile to wait for this technology to mature (how much?), or the past tells us that some things are not worth waiting for?

[DocGKR]

Advanced technology is almost always worth investigating, but that does not mean stopping simultaneous incremental improvements in existing technology. For example, the B17A bomber was first adopted in 1938; between 1939 and 1943, the B, C, D, E, F, and G models all were developed and introduced as incremental upgrades. Meanwhile, development of the more advanced B29 was simultaneously being conducted beginning in 1939 or so, with the first flight in 1942 and combat missions beginning in 1944.

[Zincwarrior]

Advanced technology is almost always worth investigating, but that does not mean stopping simultaneous incremental improvements in existing technology. For example, the B17A bomber was first adopted in 1938; between 1939 and 1943, the B, C, D, E, F, and G models all were developed and introduced as incremental upgrades. Meanwhile, development of the more advanced B29 was simultaneously being conducted beginning in 1939 or so, with the first flight in 1942 and combat missions beginning in 1944.


Wouldn't incremental technology be modifications to the existing M4 frame though?

[DocGKR]

That would be one option--adding full length FF rails, LPV optics, improved gen3 PMAGS, bonded SOST ammo, etc... But it could also be like WWII with P40, P39, P38, P47, P51 in rapid succession--each filling a similar role, but being slightly improved in some area.

[JSGlock34]

That would be one option--adding full length FF rails, LPV optics, improved gen3 PMAGS, bonded SOST ammo, etc...

Completely agree. There is no reason we should still buy the M9 when the M9A3 is available at the same price (even if we are moving onto the M17, we are still buying M9s today). Similarly there is no reason why we should continue to buy rifles equipped with the KAC RAS when free float options are available. Simply equipping the force with SOPMOD Block 2 rifles (with the free float DD RIS II) and Mk318 ammunition would be a modest and inexpensive upgrade. These are incremental improvements that are available now at little cost (sometimes the same cost), but we continue to buy technology that is decades old.

I find it interesting that the Army is apparently looking to 7.62mm NATO while the USMC seems interested in more widely issuing the M27. It also seems that the Marines favor the M27's attributes as a DMR (it displays higher accuracy than the M4 largely due to the free float handguard) even more than its stated application as an automatic rifle. But buying M27s for the entire USMC is a lot more expensive than upgrading M4s with free float handguards and perhaps better triggers. Still, the M27 isn't going to provide 'overmatch' against the PKM/PKP threat.

How has the FN Mk48 performed for SOCOM? On the one hand, a squad level 7.62 machine-gun seems like a legitimate response to the capability gap that wouldn't require equipping the entire force with new battle rifles. On the other hand, the Mk48 is derived from the SAW, which is one of the most maligned small arms in the inventory. The same fact means that soldiers familiar with the SAW would easily transition to the Mk48.

[DocGKR]

Mk48 has significant limitations.

[JHC]

I highly doubt the premise of the article linked in the OP beyond a DMR interspersed sort of thing anyway.

[LittleLebowski]

We talk about it all the time--even he states it is only for sporting purposes and would not be reasonable for military use in a current AR15 type rifle.


Keeping in mind that the 6.5G does not require a magwell/lower receiver change and therefore is much more "drop-in" than the .264 (requires new lower, correct?), how is the 6.5G not a much better choice than going to 7.62 rifles for this Army requirement?

[spinmove_]

Keeping in mind that the 6.5G does not require a magwell/lower receiver change and therefore is much more "drop-in" than the .264 (requires new lower, correct?), how is the 6.5G not a much better choice than going to 7.62 rifles for this Army requirement?

IIRC it's an issue of absolute reliability.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[HCM]

Keeping in mind that the 6.5G does not require a magwell/lower receiver change and therefore is much more "drop-in" than the .264 (requires new lower, correct?), how is the 6.5G not a much better choice than going to 7.62 rifles for this Army requirement?

Because 6.5G does not run reliably enough in AR's even with proprietary magazines.

[Trigger]

If they are interested in saving ammo weight with the new cartridge, it seems they would be better off using aluminum cases for the cartridges rather than the hybrid brass/plastic. Saves weight, low cost, low tech, KISS.

[TiroFijo]

If they are interested in saving ammo weight with the new cartridge, it seems they would be better off using aluminum cases for the cartridges rather than the hybrid brass/plastic. Saves weight, low cost, low tech, KISS.

They have been trying this for quite a few years now, still no success...

[HCM]

They have been trying this for quite a few years now, still no success...

Yes, aluminum doesn't play well with bottle neck cases.

[busdriver]

There's a lot of interest in the polymer cases on the rotary wing aviation side of things. They're coming along, and I suspect they'll eventually get adopted. The lower weight is nice, as is a reduced susceptibility to cook offs.

[psalms144.1]

LSAT has been working for over a decade on next generation intermediate ammunition. Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan - Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiHsdWp1I7TAhWniFQKHQk-AKcQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fget-tr-doc%2Fpdf%3FAD%3DADA512331&usg=AFQjCNHA74gfai92OTRKZL-yjXHeDjMrZg) is getting close to 10 years old. Why do we need an 'interim' solution? Why can't we just go to an intermediate cartridge and skip the middle step?Because we have a metric ass ton of 7.62 in bunkers all over the world, and no 6.x anything? Meaning, if we can pick a weapon, we can start issuing it immediately, as a stop gap until the "ultimate" intermediate caliber can be picked.

I don't see this as a means to put a fire team up against a PKM, I see this as an answer to issues regarding being able to better engage targets AT DISTANCE. There's a reason why SOCOM went Mk262, then Mk318 - better terminal performance at range. Of course, at close combat ranges, it's more about tactics, mobility, cover, and violence of action (not to mention combined arms - air support and indirect always help!).

[JHC]

OK so caliber has been debated.

If it's 7.62 then the rifle choice is wide open. It's not an upgrade M4 thing. Could be AR pattern but wow; bloody heavy.

SCAR-H?

[psalms144.1]

OK so caliber has been debated.

If it's 7.62 then the rifle choice is wide open. It's not an upgrade M4 thing. Could be AR pattern but wow; bloody heavy.

SCAR-H?Mk17 has some warts, but overall I think it would be a great starting point.

[JHC]

Mk17 has some warts, but overall I think it would be a great starting point.

My full caliber battle rifle exposue is limited to an M1A and the Mk17. I thought the SCAR pretty damn awesome.

[psalms144.1]

My full caliber battle rifle exposue is limited to an M1A and the Mk17. I thought the SCAR pretty damn awesome.Our Mk17s were fantastic - uber reliable, extremely accurate, very portable with the short barrels, just all around great guns. Issues I have with the platform revolve around the stock and it's durability (specifically the hinges/locks - we never broke any, but I've heard of enough guys breaking them to make me worry about it), it's use of proprietary magazines (again, not a biggy for an issued weapon, but everyone wants PMAGs, because you know, operator), and the placement of the magazine release button on the left side. I was constantly inadvertently ejecting mags when my Mk17 was slung a Vicker's sling over my loaded kit. For some reason, the top edge of the magazines on my center chest were ALWAYS hitting that f'ing button.

None of those issues are insurmountable, and, since the Mk17 is already "in the system," I would think it would be a very easy, QUICK "intermediate" fix.

[LittleLebowski]

Yes, aluminum doesn't play well with bottle neck cases.

I don't think that the mag thing is unsolvable.

[ranger]

Every time I see these threads I think about 1981 when I was honored to attend Ranger school. In a dim bulb moment, I admitted to a Ranger Instructor that I knew how to clean a M14. I then carried a M14, the heavy mags, and the heavy ammo through the Mountain phase. 308 rifles sound cool until you have to carry one with ammo and mags day after day. I cannot see equipping the majority of our soldiers with a 308 based rifle.

[Redhat]

Every time I see these threads I think about 1981 when I was honored to attend Ranger school. In a dim bulb moment, I admitted to a Ranger Instructor that I knew how to clean a M14. I then carried a M14, the heavy mags, and the heavy ammo through the Mountain phase. 308 rifles sound cool until you have to carry one with ammo and mags day after day. I cannot see equipping the majority of our soldiers with a 308 based rifle.

Funny how things change. Our Grandfathers or Great Grandfathers carried the M1 all over the world...I guess it was lighter than a BAR though.

[Duelist]

Funny how things change. Our Grandfathers or Great Grandfathers carried the M1 all over the world...I guess it was lighter than a BAR though.

And many of them complained about it, and got hold of M1 carbines instead, or wished they had them.

[ranger]

Funny how things change. Our Grandfathers or Great Grandfathers carried the M1 all over the world...I guess it was lighter than a BAR though.

Agreed, but, 100+ pounds of lightweight, high speed, stuff is still a 100+ lbs. My dad is an Infantry WW2 vet and he carried a M1. But he did not carry radios, body armor, night vision, sat phone, and so on.

[JHC]

Funny how things change. Our Grandfathers or Great Grandfathers carried the M1 all over the world...I guess it was lighter than a BAR though.

No kidding. Except they didn't wear XXlbs of armor and a 75-100 ruck I don't suppose. ;) I'm intimate with the PT regimen of the modern Infantryman. It's off the chain. :D

[Redhat]

No kidding. Except they didn't wear XXlbs of armor and a 75-100 ruck I don't suppose. ;) I'm intimate with the PT regimen of the modern Infantryman. It's off the chain. :D

Do you think those guys had more mobility back then?

[Redhat]

And many of them complained about it, and got hold of M1 carbines instead, or wished they had them.

They might have liked it until they needed to do some damage.

[JHC]

Do you think those guys had more mobility back then?

Way more! The lack of mobility due to the weight is a big issue. Much coverage of that. Certain units shave down to the minimum armor and ammo for just that reason.

[LittleLebowski]

Agreed, but, 100+ pounds of lightweight, high speed, stuff is still a 100+ lbs. My dad is an Infantry WW2 vet and he carried a M1. But he did not carry radios, body armor, night vision, sat phone, and so on.

Came here to post pretty much the same about present day war fighters.

[HCM]

I don't think that the mag thing is unsolvable.


What you quoted, "Aluminum does not play well with bottle neck cases" was in reference to F16Gyro's suggestion to use Aluminum shell casings in rifle rounds to save weight not about magazines.

As for feeding 6.5 Grendel rounds - they feed just fine in a continuously curved magazine like an AK or SIG 550. But that is not a "drop in" solution.

The taper of the 6.5G case and the curved to straight transition of AR pattern mags do not play well together. This is the same reason you rarely see a reliable AR in 7.62 x39. This was also part of the impetus to develop .300 blackout, which is much more AR feed friendly but can be loaded to give comparable performance to 7.62x39.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Every time I read these threads I think the same thing: Somebody please just build an AR 12 1/2, and give us a middleweight that'll run the 6.5-7mm stuff.

[DocGKR]

HCM--well said.

[HCM]

When considering this interim solution there are many factors in an organizational shooting / gunfighting program which are just not factors for individuals. This modcast gives a good picture of institutional issues and inertia.


http://youtu.be/65UG6WB4KWQ

[Chuck Whitlock]

So why did the 6.8 SPC fall by the wayside? I'm out of my lane, but seems like a good solution with a minimum of fuss.

[HCM]

So why did the 6.8 SPC fall by the wayside? I'm out of my lane, but seems like a good solution with a minimum of fuss.

It is only good out to about 300-400 yards and the juice was not worth the squeeze vs improved 5.56 like 70 and 77 grain loads.

[Duelist]

So why did the 6.8 SPC fall by the wayside? I'm out of my lane, but seems like a good solution with a minimum of fuss.

6.8 has basically become a medium range AR15 hunting caliber, at least in the US, though there are other countries using it as a service caliber. Just doesn't have the legs to be a good general purpose caliber for the US because you lose trajectory and range vs the better loads in 5.56. And reliable magazines are easy to find for 5.56. I have three 6.8 mags that work great until they have >10 rounds in them, then they choke. Fortunately, mine was purpose built as a hunting rifle for a scrawny teen, so I don't care about accumulating a bunch of magazines or having my son's rifle having all that many rounds when chasing Bambi in the mountains.

[DocGKR]

6.8 mm was a good interim rapidly fieldable incremental solution available in 2002 to improve incapacitation potential of the M4 in the short term (5-10 yrs). By 2012 other combat requirements had been identified which demonstrated a need for longer range engagement ability (requiring about 40 g of case capacity using current propellants). Projectiles in the 6.5-7mm are proven to provide the optimum trade off of terminal effects and external ballistics. Thus something like .264 USA in a notional AR12 size rifle would be ideal.

[TiroFijo]

Probably to be fielded in "a few" years, just in time for the next conflict, involving mainly short range engagement distances.... :D

Golf bag solution, the best??

[spinmove_]

Probably to be fielded in "a few" years, just in time for the next conflict, involving mainly short range engagement distances.... :D

Golf bag solution, the best??

Are you trying to get our troops to wheel a giant pelican case behind them along with everything else they have to schlep around?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Nephrology]

"... B.S. spiral-development, pie-in-the-sky waste of tax-payer funds that will keep sucking money into testing and justify everyone's jobs, but never deliver [anything useful]?

This is exactly what everyone who ever occupied a middle managerial position has always wanted (or to leave middle management entirely, one or the other & with mutual exclusivity).

[TiroFijo]

Are you trying to get our troops to wheel a giant pelican case behind them along with everything else they have to schlep around?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Ha! perhaps the giant pelican case (armory) could be somewhere else, and choose the weapon according to the theater of operations, or expected use...

[Wondering Beard]

Are you trying to get our troops to wheel a giant pelican case behind them along with everything else they have to schlep around?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Self propelled robot Pelican case.

Think of the possibilities! :-)

[JHC]

Interesting report related to this topic:

https://www.1911addicts.com/threads/the-m14-and-the-m4-in-afghanistan-05-06.30655/

[Hambo]

Interesting report related to this topic:

https://www.1911addicts.com/threads/the-m14-and-the-m4-in-afghanistan-05-06.30655/

This made me think that about a solution for, if not today, at least next month. Pull 240s from some stateside units, ship to theater, and augment firepower at the company or platoon level. Do the same with any 7.62 rifles sitting around here doing nothing. Hell, maybe even buy something off the shelf. It's not sexy, and doesn't help R&D people keep their projects going, but it could send more 7.62 downrange where needed. Of course it won't happen, but in theory it could. Just sayin.

[Drang]

EDIT: never mind.

[spinmove_]

Self propelled robot Pelican case.

Think of the possibilities! :-)

Pelican case drones.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Redhat]

Our guys have been over there for a while now...seems like they would have already addressed this.

[littlejerry]

So has 5.56 really been fully tapped? Seems like Mk262 does a fine job of hitting things consistently at 600 yards in my experience (perhaps not with good terminal ballistics). It seems like a high BC 70+ gr round would stretch the effective hitting-range out beyond 600 yards.

I'm still surprised we can't field the AR12.5. Seems like a very minor stretch in receiver length would open a ton of possibilities without having to redesign a platform from scratch. A few competent engineers could go from concept to field prototypes in 6 months.

[MistWolf]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-army-just-picked-this-new-sniper-rifle-2017-4

[HCM]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-army-just-picked-this-new-sniper-rifle-2017-4

The army picked the M110A1 sniper rifle (M110 replacement) a few months ago. This is not a battle rifle or SDMR though the 417 could be an option now that the mags are "in the system". It does highlight the fact we now have four types of 7.62x51 mags in the system (M14, KAC, SCAR and now HK).

[alohadoug]

Talked to a coworker who is involved with selecting and supplying equipment to SOCOM. He laughed. Between the cost of equipment (rifles, mags, ammo, pouches) and the vost of retraining every Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Airman (Active and Reserves) this is a nonstarted. The only way you could swing it was A. if the rifle was an AR10 pattern and B. if it was only to Combat Arms MOS directly involved in combat...which doesn't happen anymore.

I asked him about the SCAR-H. He said that they've been removed from service for the most part. Shooters didn't care for them. Felt they were of limited value for weight (incl ammo) and retrain. Can't run them in shoothouses. Plus the reciprocating bolt caused issues.

Until the next gen goes online, the 5.56 will probably stay.

[HCM]

Talked to a coworker who is involved with selecting and supplying equipment to SOCOM. He laughed. Between the cost of equipment (rifles, mags, ammo, pouches) and the vost of retraining every Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Airman (Active and Reserves) this is a nonstarted. The only way you could swing it was A. if the rifle was an AR10 pattern and B. if it was only to Combat Arms MOS directly involved in combat...which doesn't happen anymore.

I asked him about the SCAR-H. He said that they've been removed from service for the most part. Shooters didn't care for them. Felt they were of limited value for weight (incl ammo) and retrain. Can't run them in shoothouses. Plus the reciprocating bolt caused issues.

Until the next gen goes online, the 5.56 will probably stay.

Can't run them in shoothouses as a 7.62x51. You can convert them to 5.56, though it is a PITA.

I agree an AR-10 of some sort is the way to go.

[That Guy]

Plus the reciprocating bolt caused issues.

What kind of issues?

[alohadoug]

What kind of issues?

Most involved having the charging handle snagging on slings or other gear. They also saw problems shooting off barricades or guys not adjusting their hand position. All could have been dealt with thru training and/or equipment changes but most didn't feel the effort was worth it. They were happy with their M4s.

[DocGKR]

Hmmm....doesn't the AK47/AKM have a reciprocating bolt handle?

[alohadoug]

Hmmm....doesn't the AK47/AKM have a reciprocating bolt handle?

Has to do with training/experience/what you're used to....

Everyone agreed with more time/training the issues could be overcome but the benefits of the SCAR did not outweigh the cost (i.e. different guns for live fire training vs deployment, new web gear/slings, training for new manual of arms and to learn to stay the Hell out of the way of the bolt). Most of these guys have been using AR rifles for 15+ years, ain't broke, don't fix it.

[DocGKR]

Yup, but I noticed my Grandfathers and Father had no problems with the reciprocating bolts on their M1 rifles, M1 carbines, and M14's...

[TiroFijo]

The reciprocating handle was an original requirement for the SCAR competition, why the change of mind?

[alohadoug]

The reciprocating handle was an original requirement for the SCAR competition, why the change of mind?

My understanding is that most of the requirements were "top-down" driven.

[Ed L]

Yup, but I noticed my Grandfathers and Father had no problems with the reciprocating bolts on their M1 rifles, M1 carbines, and M14's...

I think the more forward of the reciprocating charging handle of the SCAR that renders it more vulnerable to catching on things. That was the case with my limited experience with the SCAR--the reciprocating charging handle got caught on an odd shaped rest that prevented the bolt from closing.

The charging handle on the AK & M1 family is further back and more out of the way so it is less likely to snag on things, get caught on gear, get caught against something during cycling preventing the bolt from closing, or slam into your support hand.

It is certainly something that can be dealt with or overcome, but annoying non-the-less.

[Super77]

I wonder if guys having problems with the charging handle were running it on the left side. While this makes it easier to lock the bolt open it can interfere with grip and snag on kit for right-handed shooters. The reciprocating charging handles on AKs and M1s are on the right side where they're not in the way for righties.

I was issued a Mk-17 and didn't have any problems with the bolt catch. I did however have an issue with the ambi mag release bumping against kit and inadvertently drop a mag. I hate that feature. I still really liked the SCAR and it's too bad it didn't catch on. I imagine the SCAR getting phased out has more to do with procurement and replacement parts than overwhelming shortcomings with the weapon.

That said, I also agree an AR-10 style weapon is the way to go simply because of the upper/lower receiver design. Almost every new battle rifle design touts some kind of quick-change barrel setup. What's quicker than two pins to change an entire upper receiver group line an AR? The downside of swapping barrels is then you have to rezero irons, optic, laser etc. sure, the manufacturers state sub MOA zero shift but who's going to rely on that when it counts? With a complete upper swap everything staysl set up ready to go. It makes even more sense considering an entire AR upper, barrel, and BCG can be had for less than a $1100 SCAR barrel.

[alohadoug]

To really throw water on this idea...GEN Milley has been saying for the last several months that the Army (and DoD as a whole) needs to be more prepared for combat in "megacities (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/21/chief-army-will-need-smaller-units-for-megacity-combat.html)." Which will require smaller/lighter equipment to deal with urban environments and resupply issue.

[TiroFijo]

[QUOTE=alohadoug;595575]To really throw water on this idea...GEN Milley has been saying for the last several months that the Army (and DoD as a whole) needs to be more prepared for combat in "[URL="http://www.military.com/daily

I was reading that article the other day... very different requirements depending on the theater.

[Suvorov]

I'm very confused here. I distinctly recall General Stanley McChrystal saying that the .223 was incredibly destructive and too powerful for civilians. Now his very own Army is complaining about it not being powerful enough.

The good special forces qualified general can't be wrong can he?

[JSGlock34]

Soldier systems: US Army 7.62 Rifle Update (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/03/us-army-7-62-rifle-update/)

Two DMRs per squad sounds much more reasonable than general issue.

[JSGlock34]

So, based on the last two days of Soldier Systems articles, the Army is exploring a 7.62mm DMR variant as the Interim Combat Service Rifle (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/03/us-army-7-62-rifle-update/), the Marines are configuring the 5.56mm M27 IAR as a DMR (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04/usmc-m27-update-designated-marksman-role-added/), and SOCOM is developing a 6.5mm Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle/Carbine and Intermediate Caliber Assault Machinegun (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04/us-army-special-operations-command-seeks-precision-intermediate-caliber-ammunition/).

Wee!

[JHC]

So, based on the last two days of Soldier Systems articles, the Army is exploring a 7.62mm DMR variant as the Interim Combat Service Rifle (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/03/us-army-7-62-rifle-update/), the Marines are configuring the 5.56mm M27 IAR as a DMR (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04/usmc-m27-update-designated-marksman-role-added/), and SOCOM is developing a 6.5mm Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle/Carbine and Intermediate Caliber Assault Machinegun (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04/us-army-special-operations-command-seeks-precision-intermediate-caliber-ammunition/).

Wee!

Interesting. I guess they still have testing to do before formal contracts. I have the distinct impression there are a lot of .260 Rems in the field.

[Drang]

I'm very confused here. I distinctly recall General Stanley McChrystal saying that the .223 was incredibly destructive and too powerful for civilians. Now his very own Army is complaining about it not being powerful enough.

The good special forces qualified general can't be wrong can he?

With the understanding that you're being sarcastic here, one will rarely go wrong by assuming that anyone with any number of stars on their collar (including one or more inside chevrons and rockers) is likely a political hack.

[JHC]

With the understanding that you're being sarcastic here, one will rarely go wrong by assuming that anyone with any number of stars on their collar (including one or more inside chevrons and rockers) is likely a political hack.

Not my assumption any longer. More and more of them now have a very different experience set than the generals of the '80s and 90s. McChrystal's history would seem to suggest a pretty tin ear for political niceties ie how he got basically fired and before that the inside baseball story of how he infuriated Obama by insisting on the AFG surge numbers he wanted vs telling the boss that some surge-lite of like 5-10K would do it.

And those who've served with him seem pretty rad in their respect bordering on awe. I think he just had the opinion that the modern sporting rifle was not appropriate for civilian ownership, an opinion shared by probably 80 million other Americans.

I think he has some kooky political ideas but hey

[dbateman]

I see the 6.5cm, 260rem being kicked around a bit lately.

One of the reason put to me the other day was our guys can't hit targets because of the rainbow trajectory of the 7.62x51, which is a load of crap.

Anyways, I like the 260 and the 6.5cm. I've messed with the CM quite a bit.
I used to tell people the 260 would be my pick for the question that's been asked here, these days I'd tell em 6.5saum.
I'm happy to see the 300nm getting a bit of use although I'm a Hulk guy myself.

I'm a 308 fan, I shoot it more than any other round. I know it real well and I just flat out works for me.
That being said, in 2017 I think there are better choices.

[Moshjath]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/08/usasoc-envisions-taking-sopmod-into-the-2020s-with-a-new-upper-receiver-group-for-its-m4a1s/

And the plot thickens...USASOC to potentially release an RFP for a mid length gas system upper with an MLOK rail and a surefire WARCOMP to enhance their SOPMOD M4A1's (block III?). Seems to be a bit smarter than a certain other plan to potentially issue everyone a 7.62 battle rifle.

[Unobtanium]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/08/usasoc-envisions-taking-sopmod-into-the-2020s-with-a-new-upper-receiver-group-for-its-m4a1s/

And the plot thickens...USASOC to potentially release an RFP for a mid length gas system upper with an MLOK rail and a surefire WARCOMP to enhance their SOPMOD M4A1's (block III?). Seems to be a bit smarter than a certain other plan to potentially issue everyone a 7.62 battle rifle.

They are looking at the Hodge guns. I think they are a sound evolutionary step, personally.
http://i67.tinypic.com/11ccend.jpg

[call_me_ski]

They are looking at the Hodge guns. I think they are a sound evolutionary step, personally.


Hodge Defense has some potential to shake up the status-quo. The New AlLi they are using in their construction could be the next big material in small arms design. The only barrier is price and availability of raw materials. It is superior to 7075-t6 series Al in every other category. Every component on this rifle is selected to be the best available from the FNH CHF machine gun steel barrel to the reinforced forged AlLi receiver set.

Hodge has sold some rifles to the Army for testing so and their partnership with FNH may be an indicator of things to come. They have marketed a slightly modified version of their AU-Mod 2 like as the FNH Tactical II Pro. They are also offered in barrel lengths that will be potentially sought by the solicitation once it is issued rather than the 16in and 12.5 offered initially by HD. With the expertise and weight of FNH in the gov acquisition process they have the potential to do very well. If they somehow managed to work a KAC E3 bolt into the system it would represent the absolute pinnacle of the DI ar15 at the moment.

[Unobtanium]

Hodge Defense has some potential to shake up the status-quo. The New AlLi they are using in their construction could be the next big material in small arms design. The only barrier is price and availability of raw materials. It is superior to 7075-t6 series Al in every other category. Every component on this rifle is selected to be the best available from the FNH CHF machine gun steel barrel to the reinforced forged AlLi receiver set.

Hodge has sold some rifles to the Army for testing so and their partnership with FNH may be an indicator of things to come. They have marketed a slightly modified version of their AU-Mod 2 like as the FNH Tactical II Pro. They are also offered in barrel lengths that will be potentially sought by the solicitation once it is issued rather than the 16in and 12.5 offered initially by HD. With the expertise and weight of FNH in the gov acquisition process they have the potential to do very well. If they somehow managed to work a KAC E3 bolt into the system it would represent the absolute pinnacle of the DI ar15 at the moment.

Yep, the barrels are next level materials. I have yet to hear of a hodge bolt breaking. I personally love mine because of the gas port and the balance and ergonomics.

[TiroFijo]

Is 7075-t6 aluminum failing now? :rolleyes:

[call_me_ski]

Is 7075-t6 aluminum failing now? :rolleyes:

Not particularly. But I am fairly certain that the steel alloys that 7075-t6 replaced in many applications didn't fail either. Are you saying that we should stop seeking advancements?

[TiroFijo]

The reason steel was replaced for aluminum was weight, and easy of machining of a complex part. The existing AR upper and lowers in 7075 are more than strong and durable enough, and pretty light already.

What would be the practical advantage of switching to other more expensive material? Modern weapons are not forged by cyclops for everlasting strength, they are a compromise.

[call_me_ski]

There is an advantage to the material. It may not be as dramatic as some other changes but it will lead to either more durable or lighter weapons. Both of which are positive traits. Hodge actually increased some dimensions on the receiver set to increase strength and stiffness dramatically while maintaining the weight of the normal receiver set. A stronger/stiffer receiver and rail can have effects on other parts of the rifle including increased bolt life, particularly when VFG or lots of forward mounted accessories are used.

Here is more info on the AlLi:
"To keep this as simple as possible, it's lighter, stronger, more corrosive resistance than 7075. By what extent?, it's all about how you cut it. On the avg.,using the same dim, 12% lighter, 20% stronger, 300% better corrosion. If we have the exact same dims of Mil Spec, then the % listed above are realistic, now we can shave the geometry and make it lighter, and the same strength as 7075T6, or like the approach I took, I opted to add mass, and keep a similar weight as 7075 Mil Spec forgings, but now have made it significantly stronger. Looking at AlLi and comparing mass vs size vs strength, it is 7% shy of what Ti is. AlLi is what is being used to replace some Ti components in areo space, space exp, and some F1. Down side...$$$$. Typically about 400% more in raw material costs."

That is from Jim Hodge himself so he may/probably is in salesman mode.

As far as the juice being worth the squeeze. That depends a lot on your personal philosophy when it comes to weapon systems. Most will say that a BCM is fine, but some that have the resources will seek improvements. There are companies that will fill this niche such as KAC, Hodge, etc. It is a case of diminishing returns and everyone will draw the line in a different place. A lot of people and organizations spend good money on incremental improvements.

It may be worth revising the TDP for the M4 as the menu of available alloys has changed dramatically since it was standardized. While the reasons that every material was selected are still sound, there may be better options today. As these new materials find new uses and are adopted in larger scales they will become cheaper. The TDP is a good place to start to ensure that you are getting a quality product but there are manufacturers that have exceeded it in nearly every regard today.

[UNK]

***edited because I misread your response***

I think it's because 7.62x51 is already in the Big Army supply chain (I'm well aware of SOF usage of .260).

I recommended the 6.5 Grendel because it is an upgrade for the AR15 pattern rifles, not the AR10 pattern rifles. It gives the user near .308 performance in an AR15 sized package. It stomps the 5.56 in every way ballistically speaking.

It has less drift and drop than the .308 and is still supersonic past 1000 yards.

[TiroFijo]

That's about 2 oz less on a mil spec dimension upper and lower... :rolleyes:

Strength has never been an issue with the 7075 M4 upper and lower. Neither has been corrossion, but there are several coatings to improve it on the 7075.

Truly "salesman mode".

[Unobtanium]

I think the path with AlLi was taken because it's more rigid, more corrosion resistant, and has better stress and crack propagation properties than 7075 T6. It is all around a better material, and the higher reject rate due to the challenges working with it came as a but if a surprise to Alcoa and HDSI. Also, there IS the issue of cost, and "good enough", etc. Hence the 7075 T6 material that can also be used and has been used to make the same gun with the same exact dimensional enhancements with reverse milspec compatibility. But...if you want the best product and are willing to pay for it, the AlLi exists.
FN should be selling a mass produced version of the Mod 2 soon, for those who are in the "7075 is good enough, why buy Gucci? " camp.

[Rick62]

FN should be selling a mass produced version of the Mod 2 soon, for those who are in the "7075 is good enough, why buy Gucci? " camp.

I believe it's this fella here. It would be interesting to know how faithful FN was to the Hodge specs (barrel, receiver tolerances etc) beyond just cranking out a similar rail in 7075.

https://www.riflegear.com/p-7098-fnh-fn15-tactical-carbine-ii-16-556mm.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[call_me_ski]

The above rifle just shares the wedgelock handguard. FN has shown a Tactical PRO II model that is much more faithful to the Hodge Mod 2 guns.

[Rick62]

The above rifle just shares the wedgelock handguard. FN has shown a Tactical PRO II model that is much more faithful to the Hodge Mod 2 guns.

That'll be interesting to see; thanks for the info. Any idea when it'll hit dealers?
Also, the rifle I linked is $1400. If the "more authentic" Hodge derivative is close to that, it'll seem their pricing structure is disjointed. If it's priced significantly higher, FN will have to make a compelling argument why consumers looking at a $2k+\- 5.56 AR shouldn't just go with KAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unobtanium]

That'll be interesting to see; thanks for the info. Any idea when it'll hit dealers?
Also, the rifle I linked is $1400. If the "more authentic" Hodge derivative is close to that, it'll seem their pricing structure is disjointed. If it's priced significantly higher, FN will have to make a compelling argument why consumers looking at a $2k+\- 5.56 AR shouldn't just go with KAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think people should own both a Hodge and a KAC.

[call_me_ski]

That'll be interesting to see; thanks for the info. Any idea when it'll hit dealers?
Also, the rifle I linked is $1400. If the "more authentic" Hodge derivative is close to that, it'll seem their pricing structure is disjointed. If it's priced significantly higher, FN will have to make a compelling argument why consumers looking at a $2k+\- 5.56 AR shouldn't just go with KAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To my knowledge the PRO series from FNH is only offered to government customers. I am not sure if there are plans to sell it on the civ side. I doubt that it would be in the 1400 dollar range should it be offered for sale. Even the FNH FN15 competition is hundreds more and does not have the feature set of the PRO. I think it would be priced closer to the KAC. As far a compelling reasons, I would have to see the final spec sheet. They did appear to use the AlLi receivers and the Hodge spec barrel(that FN made, constant taper that is gov profile weight) The KAC is nice but it falls short vis-a-vis the Hodge in certain regards. However the reverse is true as well.

[Unobtanium]

To my knowledge the PRO series from FNH is only offered to government customers. I am not sure if there are plans to sell it on the civ side. I doubt that it would be in the 1400 dollar range should it be offered for sale. Even the FNH FN15 competition is hundreds more and does not have the feature set of the PRO. I think it would be priced closer to the KAC. As far a compelling reasons, I would have to see the final spec sheet. They did appear to use the AlLi receivers and the Hodge spec barrel(that FN made, constant taper that is gov profile weight) The KAC is nice but it falls short vis-a-vis the Hodge in certain regards. However the reverse is true as well.

I like the Hodge barrel, the BCG is a wash, as noone has broken either, and both have multiple examples going 50k+, the ergonomics and aesthetics favor the Hodge, for me, but the MOD 2 KAC gas system is pure genius. Buy both?

[call_me_ski]

I like the Hodge barrel, the BCG is a wash, as noone has broken either, and both have multiple examples going 50k+, the ergonomics and aesthetics favor the Hodge, for me, but the MOD 2 KAC gas system is pure genius. Buy both?

I really do think that KAC got it right with their new bolt carrier group. I wish that somehow became more widespread in the industry via licensing or some other means. I could take or leave the new gas system. Unlike the E3 barrel extension, it is not compatible with legacy parts so I see that as an argument against it. My biggest grip with the Hodge is the bolt. I feel like it is the only area that they could spec a better part. I do like that the hand guard on the Hodge is 7075t6 making it much stronger than 95% of the other rails out there.

A lot of these systems still don't have an adjustable gas system. I know that both manufacturers claim it is unneeded but I have found that it is beneficial. I would like to see more systems similar to the innovative arms WAR upper become common.

[Unobtanium]

I really do think that KAC got it right with their new bolt carrier group. I wish that somehow became more widespread in the industry via licensing or some other means. I could take or leave the new gas system. Unlike the E3 barrel extension, it is not compatible with legacy parts so I see that as an argument against it. My biggest grip with the Hodge is the bolt. I feel like it is the only area that they could spec a better part. I do like that the hand guard on the Hodge is 7075t6 making it much stronger than 95% of the other rails out there.

A lot of these systems still don't have an adjustable gas system. I know that both manufacturers claim it is unneeded but I have found that it is beneficial. I would like to see more systems similar to the innovative arms WAR upper become common.

How would you like Hodge to improve the bolt? None have been broken yet that I'm aware of. I am privy to multiple bolts with 50k+ on them.

The Hodge does great without adjustable gas. Suppressed and unsuppressed, it's clean and not "punchy" at all.

[call_me_ski]

I like the idea of the E3 bolt with radius lugs. I have seen plenty of broken bolts so I think that there is room for improvement in the geometry of the design.

[Rick62]

To my knowledge the PRO series from FNH is only offered to government customers. I am not sure if there are plans to sell it on the civ side. I doubt that it would be in the 1400 dollar range should it be offered for sale. Even the FNH FN15 competition is hundreds more and does not have the feature set of the PRO. I think it would be priced closer to the KAC. As far a compelling reasons, I would have to see the final spec sheet. They did appear to use the AlLi receivers and the Hodge spec barrel(that FN made, constant taper that is gov profile weight) The KAC is nice but it falls short vis-a-vis the Hodge in certain regards. However the reverse is true as well.

I didn't realize how much of the "Hodge DNA" would be making it into the FN rifle. Though I suppose it would make sense if that will be the platform directed towards .gov contracts. Thanks for the info.

[call_me_ski]

I didn't realize how much of the "Hodge DNA" would be making it into the FN rifle. Though I suppose it would make sense if that will be the platform directed towards .gov contracts. Thanks for the info.

From what I could tell it is identical other than the omission of the norgon ambi mag release, lack of badger ord safety, inclusion of the sf war comp flash hider, and offered in additional barrel lengths.

The AlLi is interesting. While 2oz is not a lot of the standard forging is used ,It can save nearly 4oz in the receiver set withou sacrificing strength if optimized for the material. V7 has a receiver set that saves about that much compared to other stripped receivers. That would be compounded when looking at larger receivers in a 308 format. If you can get a free half pound without sacrificing durability or barrel profile it would be a solid plus. Hopefully material costs will decrease with time.

[Unobtanium]

From what I could tell it is identical other than the omission of the norgon ambi mag release, lack of badger ord safety, inclusion of the sf war comp flash hider, and offered in additional barrel lengths.

The AlLi is interesting. While 2oz is not a lot of the standard forging is used ,It can save nearly 4oz in the receiver set withou sacrificing strength if optimized for the material. V7 has a receiver set that saves about that much compared to other stripped receivers. That would be compounded when looking at larger receivers in a 308 format. If you can get a free half pound without sacrificing durability or barrel profile it would be a solid plus. Hopefully material costs will decrease with time.

The Hodge gun is the only forged ambi-lower I am aware of aside from KAC.

[JSGlock34]

Interesting article on the continuing USMC experiment in suppressing entire Infantry Companies and Battalions. I wonder how this interest dovetails with the interest in widespread adoption of the M27 IAR? While I remain skeptical of the merits of the M27 for wider issue (it seems the M27 is lauded by the USMC for its superior accuracy over the standard M4 - a gap that could be closed at significantly lower cost by adopting a free float rail and perhaps a better trigger), the piston system does offer some advantages in suppressed applications.

TFB: THE SILENCING COMETH: USMC Unit Deploys to Norway with Suppressors, Doesn’t Want to Go Back (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/11/silencing-cometh-usmc-unit-deploys-norway-suppressors-doesnt-want-go-back/)

It also appears that the Army is also looking at the PMAG for wider adoption.

Kit Up!: Army Mulls Marine Corps’ Polymer Magazine Decision (https://kitup.military.com/2017/05/polymer-magazine.html)

Interesting times in US Military small arms.

[HCM]

I like the idea of the E3 bolt with radius lugs. I have seen plenty of broken bolts so I think that there is room for improvement in the geometry of the design.


Truth but one of the Hodge's selling points is that in a pinch you can use GI parts

[JSGlock34]

Truth but one of the Hodge's selling points is that in a pinch you can use GI parts

I always thought you could use a standard GI bolt in a KAC barrel extension in a pinch as well.

[call_me_ski]

I always thought you could use a standard GI bolt in a KAC barrel extension in a pinch as well.

You can. A GI bolt will work in a KAC E3 extension but an E3 bolt will not work in a GI extension.

LMT also has a bolt that is stress relieved and made out of superior alloy that is designed to work ina normal extension. I have little experience with them but I keep telling myself I will pick one up.

[HCM]

You can. A GI bolt will work in a KAC E3 extension but an E3 bolt will not work in a GI extension.

LMT also has a bolt that is stress relieved and made out of superior alloy that is designed to work ina normal extension. I have little experience with them but I keep telling myself I will pick one up.

I was aware the LMT was GI interchangeable but I did not know you could use a GI bolt in an E3.

[JSGlock34]

My understanding is that you don't want to make a habit of it, but it will function if required in an emergency.

Considering the impressive durability of the E3 bolt (you'll likely need a new hammer forged barrel before an E3 bolt fails), I'm having trouble visualizing a situation where an E3 bolt is in pieces necessitating the exigent use of a GI bolt, but there it is.

[JSGlock34]

I can't keep up anymore.

TFB: BREAKING: USMC Releases RFI for New Infantry Rifles, Uppers, Optics, Suppressors, Targets
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/17/breaking-usmc-releases-rfi-new-infantry-rifles-uppers-optics-suppressors-targets/)
Lately US military small arms seems like...

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/008/509/everyone2.jpg

[Unobtanium]

I can't keep up anymore.

TFB: BREAKING: USMC Releases RFI for New Infantry Rifles, Uppers, Optics, Suppressors, Targets
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/17/breaking-usmc-releases-rfi-new-infantry-rifles-uppers-optics-suppressors-targets/)
Lately US military small arms seems like...

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/008/509/everyone2.jpg

Describes the Hodge MOD 2 to the letter.

[call_me_ski]

Describes the Hodge MOD 2 to the letter.

Reads more like an M27 optimized for M855A1 in coyote brown to me. Not saying the Hodge wouldn't be able to be adapted to it but I don't think that is what the Marine Corps had in mind. Somethings like no taper pins and steel or AL barrel nut would eliminate the Hodge as it has been publicly displayed. HK was also the only manufacturer to meet those barrel life numbers during the IAR trails(three times the life of the FNH entry in 2nd place to the HK) so that might have been included as a barrier for entry for others this time around.

Furthermore, from the desired characteristics it seems like they might not know exactly what they want. It seems pointless to ask for a rifle optimized for M855A1 and say you would prefer if it were able to chamber .264USA and other 6.5 cartridges. I think this is just a shot in the dark to see what is out there.

I think the USMC wants to desperately be the program manager for its rifles and it is trying to figure out how to do it. Seems to be a lot of that going on. NSW has the SURG, USASOC is chasing continued SOPMOD Block upgrades, big army is toying with expanding the CSASS to a wider roll and the Marine Corps is doing this. I will be interested to see how 5.56 will survive if a 6.5 is introduced. It seems that USSOCOM has no interests in abandoning M855A1 anytime soon.

[texasaggie2005]

Describes the Hodge MOD 2 to the letter.

Does Hodge offer a handguard with the following?


– Rail must have integral forward 1913 Picatinny rail sections at the 3, 6, and 9 o’clock of 2-3” in length. Remainder of rail shall be M-LOK (like on SURG and ASR) at 3, 6, and 9 o’clock. Other surfaces may include holes/cutouts for air circulation and weight reduction.

That sounds like a Geissele Mk4/Mk13 to me.

[Unobtanium]

Reads more like an M27 optimized for M855A1 in coyote brown to me. Not saying the Hodge wouldn't be able to be adapted to it but I don't think that is what the Marine Corps had in mind. Somethings like no taper pins and steel or AL barrel nut would eliminate the Hodge as it has been publicly displayed. Nope. A steel barrel nut is no biggie, and the Hodge doesn't use taper pins. HK was also the only manufacturer to meet those barrel life numbers during the IAR trails(three times the life of the FNH entry in 2nd place to the HK) so that might have been included as a barrier for entry for others this time around. Hodge barrels have gone far beyond that. Best barrel steel on the planet as far as I am aware.

Furthermore, from the desired characteristics it seems like they might not know exactly what they want. It seems pointless to ask for a rifle optimized for M855A1 and say you would prefer if it were able to chamber .264USA and other 6.5 cartridges. Two different rifles... I think this is just a shot in the dark to see what is out there.

I think the USMC wants to desperately be the program manager for its rifles and it is trying to figure out how to do it. Seems to be a lot of that going on. NSW has the SURG, USASOC is chasing continued SOPMOD Block upgrades, big army is toying with expanding the CSASS to a wider roll and the Marine Corps is doing this. I will be interested to see how 5.56 will survive if a 6.5 is introduced. It seems that USSOCOM has no interests in abandoning M855A1 anytime soon.

M855A1 seems to kill stuff really really well. Why abandon it?

[Unobtanium]

Does Hodge offer a handguard with the following?



That sounds like a Geissele Mk4/Mk13 to me.

Revisions could be made easy enough.

The barrel life, non taper pin lo-pro, non-indexing barrel nut, they all smack of the MOD 2.

[call_me_ski]

That describes the Hodge handguard as well. <<<< disregard, reading is hard!!!

"Must include anti rotation features, may integrate into upper receiver."
Depending on their intent, that portion could read to describe the Hodge or Hk rails attachment method rather than the Geissele.

The Hodge wedge lock may not fit this one tho:
"Rail must be field strippable in a manner similar to the M27 with captured bolts"
again it depends upon how they define "similar."

It still sounds like an HK with a geissele mlok hand guard. They specifically reference it in the specs. I imagine Geissele could have an mlok handguard for the hk in a very short period of time.

[Unobtanium]

That describes the Hodge handguard as well.

"Must include anti rotation features, may integrate into upper receiver."
Depending on their intent, that portion could read to describe the Hodge or Hk rails attachment method rather than the Geissele.

The Hodge wedge lock may not fit this one tho:
"Rail must be field strippable in a manner similar to the M27 with captured bolts"
again it depends upon how they define "similar."

It still sounds like an HK with a geissele mlok hand guard. They specifically reference it in the specs. I imagine Geissele could have an mlok handguard for the hk in a very short period of time.

Will be interesting to see!

I am more interested to see if an intermediate cartridge makes it into troops rifles THIS go around honestly.

[Default.mp3]

Hodge barrels have gone far beyond that. Best barrel steel on the planet as far as I am aware.Isn't the Hodge barrels just the typical FN machine gun barrel steel (9310H?) with a modified profile? Which means it's basically the same as the Centurion Arms, Noveske, PSA FN barrels, etc., in composition, and thus approximate barrel life? And I find it unlikely that FN would stick an inferior barrel into the HAMR, and yet the H&K still won out on barrel life (although the published numbers appear to be a bit off).

As for best, don't forget about the Noveske 17-4 PH Extreme Duty Barrels.

[call_me_ski]

Revisions could be made easy enough.

The barrel life, non taper pin lo-pro, non-indexing barrel nut, they all smack of the MOD 2.

Any rifle would be adapted to the specs. I do think the Hodge has a lot to offer but I disagree that it describes the Hodge "to the letter" as it stands.

[Unobtanium]

Isn't the Hodge barrels just the typical FN machine gun barrel steel (9310H?) with a modified profile? Which means it's basically the same as the Centurion Arms, Noveske, PSA FN barrels, etc., in composition, and thus approximate barrel life? And I find it unlikely that FN would stick an inferior barrel into the HAMR, and yet the H&K still won out on barrel life (although the published numbers appear to be a bit off).

As for best, don't forget about the Noveske 17-4 PH Extreme Duty Barrels.

I can't really say, but 24K rounds is barely licking that lollipop.

[call_me_ski]

I wonder how the testing protocols and firing schedules will change the projected barrel life.

Did the Noveske 17-4 barrels ever see the light of day?

[Default.mp3]

Did the Noveske 17-4 barrels ever see the light of day?I believe so, but they were sold only as part of a complete upper, AFAIK. I've been told that the 17-4 PH is an excellent precision barrel, but its applications in high volume fire is rather contentious, due to concerns of its performance under prolonged heat.

[call_me_ski]

I believe so, but they were sold only as part of a complete upper, AFAIK. I've been told that the 17-4 PH is an excellent precision barrel, but its applications in high volume fire is rather contentious, due to concerns of its performance under prolonged heat.

Interesting. I thought those barrels were initially envisioned for the m249. Also the alloy is rather popular for muzzle devices and some silencer components so I would have thought that it did well with heat.

[Unobtanium]

Interesting. I thought those barrels were initially envisioned for the m249. Also the alloy is rather popular for muzzle devices and some silencer components so I would have thought that it did well with heat.

Tooling wear was absurd. They were something like $1K a barrel or some absurdity.

[JSGlock34]

Describes the Hodge MOD 2 to the letter.

Really?

Desired Characteristics

– Ability to fire AB39, .264 USA, .260 Remington, M80A1, etc.

– Modular bolt/barrel/magazine & magazine insert conversion packages for caliber changes (compatibility with A059, AB49, AB57, Mk255 Mod 0, etc) and optimized for respective caliber, charge, burn rate, and pressure curve (barrel threads can be 1/2X28 or 5/8X24)

The delta between the Required Characteristics to Desired Characteristics is considerable. The open ended nature of desired caliber, 'novel' lightweight ammunition, optimal performance while suppressed...reminds me somewhat of the Army approach to the XM17...see if industry can come up with something 'better' than the M9, or in this case, the M4/M27 5.56mm family.

[alohadoug]

Really?

Desired Characteristics

– Ability to fire AB39, .264 USA, .260 Remington, M80A1, etc.

– Modular bolt/barrel/magazine & magazine insert conversion packages for caliber changes (compatibility with A059, AB49, AB57, Mk255 Mod 0, etc) and optimized for respective caliber, charge, burn rate, and pressure curve (barrel threads can be 1/2X28 or 5/8X24)

The delta between the Required Characteristics to Desired Characteristics is considerable. The open ended nature of desired caliber, 'novel' lightweight ammunition, optimal performance while suppressed...reminds me somewhat of the Army approach to the XM17...see if industry can come up with something 'better' than the M9, or in this case, the M4/M27 5.56mm family.

That's exactly what the an RFI usually is. I think the RFI that led to the M17/18 was eighth or ninth RFI on sidearms for the DoD.

[JSGlock34]

That's exactly what the an RFI usually is. I think the RFI that led to the M17/18 was eighth or ninth RFI on sidearms for the DoD.


Sure. But one of the criticisms of the XM17 RFI was the open ended caliber specification, which was intended to drive innovation, but instead industry opted to not take the R&D plunge and presented (relatively) COTS offerings. The overly complicated nature of the RFI slowed selection and was widely ridiculed. (Note that I'm fine where that procurement ended up, but I think we would have gotten there a lot faster and with less drama if the Army just asked for a new 9mm pistol).

There's probably a number of manufacturers who could tweak their existing AR and meet the required specifications; if the military really wants someone to build a rifle around an unspecified but desired intermediate cartridge, my two cents is that they should decide on a cartridge first and then ask industry to present their best rifle to fire it.

[LittleLebowski]

What Hodge product are we talking about?

[call_me_ski]

Hodge defense AU MOD 2

It is marketed by FN with some small changes as the FNH Tactical Pro II to government and military customers.

[LittleLebowski]

Hodge defense AU MOD 2

It is marketed by FN with some small changes as the FNH Tactical Pro II to government and military customers.

Cool, because Hodge's website and FB confuses me.

[call_me_ski]

Their website really does not offer a lot in the way of explaining their product line very well. It would be a much bigger problem if they actually shipped product to sell though. Right now it seems that limited samples and orders are going out to industry insiders. Only a few rifles and uppers have shipped otherwise.

[JSGlock34]

Calls for a new intermediate caliber rifle seem to be increasing daily...there are a number of assertions in the complete statement I disagree with, but nevertheless it is yet another voice calling for an intermediate caliber solution.

Soldier Systems: Statement for the Record Senate Armed Services Committee: Airland Subcommittee May 18, 2017–MG Robert H. Scales, USA (Ret) (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/19/statement-for-the-record-senate-armed-services-committee-airland-subcommittee-may-18-2017-mg-robert-h-scales-usa-ret/)

For the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, we request that you authorize 100 Million dollars to support an open competition to development a new family of dominant small arms. This single authorization should expire in a year. The effort should be run and overseen by ground combat arms officers and Non-Commissioned Officers. The Executive for managing this effort should be a consortium of the Ground Service Chiefs and the Commander, Special Operations Command. No acquisition agencies from any service should be involved in executive decision making or the management of the competition.

Competition will be open to anyone, small business, big business, foreign, domestic or even clever individuals. After one year the consortium leadership will conduct the shoot- off. The shoot off will be open to all services, the media and congress and anyone from the public who is interested. Results will be scored and posted daily on a web site.

The new rifle requirements document will be one page. It will speculate only six characteristics:

· First the rifle must be modular capable of being converted in the field to a carbine, rifle, machine gun or sniper rifle.

· Second, it will fire an intermediate caliber bullet probably a military version of the venerable Remington 270.

· Third, the rifle will be suppressed. A muzzle suppressor greatly reduces a rifle’s report and in the confusion of a close fight a quieter rifle gives a decided advantage.

· Fourth, the new rifle will use a solid recoiling action like most first-rate assault rifles.

· Fifth, the rifle should have a snap on digital sight capable of killing reliably to a range in excess of 1,000 meters.

· Sixth, the rifle should be able to fire ammunition in a polymer casing. Polymer rounds weigh 30% less than brass cartridge casings.

A desirable feature would be an attachment to allow the rifle to fire belted ammunition.

The winner would be awarded about 100 million dollars to manufacture the first 100,000 rifles, enough to equip all close combat small units in the Army and Marine Corps as well as those who fight close to the infantry to include Sappers, Fire Support Teams, and intelligence specialists. The rest of the Army and Marine Corps will do just fine with the M-4…for now.

[JHC]

Somewhere in the mix?: SCAR .260 Rem

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/19/260-remington-conversion-fn-scar-mk-20-spotted-sofic-2017/

[call_me_ski]

Somewhere in the mix?: SCAR .260 Rem

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/19/260-remington-conversion-fn-scar-mk-20-spotted-sofic-2017/


Maybe. However, Crane cut off all funding for the SCAR program USSOCOM wide. The guns will be retired as they break or are turned back in. There are a lot of moving parts with everyone grabbing at different branches.

[Ed L]

It sounds like they are trying to create the F-35 of rifles--something that is overpriced, way behind development, over ambitious, and questionable if it can fulfill its role.

If they ever develop this thing, which I doubt, I hope it will be thoroughly tested before it is released to the troops.

Lets look at some of them:


· Fifth, the rifle should have a snap on digital sight capable of killing reliably to a range in excess of 1,000 meters.

Good luck on that. In most cases it is hard to find a target at half this distance. Now they expect to develop an autonomous scope that can make all the adjustments for an average soldier. If they ever fully develop it, I hope they test the hell out of it to make sure it offers better than Eotech reliability.


Sixth, the rifle should be able to fire ammunition in a polymer casing. Polymer rounds weigh 30% less than brass cartridge casings.

I want to see Polymer ammo that doesn't melt off when fired at higher than expected levels--like Wanat.


The winner would be awarded about 100 million dollars to manufacture the first 100,000 rifles, enough to equip all close combat small units in the Army and Marine Corps as well as those who fight close to the infantry to include Sappers, Fire Support Teams, and intelligence specialists. The rest of the Army and Marine Corps will do just fine with the M-4…for now.

That comes out to $1000 per rifle. WTF. Not gonna happen. They are not even counting the costs of research and development.

They may as well just write the specifications for a starship.

[Default.mp3]

Good luck on that. In most cases it is hard to find a target at half this distance. Now they expect to develop an autonomous scope that can make all the adjustments for an average soldier. If they ever fully develop it, I hope they test the hell out of it to make sure it offers better than Eotech reliability.I've been told the biggest issue with that right now is the power and weight requirements (which are admittedly very large hurdles). It's not like the technology itself hasn't been around, it's my understanding that it would be a scaled down version of what tankers use to generate targeting data. I've even been told they're figuring out ways to account for mirage.

[HCM]

I've been told the biggest issue with that right now is the power and weight requirements (which are admittedly very large hurdles). It's not like the technology itself hasn't been around, it's my understanding that it would be a scaled down version of what tankers use to generate targeting data. I've even been told they're figuring out ways to account for mirage.

Sounds like Tracking-Point.

[JAD]

If I didn't read rfis for a living I sure wouldn't read them for fun.

This one is not unusual.

[LittleLebowski]

Grandpa doesn't know as much about rifles as he thinks he does.


Calls for a new intermediate caliber rifle seem to be increasing daily...there are a number of assertions in the complete statement I disagree with, but nevertheless it is yet another voice calling for an intermediate caliber solution.

Soldier Systems: Statement for the Record Senate Armed Services Committee: Airland Subcommittee May 18, 2017–MG Robert H. Scales, USA (Ret) (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/19/statement-for-the-record-senate-armed-services-committee-airland-subcommittee-may-18-2017-mg-robert-h-scales-usa-ret/)

For the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, we request that you authorize 100 Million dollars to support an open competition to development a new family of dominant small arms. This single authorization should expire in a year. The effort should be run and overseen by ground combat arms officers and Non-Commissioned Officers. The Executive for managing this effort should be a consortium of the Ground Service Chiefs and the Commander, Special Operations Command. No acquisition agencies from any service should be involved in executive decision making or the management of the competition.

Competition will be open to anyone, small business, big business, foreign, domestic or even clever individuals. After one year the consortium leadership will conduct the shoot- off. The shoot off will be open to all services, the media and congress and anyone from the public who is interested. Results will be scored and posted daily on a web site.

The new rifle requirements document will be one page. It will speculate only six characteristics:

· First the rifle must be modular capable of being converted in the field to a carbine, rifle, machine gun or sniper rifle.

· Second, it will fire an intermediate caliber bullet probably a military version of the venerable Remington 270.

· Third, the rifle will be suppressed. A muzzle suppressor greatly reduces a rifle’s report and in the confusion of a close fight a quieter rifle gives a decided advantage.

· Fourth, the new rifle will use a solid recoiling action like most first-rate assault rifles.

· Fifth, the rifle should have a snap on digital sight capable of killing reliably to a range in excess of 1,000 meters.

· Sixth, the rifle should be able to fire ammunition in a polymer casing. Polymer rounds weigh 30% less than brass cartridge casings.

A desirable feature would be an attachment to allow the rifle to fire belted ammunition.

The winner would be awarded about 100 million dollars to manufacture the first 100,000 rifles, enough to equip all close combat small units in the Army and Marine Corps as well as those who fight close to the infantry to include Sappers, Fire Support Teams, and intelligence specialists. The rest of the Army and Marine Corps will do just fine with the M-4…for now.

[JSGlock34]

I disagree with many of the General's remarks. Unfortunately it seems we're about to repeat the camouflage selection debacle with rifles, with every service pursuing their own version of Excalibur. Between LSAT, the Army interim 7.62mm proposal, the dueling USMC RFI and M27 interest, the SOCOM intermediate cartridge proposal and USASOC upper receiver group...how many of these programs do we really need?

Meanwhile, M4A1s continue to enter service with a 7" RAS. Here's an interim solution for everyone that won't break the bank until we actually decide what intermediate cartridge we want...a URG (possibly mid-length if Crane determines the longer gas system plays better with M855A1) with an MLOK free float rail, a better Geissele trigger, MCT GEN3 PMAGs for the M855A1 cartridge, and a LPV optic...

[Drang]

I disagree with many of the General's remarks. Unfortunately it seems we're about to repeat the camouflage selection debacle with rifles, with every service pursuing their own version of Excalibur. Between LSAT, the Army interim 7.62mm proposal, the dueling USMC RFI and M27 interest, the SOCOM intermediate cartridge proposal and USASOC upper receiver group...how many of these programs do we really need?

I would like to think that one of these projects will produce a solution that is clearly superior to the others, and we will return to something resembling sanity.
16727

[Inkwell 41]

So, an offering from "La Mancha Arms" has a pretty good chance to be selected? I need to go register that domain name.

[HCM]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/25/best-is-the-enemy-of-better/#comments

During the US Small Arms Renaissance, “Best” Is The Enemy Of “Better”

[LittleLebowski]

This is so painfully stupid that it hurts.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/05/modern-enemy-body-armor.html

Note the bullshit following of the liberal Narrative:


Now Milley wants to give the Army’s most deployable infantry units a 7.62mm alternative to the M4 in case they are thrown into a fight with Russian or North Korean forces equipped with modern rifle plates.

[ReverendMeat]

Reason why I drink #216: The comments underneath that article.

[HCM]

A different POV on so called "over match" from Jose G. For those not familiar with Jose, he has a similar professional background to "Roland" aka Chuck Pressburg. He knows his business.


http://youtu.be/BUha3UAZMM4

[Mike C]

A different POV on so called "over match" from Jose G. For those not familiar with Jose, he has a similar professional background to "Roland" aka Chuck Pressburg. He knows his business.


He has an interesting point of view and while I won't argue that there is a legitimate need to update marksmanship training to fix the software issue there is an issue with 5.56 at the 1/2 KM. There is also an issue with issued 5.56 and intermediate barriers such as vehicles. That is a fact, and so are the angle of attack issues. How else do you explain when BDA is completed that dudes have 5-6 holes in them sometimes more before they are put down? Other times far fewer rounds are required. I have first hand witnessed this, and know others who account for the same. I have no doubt that at longer ranges there is a marksmanship issue but that is only 1/2 of the problem. I don't doubt this mans knowledge or experience but his experience is exactly that, his; and doesn't account for Soldiers and Marines experiencing the same thing over the services as a whole. It is not just an integrity issue, though I am sure it is part of the equation.

[Doc_Glock]

Rebuttal to need for new rifle from Andrew Touhy:

http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opinion/firearms-general/general-scales-is-still-wrong-about-infantry-rifles/

[LittleLebowski]

A different POV on so called "over match" from Jose G. For those not familiar with Jose, he has a similar professional background to "Roland" aka Chuck Pressburg. He knows his business.


http://youtu.be/BUha3UAZMM4

Any notes/text? I don't have the attention span for videos.

[Mike C]

Cliff notes: believes over match is due to an integrity issue/marksmanship failure and an agenda to get the, "best." Over match is bomb vs AK/PKM not 5.56 vs AK/PKM, he believes it is not a gun, a projectile it is a number of things mainly marksmanship. He spoke about engagement ranges of 2-300 and failure of marksmanship. Briefly touched on 1200 plus to 1700 and not maneuvering at those distances. Using air assets as available, indirect fires etc. He was right about some things I think but it sounds like he discounts some of the modern findings in ballistics research. I'm paraphrasing and some of this is just my opinion based on what I heard. Over all he's not wrong about some things but marksmanship is 1/2 the issue. Air assets/indirect are not always available sometimes due to availability, sometimes due to ROE, you can't let your enemies attack with impunity regardless of whether their fire produces casualties or not. Personally I would love to see standard issue rifle in infantry squads that can reach out to 1K-1.1 with lethality. Preferably ones that don't weight a crap ton as we already carry tons of crap, ammo light enough for the carriage of sufficient ammo.

edited to add: Suppressors/silencers would be sweet too. After finally bitting the bullet on a few of them I can only imagine how helpful it would be for and entire squad/platoon to have them.

[Kyle Reese]

Are the Russians and North Koreans actually fielding IBA systems capable of defeating M885A1 and M995?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[StraitR]

Any notes/text? I don't have the attention span for videos.

If you view the video on YT, there is an option to view transcript under "more" options. You can scroll through the text, but you won't know who said what. See below...

16983
16982

[DocGKR]

M855A1 is not an AP round.

M995 is an AP round.

Apples vs. oranges.

[TGS]

Are the Russians and North Koreans actually fielding IBA systems capable of defeating M885A1 and M995?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Possibly yes?

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russian_soldiers_will_receive_new_6b43_6b45_body_a rmour_and_6b47_combat_helmets_tass_12705162

Looks like the Russians started rolling out a new scalable system that can be set up to take M855 and also 30-06 AP. No mention of M855A1 or M995 specifically.

With the exception of a precious few modern platforms, the Norks are still driving around in T-55s and MiG-17s. I'd be surprised if they splurged for modern IBA.

[HCM]

Are the Russians and North Koreans actually fielding IBA systems capable of defeating M885A1 and M995?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

The Russians have IBA and first rate IBA for elite units but fielding it en-mass is another matter.

[Drang]

With the exception of a precious few modern platforms, the Norks are still driving around in T-55s and MiG-17s. I'd be surprised if they splurged for modern IBA.
I wouldn't be surprised if the north Koreans issued life vests and told the troops it's body armour*...


*Weird spelling in honour of Mr Free Market, whose regular feature "African Infantryman Of The Year" provided hours and hours of amusement, and inspired this post. Really wish he was still blogging.

[HCM]

I wouldn't be surprised if the north Koreans issued life vests and told the troops it's body armour*...


*Weird spelling in honour of Mr Free Market, whose regular feature "African Infantryman Of The Year" provided hours and hours of amusement, and inspired this post. Really wish he was still blogging.

This guy ?

16984

[TGS]

The Russians have IBA and first rate IBA for elite units but fielding it en-mass is another matter.

From the reading I'm doing, it looks like the "Ratnik" modernization program is well underway (atleast with the IBA) with all special forces and naval troops equipped, and is already being issued to general infantry.....on track to 70%+ issue to all troops (including reserves) by 2020.

[El Cid]

I remember in the early 90's (think iron sights and 20" bbls) the Army taught that the M-16A2 had a max effective range of 500 yards while the Marines taught 800. As most member of this site understand it's the nut behind the rifle that matters most. Hell, I remember qualifying on a paper target that was maybe 50 yards away but had different size silhouettes that represent a torso at 100, 200, etc. Until our combatants are trained at an appropriate level of performance I believe we are chasing our tail looking for a better caliber or better rifle. All those tax dollars for new whatevers would be much better utilized on ammo and range time.

Sadly the DoD upper management doesn't think like that. They want a cool new toy they can claim makes us better so they can get promoted. Look at history. They like to fix training problems with technology. Grunt's wasting ammo with full auto in Vietnam? Give them a 3rd burst. People firing a handgun when startled? Give them a DA/SA gun. (That last one infects LE as well as the .mil)

I expect this problem to only get worse too as so few members of Congress have ever served. They have no personal experience to draw from and take the flag rank crowd as experts.

[Drang]

This guy ?

16984


Among others

[Mike C]

El Cid you are talking about point and area targets, given probability of hits to target at those ranges with ammo and weapon combination. The numbers aren't just arbitrarily pulled out of a hat.

Yes marksmanship is extremely important but is not the complete solution. Personally I think the M4, M16 family of weapons are the best there is for general issue, minus ammo. Yes targets can be hit at 600 yards but it is a lot harder to do with a 5.56 gun in combat conditions than with something like a 7.62, and that's not accounting for the rounds terminal effects either at those ranges. I'm not advocating 7.62 just an example.

You can't fix training issues with technology. No argument, and a soldiers greatest weapon is his mind and body but technology enhances lethality. Just look at how much NVG's and LAD's have made a difference. When I came in we were lucky to have 3 per squad. Once the entire platoon had them it was like damn near operating in the sun at night.

Oh, and yes I do think that some of the requirements are a pipe dream.

[ranger]

When I read these type threads, I think back to the days when I was planning direct fire engagements for an Infantry Platoon, Company, or Battalion - this was during my Mechanized Days with BFVs. When we thought about 600+ yards engagements, we were talking crew served weapons. Even in my Light Fighter days, we were talking M60s and mortars for 600 yard engagements. I would think that today the M240B's would be used along with snipers for 600 yards.

[Mike C]

When I read these type threads, I think back to the days when I was planning direct fire engagements for an Infantry Platoon, Company, or Battalion - this was during my Mechanized Days with BFVs. When we thought about 600+ yards engagements, we were talking crew served weapons. Even in my Light Fighter days, we were talking M60s and mortars for 600 yard engagements. I would think that today the M240B's would be used along with snipers for 600 yards.

The M240B's are the bee's knees at 4-6, but max there are 3 per platoon and what should be a 3 man team is often less. Additionally guys running M24's are in shorter supply than the 240's hence the move to add SDM's as an organic element in infantry squads/platoons as a stop gap. When I was still in a scout unit back in 2001 we had only 6 M24's for the entire BN out of those sniper/observer teams there were only 3 school house trained NCO's with a B4 identifier. I'd be willing to bet those numbers are the same or smaller now and recent past with the deployment rates. When I was still in there was little time to get guys to the school house plus guys would end up getting promoted and moved off the teams. Same goes for your 60mm teams, not a lot of those dudes to go round and screw carrying a base plate, mortar tubes, and rounds up the side of a mountain.

Ranger, what did sniper/scout coverage look like in your days, (broken down over companies or treated as BN asset)?

[El Cid]

El Cid you are talking about point and area targets, given probability of hits to target at those ranges with ammo and weapon combination. The numbers aren't just arbitrarily pulled out of a hat.

Yes marksmanship is extremely important but is not the complete solution. Personally I think the M4, M16 family of weapons are the best there is for general issue, minus ammo. Yes targets can be hit at 600 yards but it is a lot harder to do with a 5.56 gun in combat conditions than with something like a 7.62, and that's not accounting for the rounds terminal effects either at those ranges. I'm not advocating 7.62 just an example.

You can't fix training issues with technology. No argument, and a soldiers greatest weapon is his mind and body but technology enhances lethality. Just look at how much NVG's and LAD's have made a difference. When I came in we were lucky to have 3 per squad. Once the entire platoon had them it was like damn near operating in the sun at night.

Oh, and yes I do think that some of the requirements are a pipe dream.

I honestly can't recall but my understanding was they were talking about hitting a man size target. It's been a long time and during peacetime. Not counting Panama and Grenada, the last shooting war for them at the time was Vietnam. I ended up switching to AF so I could deploy with air conditioning and swimming pools. Lol!

As for ease of hitting at that distance I found it relatively easy. At 600 yards during F2S's heavy carbine class I tried my 16" 5.56 that I'd brought as a backup to my .308. First round barely missed the plate and then I could ring it like I bell. Of course that was with a free-floated quality barrel, LPV, spotter, and 77gr pills. And as you noted - nobody was actively trying to kill me. It's been over a decade since I shot a .mil M16/M4 but clearly the important parts weren't the same spec. One day I'd love to see how I do with a stock 6920 or similar.

I guess that was the point I failed to make. In addition to better training... if they want to throw money at the issue I'd prefer they use better bbls, free-float them and get better ammo. I believe that would be much more effective than a change in caliber or rifle. But I admit I could be off the mark. Being in LE my world is much smaller. If I have to take a shot beyond 50 yards it would be very rare.

[JSGlock34]

In addition to better training... if they want to throw money at the issue I'd prefer they use better bbls, free-float them and get better ammo.

The KAC RAS was designed before my nephew was born; he'll be at Fort Knox this summer. We're still buying M4A1s with a 20 year old picatinny hand guard. Free float options have been in military service (the Daniel Defense RIS II leaps to mind) for at least a decade. A simple switch from the RAS to the RIS II (long in use across USASOC to include the Ranger Regiment) would be a simple, proven, cost effective upgrade. Instead we continue to invest in dated technology...

[El Cid]

The KAC RAS was designed before my nephew was born; he'll be at Fort Knox this summer. We're still buying M4A1s with a 20 year old picatinny hand guard. Free float options have been in military service (the Daniel Defense RIS II leaps to mind) for at least a decade. A simple switch from the RAS to the RIS II (long in use across USASOC to include the Ranger Regiment) would be a simple, proven, cost effective upgrade. Instead we continue to invest in dated technology...

Agreed. The SOF community is usually ahead of the curve regarding small arms. Big Army still doesn't do preventive maintenance as far as I know. They just shoot it until something breaks. I thought I read the Marines want their next M4 iteration to be free-floated. Between that and their large scale suppressor testing they seem to have figured out the best path. Maybe having Maggie as SECDEF will help the Army.

[Mike C]

77gr pills, FF tubes, LPV would go a good ways ICJW additional training. Still though, I think that you are fighting a losing battle with terminal ballistics at the ranges we're talking about with 5.56; regardless of bullet construction. But then again, this is just one dudes opinion and I'm not the authority on ballistics.

[El Cid]

77gr pills, FF tubes, LPV would go a good ways ICJW additional training. Still though, I think that you are fighting a losing battle with terminal ballistics at the ranges we're talking about with 5.56; regardless of bullet construction. But then again, this is just one dudes opinion and I'm not the authority on ballistics.

Yea I'd be out of my lane to comment on that. I did see where SOCOM determined 77gr works best with a 1/7.7 twist. I suspect I'll be long retired and maybe even in the ground before big Army considers it.

[OlongJohnson]

Likely relevant info landed in my inbox this morning.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/05/28/army-chief-milley-says-army-developed-new-bullet-defeat-level-iv-body-armor/


“Right, and those are all part of the analysis that we’re doing down at Benning, but just to put your mind at ease a little bit, what we’ve developed is a 7.62 bullet."

[ranger]

If you look at Milley's comments above - he makes a very good point that may be missed. In the totality of military forces, there are a relatively small number of Army, Marines, and Special Operations forces that actually go toe-to-toe with our adversaries. It would not be a big deal to buy current off the shelf (COTS) solutions for small arms and cartridges to arm the relatively small number of Soldiers, Marines, and Special Operations warriors who go in harms way. The Special Operations community does that now - just add the Infantry, Marines, and those other soldiers serving in an Infantry like mission (common to take Armor, Cav, Engineers, etc. during the last decade plus and assign them Infantry missions) to the "special" COTS systems issue.

We have done that for over a decade - before a unit deployed, it had the opportunity to request additional, extra, or "special" equipment that was not parts of is MTOE allotment based on its mission analysis.

The stumbling block is that the conversation always goes into replacing ALL the M4s, etc. in the inventory. The majority of the US Military will be served just fine with the current small arms.

As far as NATO, how many NATO soldiers are going toe-to-toe with our adversaries today? I bet it is less than a Brigade size composite organization - just issue them the same OTS solution in theater and be done with it.

Someone will point at training issue with new systems. Unless something changed in the last year, deploying units go through extensive training starting with zeroing their individual weapon, qualification ranges, small unit collective live fire, and culminating with BN or BDE live fire exercises.

[Chance]

Another article from Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/army-to-gunmakers-show-us-new-762mm-service-rifle.html):


U.S. Army weapons officials have launched a survey to see what gunmakers can offer for an off-the-shelf 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle.

The May 31 request for information, known in acquisition parlance as an RFI, on behalf of Product Manager Individual Weapons, is an attempt to "identify sources for a combat rifle system" and determine the potential cost and lead time to deliver up to 10,000 weapon systems, according to the document.

The request comes in the wake of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers Congress last week that the M4 Carbine's current 5.56mm round can't penetrate modern enemy body armor plates and that he's considering arming infantry units with rifles chambered for a more potent 7.62mm cartridge.

"The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered," according to the document, which specifies that the caliber must be 7.62x51mm.

[DamonL]

For COTS, I think FN and HK would have something that meets the requirements. Maybe KAC and Larue, too. Not sure who else. I forgot, maybe SIG. Their are others, but these would seem to make the most sense.

[Poconnor]

I hope they are looking into 6.5 options. A .260 won't weigh less but it provide a more range, flatter trajectory for more hits. I like the .338 belt fed idea

[HCM]

I hope they are looking into 6.5 options. A .260 won't weigh less but it provide a more range, flatter trajectory for more hits. I like the .338 belt fed idea

There are a few special groups using .260 for long range but the fact is 7.62x51 is "in the system".

[HCM]

For COTS, I think FN and HK would have something that meets the requirements. Maybe KAC and Larue, too. Not sure who else. I forgot, maybe SIG. Their are others, but these would seem to make the most sense.

I love my Larue rifle but they don't have the production capacity for something like this. That is why LaRue dropped out of the CSASS process.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I hope they are looking into 6.5 options. A .260 won't weigh less but it provide a more range, flatter trajectory for more hits. I like the .338 belt fed idea

Colt Canada does a MRR in .260

https://www.coltcanada.com/mrr.html

Very, very nice. Not available for civilian purchase.

[JSGlock34]

TFB BREAKING: US Army Releases RFI for New 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/06/03/breaking-us-army-releases-rfi-new-7-62mm-interim-combat-service-rifle/)

Per TFB...

• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.
• Caliber: 7.62x51mm
• Available barrel lengths, to include 16 and 20 inch barrels, without muzzle device attached.
• Muzzle device capable of or adaptable to auxiliary devices for:
— Compensation of muzzle climb
— Flash suppression
— Sound Suppression
• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.
• All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users
• Capable of mounting a 1.25 inch wide military sling
• Capable of accepting or mounting the following accessories.
— Forward grip/bi-pod for the weapon
— variable power optic
• Detachable magazine with a minimum capacity of 20 rounds
• Folding or collapsing buttstock adjustable to change the overall length of the weapon
• Foldable backup iron sights calibrated/adjustable to a maximum of 600 meters range
• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic
• Extended Forward Rail

[Kyle Reese]

LMT MWS might be the ticket.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[KhanRad]

Must be some super duper top secret round they came up with for the .308. The only problem is, they have forgotten the lessons learned from general issue .30 cal rifles....weight, weight, and weight.

[Default.mp3]

LMT MWS might be the ticket.Maybe. The only issue I see is the full auto requirement. Not many modern .308 guns out there that have been rigorously tested for that; only ones I can think of off the top of my head with full auto capabilities from the factory would be the FN SCAR17, the H&K HK417, LWRC REPR, and the Beretta ARX 200.

[StraitR]

This is starting to get interesting.

ETA: Failure2Stop any full-auto SR-25's hanging around Titusville?

[drummer]

The MWS/ M129 is available select fire and some of our NATO allies are issuing as such.

I would think that a 308 AR would have a better chance of selection due to familiarity with the M4 and M16. We will see.

[JHC]

This is starting to get interesting.

ETA: Failure2Stop any full-auto SR-25's hanging around Titusville?

Yeah it is. And I had thought it was probably just rumors and idle "what if's" out of control.

[JSGlock34]

HK seems to have the inside track, between the USMC's interest in wider issue of the M27, and the adoption of the 417/G28 as the M110K/CSASS. Not to mention those buying into Scales' direct-impingement spin...

[HCM]

HK seems to have the inside track, between the USMC's interest in wider issue of the M27, and the adoption of the 417/G28 as the M110K/CSASS. Not to mention those buying into Scales' direct-impingement spin...

It would make sense to have mag commonality with the current CSASS.

The .MIL has 4 types of 7.62 mags floating around - M14, KAC/ M110, SCAR and now 417/G28.

[Mike C]

It would make sense to have mag commonality with the current CSASS.

The .MIL has 4 types of 7.62 mags floating around - M14, KAC/ M110, SCAR and now 417/G28.

Just another point as to why there needs to be a damn standardization for modern 7.62 mags for AR pattern and the like.

[DocGKR]

As has been stated for a decade or so, there are three paths forward:

Option One:
9mm pistol
Improve existing 5.56 mm weapons and ammunition for general carbine and LMG use.
Use existing 7.62 mm (and/or .260 Rem) for intermediate sniping and MMG.
Continue existing magnum cartridges for long range sniping.

Option Two
9mm pistol
Convert existing M4/M16 to 8" .300 BLK for support troops (like WWII M1 carbine)
Use existing and new 7.62 mm weapons for combat troops (like WWII M1 rifle and BAR)
Continue existing magnum cartridges for long range sniping and possible new MMG (.338 Norma)

Option Three
9mm pistol
New 6.5-7 mm cartridge for carbines and LMG (something like .264 USA/6.5 NATO)
New .300NM/.338NM long range sniping weapons and MMG's.

[Drang]

As has been stated for a decade or so, there are three paths forward:

Option One:
9mm pistol
Improve existing 5.56 mm weapons and ammunition for general carbine and LMG use.
Use existing 7.62 mm (and/or .260 Rem) for intermediate sniping and MMG.
Continue existing magnum cartridges for long range sniping.

Option Two
9mm pistol
Convert existing M4/M16 to 8" .300 BLK for support troops (like WWII M1 carbine)
Use existing and new 7.62 mm weapons for combat troops (like WWII M1 rifle and BAR)
Continue existing magnum cartridges for long range sniping and possible new MMG (.338 Norma)

Option Three
9mm pistol
New 6.5-7 mm cartridge for carbines and LMG (something like .264 USA/6.5 NATO)
New .300NM/.338NM long range sniping weapons and MMG's.

If the procurement process were rational it would look at the three options above and ask "Which option is likely to produce the best weapons mix, where 'best' is defined as

Combat effective
Cost effective
Deliverable in a reasonable time frame."

Realistically, of course, the entire weapons development and procurement process is a bureaucratic nightmare, aside from the probability of litigation after a contract is announced. (Perhaps we should go back to Uncle Sam designing the weapons and having them built in his arsenals.)(No, I don't honestly think that would help.)

Also, in light of the fact that the number one killer of America's enemies for a century or so has been artillery and air support, I question whether arming all combat troops with 7.62mm NATO rifles is justified. A new intermediate cartridge that could be fired from an existing M4/M16 with a new bolt and barrel would seem more practical, assuming that can be proven to be justified by improved performance.

[Poconnor]

Why isn't colt selling the Canadian colts in the USA? Have they ever tested the 240 belt fed in .260?

[JHC]

I dunno about the Arty part in Iraq or AFG. ROE, COIN and all. FA units converted to Infantry extensively in OIF.
Its a positive sign rifle shooting is emphasized this much. It has been in 4/25 ABN in AK and 1st BCT 82ND in last few years anyway.

[ranger]

I dunno about the Arty part in Iraq or AFG. ROE, COIN and all. FA units converted to Infantry extensively in OIF.
Its a positive sign rifle shooting is emphasized this much. It has been in 4/25 ABN in AK and 1st BCT 82ND in last few years anyway.

Actually, we had Paladin 155s working counterbattery south of Baghdad in 2005-2006. The unit that replaced us (Air Assault) replaced the Paladins with 105s and wanted us to leave the Paladins. Agreed - ROE was tight and "permission" to fire was complicated but they fired counterbattery on a regular basis.

I agree with your point though that ROE restricts the use of indirect fires therefore the unit in contact has to engage with small arms or crew served weapons with direct sight of targets.

[JHC]

Actually, we had Paladin 155s working counterbattery south of Baghdad in 2005-2006. The unit that replaced us (Air Assault) replaced the Paladins with 105s and wanted us to leave the Paladins. Agreed - ROE was tight and "permission" to fire was complicated but they fired counterbattery on a regular basis.

I agree with your point though that ROE restricts the use of indirect fires therefore the unit in contact has to engage with small arms or crew served weapons with direct sight of targets.

I love counterbattery stuff! It's amazing. I've heard some stories about Palladin batteries en masse going out on "gun runs" in more recent times too.

I know Redlegs that were telling me as OIF drew down they had NCOs that had hardly any time on the cannons etc because there was so much route security taskings and dismounted patroling. They're gettin' some lately though.

What I've heard from some counterbattery fires in AFG is that of course your not firing on an opposing artillery battery. Maybe just a single rocket launcher or mortar tube which may have been fled by the small crew as soon as they lobbed a couple rounds. So it's tough to stack them up in big numbers in the recent past.

[Failure2Stop]

This is starting to get interesting.

ETA: Failure2Stop any full-auto SR-25's hanging around Titusville?

Ugh...

[StraitR]

Ugh...

LOL

[KhanRad]

You guys are all behind the curve. The best opinions are found in the comments here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/24120c3f-c965-3387-adc8-a6574c7bbbca/ss_army-to-gunmakers%3A-show-us-a.html

[HCM]

The Army doesn't need a battle rifle

https://primaryandsecondary.com/army-doesnt-need-battle-rifle/

[JHC]

The Army doesn't need a battle rifle

https://primaryandsecondary.com/army-doesnt-need-battle-rifle/

He convinces me.

[Riafdnal]

This helps too I think:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUha3UAZMM4

[JSGlock34]

Soldier Systems: US Army Issues Solicitation For 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle (http://soldiersystems.net/2017/08/06/us-army-issues-solicitation-for/)

[secondstoryguy]

PKM's are still used and are chambered in 7.62x54r. They suck shit to be in the receiving end of.


The PKM is a bad ass machine gun. Way more accurate than you would think, reliable and light for what it is.

I would pack one in a heartbeat with no reservations.

[HCM]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/09/20/breaking-army-7-62mm-rifle-program-cancelled-icsr-no/

Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED – ICSR is No More


Few specifics about the cancellation have been revealed, but TFB’s sources cited the lack of a pressing threat necessitating the change, poorly written requirements, little or no support from the ranks, and no backing holistic DOTMLPF assessment. If these reflections are accurate, then it indicate that ICSR may have been a poorly-constructed program driven by the preferences of the brass and not the needs of the actual soldier.

[Dave J]

...and there was much rejoicing.

[LittleLebowski]

...and there was much rejoicing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - I was waiting to see if it went off when you dropped it. The program sounded silly from the get go. There goes the Glock carbine in Creedmoor, Blackout, BigBoom, or whatever is the round of the moment on the Internet.

[PNWTO]

Is this finally the Ol' Yeller moment for the .308/7.62x51 for service use?

20234

[Hambo]

Is this finally the Ol' Yeller moment for the .308/7.62x51 for service use?

20234

There's never an Ol' Yeller moment for .mil projects. They have more lives than zombie cats. Just wait +/-5 years and see what pops up.

[LittleLebowski]

http://i.imgur.com/ufTbvp6.gif

[PNWTO]

There's never an Ol' Yeller moment for .mil projects. They have more lives than zombie cats. Just wait +/-5 years and see what pops up.

The Marine Corps still tries to resurrect the IFV/APC program every few years just for shits and giggles.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A new program is probably good for a few trips and dinners from reps.