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

[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?

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/2...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.