BREAKING: US Army Releases RFI for New 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle

This is not the ICSR, this is just a tribute.

The US Army’s Program Manager for Individual Weapons has issued a new Request for Information (RFI) to the industry for a new 7.62x51mm Interim Combat Service Rifle, which seeks to bring out the best battle rifles the market has to offer. The RFI, posted at FBO,gov, reads:

DESCRIPTION: This announcement constitutes an official Request for Information (RFI) for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR). The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command – New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal is conducting a market survey on behalf of Product Manager Individual Weapons to identify potential sources for a combat rifle system.
This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any services or hardware. Your response to this RFI will be treated as information only. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a result of contractor submission of responses to this announcement or Government use of such information. No funds have been authorized, appropriated, or received for this effort. The information provided may be used by the Army in developing its Acquisition Strategy, Performance Work Statement and Performance Specification. Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary or competition sensitive information contained in their response. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or to otherwise pay for the information submitted in response to same. The information provided herein is subject to change and in no way binds the Government to pursue any course of action described herein. The U.S. Government is not obligated to notify respondents of the results of this survey.


Desired Attributes of Interim Combat Service Rifle:


• 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

Those looking to make a submission should follow the link to the FedBizOpps website for further information.

It seems that the current theory behind this switch lies with the US Army and Congress’s concern that current 5.56mm ammunition will be unable to penetrate hard ceramic body armors like the Army’s current ESAPI plates without switching to the larger 7.62mm round. While on the surface, this move seems to be logical, its legitimacy thins considerably when the situation is considered in detail. First, neither current 5.56mm nor 7.62mm ball ammunition (M855A1 and M80A1 EPRs) can penetrate ceramic armor at any combat distances, nor could any kind of hypothetical round that did not use a heavy metal. This means that for a 7.62mm rifle to be effective, it must fire not the current M80A1 round, but a tungsten-cored AP round such as M993 or the upcoming XM1158 ADVAP which almost certainly also has a tungsten core. What makes a switch to 7.62mm on this basis strange is that with tungsten-cored ammunition 5.56mm will also penetrate ceramic body armor out to 100-200 meters.

It would be incorrect to suggest that this solution in either caliber is “neat”. Rather, both are less than satisfying for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the extreme limited availability and high cost of tungsten material. Tungsten-cored ammunition is 4-5 times as expensive per round, and cannot be used in “industrial” quantities for large-scale economic war the way that normal ammunition can. Therefore, this solution – in either caliber – is problematic, and the question of what the right solution is if hard ceramic armors are expected to proliferate remains essentially unanswered, even with a 7.62mm ICSR.

All this raises the question: Is the armor issue simply an excuse for a larger-caliber infantry rifle? The suggestion that it might be draws attention to the very serious concerns I presented in my previous article about the ICSR effort. If the supposed benefits of the 7.62mm round in addressing a critical need to defeat next-generation body armor are more or less fiction, then what is so compelling about this move that a litany of major penalties to the rifleman’s effectiveness in both training and combat are deemed acceptable?


Thanks to Daniel for the tip!


Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • DW

    …wow, just wow…

  • So, basically… any one of a dozen or so AR-10s that are in the shops now? Minus the giggleswitch, that looks like a list I’d put together shopping around for good prices online.

    I wonder if this is a sideways push to get companies to submit high powered AR designs ostensibly for 7.62, but with the intent that such submissions could be readily adapted to a completely new cartridge for that wundergeschoss bullet design they’re supposedly working on. Do any of the likely rumored candidate cartridges require a long magwell and/or have case heads that work with a standard 7.62 bolt face?

    • Whitechapel Charlie

      260 rem EPR!!!!!!!!!!

    • Nicholas Dunham

      I think they’ll be leaning more toward new 308 rifles – like the ARP AR-12/Nextgen, which approaches AR-15 weight & length.

    • cwolf

      The 6.5 Creedmore will run in a 7.62 with new barrel, etc.

      Look at the recent USMC RFI:

      “– 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)”

      • Blackhorse

        The US won’t be starting a whole new caliber if it isn’t NATO standard. They can’t afford it either while at “war” and the logistics it would require.

        • cwolf

          I agree. I was responding to the earlier question. It would take years to test and get Lake City to convert.

          Although some groups can do almost anything.

          • Blackhorse

            True except change NATO standard.

          • cwolf

            The Army has a lot of options. They could buy say 10-15,000 rifles (pick a number) in any caliber they want and put into Afghan as a fixed in-country asset.

            If you look at the proposed multi-caliber sniper rifles, I’m guessing some of those calibers are not NATO standards.

            I’m assuming the leadership just wants to get Congress off their back, so they demonstrate ‘progress’ while they wait for the Next Gen CT rifle coming out of R&D.

            Look at the MHS. The contract includes ammo, so Lake City is not involved.

            Although the ideal solution would be a decision based on actual facts, not urban legends or rumors. Go to a rifle range sometime and watch Soldiers shooting. The first statement by folks with problems is often:”It’s this POS rifle.” Or read the ARI research. Many Soldiers don’t know how to zero their rifle (the ARI solution was to put a job aid on the stock)(zeroing is critical since Army ammo can vary 3-5 mils lot to lot).

            So, buy 500 or so (pick a number) of rifle X in caliber 7.62 (or 6.5C) and put them in the Colorado mountains on a live fire maneuver range. Use moving shoot-back targets with Simunition. Measure how they do. Shoot a bunch of 150 pound pigs. Whatever. Maybe there is magic.

            If the rifle-caliber combo does well, send a unit to Afghan with them. Collect more objective performance data.

            At that point, you’ll have better facts.

            Personally, I’d rather give ARL $xM to study the entire rifle system to see what drives what % of Ph/Pk. My personal opinion is a huge chunk of the variance is range estimation and the sight. So, folks with a ranging optic with auto aim point adjust (including angle adjustment) will do much better.

            Everybody has lots of strong opinions.


          • Blackhorse

            We were discussing standard issue rifles in a new caliber. Which would require 100,000s to millions depending on how they intend to employ them.
            Testing and Evaluation is a whole different bag of issues.

            As for watching soldiers at a range, this is nothing new. Contrary to the Army talking points, proper marksmanship isn’t all that important. Especially for non sand crawlers.

            Range estimation and proper sight picture is also nothing new. Proper sighting for uphill and down hill target engagement is also lacking.

            It all got worse when 7.62 MGs started to get replaced by SAWs. This gave enemy gunners with full power rifles and MG an advantage.

          • cwolf

            Correct. At this point we do not know the ‘interim’ concept. I was simply pointing out there are a variety of employment options.

            Plus there is no warehouse with 100,000 (whatever the number will be) ‘new’ weapons just sitting around.

            Folks have been talking a fully integrated rifle system for years, but little actual movement until recently.

            Yes, there is nothing new about marksmanship. Except there is surprising little human engineering investment in rifle system factors. When we moved to qualifying in IBA, qual rates dropped dramatically. Should butt plates be square, straight, and hard?

            And getting folks to communicate is even harder. The VA is doing lead poisoning testing on vets (bone not blood). Where is the letter from the VA to TRADOC? DARPA is doing great stuff. Where is the report to TRADOC?

            Better yet, where is the high fidelity force on force instrumented maneuver lab to evaluate weapon design? Who has seen the nuclear security force MILES?

            So, any dialogue has to cover all the bases. Are we bolting a gun into a fixture and firing x,ooo rds to evaluate reliability? What happens when you bolt 5 accessories on it?


  • moonstar

    When Turkish Army selected 7.62 Battle rifle as a general issue, a lot of people here criticized that decision. Now may be people can see the new eras necessities.

    • Anon. E Maus

      Probably not, as US Army doesn’t get itself into fighting engagements at battle rifle distances, and neither does the rest of the worlds armies either.
      The longer range is a minor advantage at best, even in Turkish terrain.

      • Major Tom

        That’s what we thought…until we went to Afghanistan and realized the wide open world is not some claustrophobic trap of tight quarters and poor lines of sight to everything but aircraft.

        • The problem with Afghanistan was machine guns. You don’t bring a carbine to a machine gun duel.

          At distances where the 5.56mm platforms are ineffective, so are the AKs. There are some reports of machine guns engaging US bases as far as 2km away. Granted they weren’t aiming at anything just spraying the base. But other than a sniper rifle, and a larger caliber one at that, there are no other weapons that can engage point targets at those distances. But even if you gave every solider a 2km capable weapon, it will only be a small percentage that will be able to regularly engage points targets beyond 500m.

          Also IIRC most of the long range kill records were snipers shooting at machine gunners.

          • crackedlenses

            “The problem with Afghanistan was machine guns. You don’t bring a carbine to a machine gun duel.”

            EXACTLY. It would probably be more productive to resurrect the lightweight .50 HMG at this point than to push 7.62 mm. battle rifles.

          • AK™

            man portable M2 .50 HMGs??
            Maybe we also need Blain with a backpack minigun?

        • Joshua

          Afghanistan is the outlier. It’s the exception not the rule.

          • Major Tom

            The PKK apparently keep kicking the Turks’ behinds at long range fights as well.

          • Joshua

            Well I’m not a Turk so I can’t comment on that aspect.

        • n0truscotsman

          Afghanistan is a tactical anomaly, however, most of the world’s population is in urban areas, which means more conflicts like afghanistan will be the exception to the rule, not standard.

          The gap between 5.56 and what the taliban use has been blown out of proportion so much, its not even funny.

          How many times do I have to repeat myself? *5.56 M4s aren’t used in a vacuum*. They are supported by machine guns, mortars, etc.

          • Major Tom

            That’s the problem. EVERY WAR IS THE EXCEPTION. No war ever goes in accordance to plan or expectations. If you don’t take into account the exceptions, you will find yourself in defeat or quagmire in short order.

            And the GPMG/Mortar/Artillery support is not always dependable. If the ROE doesn’t allow for heavy weapons against an MG and rocket team firing on you from a village 800 meters away, what do you do? You either retreat or fight a tougher than necessary battle. Conversely, you can’t always rely on such assets being there. Not all missions will have such assets freely available either due to the enemy denying their use, the timeframe being too small to depend on, or the situation being too chaotic to orchestrate an effective call for fire. (Or the ROE prohibits their use.)

          • Joshua

            You do realize that a fair number of engagements in Afghanistan have been sub 300M as well right?

            Afghanistan is a large place, but it’s also got a fair number of towns, villages, and cities where engagements have taken place.

            Then again, you’ve proven time and again you don’t have a clue what is actually going on.

          • n0truscotsman

            You cant properly predict where the next war will be, so, because funding is finite, you have to prepare for the most likely conflicts your army may be involved in. In our case, it is involvement in urbanized areas where a majority of the world’s population is. No getting around this.

            “nd the GPMG/Mortar/Artillery support is not always dependable”

            That goes back to the ROE question that others, Nathan F, and myself have brought up countless times. Its been discussed to death.

            “f the ROE doesn’t allow for heavy weapons against an MG and rocket team firing on you from a village 800 meters away, what do you do? ”

            Designated marksmen and snipers. any caliber *besides* 5.56 for the standard infantry rifle isn’t going to be measurably more effective either.

        • int19h

          The whole Afghanistan argument is bullshit.

          Russians went to Afghanistan with a 5.45mm AK as their standard infantry weapon. And guess what they’re using 30 years later as their standard infantry weapon? A 5.45mm AK.

          Yes, you do need DMRs to give infantry that extra reach if and when it needs it… but you don’t need to give one to every soldier.

      • iksnilol

        Am I the only one here that realizes that 5.56 and M80 7.62×51 have the same range?

        • Joshua

          No, just some people either refuse to believe it or dont say it because it doesn’t fit their story.

        • That is because when most people think 7.62 they think of 308 sniper rifles.

        • moonstar

          When you are in the valley and terorist is on the top of the hill, try to kill him with a 5.56, you will fail. Turkish troops learned those facts in the field.

          • iksnilol

            308 won’t make a difference there.

            Besides, Turks mostly need guns to intimidate and execute political opponents.

    • Logic

      Which is – NON…

    • Vitor Roma

      The M80 used by them is between awful and mediocre.

    • John

      When Turkey sends its troops to the Philippines to assist in anti-ISIS operations there, then we can see how well the HK417 works in a jungle format.

      Until then, 5.56 all around.

  • Alan Jones

    Scar heavy. Up the barrel length and bam. Already in the arsenal anyway

    • ProLiberty82

      And redesign the stock to be more sturdy. With all of the Scar 17s I’ve tried they all had the cheek riser broken, ALL OF THEM. And in some pictures from SOCOM use they have just wrapped tape around that part of the stock to keep it in place, so it seems to be an issue with the mil-spec version too.

      • Anon

        I think you are seeing rubber bands not tape. And it’s not there because the stock is broken.

    • PaulG

      I was thinking the exact same thing. As off the shelf as it gets. Next to the HK 417.

    • Major Tom

      It’d be a start. A few improvements and upgrades and it might work.

    • Joshua

      Even SOCOM doesn’t want the SCAR anymore. Which is why CRANE has pulled all funding for it.

      • SerArthurDayne

        Absolutely right. Whereas pretty much everyone in the world loves the HK416/HK417 series of rifles. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me- provided HK can get over theirselves and lower their ridiculous prices (especially considering they were literally near the brink of bankruptcy just a year or two past) – this would be a huge, huge coup for HK. And maybe if they reduced their prices they could not only sell the US Army (and potentially USMC) a new service battle rifle, but the regular joes like me and perhaps you and everyone else who not only wanted an HK416/417 to begin with, and now even moreso that the mil has it, would buy one.

        • Joshua

          Huh? We never wanted the HK416 either.
          Have you seen the purported Block III? SOCOM/CRANE and myself included have been incredibly happy with the M4A1.

          USASOC did a huge battery of tests with the HK416 included against the Block II M4A1, that included a lot of different weapon platforms I’m not at liberty to discuss.

          We found that none outperformed the M4A1. The closest was the 416, but it only outperformed the M4A1 in the barrel, and that was not enough to justify the rifle.

          The 416 also has a significantly lower receiver life span vs the M4, meaning you have to buy entirely new rifles sooner than the M4 as you can only rebuild the 416, 4 times before the receivers are shot, whereas with the M4A1 you can rebuild those 10-15 times before the receivers are shot.

          • neckbone

            Aren’t you the same guy who said glock was gonna get the new contract for the army, and it was Sig that got it?

          • Flounder

            To be fair, glock probably had a better product, But sig cut their bid price in half! I mean who could say no to the lowest bidder right?

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            The government does it all the time.

          • Joshua

            I also wasn’t privy to the XM17 trials, that was strictly my best guess given Sigs history vs Glocks performance in SOCOM.

            Also since Glock contested it, we will see the actual performance results once the GAO releases it.

          • Walter E. Kurtz

            “We found that none outperformed the M4A1. The closest was the 416, but it only outperformed the M4A1 in the barrel, and that was not enough to justify the rifle.” I believe this. The horror….the horror..

          • Sermon 7.62

            These are some quotations from “The Corps’ quest for the best rifle for infantrymen” article on the Marine Corps Times site:

            ‘The M27 that the Marine Corps currently uses for the IAR, is “hands down, the best automatic rifle in the world,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, author of the 2016 book “Scales on War: The Future of America’s Military at Risk.”

            “It outclasses the M4 in every single category,” said Scales, who is not affiliated with Heckler & Koch.

            “It’s the only weapon better than the AK-74, according to people I’ve talked to,” Scales said.’

            So, according to the US general, HK is better than M4 and AK-74 is better than M4, too.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Scales. 🤣

          • Joshua

            Well General Scales is far from an expert on small arms.

            He was an artillery guy his entire career.

            He has absolutely no experience with the M27 and rank doesn’t mean you know Jack on small arms.

            Also the fact that he says it’s the only weapon better than the AK47 once again proves just how little he knows.

            As for the M27, it wasn’t even the best entrant submitted for testing.

            It was chosen because it was the closest to the M4.

            The M27 was an attempt to get a rifle that they could be the program manager of, unlike the M4.

          • Sermon 7.62

            He said “according to people I’ve talked to”, and taking into account his credentials and experience, as well as his position at the time I assume that the people he talked to must know something about the small arms.

          • Blackhorse

            Complete and utter BS.
            Post a link, and don’t try to use a Sputnik or RT fake news article either.

            People he has talked to LMFAO

          • Sermon 7.62

            Marine Corps Times: “The Corps’ quest for the best rifle for infantrymen”

          • Blackhorse

            Hahaha……again “people he talked to”. No reference or names. A self serving “author” of a book he is still trying to sell.
            So post me these “people” he talked to. You can’t because he can’t.
            You notice no Marine officer makes the same claim. Considering the Marines did the testing.

          • Sermon 7.62

            This is the “Internet Army of Ukraine” trolling tactics. I’m not going to argue, because it’s pointless.

          • neckbone

            Yeah I’d like to know what think tank Scales works for.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Robert H. Scales

            “In 1995 he became deputy chief of staff for the Army Training and Doctrine Command, developing a blueprint for designing future military forces.”

            Use Google, it knows a lot.

          • neckbone

            So Scales is the same guy who wanted us to kill as many Russians in Ukraine over Crimea. Which has nothing to do with US security.

          • Joshua

            Scales was Artillery. It’s as simple as that.

          • Blackhorse

            Calling me Ukrainian is past laughable and is sliding into derangement.
            Scales is retired and isn’t a Marine which any so called “gossip” he may of supposedly “heard” highly questionable at best.
            He still writes articles for Times Magazine and is a “paid speaker” and paid contributor to Fox and NPR.
            He has been retired since 2000 and thus has zero connection with the Marines evaluation or testing.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You don’t have to be a Ukrainian in order to serve in the Internet Forces of Ukraine. A few months ago there were pages on 6 languages on their website. Now, the international branches have been outsourced, as far as I understand, to some foreign local-based troll factories like Operation Earnest Voice, etc.

            Most English-speaking pro-Ukrainian trolls come from Israel, Baltic states and Finland.

          • Blackhorse

            Hahaha too funny.
            How does where I’m from or who I support change the facts? It doesn’t. Even though you’re still pathetically wrong as usual.
            You posted a retired (since 2000) Army General of Artillery comment on un verified “hear say” (rumors) on a Marine rifle that wasn’t tested till over a decade since he retired.
            No Marine sources or names just a “paid” hack that is just a 13B (Artillery) officer and a “has been” at that.

          • Brett baker

            The people we back up with nuclear weapons, in other words.

          • Uniform223

            Because you have nothing to argue with and anyone with half a brain can easily call out The wheelbarrow loads of male bovine excrement you have tried to push around here. Next you’re going to tell us that a single Su-24 was able to jam and shut down the systems of the US destroyer in the Baltic sea and that the T-14 isn’t a copy of the M1 TTB.

          • Joshua

            That website and about a half dozen others have no affiliation with the government. They are all run by a third party…the same third party and generally have identical articles across them.

          • neckbone

            RT isn’t any more fake than the media in the USA.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Oh, it’s much worse than the most biased U.S. media could dream of being.

          • Little Green Man

            And the comments are on fire… Much more action than under usual media. RT daily comment standart: holocaust denial, call to murder, etc etc etc

          • Major Tom

            Given how every (national) news outlet in the country completely blew the 2016 election, I’m not sure the “RT = always fake news while American media is not” has quite the same validity to it.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Actually, the results were within the margin of error, and Drumpf did lose the popular vote. That said, there was plenty of wishful thinking going on with the liberal end of the media about just how tired the electorate was of the establishment political machines.

          • Blackhorse

            It made up complete fake stories from whole cloth and got caught repeatedly.

          • Uniform223

            Unlike most if not all left or right politically guided media in the US. RT is a state run media outlet. They “report” what the Kremlin and Papa Putin want them to “report”.

          • Joshua

            You should look up his other editorials. The guy is not one to listen to when it comes to small arms.

          • Kivaari

            I don’t trust Scales. He is still thinking the M16 of 1963 is the same gun that we use today.

          • Uniform223

            I personally know marines who have used the m27. They like it but to them it’s nothing special. According to them they treat as another M16. The only benefit the m27 has over current standard issue m16 and m4 is a free float hand guard and match grade barrel. The USMC and the US Army can have their m16s and m4s do exactly the same as the m27 for half the cost and less time by simply contracting COTS parts for a free float hand guard and match grade barrel. Paying 3k for something you can do with a little less then half the price is the better decision. The only people who dont know it are general officers and people like you.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You can have M4 do the same as M27 as long as the conditions are mild. Take M4 to Alaska in December.

          • Joshua

            You realize the Army does a lot of training in arctic locations right?

            I have spent a lot of time in Alaska and never once has my M4A1 or CQB-R failed from the cold.

          • Sermon 7.62

            And I have seen a clip on Youtube when M4 was put to the same standard test with AK-74 and after being freezed it failed. I also know that it can’t be fired if dropped into water. And that it has to be oiled and that it takes a long time to clean it, and last but not least that it is uncomfortable to use because its receiver gets hot.

            So, I think that since M27 doesn’t have all these problems it is a better rifle. And so is AK-74, although I admit that AK has to be modernized and that all attempts to modernize it have failed so far.

          • Fact

            Also the AK74 has gaps which makes it jam instantly in mud. Also the AK and M27 with theyr piston system does allow sand to enter the ejection port WITHOUT any resistance.

            The direct gas impingement creates a strong air shield against sand by blowing any debree away before opening the ejection port.

          • Sermon 7.62

            AK has that gap for a reason. It’s the same as “over the beach” feature on HK416. It allows the rifle to shoot when the receiver is filled with water.

            It doesn’t jam in the mud, too. And if it does, the top cover can be removed in a second and some water poured right into the receiver solves the problem.

            AK rifles as well as all other Russian rifles must pass the dust chamber test as well, it’s a standard procedure.

          • Joshua

            What you saw was a video put out by the Russian government.

            It was a propoganda piece. I’ll take my Regiments experiences in arctic climates over a Russia hit piece all day every day.

            What exactly is your experience with these weapons? Have you ever served in the Military? We’re you SoF?

            But I’m sure a YouTube video is far more important and real than my experiences…..

            You say a lot of internet BS that doesn’t match up to what I’ve seen in my personal experience and the experience of hundreds of other soldiers I’ve served with, at the same time you don’t claim any personal experience on the subject.

            What is your experience with the M27, M4A1 and AK-74?

          • Sermon 7.62

            SWAT Extreme Cold Weather Test – April 1986

            “The only weapons that experienced no malfunction were the two Galils, the Valmet and the FNC.”

            “The other weapons showed bolts frozen shut, selectors and safeties frozen, and hammers that would not fall. All of the rifles but the Galils, Valmet, and FNC were then eliminated for consideration. These, not surprisingly, share a Kalashnikov ancestry.”

            “The weapons performed as follows: Colt M-16 – Forward assist had to be used to close the bolt. Selector frozen, could not be moved. Five rounds cycled manually, none fired. Colt AR-15 – Magazine release frozen, selector frozen.”

            You can read this document online. Must be a Russian propaganda piece, too.

          • Joshua

            Well it’s a good thing guns have seen upgrades since 1986.

            Also lets break down that test.

            “The first test consisted of leaving the weapons outside for several hours, then bringing them into a warm room for thirty minutes. This allows moisture to condense on the weapons, which then freezes when they are put back outside. This often occurs when a firearm is brought into a warm room then put back into a cold car trunk. This warming/ cooling cycle was repeated six times with each weapon. No malfunctions resulted, with all of the rifles being capable of fire”

            That is a pretty average real life scenario, and notice all the weapons performed fine, including the 1986 M16.

            The second test was this.
            “Next, one pint of warm water was poured into the bolt and trigger group of each weapon. It was then allowed to stand outside in -20° F weather for three hours. After three additional hours inside we experienced a 60% failure to function in the weapons. Either the hammer would not fall at all, or the hammer fall was too weak to detonate the round. The only weapons that experienced no malfunction were the two Galils, the Valmet and the FNC.”

            Last time I checked one does not pour a pint of warmed up water into the action of their rifle and then leave them outside in arctic climates for 3 hours.

            So the 1986 M16 failed a unrealistic test that no rifle will ever see in a real world scenario.

            “Finally, all of the weapons were cleaned of ice and lubricated heavily with Break-free. The lubricant was sprayed into the bolts and trigger groups and the weapons were cold soaked for fourteen hours at -40° F. The test showed the true colors of the weapons involved, for all but four failed to function after this test. Again, only the Galils, the Valmet, and the FNC were able to function and fire.”

            Break-Free CLP first of all, never met military standards for a lubricant until the last few years, secondly it is not rated for below -30…this goes back to pouring a bunch of liquid into a rifle that will freeze up.

            It’s again like the pint of water test, not realistic.

            So not only is the current M4A1 not the M16 of 1986, the M16 of 1986 also performed perfectly in a real world scenario and not one that involved being full of frozen water.

            AGAIN! What is your military experience with these rifles? What experience do you have to speak of these rifles from a place of authority.

            What experiences do you have in arctic climates with the M4/M27/AK?

            You refuse to answer my very simple question.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, I aswered this question above. I have a modest experience.

            However I realize that in the Arctic a rifle like M4 is not going to be reliable, being so dependent on some special lubricants and so afraid of water.

          • Joshua

            What is modest experience?

            You realize we have bases in Alaska where soldiers train and are stationed and we seem to have none of these issues you are guaranteeing we will have.

            Have you ever been stationed in Alaska with a M4 before?

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am not guaranteeing this but in the Stalingrad-like situation all the aforementioned problems would make these soldiers regret of not having AKs or something like it.

          • Joshua

            Yeah I’m done, you’re just to stupid to apparently even read what I’m saying.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am too stupid. The French are too stupid. The Norwegians are too stupid. The Finns are too stupid. The Swiss are too stupid, too. No one seems to be smart enough to choose M4, except for a bunch of small and dependent countries signed to the US FMS program.

            Even Israel doesn’t want it. Too stupid!

          • Blackhorse

            This is all you have? A what if scenario?
            PS the older M16A2 is even more reliable than most of German small arms used in Stalingrad and the M4 is even more reliable than it’s predecessors.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Is it not enough?

            In a real and serious war situations like Stalingrad, i.e. the absence of supplies, for a long period of time, terrible conditions, dirt and mud, cold, etc. are inevitable.

            M4 carbine, being a nice rifle for sport and for shooting peasants in Afganistan (and this is a soft of a sport for the US, too), is not the best choice for a long and serious conflict against countries such as Russia.

          • Blackhorse

            Show me the last major “Encirclement” like Stalingrad in modern history.
            Now you’re fantasizing

          • Sermon 7.62

            Battle of Ilovaisk. Battle of Debaltseve.
            In Ukraine

          • Blackhorse

            Battle of Ilovaisk
            About 1,200-1,400 Ukrainian forces encircled for two days in the city of Ilovaisk.

            Battle of Debaltseve,
            About 6,000 Ukrainian forces encircled for about a week and the troops withdrew under fire.
            They never ran out of supplies nor ammunition. Matter of fact they had to destroy ammunition and supplies they couldn’t take with them.

            Which is neither example was a large “Stalingrad” style encirclement or last even long enough to run out of supplies.

            Every US soldier is issued a small 6 Oz bottle of rifle cleaner/lube to maintain their rifle and it can last for weeks of use.
            They will run out of ammunition and food before they run out of their cleaner/lube.

          • Sermon 7.62

            But M4 needs a clean table or some place to be maintained, field stripped and cleaned. You can’t do it outdoors in the rain

          • Blackhorse

            This tripe from the guy that admits he has almost exactly ZERO experience with a M16/M4.
            You obviously have no military experience and know how weapons are cleaned in the field.

          • Sermon 7.62


            You have to field-strip AK and put it back together in 30 seconds. Not a problem to do. But M4 has a lot of small parts. Yet, it has to be cleaned. All these small parts. And it can be done if the rifle is cool, but the rifle is hot most of the time. You can’t field-strip it in the field if it’s hot.


          • Blackhorse

            Can’t be field stripped when hot? Hahaha What a load of BS.
            You’re still making statements without facts I see.
            I can have the bolt stripped in seconds and I’m not even fast.
            The majority of powder can be easily wiped off and reassembled in seconds.

            Now speed of cleaning wasn’t your original complaint. It can be cleaned (even hot lol) in the field and is daily.
            The M4 is more reliable than the German MG 34/42 and Maschinenpistole 38/40 and they soldiered on till surrender in Stalingrad.

            But please keep trying to come up with bogus “excuses” as to why the M4 can’t survive modern combat after it has done otherwise for decades.

          • Sermon 7.62

            [ARCHIVED THREAD] – How long does it take you to clean & lube your AR?

            “From start to finish, how long does it take you on average to strip, clean, and lube your AR after a range session? It takes me about an hour.”

            “About an hour is a safe bet & seems to be normal.”

            “About 4 hours, no bullshit.”

            “Starts out with about 30-45 minutes of AR cleaning.”

            “I’ll be honest here, I have a real problem when it comes to cleaning my AR. In the military it would take 30 to 60 minutes and that was sufficient.”

          • Blackhorse

            Again, speed of cleaning wasn’t your original complaint.
            30-45 minutes is the usual for me. That’s a complete cleaning and not a “basic cleaning/wipe down” which I described earlier.

            While serving most guys took around 30-45 minutes if they weren’t doing the usual of horse play and BS with each other (which is the norm). It was usually done outside in the open dirt/sand environment.

            So once again you are following a different issue than what you started with, which was it couldn’t be cleaned in a combat environment (ie in an encirclement).

            Your post still doesn’t change the fact it gets cleaned in the field and doesn’t need any special clean environment to be cleaned in as you repeatedly falsely claim.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Lets assume that in a combat situation the rifle has to be cleaned: it felt into a mudhole, or it fails because of the debris, etc. You can’t do it in a minute and with AK it is not a problem.

            That’s the point

          • Blackhorse

            You obviously have no clue how simple it is to take down a M16/M4.
            This wouldn’t require a min to clean with a simple wipe down as I stated earlier. Since I have cleaned muddy M16 platforms multiple times in my life it isn’t hard or time consuming as you think. Especially if you know what needs cleaned and what doesn’t need touched.

            Plus your original point was the M16/M4 can’t be cleaned in a combat environment or in an incirclement. Not which is easier or quicker to clean.

            So keep grasping at BS to backup your false claim.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, the original point was that M4 requires maintenance, and that kind of maintenance can be hard to maintain in the conditions of a serious war: some exotic lubricant for the cold times or in the North, a clean and quiet spot to clean the rifle, (I know what the “Shabbat pin” is, and that’s a pin in the M4 that’s called called the “Shabbat pin”, because if it gets lost lost Israeli soldiers remain on the base for the Shabbat, and it gets lost a lot because it’s so small), etc.

            So, as all things are relative, compare this to the AK and see that it outperforms AR in terms of maintenance, it’s more reliable, easier to fix, easier to maintain.

          • Blackhorse

            Exotic lubricant? Hahaha never needed it even in -40°F ….ever.

            “Shabbat pin”. Let’s put this in context. These problems Israel has is with conscripts which Israel has multiple issues with besides lousy rifle maintenance.
            Of 8 yrs service I’ve only seen 1 time the pin get lost.

            “a clean and quiet spot to clean” BS. It can (and has) been cleaned in the field. Be it dirt, sand, mud, or snow it has been cleaned easily and repeatedly in these conditions without difficulty.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You should ask Joshua about the lubricant. Because he told me that Break-free isn’t qualified for the cold temperatures, and someone else said that it has to be a solid lubricant. So, there is a number of opposite opinions here, about which I care not since I trust the test that I referenced and also the test on MAC.

            Search: “Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test”. From 11:10, his M4 has the mag release frozen and stuck. The mag stuck. He couldn’t reload it. The trigger stuck, too. And that wasn’t in the real cold that I am talking about, but his rifle had the same problems the M4 had in the “Extreme Cold Weather Rifle Testing by Alaska S.P.”

            Feel free to google these references.

            And as for the cleaning argument, please explain it to me how can I field-strip a hot DI rifle and not get burned.

          • Blackhorse

            Break Free isn’t used in cold conditions (below -10°F). The military has LAW lubricant (which isn’t “exotic”) for cold environments. I use 30W motor oil, lightly applied. Have had zero issues in -40°F temps, and is easily found (not even close to exotic).

            MAC test; “Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test”
            The Colt 6920 fired with the trigger return spring taking a second to reset after the first shot. The trigger reset quicker the second shot, the preformed without issues for the rest of the shots without any delays or issues.
            I’ve never had moisture build up on a rifle in the cold like his “spray soak” test. Unrealistic test.
            To be fair the Krebs RAS-47 failed to function and had to have it slammed against the ground to help cycle the two first shots then it cycled the rest (he stated he could still feel it binding while firing the remaining rounds).
            The failure of the MagPul furniture is a whole different issue.

            Alaska S.P. test; “Extreme Cold Weather Rifle Testing by Alaska S.P.”
            It was done in 1984. The M4 wasn’t adopted till 1994, let alone the more reliable M4A1 or M4A1(+). So the test was on a older M16/AR15 platform.
            When the did the cold to warm test (put weapons in -40°F environment for a few hours then place in a warm room for 30 minutes and repeated 6 times and finished with it in the cold). None of the weapons had a single malfunction. Which was a realistic warm to cold test.
            The Break Free test; quote “lubricated heavily with Break-free. The lubricant was sprayed into the bolts and trigger groups and the weapons were cold soaked for fourteen hours at -40° F.” Nobody sprays that much lubricant onto or into a weapon then let’s it “cold soak”.
            Another faulty test.
            Considering one tester used to be in the Rangers and Airborne and the other tester used to be a “cold weather tester” for the Marines. They knew these tests weren’t realistic and were trying to “torture test” them.
            None of the “winning” weapons were purchased by the Alaska State Troopers and the Colt AR is presently issued to them with ZERO issues.

            Now you do some research
            NYT; “Examining the Complaints about American Rifle Reliability”
            NYT; “The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again”
            CNA; “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat”
            The first source has a Marine get mud on his rifle from being in a canal. It fails to fire and he ejects the round and chambers the next was all he did to get it to function. Less than a few seconds.

            I’m not arguing the M4 is more reliable than the AK but it isn’t the failed rifle you keep trying to falsely claim it is.

            As for “how can I field-strip a hot DI rifle and not get burned”.
            -Use gloves, drop the bolt into a helmet, drop it onto a shirt/coat/rag. Then handle with care. It’s not rocket science and anyone can do it easily.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Thanks for answering. This time it’s a more sensible talk. To sum it up:

            I haven’t said that M4 was a failed rifle. I think that M4 is just that one rifle that can compete with AK because it is affordable. Both rifles share similar performance and parameters. Their European counterparts are at least 75% more expensive, but not better.

            However, M4 is not reliable in the cold, and is not good for long term combat conditions in countries such as Russia. In most territories of Siberia there can be like -40 for 6 months. So, imagine having to spend 8 hours outside: snow will get moisture into the rifle and cold will turn it into ice. Because of that AK is tested in the rain chamber first and taken to a freeze chamber next.

            Imagine having to cross a huge field after the rain. You will fall, and not even once, and perhaps into a mudhole. Imagine having to get out of a boat into the water on the sea cost and walk or swim to the land. These situations are common, so the test is realistic.

            And having to drop the bolt into a helmet, coat or rug is what I meant when I said that M4 requires a quiet place to field-strip it, because in a combat situation doing so is just dangerous. Plus, it can happen at night. Small parts can be lost.

            Thus, M4 is not a reliable rifle. As soon as it is taken out of its comfort zone, it’s going to fail 🙂

          • Blackhorse

            You’re obviously not reading what I’m posting or you won’t keep posting the same drivel.

            “You will fall, and not even once, and perhaps into a mudhole.”
            One of my links above explicitly tells how the M4 functioned even after being covered in mud.
            They get used in mountain, cold/artic, swamp/water, and desert by both the Army and Marines. Both at training centers, overseas deployments, and combat. The M4 functions at all without your repeated claims to the contrary.

            “Imagine having to get out of a boat into the water on the sea cost and walk or swim to the land.”
            Obviously this a Marine requirement and is done regularly, without issue with the M4. Both in combat and training.

            “And having to drop the bolt into a helmet, coat or rug is what I meant when I said that M4 requires a quiet place to field-strip it, because in a combat situation doing so is just dangerous.”
            You need to learn to read and quit selectively picking things to make your argument.
            My post…Quote “Use gloves, drop the bolt into a helmet, drop it onto a shirt/coat/rag.”
            You deliberately left out gloves.
            The list is of “options” not everything needed or have to have.
            PS very seldom does the bolt need torn down for a quick wipe down. Especially for a malfunction. Considering the rifle has tight tolerances, getting foreign matter/debris in the bolt is extremely difficult.
            Those links above tell how soldiers and Marines were able to “fix” almost every malfunction (which wasn’t common) while in an engagement with the enemy. So obviously your complaints of it requires “a quiet place to field-strip it, because in a combat situation doing so is just dangerous”. Obviously they weren’t in a “quiet place” and since the vast majority survived doing it “in combat” destroys your pathetic claims, again.

            “Thus, M4 is not a reliable rifle. As soon as it is taken out of its comfort zone, it’s going to fail”
            Those links also prove this a complete fallacy. Your own link… MAC test; “Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test” even shows the AR functioning better than the AK.

            Funny how there are swamps (Iraq), sand, mud, heat (120°F+/49°C), and cold (5°F/-15°C) in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan it can go from 90°F/32°C in the day to 5°F/-15°C) at night, and ZERO reports of mass malfunctions/failures (or even repeated malfunctions) even in these extreme variations of temperatures.

            So your claims are “urban legend” and “propaganda” and nothing else.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are stubborn!

            Last time: I am not talking about M4 being not able to function after falling into a mudhole because it should be covered in mud, but because in mudholes there is water and water should kill it. You get water into the barrel and it’s finished. Period.

            The same I meant talking about having to swim with it (see the “HK416 vs M4” test).

            I left out gloves because it doesn’t matter. You confirmed that M4 requires more time, more effort, more risk to take in order to field-strip it in combat conditions, compared to AK. That’s it.

            Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test shows that AR doesn’t function in the cold after being frozen at all: he couldn’t reload it. And even a fake, home-made AK assembled from who knows what parts by an amateur still worked fine.

          • Blackhorse

            BS as usual.
            The sources I posted earlier show the complete opposite of what you’re saying.
            The vast majority of failures (which are usually magazine related) are “cleared” without ever having to “field strip” the weapon, let alone needing cleaning. Remedial action is usually all that is required. A few seconds and not minutes as keep lamely trying to say.

            “Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test”
            BS again.
            The AR fired it’s whole magazine without having to do anything more than let the return spring reset itself. Which took a few seconds. The magazine issue was fixed quickly too. Neither issue required field stripping nor minutes to fix.
            The AK more BS from you.
            Krebs isn’t an “amateur” since their some of the best AK manufactures in the US for the civilian market.
            They use Saiga rifles and Russian specs to manufacture the closed thing to and “authentic” AK for the US civilian market.
            This AK needed it’s butt slammed to help cycle the frozen action after both the first and second shots. Even the AR didn’t need this to function. The time consumed doing this (even removing the stock failure) was even longer than the trigger reset delay for the AR.

            As for your idiotic water in barrel test. A simple pull of the charging handle a third to the rear will release the water. Then it can be released and fired, without any issues. Dropping a rifle in water for a second or so isn’t enough to fill the barrel enough to be an issue.
            Again, that mud source was from falling in a irrigation canal full of water. It had gotten submerged in water also. It took him a couple seconds to fix the issue by cycling a new round into the chamber. No time consuming field stripping and or cleaning.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am surprised that you are trying to present some bullcrap articles in the press as a reliable source of information and at the same time to ignore the information coming from the actual manufacturers and the demonstratable data such as video evidence. Use your brain and try to refute this by a cohesive argumentation rather than insults:

            HK makes their 416 with the OTB features on request. The OTB features are the holes drilled in some places to allow the pressure to not build up inside the receiver when it’s filled with water. It is stated on their website that trying to use the rifle that doesn’t have these features after dropping it into water is unsafe. And that is a piston rifle.

            So much more it is unsafe to try to use M4 after dropping it into water because if water gets into the barrel than there is a high chance that it gets into the gas tube, too. It doesn’t take much of it to render the rifle unusable. You have to take it apart and get it out and clean it. In a combat situation?

            Plus, in the MAC test the mag release issue wasn’t solved. The button stucked and he couldn’t reload it. So, please…

            And Krebs is an amateur. He puts fragile furniture on his rifles, that brakes in the cold. He converts hunting rifles into something that resembes AK. He doesn’t make AK’s, and if what he makes is “the closest thing” to an AK than this thing is not close enough to be called AK.

            Because there is no such thing as AK that can’t shoot after being frozen. See this test:

            АК-74 и М4 (сравнительные испытания) (From 1:30)

          • Blackhorse

            BS. Now you’re just acting desperate.

            MAC test; “Rifle Cold Weather Ice Test” 14:28 he says he has the AR up and running. He had also fixed the Sig that also uses the AR magazine release.

            Saiga is a hunting version of the AK-100 series rifle manufactured on the same machinery at the Russian Izhmash Arsenal they produce the AK-100 on. Krebs replaces the non standard parts with new spec parts to make a semiautomatic copy of the AK-103.
            The Saiga rifles are now manufactured in the US by Kalashnikov USA in Florida. Which they manufacture both the Saiga (now called US132) and AK rifles for the US market on the same machinery.

            CNA isn’t some BS articles from the press. Again just more proof you’re not looking up these articles. CNA (Center for Naval Analyse) isn’t the press and it’s found in a pdf.

            Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Durability Test @ 3:10 demonstrates the water submersion test. No issues you claim is makes it unusable.
            There are multiple videos out there that show the contrary to your BS on water.

          • Sermon 7.62

            He said he got the AR up and running, though “it still sticks a little bit” and he didn’t shoot. The point is that in a combat situation it is not acceptable. You know, “reliable” means “consistent”. In a combat situation, such a stoppage is a no-no.

            Palmetto PA-15 must be I think just an ad, the barrel was taped or something was inserted inside to prevent water from getting in, otherwise see HK416 vs M4 what should happen. Explain the reason for making HK416 with OTB feature on request, if it is supposed to function so fine without it.

            Next, Kalashnikov USA has nothing to do with KC.

            Saiga is a brand that encompasses both hunting rifles and semi-auto AK rifles, made by Izhmash. The nature of the manufacturing process is such that the rifles come in two batches: the “good” batch and the “bad” batch. Look the same but sold for different price.

            The good batch is rifles that are made up to the mil-specs, in the passport it is designetad as 75mm dispersion guarantee. The other batch has 100mm dispersion guarantee. The good ones are assembled from the good parts, the bad ones (which cost about 60-70% of the normal price) are assembled from the parts that are not up to the specs. And sold to the US importers 🙂

            That’s true.

          • Blackhorse

            Once again, once the M4 is pulled from water all is needed is to pull the charging handle to the rear (a third or more) to drain any water in the system, then it can be fired.
            The HK416 vs M4 test shows it being fired without the charging handle being pulled back to release the water trapped inside the system.

            Palmetto video demonstrates doing this before firing. You can see the barrel and it doesn’t have “The barrel was taped or something was inserted inside to prevent water from getting in”. Many other videos of ARs submerged in water show the same procedure before firing. It doesn’t require being torn down, let alone needing cleaned.
            OTB (Over The Beach) is a special forces (SEALs/Delta) request so they could fire at least one round submerged or immediately after leaving the water without the need to operate the charging handle to drain the system of any trapped water. The OTB modifications are drainage holes in the bolt carrier and buffer system to drain any water inside the system.
            SEALS and other water born operators used the M4A1 before the HK416 ever was designed, without having to break them down to clean after being in water. They just used the procedure I posted earlier, without any issues for decades with the M16 family of rifles they’ve used.

            Kalashnikov USA used to be the only authorized dealer of Kalashnikov (Saiga) in the US till the sanctions and then the ties were cut.

          • iksnilol

            All rifles need to be greased, not sprayed with oil in the cold. Even Mausers.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I have little experience with M4 but I had the impression that the rifle was fragile. The buttstock wobbled a bit and it was uncomfortable to shoot. The charging handle felt strange, as if I could break it if I pulled it too strong. And it got hot after 50 rounds. All of the rifle’s surfaces, except for the pistol grip and the mag. Ridiculous.

            And following the logic, the French and the Norwegians who adopted HK416 must be stupid or something, because M4 is a better choice… Right?

          • Logic

            An highly upgraded M4 lets call it M4A2+. Drasticly outperform it for half the price.
            The HK416 is only better than a plain M4, but for its price absolutly rediculous.

          • Uniform223
          • Blackhorse

            Hahaha the M4 does function at this time in Alaska and has handled it’s temperatures and conditions without fail.
            The Army has troops stationed there and rotate troops through regularly for training without issues.

          • Joshua

            Pfft, hadn’t you heard the Northern Warfare Training Center is fake and made up. It doesn’t exist and no one is really stationed there except aliens.

          • Blackhorse

            Hahaha that will be his next post.
            Too funny

          • Sermon 7.62

            The problem is that people in the US got used to a situation when it seems that a war is a comfortable ride. But fighting in Afganistan and Iraq with a bunch of insurgents is not a real war.

            Vietnam was a real war.
            Remember Vietnam.

          • Uniform223

            Well The mid east isn’t alaska but it does get very cold.



            US Army Alaska… might want to look them up.

          • Sermon 7.62


            Bolts frozen, safeties frozen, mag release buttons frozen! And it’s not too cold, and just about an hour outside. And there is also a number of other issues that are not mentioned here: a lot of small moving parts, time-consuming cleaning, etc.

            Liquid getting into the barrel makes it dangerous to shoot. Has to be greased all the time, and if there is no lube?

            The point of this argument is that AK’s design is much more reliable, since none of the aforementioned problems can be complained about. No small parts, the piston is connected to the charging handle (if frozen can be just pulled), can be picked up out of a mud hole, isn’t afraid of liquid, can be used in the absence of lubricant.

          • Uniform223

            So… you have nothing but speculation and no personal experience. All you have is common (debunked) myths and rumors.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Rumors? Here we go again…

            He just had the bolts frozen, safeties frozen, mag release buttons frozen. Is it not time-consuming to clean an M4? Is it not dangerous to shoot if there’s liquid in the barrel? Does it not have to be lubed, or greased and does it not get dried fast because of the gas blowing back straight into the receiver?

          • Uniform223

            Yet you act as if the AK is impervious to those things as well. Most of what you said is from people who get their “information” from people who are stuck in 1965 or have little to no experience with the AR-15 platform.

            Old article but worth the read…

            AK vs mud…

            AR-15 vs mud

          • Sermon 7.62

            Come on, man. This “test” is moronic. And it takes like 5 seconds to clean all that mud. Splash some water on it and it’s clean again.


          • Uniform223

            Just debunks the whole false mythology of the AK. I’m not sorry to show you the truth.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I have no idea what you’re talking about.

            You need to read the AK manual first, because it teaches: the fire selector has to be at the “safe” position. Just like the bolt should be closed on M4, right?

            Stupid test

          • Uniform223

            AK dust cover was closed when they poured mud on it…

            TRUTH is that the AK isn’t as “reliable” and impervious as people make it out to be.

          • Sermon 7.62

            TRUTH is someone pretends being more stupid than he is


            Can THIS test be done with AR? No
            But it can be done with HK, if it has the OTB feature (holes in the bolt carrier, tube and buttstock). Yes mud can get inside through these holes but it can be cleaned in 10 seconds.

          • roguetechie

            Truthfully, a PIP M4A1++ could do so much more for the same unit prices as m27’s it would scare people.

            Especially if we did just straight up jack the one or two actually neat features hidden inside the 416 bbl extension etc.

          • Joshua

            Same price? Hell it could be achieved for half the price.

          • roguetechie

            Yup… But a $3000 AR15 would be a baby eating monster truck of carnage and destruction compared to a 416… Thus, a much more fun comparison

          • Kivaari

            Scales company is a lobbyist for HK.

          • neckbone

            I’ve been trying to search out info on this. Do you have exact info on this? Please share it if you do.

          • Kivaari

            I believe it was on either The Fireams Blog, Military dot com. Business Insider or International Business Times.

          • Kinetics

            Not his company but this makes it pretty clear.

            In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he explicitly identified the XM25, M27, and H&K 416 as either “models” of small arms procurement or weapons that the US Military should buy to replace legacy weaponry.

            In fact, the only weapons that he spoke positively of were H&K and he advocated directly for basically pure-fleeing the US Military with H&K rifles.

            It seems pretty intuitive that General Scales is a lobbyist for H&K, though it would be interesting to have more of a paper-trail.

          • n0truscotsman

            General Scales’ hyperbole doesn’t jive with *what* data is currently available comparing the 416 with the M4. In fact, the opposite conclusion has been reached. Its not measurably better and a lot more expensive.

          • Uniform223

            Lmao! That is soo cute. He is using Retired Gen Scales as a reference.
            If this would be more funny I would be on the ground holding my sides by the amount of pure laughter.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am using the Marine Corps Times article as reference. Perhaps, the Marine Corps Times and US general are incompetent. You must know better.

          • Joshua

            That website is not affiliated with the Marine Corps.

          • SerArthurDayne

            I am sorry but I do not believe a significant portion of what you wrote.

          • Joshua

            Well that’s a shame. Believe it or don’t, it matters not to me.

      • Bean Guy

        Really? What problems did they encounter?

        • Joshua

          It was just never as good as it was in testing. FN had a lot of QC issues from batch to batch that they never could get evened out.

          • CommonSense23

            User feedback doing trials was also ignored. The 16s were pushed under the assumption that once they were adopted any issues could be worked out.

          • Spike

            So they didn’t learn the lesson from Enfield with the SA80 then!?!

          • DW

            At least SCAR worked (mostly) during trials and criteria was not drastically changed to fit the rifle.

          • neckbone

            So after initial testing it passed and was accepted, and now they’ve decided after further review they don’t like it?

          • Joshua

            That’s one way to put it.

      • Strength and Honor

        Really? Then why is the Mk17 still in the inventory? Why does everyone confuse the Mk16 with the Mk17?

        You must not be in “SOCOM” Joshua…

        • Joshua

          Funding was pulled. Not my fault you can’t tell the difference between funding being pulled and the rifles being dumped….

          They will continue on in inventory until all the spare parts to rebuild them are gone.

          I never said they got rid of the SCAR, I said they are no longer Funding it, that means no more spare parts and once spare parts run dry from deployments and workups the SCAR will then be gone from inventory.

          • neckbone

            Is that like saying the B52 production line isn’t funded? It would be nice to get some info to read about the scar

        • Rob

          He is correct IRT the Mk17.

      • Flounder

        They didn’t want the 5.56 SCAR, They kept buying the 308 version if i recall. Price on that one is it’s biggest weakness, but it crushes all other requirements.

        • Joshua

          And the Mk17 has been defunded.

  • Jason Culligan

    I wonder how the Steyr ACR concept would hold up against modern ceramic armour. We currently use APFSDS rounds with tanks to defeat vehicle armour so I would be interested in seeing how a sub-calibre flechette would handle infantry armour.

    A 6.5mm sub-calibre discarding sabot using a cased telescope design and some form of disintegrating sabot sounds like the long-term solution to me.

    • Renato H M de Oliveira

      Not so fast, buddy.
      Flechettes don’t scale down very well – SPIW and ACR (among others) prove that.
      This can be clearly seen by the fact that there aren’t mass-produced flechettes under 25mm.
      Level IV body armour already demands 300WM AP to reliably defeat it at reasonable ranges (some 500 m or less). 7.62 NATO from 24″ bbl can’t do the trick reliably over 250 m. Not to mention that there’s simply not enough tungsten worldwide for sustained use in small arms ammo.
      If your enemy is wearing advanced body armour en masse, you need new tactics, CONOPS and ROEs, not to mention more HE. Man portable small arms won’t get the job done.

      • Hg

        So what is the role of infantry in future near peer war if they cannot eliminate their counterparts?

        • Martin Grønsdal


        • Renato H M de Oliveira

          I didn’t say “they cannot eliminate their counterparts”.
          I said that current systems, doctrines and etc won’t do the trick against enemies wearing advanced body armour.
          Infantry as of today will remain effective against unarmoured enemies – and these won’t vanish overnight.
          What I said is that man portable KE weapons (rifles, machine guns and etc) won’t be effective against advanced body armour – just like swords and arrows aren’t effective against firearms.
          Advanced body armour will demand different weapons to defeat them (thermobaric, HE, incendiary) and/or weapons not fully developed yet (direct energy, for example), or something else we don’t know about.
          To effectively use such weapons, changes in CONOPS, ROEs, tactics, etc, will be required.

          • iksnilol

            I’m saying, bullets are going the way of the dodo. We need HEAT grenade carbines.

          • Renato H M de Oliveira

            Not the way of the dodo.
            Bullets will be needed for the foreseeable future – they’re light, small and cheap, and very effective if used correctly. HE and thermobarics are great, but also big, bulky and expensive (a single grenade costs more than a handful of bullets).
            Advanced body armour is effective, but not a panacea.
            It cannot deal with big bullets (say 50 BMG and bigger), and cannot protect 100% of 100% of the personnel 100% of the time. And it can do precious little against thermobarics and incindiaries. Not to mention costs, training and mobility issues.
            What will be needed are new tools and tricks, or new ways to use old tools.

          • iksnilol

            “and cannot protect 100% of 100% of the personnel 100% of the time. And it can do precious little against thermobarics and incindiaries. Not to mention costs, training and mobility issues.”

            Which is where HEAT carbines come into play. Besides, caseless/telescoping cases and smaller calibers would solve the weight issue. Sure, you wouldn’t get tiny 30 round magazines but it would be doable. Especially if belt fed.

            It’s gonna be a cacaphony of destruction. C

          • Renato H M de Oliveira

            Explosives aren’t a panacea either.
            You cannot use it at blank point range, you cannot carry a lot of them without weighing half a ton, you cannot use it near civs without restrictions, you cannot silently use them,guns are bulky and heavy…
            Different tools for different jobs.

          • iksnilol

            What, guns go bad at point blank range as well. You don’t need to carry a lot of explosives, they’re explosives, one hit and it’s one incapacitation guaranteed. I dunno, if drones near civvies are okay, then grenade rifles should be too. Suppressed grenade launchers are a thing. You hear the boom, but not where it came from (grenades are subsonic, so hella good suppression).

          • Gary Kirk

            I now want a suppressed M-79..

          • DW

            It’s as suppressed as it can be already, that’s the beauty of the system.

          • Gary Kirk

            Megadeath said it best.. “Symphony of destruction”

          • rob


          • Gary Kirk

            You are 100% correct sir.. And I am now ashamed of myself..

          • John Bear Ross

            I’ve been wanting that for years. A PAW-20-sized rifle able to put 10 or so little HEDPs into the target, whether it’s a bunker, fighting hole, light vehicle, or to punch through a level IV vest on individual combatants.
            They don’t have to be immediate-proximity safe, just other-side-of-the-room safe. Or have a mag full of breacher/solid slug rounds for MOUT.

          • cwolf

            Man portable rail gun. 🙂

          • Brett baker

            Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

          • cwolf

            The Navy has a ship mounted rail gun.

            Army has a vehicle mounted laser ‘cannon.’

            DARPA has the steerable bullet.

            So it’s only a matter of time.

        • Joshua

          Armor does not make you invincible.

          • tiger

            Are we not getting in to the same circle that killed off Armor back in the Medieval days? At some point the pros of protection are going to be outweighed by it’s cons. When Knights could be felled by a serf with a matchlock. The armor was done. Now we have Armored Turtles with 80 pounds of crap chasing guys in t shirts & Toyotas In 100 degree heat. The bad guy bullets will not kill the troops. The heat & heavy loads will…

        • hailexiao

          Neutralize their counterparts. Even if a shot doesn’t kill or permanently incapacitate you, it will hurt like hell and degrade your ability to accomplish your objectives.

          • Kivaari

            Bullets make you sick.

      • Dracon1201

        Same thing it has been for the last few decades; Hold the enemy for air support, artillery, and heavy ground support.

        • Major Tom

          That hasn’t been working very well recently.

          • Renato H M de Oliveira

            Blame the stupid ROEs.
            Either you follow Powell’s Doctrine, or you’d better don’t even start.

    • Anon. E Maus

      Well, flechettes are inherently very lightweight projectiles, which brings up two problems:

      1) They are super sensitive to wind, continuously it’s been shown that projecting fllechettes from small arms gunbarrels will group horrendously if you fart in their direction

      2) Light projectiles means poorer hard barrier penetration, the Steyr ACR would almost certainly have a harder time defeating a modern armor plate than a 7.62x51mm rifle or even 5.56x45mm rifle

      • ostiariusalpha

        Flechettes are no more sensitive to wind than any traditional bullet. In fact, at the right velocities (like, say, 4920ft/s) they’ll cut through side-wind like it was nothing. Also, the Steyr flechettes had no difficulty penetrating barriers, they were only 10 grains but their sectional density was amazing. The real problem was the sabot itself: getting nose sabots to separate cleanly and consistently from the flechettes is inherently difficult, and at the velocities the Steyr was working at, even the tiniest inconsistency would have considerable effect on group size.

      • iksnilol

        Not really, they have ridicilous velocity and sectional density which makes your two problems non issues.

        Problem was accuracy due to it being hard to get the sabot to consistently separate.

    • The Steyr ACR as a terrible rifle.

    • neckbone

      At how much per round?

    • ostiariusalpha

      You wouldn’t even need a disintegrating sabot, just a simple cup sabot that separates cleanly from the projectile would suffice.

  • Tim

    And why “interim”? Do they imagine this is an intermediate step to something else they’d prefer not to talk about now?

    • randomswede

      Probably not, but the dream persists.

    • cwolf

      The longer range goal is CT ammo & guns. Still in R&D.

  • Spike

    Desert Tech MDR for the WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    First delivery in 2120*

    *Subject to in-spec parts delivery from suppliers

    • Haulin’ Oats

      Smith and Wesson M&P10.
      *It’s available now.
      *It’s affordable, $1000-1100 street price.
      *It’s in 308
      *It’s Accurate
      *It’s light weight
      *It uses SR25 magazines already in the inventory.

      • Rocky Mountain 9

        Is it particularly reliable, though? I’ve personally witnessed several different AR-10 rifles in use, ranging from a LWRC REPR to a CMMG direct impingement gun, and the majority of them had major issues. The REPR actually refused to feed from a magazine at all, with several different mags. My point is that the AR-10 and its derivatives seem tricky to do right, and I’d personally only bet on the engineering efforts from major defense players with a reasonable R&D budget, like H&K, SIG Sauer, and FN.

        • Flounder

          Smith and wesson is the largest manufacturer of guns in the US i believe… Sorry, Ruger is bigger. and LWRC and CMMG are both tiny tiny companies when compared to smith, or ruger, or hk or sig, or fn.

        • n0truscotsman

          Thats why one should go LMT.

          More expensive, sure, but “affordable” and “reliable” are two mutually exclusive opposites when it comes to AR10s. And you cannot find both. Ever.

          HK has a fair chance, Id hate to admit it. FN would have to reintroduce the SCAR H or design another AR10 derivative, which i dont think theyll do.

          • Haulin’ Oats

            “affordable” and “reliable” are not mutually exclusive. The M&P 10 is an example of this. So are most ar-15s.

          • n0truscotsman

            They are in most cases. For a AR10 to be that inexpensive, there had to be corners cut, which inevitably impacts long term durability and reliability.

            AR15s are a whole different ballgame than the AR10. Different economies of scale, different caliber, different dimensions. The two aren’t even remotely comparable in that regard.

            In conclusion: You want a AR10 that is reliable and well-built? you are going to spend money. No getting around it.

          • valorius

            Why? Is an AR-10 sprinkled in expensive fairy dust that an AR-15 is not?

          • n0truscotsman

            As I already mentioned above, there are tens of millions of AR15s, most of which are produced within military specifications and whose dimensions were standardized half a century ago.

            AR10s were never mass adopted by any army, therefore, there is not the standardization or the matching economies of scale that the AR15 has.

            Although significant aftermarket designs of rifles and multiple types of accessories are expanding options for the AR10, this pales in comparison to the AR15, which has a number of accessories and aftermarket improvements too numerous to mention.

            The ‘need’ is currently being more or less fulfilled by the CSASS (G28E) and M110. The ‘wisdom’ or, better, lack thereof, of the HK G28E adoption is worthy of an entire threat itself too.

          • The Brigadier

            An AR-10 has much higher chamber pressures and the need for longer heavier barrels. Everything must be stepped up in size and weight and this requires a lot more material. Cost cutting for past models to keep them under two grand has resulted in reliability issues as other poster have rightly pointed out. Its not fairy dust, but it is a much more powerful cartridge than .223.

          • Miguel Raton

            Because they aren’t built in the MASSIVE quantities of its little cousin. As Stalin liked to say, “Quantity has a quality all its own.” In this case, economies of scale have a huge impact on AR10/308AR costs. They’ve come down radically in just the last year [I’m talking nothing-special barrels that cost ~$300 now selling <$200, uppers costing half what they did a few years ago, lowers too, etc. etc. The cost to build a 308AR used to be simply ridiculous during Obama's 1st term, it made more sense to get a fully loaded M1a for less than what it would cost you to BYO AR, and now everything has been put right. They still aren't as cheap as AR15s, but it wasn't that long ago that you couldn't find an AR for less than $1k, and now they're cheeep and getting moreso by the day! Ammo prices are finally returning to reason too: it's a good time to be alive [altho' not as great as the '90s were!]

          • BattleshipGrey

            LMT provided the UK with their 308 AR, L129A1 as a DMR. Governments don’t care about “affordable” so LMT has at least proven itself there, unless there’s complaints I haven’t heard of.

          • mosinman

            Glocks aren’t rifles but they are affordable and reliable…..

          • noob

            Anybody still making the FAL?

          • n0truscotsman

            IMBEL if I was going to guess. But Im not entirely sure.

          • Brett baker

            DSA in Illinois

          • The Brigadier

            Except the FAL is not a straight back action like the AR-10 or the SCAR Heavy. If the requirement is for a fully automatic rifle that won’t rise in a right hand arc like the M-14 or the FAL, then the FAL won’t be considered anymore than the M-14 would be remade. Both are roughly 17 degrees off from straight back motion that the AR and the SCAR actions have. This 17 degree deviation results in a lot of extra recoil and prevents it from being a fully automatic rifle.

          • valorius

            Yes, let’s buy LMT’s for a need that absolutely does not exist.

        • Dracon1201

          The REPR and CMMG’s guns were both known to have problems. Most DPMS Gen1 and M&P platforms are more reliable at this point. The REPR has been revised from its initial issues, as well. The problems of modern AR-10s are overemphasized as of 2016 or so. It’s not very difficult right now to create a reliable AR-10, even on a budget. Most people that have problems with them should send them to me. In a week, at most, they will have a reliable rifle with minimal alteration. Most problems are assembly issues.

        • KestrelBike

          Signed on the REPR choking in great conditions. And the user knew his stuff, just couldn’t understand what was going on, but it was FTE.

          M1A kept on chugging, though…

        • Haulin’ Oats

          The M&P10 is perfectly reliable. An alternate suggestion would be the SIG 716 Patrol, but they aren’t cheap.

          • TankGuy

            I’ll vote for the 716 in a heartbeat. And as has already been pointed out, affordable to the Department of Defense is entirely different than affordable to you and I. I got one via an insurance settlement, and an extremely attractive military discount at Quantico Tactical. I love it, but it is heavy. Not sure what it weighs, but I know with the scope and a full mag it’s pretty damn hefty. Just my 2 1/2 cents…

          • valorius

            No it’s not. We’re trying to fund a 350 ship navy, the USAF’s F-15s are literally falling from the sky, and the US Army wants to dawdle around with a completely un-neccesary rifle.

          • Haulin’ Oats

            Just like how FN charges us civilians almost $8k for each M249, the Army buys them for under $2000 each. The SCAR is no different. The DOD already pays FN $1100-1200 or thereabouts for each SCAR rifle. So in that sense, they are also very affordable.

        • valorius

          You can bet that whatever the most expensive variant is, they’ll buy (if they buy anything at all).

      • James Young

        Requirement: Less than 12 lbs

        Did they make the weight req so high so HK wouldn’t be excluded with their overweight .308? The M&P shows how light a solid 308 can be. Obviously there’s no way to know who will win this since military RFI designed rifles are different than what’s currently on the market. Except for the HK and the SCAR, of course.

        • cody

          I’ll gladly use an hk417 in service over my current 240b I own a civilian 417 and love it weight doesn’t bother me

        • Dakota Raduenz

          No. Readily available Commercial Off The Shelf.

          So technically it CANNOT be a new design or “different”

          • Rob

            This is a request for information. It wouldn’t really make sense for companies to send in drawings on napkins.

        • Haulin’ Oats

          The MR762 weighs in at 10 pounds.

        • The Brigadier

          The M-14 weighed in at around 11.2 pounds so this weight requirement is in the ballpark.

      • valorius

        Too inexpensive to ever be considered. Next.

      • The Brigadier

        FN will also be bidding on an updated SCAR with longer heavier barrels and the bidding and testing should be interesting.

  • Matt

    “It seems that the current theory…”? Perhaps they want a rifle that can reach out beyond 400 yards.

    • Logic

      M855A1 EPR fragments out to 600yards and is supersonic to over 700yards (from longer barrels to 800).

      7.62×51 is so fat for its weight (and bad shaped) that it literally has the same supersonic range.

      • Whitechapel Charlie

        If that’s the case maybe 260 rem or 6.5 Creed would be better. Of course the Gov. wouldn’t adopt it, because ” It costs too much”, after wasting how many million dollars on the XM25.

        • crackedlenses

          The XM25 was a good idea that didn’t work out (and that has been used to develop better versions of the same idea).

          • Paul Epstein

            I still think a pintle/tripod mounted version with larger magazine capacity would be a solid replacement for some of the GPMGs or even HMGs in a unit. If you’re trying for suppression of an attacking force, airburst is absolutely amazing.

          • crackedlenses

            I thought we tried that as well (i.e. XM137 25/12.7 mm.) Perhaps a dedicated GL variant would worke better.

          • iksnilol

            Au contraire, I think it is the future. Should just be caseless and used in place of a regular rifle. Shrapnel is like sand, it gets everywhere in spite of armor.

          • Uniform223

            From my understanding the xm25 CDTE was a good idea. The real problem was the two companies making it (H&K) and that they didn’t develop th proper tactics for its use. IMO in an urban setting the XM25s ability to send 1 or 2 airbursting rounds through a window and into a room could make a difference. The it’s been reported (neither confirmed or denied) that the British SAS used it in Libya to root out known sniper locations during an operation.

        • Form Factor

          6.5 diameters usually utterly underperform in advanced ballistics. Put the diameter a bit lower, increase velocity, use a perfected FF and you will have the same energy retention at range, flatter trajectory, less winddrift, less cartridge weight, more rounds to carry. And less recoil for the same energy.

          • iksnilol

            Why have 6.5s consistently outperformed everything else then?

          • ostiariusalpha

            A good 6mm will outperform a 6.5mm, but the increased throat erosion in a conventional metallic cartridge makes it unattractive for a military arm.

          • iksnilol

            True, but then it does kinda outperform the sixer. I mean, a 6mm isn’t drastically better than a 6.5mm (like a 6.5 is compared to a 7.62) but it has much worse throat life.

            Smoothbores and flechettes could probably get us down further in caliber with even higher velocities. Maybe just have the end of the barrel rifled and have that part threaded (so that you can easily replace the rifled section).

          • ostiariusalpha

            The problem with flechettes is they are so long for their caliber that it’s hard to find a good place for the sabot to grab them and still leave room for powder in the case; that’s why Steyr went with the nose sabot and telescoped the flechette into the propellant. Of course, you could just make the case longer, but it gets silly at a certain point.

          • DW

            Literally a .243Win with EPR?

      • Matt

        Velocity is only half the equation. 5.56 is fine if you are shooting a gnat’s ass at 500 yards, but it has lost most of its energy.

        • iksnilol

          7.62×51 isn’t any better in that regard.

          • Matt

            Force equals mass times velocity squared. If velocity is the same and the 30 cal bullet is 3 times the mass, then you have three times the force (energy). Math

          • iksnilol


            Who was talking about energy? Ballistics don’t hinge solely on energy. You really have a childish and stupid view if you think like that.

  • Anon. E Maus

    There are already 7.62x51mm DMRs and GPMGs in use for when those ranges are needed.

    There would be absolutely no point in issuing goddamn battle rifles in place of regular M4s and M16s, we’d be looking at hopelessly, needless expense and a yet heavier gun that’s near acting like a third wheel.

    Also there’s that tungsten thing.

    • forrest1985

      Still don’t see whats wrong with M4/M16 for infantry and issue a 7.62 DMR/EBR style rifle per squad?!? US and its allies won’t go to war with Russia anytime soon and who else is wearing space marine style armour?

      • Sermon 7.62

        You seem to forget that Alaska, from the historical point of view, is a Russian land and so is Finland as well. Don’t underestimate the Russians. Haven’t heard about the little green men?

        • Paul Rain

          So how many Russians are in Alaska, and Finland? Zero to FA? Oh, that’s right. So, no reason for Russia to invade to defend their interests.

          People seem to forget that if you don’t want a big powerful country with ethnic brothers mixed in with your nation to invade you, you should either treat its diaspora well, make them assimilate to your nationality, or force them out or kill them. Option 2 working so far in Estonia vis a vis Russians, option 3 working well in Poland, Romania, and Hungary vis a vis Germans.

          • Sermon 7.62

            And how many Americans there are in Afganistan? Or Iraq?

            There is a lot of good stuff inside the Alaskan soil and it belonges to Russia. Does it not? From the historical point of view.

            So, the US should start thinking about making a deal or something. Or else, expect the arrival of the little green men.

          • Porty1119

            The US purchased Alaska. It didn’t annex it. Is history so difficult for you?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Don’t be so simple-minded. The US “purchased” Alaska for $7.2 million (about 110 million according to the current course). It was less than the cost of the New York Courthouse.

            In truth, Alaska was not sold, but leased and had to return to Russia after several decades (same as Hong Kong was returned to China). However, because of the commies the agreement was broken.

            This is a known fact, and is even described in literature. Read “A Matter of Honour” by Jeffrey Archer, for example.

          • Brett baker

            The lgm work in Ukraine because they’re surrounded on 3 sides by other rus. Unless they’re raiding from subs they’ll get wiped out if they try that inAK.

          • Blackhorse

            “A Matter of Honour” is a “fiction” novel. There is no factual documents that back this fantasy of yours.

            As for your “Little Green Men”, they couldn’t even take all of Donbas from Ukraine once it’s citizens started resisting their pathetic attempt at a Crimea 2.0.
            There is zero support in Alaska for a return to Russia and will be a complete failure for Russia.
            No means of supply once the Coast Guard and Navy secure the straits. The Air Force will intercept all attempts at aerial supply, and no adjacent land mass to use for infiltration or cover up direct support since you can’t convince anyone that old Soviet weapons are captured US stocks.
            Take Alaska hahaha too funny

          • Sermon 7.62

            You must be from that ‘Internet Army of Ukraine’. I once registered an account on their site (i-army org) and got some instructions on how to troll the Russians and all that. Because even the OSCE supervisors admit that there are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

            As for “A Matter of Honour”, it’s a fictional book based on the real facts, and not fantasies. Simple logic prooves that: there were settlements on Alaska, factories, ports, plants beside the land. The price, if it was indeed sold, would have been much higher.

          • Blackhorse

            “A Matter of Honour” is based on any facts when it comes to your so called “lease” or you would of posted it by now.

            Russia’s fur trade was going bankrupt and couldn’t supply itself without outside help. Less than a 700 Russian citizens in all of Alaska and they were going broke.

            “Internet Army of Ukraine” LMFAO
            Is that the only answer you can come up with? The people that Russia back stabbed and still couldn’t establish Novorossia when they resisted. Hahaha

          • Sermon 7.62


            The people in Donbass are insurgents, and Novorossia is much more than Donbass. It includes territories in the South, too and people in the South didn’t support Donbass, so there is no such a project as Novorossia.

            Keep trolling. The more trolling like this, the better. Because people are not so stupid. You are going to lose their support soon enough.

          • Blackhorse

            If there wasn’t any such thing as Novorossia then how is it more than just Donbas?
            At least keep your story straight. LMFAO

          • Sermon 7.62

            Novorossia is a region that was a part of the Russian Empire until its collapse in 1918 and then it was included in the short-lived Ukrainian State. It became a part of the Ukrainian Republic in 1922.

            The region consists of Donbass, Crimea and the territories in between. The territories in between didn’t support the separatist movement, so, there is no such thing as Novorossia at the moment.

          • Blackhorse

            Novorossia never existed until 1764.
            It hasn’t existed since 1918.
            It wasn’t officially called Novorossia during the Soviet Union.

            The revival of Novorossia failed in the Donbas fake rebellion.

          • ostiariusalpha

            No, “Matter of Honour” is almost total fiction. Russia was not interested in the expense of defending a handful of fur-trading colonies from the British. They took the $7,000,000 and laughed all the way to the bank. If it hadn’t been for the gold rush, the American colonization would have collapsed. Despite its vast mineral and fossil fuel resources, even modern Alaska is hard to squeeze a profit out of.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Russia had a naval base in Sitka (then Novo-Arkhangelsk) and its Pacific fleet was stationed there. There was a lot to sell for $7.2 million. Forts, churches, schools, ports. Lots of buildings. Does it look like $7.2 million?


          • ostiariusalpha

            In 19th century money? Yeah, it does.

          • Sermon 7.62

            No, it doesn’t. It’s about $110 million.

          • ostiariusalpha

            The Novo-Arkhangelsk base was an indefensible money pit. The Russian government cut their losses quite happily.

          • Blackhorse

            Pacific Naval Fleet lol
            The only fleet it held was the Russian American Company ships, which never numbered more than a dozen at any one time.
            It doesn’t matter if it was sold for a single dollar. It was sold and not leased and that is final.

          • Sermon 7.62

            American Historical Documents, 1000–1904.
            The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.

            “Convention between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, for the CESSION of the Russian Possessions in North America to the United States, Concluded at Washington, March 30, 1867”

            (The act of cession is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty. Examples: Hong Kong was CEDED by the government of China to the United Kingdom; and Taiwan was CEDED to the Empire of Japan in 1895.)


            “His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, agrees to CEDE to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America…”

          • ostiariusalpha

            And Mexico ceded California to the U.S. back in the day. There’s temporary ceding, and then there’s the permanent kind.

          • Sermon 7.62

            If it was the permanent kind the price would have been much higher

          • ostiariusalpha

            No, it really wouldn’t have. We paid the equivalent of $110,000,000 for Alaska, and $250,000,000 for the much larger and more valuable Louisiana Territory. The Russians got better money than the land was really worth at the time.

          • Sermon 7.62

            For the Edification of Posterity: “We have returned Crimea. You are to return Alaska”


          • ostiariusalpha

            Masturbatory fantasies aren’t edifying for anyone, much less posterity.

          • David Koenig

            You need to read up on “Jefferson’s Great Gamble”, by Ceriani?? Jefferson paid off Napoleon. Napoleon’s treaties were all nullified in 1815, after Waterloo. Then Madison sent Monroe over to Paris and had The Duke of Anjou sign it off as Louis XVIII. Problem is, since 2005’s DNA fingerprint of the pickled heart from the autopsy of Louis XVII, we now Know that the 14 years and six month old, was both too old to be any ten year old “Duke of Normandy”, and he really is Louis XVII. The Lost Dauphin was just turning 30 in 1815, so the Duke of Anjou was a bigger usurper than Napoleon ever was.

            The Lost Dauphin was really the true titular King Louis XVIII, and not his uncle. The little Duke’s sister lived until 1851.

            Alors; The boy autopsied was the twin brother of the older prince, Louis Joseph, who passed on before King Louis XVI. Some Nuns smuggled his hidden twin brother into the prison cell so that when he died three months later, he would be buried as King Louis XVII. Now, after two Centuries, his heart is finally in his proper niche, at St. Denis, outside of Paris. Monarchies hated having twins, especially twin heirs to their crown.

            Edgar Cayce said that this happened, but it took mtDNA to unravel the puzzle. Mr. Cayce said that the Lost Dauphin lived for many years,protected by his chief tormentor, who had an Epiphany. Mad Max was too well known to live anywhere in France, so the search goes on, today, into the Benelux area of Western Europe.

          • Blackhorse

            Yes Hong Kong itself was “ceded” to the UK (England) in 1842 and Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. The “New Territories” were “leased” in 1898.
            Hong Kong and Kowloon Peninsula belonged to the UK and didn’t have to be turned over at the end of the 99 yr lease (rent free) in 1987. The UK decided to hand it all over anyways since it would of broke up the greater Hong Kong and the British possession would of been impossible to defend and would of been flooded by refugees from the New Territories once the lease was over.

            verb (used with object), ced·ed, ced·ing.
            to yield or formally surrender to another:
            to cede territory.

            Nowhere does it say lease or rent.

            If Russia meant to “lease” Alaska, the terms would of been in the treaty and not in some secret document that was completely separate from the treaty.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I can’t see the termes like “sold”, “puchased”, in that document, too.

            I heard that in the US one can purchase a piece of the Moon, but for the Russians this is inconceivable.

          • Blackhorse

            Russia ceded Alaska which means Russia sold it for gold.
            Its legal and permanent.
            Russia can’t and won’t do anything to change it. PERIOD

          • AK™

            our governor is trying his best. Hes taken to raiding the Permanent Fund Dividend..instead of you know..doing the right thing,which is trimming the budget and eliminating waste.

          • Kill A Commie 4 Mommy

            So what else has the RT News USA news director Alexi Joneskov told you???

          • AK™

            You can’t forget the inhabitants of Alaska either.

            In my little town,south of Anchorage,there would definitely be blood spilled..for every 1 Alaskan killed,there would probably be 3-5 dead russians.

            Even the liberal teachers would pick up a rifle to defend the libraries,REI outdoors,and the Subaru dealerships..

          • Malthrak

            Such a return policy isnt in any of the treaty language, and the whole point of Russia selling it off was that they never thought they’d be able to keep it anyway and wanted to get *something* out of it rather than just have Britain potentially seize it.

          • Sermon 7.62

            That’s a legend.

            The truth is, the commies refused to return the loans that the Russian Empire had taken and as a result of that Alaska was lost.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            So now you somehow understand that Alaska doesn’t belong to the Russians after all?

          • Sermon 7.62

            At the moment, it doesn’t.

          • Rocky Mountain 9


          • Kivaari

            10,000 in Afghanistan.

          • Marius Sebastian

            Hey! I thought this was no politics, right?!
            Just for setting the record straight – Germans were never ‘killed’ in Romania, au contraire!! Hell, we now have a freely elected German-Romanian for president…
            Btw, Indeed during the 80’s, option 4 was applied – sell ethnic minorities back to their mother/father lands…

        • n0truscotsman


          Infiltration by little green men isn’t going to work between two peer thermonuclear powers.

          • Sermon 7.62

            But it happened in 1969. See “Sino-Soviet border conflict”. It is happening at the moment in Kashmir. See “Kashmir conflict”.

          • toms

            Russia has zero chance of taking Alaska. Have you ever been there. There are a lot of gun toting wilderness type Americans there and a ton of military too.

            China occupying and annexing Siberia is a much more likely scenario. Especially since Putin just sold China 800K worker visas and allowed china to establish an occupation force inside Russia (Lake Baikal) to be exact. I wonder how much coin Putin got for that move. Decreasing Russian population makes it a sure thing.

          • Sermon 7.62

            So the Russians should be scared of these ‘gun toting wilderness Americans’. See this: List of wars involving Russia.

            Google it

          • Blackhorse

            Russia has no means to support a “suicide” mission of its “Little Green Men” if ever sent to Alaska.
            They can’t pose as locals since their language skills and weapons will prove their not “US rebels”.
            In winter the nights will be long and cold which will easily give off heat signatures for infrared sensors.
            Summer will have long days which make observation of their movements easier.
            Local National Guard and Army units will be fast on their tail.
            Supply and support will quickly dissappear for them while any local will use their phones or radios to report their location.
            Most of the locals know the terrain better and most in the country have scoped full caliber rifles and repeatedly make moose, bear, and Caribou kills at ranges far outside AK range.
            Add in US government reinforcements and militias that will be flocking to join the “Great Russian Little Green Men Hunt”.
            Russia can’t afford to lose their elite on a lost cause of trying to do a Donbas or Crimea in Alaska. Russia can hardly support their frozen conflicts now with Syria on top of that.

            We all know that Russia will never try to take Alaska no matter what BS you trolls spew.

          • Brett baker

            Ssssh! We need an Alaska invasion by little green men to justify the new rifle:)

          • Sermon 7.62

            I think that Russia will not invade Alaska if the US will not interfere too much in Ukraine and other areas of the Russia’s national interests. But if it does, then Russian Arctic Joint Strategic Command forces will take Alaska in a week.

          • Blackhorse

            The Russian Artic Joint Strategic Command forces has extremely limited capabilities.
            Sea lift capabilities aren’t enough to to move more than two brigades at a time.
            Its air assets can move even less at any given time (without heavy assets).
            Air Cover will cease to exist in hours alone and the naval support will be artificial reefs almost as quickly.
            Russia has a very limited number of brigades to go around. It will need to keep enough in Donbas and Crimea to keep the Ukrainians from overwhelming it there.
            Then Georgia and Moldova will require troops. That’s not counting the Syrian conflict taking valuable resources. You can’t forget the ever present threat of another Chechen uprising.
            Russia doesn’t have the support assets nor manpower to secure all its borders.
            An attack on Alaska would more than likely bring in NATO which could cripple any other BS Russia would try in Alaska.
            Russia couldn’t beat the US even without NATO. It sure can’t project enough power to do more than lose every asset it commits to Alaska.

            You’re just not just delusional you’re full of more hot air and manure than a state fair.

            Russia take Alaska LMFAO now that is ripe

          • Sermon 7.62

            Google this – List of wars involving Russia

            Most of the Russia’s adversaries on that list thought the same.
            Most of them lost

          • Brett baker

            Are the lgm going to reclaim the Rodinia’s California territory too?

          • Blackhorse

            Russia doesn’t have the sea lift nor air lift capabilities to land a large enough force in Alaska, let alone support for anything longer than the initial invasion.
            Russian air cover doesn’t have the range to do anything in Alaska, except one way suicide missions.
            Within a day the US would have more aircraft over Alaska than Russia has in its whole national inventory, with more to rotate in.
            Within a couple days the US would have more ground troops in Alaska than Russia would deploy in a week.
            Russia right now is having difficulties sustaining it’s commitment in Syria without a organized resistance.
            Russia has no way of sustaining an invasion with the world’s largest Air Force and Navy opposing it on their home turf.

            A few “Little Green Men” trying it unsupported will only be a death mission that will cost Russia it’s best fighting forces it has.

            Just like your “Alaska belongs to Russia” a Russian invasion of Alaska is pure fantasy delusions of fools.

          • Sermon 7.62

            First of all, this assumption in incorrect. For example, Russia’s Air Force is not that small.

            The US has 442 attack aircrafts, 2932 fighters and 162 bombers, and Russia has 696 attack aircrafts, 1243 fighters and 217 bombers. The US has 955 transport aircrafts and Russia has 648. The US has 488 attack helicopters and Russia has 460.

            I suggest reading this article: USAF vs. Russia’s VKS. A Comparison.

            “If one compares fighter strength, Russia will have numerical parity with the US and at least a parity in terms of quality as well.”

            Second, the Pacific Fleet of Russia includes 50 warships and 23 submarines.

          • Blackhorse

            I didn’t say just “Air Force”. I said “the US would have more aircraft”. That would incluse Navy and Marines aircraft plus drones from all the services (including CIA).
            Dont know where you get your numbers. These are not exact but pulled from multiple sources of all services.
            Fighters 2,528
            Attack 394
            Bombers 158
            Transports 1,398
            Attack Helos 1,003
            Fighters 1,234
            Attack 472
            Bombers 127
            Transports 479
            Attack Helos 592
            Then add in the US services also have over 850 drones. Pus the hundreds more the CIA has.

            Your “USAF VS. RUSSIA’S VKS: A COMPARISON” is faulty by multiple reasons.
            It is from late 2015 and the economics have changed.
            US budget has increased while Russian budget has shrank.
            It doesn’t discuss planned F15 (400+), F16 (300), and F22 (195)upgrades and more F/A-18E/F purchses (100) that more increase the modern platforms in US inventory.
            That not counting all the F35s (of limited abilities so far) that are already in service, with more added daily).

            Your quote is about “predicted” parity in 2030 not today, which is what our discussion is about.
            Russian Air Force is at 30% modern, Ground Forces 45%, and Navy close to 42%.

            “Second, the Pacific Fleet of Russia includes 50 warships and 23 submarines.”
            1 Cruiser
            5 Destroyers
            24 Corvettes (2 modern)
            6 Gunboats/Patrol boats
            2 Amphibious Assault Ships
            6 Amphibious Assault Craft
            6 Anti terrorist/crime patrol boats
            2 Mine Warfare Craft
            2 Intelligence Ships
            2 Oiler/Provision Ships

            Corvettes are mostly coastal defense ships with limited offensive capabilities.

            With the limited sea lift capabilities only one Marine Brigade can be transported (with most but not all of its heavy equipment and motor vehicles).
            There are two Marine Brigades in the Pacific Fleet and both can be used but that’s using fighting ships (ie Corvettes ect) as troops transports and only allows most heavy equipment and combat vehicles from one to be landed on the first wave.

            Now Russia could use Airborne Brigades from all over Russia. That would require a large air cover force to protect it.
            Which adds slow transports, tankers, and AWACS to protect.

            That would add 4 to 8 Brigades that now need air cover and resupply daily to survive.

            Attacking Alaska would bring Article 5 of NATO into play. Even if European NATO doesn’t join the fighting, that would tie down over 60% of Russian capabilities to be safe.
            Then Russian forces in Syria will be drastically handicapped, since priority will be Alaska. Which means they can’t survive and will either evacuate it or lose it to local forces.
            Donbas will suffer even worse, especially if Ukraine takes advantage of it goes on the offensive.
            Then add in Georgia and Moldova possibly taking advantage of the Alaska conflict. Then the never ending Chechen issue could also explode into a open conflict.
            Azerbaijan could also take advantage of the situation and attack Armenia again.

            A attempt to repeat Crimea or Donbas with limited forces will never work and an open invasion will lead to open war and possibly NATO joining in.
            Since there is less than 1% local support in Alaska for a Russian takeover and a open invasion leading to open war with the US even less likely.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You must be a general or something

          • AK™

            Is china gonna take all the freshwater out of Lake Baikal? Seems like something they would do.

          • yodamiles

            Holy Crap!!! Sermon 7.62 has returned to TFB after a year of hiatus to spread the gospel of true PutinBot!!!!!

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            It sounds more to me like the gospel of complete crapola.

          • n0truscotsman

            I say again

            *Infiltration by little green men isn’t going to work between **two peer thermonuclear powers**.* (emphasis mine).

          • Sermon 7.62

            Pakistan and India are two peer thermonuclear powers. As were China and USSR

          • n0truscotsman

            India and China, in the context of the conflicts you are talking about, were also essentially third world. Things are a bit different now of course.

            The idea of ‘little green men’ infiltrating Alaska, is far fetched military technothriller fiction.

          • Brett baker

            But it makes tovarish Sermon happy.

        • neckbone

          Seems Mexico taking back the border states would be more likely!!!

      • cwolf


      • neckbone

        That’s what I don’t understand. Why the seeming urgent rush all of a sudden to get defeat ceramic armour.

      • int19h

        In fact, should US go to war with Russia anytime soon, this setup is exactly how the Russian infantry does it – AK74 for infantry, SVD as squad level 7.62 DMR

  • Cal S.

    >mfw DPMS submits the Oracle.

    …and wins

  • randomswede

    All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users
    Now that is interesting, depending on how strict “All controls” and “ambidextrous” are interpreted there’s not many rifles that I can think of offhand that are, especially not perfectly mirrored (a very strict interpretation of ambidextrous).
    I would categorize the SCAR charging handle as “reversible” or “swappable”.
    Any “mil.spec.” AR-15/10 pattern rifle would only have single sided bolt release and adding a “B.A.D. lever” style solution is, again, not perfectly mirrored in controls.

    Rock River Arms LAR-8 has the ACR style (I’m not sure if they had it first but they are well known) Bolt hold/release controls, but I don’t think they have ambi charging or selectors on any off the shelf rifles.

    • Brett baker

      For the bolt release, US lefties USE the trigger finger.

      • randomswede

        Sounds like that takes a long finger or relaxing the grip?
        “Whatever works” of course, but as the AR-15 bolt hold/release isn’t really optimal for right handed (the proper name escapes me right now but) “stoppage clearing” either and if that’s to be improved it might as well be ambidextrously ergonomical.

    • jono102

      LMT MARS-L type lower, MARS-H if you will. Ambi as well as being pretty close to a mirror image on either side.

      • randomswede

        I couldn’t find a rifle that matches that on the webpage so it could fall short on “off the shelf” but that would certainly “tick the boxes”.

  • GaryOlson

    Looks like someone has a larger discretionary budget next year and wants to play with some new toys. I expect to see a few more RFIs.

  • some other joe

    Interim: Yep, a push for ~6.5mm ammo as “Phase 2.” Of course, Stryker was the interim platform for the FCS and now the joke is FCS stands for “Fully Capable Stryker.”
    SCAR: With the “extended” rail requirement, does SCAR meet the requirement? Does the Geissele rail on the M110A1?
    Armor: Specific armor defeat capability is not a requirement in this RFI. It is purely for a 7.62mm service rifle.
    Weight: Is this an allowance for the rail? An FAL is ~9.8 pounds with plastic furniture.

  • FN SCAR-H Booyaah! I’d re-enlist.

  • Logic

    I bet for sure its just a cheap EXCUSE.

    Dozends of drawbacks….. just because some retardeds.

  • Tim

    I hear Fairchild has a division that has been working on a nifty rifle that fits this description since the 1950’s. (Sarcasm)

  • aka_mythos

    It’s an RFI they may just be working towards a comparison of options

  • Vosh Sahaal

    Simple. More kinetic energy transfered to the target. Getting shot in the plate with a pistol hurts. 5.56 hurts about the same due to fragmentation. 7.62 transfers well as the numbers are big enough to make up for lost fragmenting mass. Incapacitation does not require lethality. It is similar to using a mace against mail. If you can’t cut it, hit it so hard it still hurts.

    • CommonSense23

      Do you have any understanding of how plate works?

      • iksnilol

        Obviously not.

        In case that guy’s reading: Plates work like the windshield in your car. They dissipate the energy across the entire plate.

        • CommonSense23

          It’s amazing to me how many people think taking a round to plates is going to bring you down from energy transfer. They aren’t soft armor. Or people have never actually seen the amount of force a trained fighter can deliever.

          • iksnilol

            What about multiple rounds? I’m thinking a 3-5 round burst at close range.

          • Gary Kirk

            Multiple rounds tend to not work out so well for the ceramic plates..

          • iksnilol


            It’s like firing a 4 round burst with one pull of the trigger.

            Though, the Russians use titanium plate last I checked.

          • Gary Kirk

            Nah, your better giving a slight pause between the rounds to let the ceramic settle so you can punch through..

          • iksnilol

            Okay, I’m kinda sober… so here goes nothing… Imagine a Winchester Salvo, just using two AN-94 mechanisms.

            that’s be like 8 rounds from one trigger pull. No plate is surviving that.

          • Gary Kirk

            Firing 50BMG Raufoss rounds..

          • iksnilol

            Nah, that’d be much recoil. We need like a 5.56 duplex RAUFOSS in a 308 case.

          • Gary Kirk
          • DW

            Implying any of those rifle will survive QC first.
            Don’t take it the wrong way, it’s one glorious idea. Dakka is essence of life.

          • CommonSense23

            We wondered the same thing. So we took plates we gave our partner force, and hit them with a 10 round burst from a PKM and they stopped all 10 from roughly 50 yards.

          • Gary Kirk

            Rapid fire, grouping ain’t great.. Slow it down just a bit and put three or four rounds in very close proximity to one another.. You’ll eat those ceramic plates up fairly quickly..

          • CommonSense23

            Honestly. With the PKM it’s pretty scary. Its a amazing accurate and controllable machine gun. Our groups where insanely tight. We could keep a 15 round group on on a 8 by 12 piece of steel at 300 yards with ease. I’ve never really been a fan of Russian weapons are equipment other than that gun. When we started using it to become proficient to train our partner force
            It was eye opening. Honestly the lack of good optics and marksmanship training is what is saying lives with the enemy’s use of the PKM. That gun is a beast.

          • int19h

            I never understood why some PKM-based design hasn’t taken over as the primary NATO LMG yet. It’s all rainbows and unicorns basically – it’s lighter than anything in service, usually more reliable than those things, and accurate enough. Yet the only ones who use a variant chambered in 7.62 (UKM-2000) are the Poles.

          • iksnilol

            Because NATO can’t use a commie design… for reasons.

            Same reason the M2 has stuck around.

          • int19h

            It already does, though – Poland is in NATO. And, I must add, as far as commies go, they’re arguably the guys with the longest list of reasons…

          • DW

            I don’t think “Commie design” is the problem here, as the M249/FNC were based on the AK action, and the PK is also adaptation of the AK action.
            What they didn’t also do was the magic that made the PKM- a .30cal GPMG with firepower on par with the M240 same weight class as the M249. Not to mention the advancement of that design the PKP is even lighter and more squad frendly. Why hasn’t anyone at NATO copied/reverse-engineered the design? Serious question.

          • Brett baker

            Because FN has a cool new (probably more expensive) design they’re selling

          • CommonSense23

            Plates can stop them.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but how would you, the user feel?

            What about backface deformation?

          • iksnilol

            A regular punch is like 500 or so joules (equivalent of a 9x19mm) spread over a small area.

            Whilst 2000 joules or so spread out over a hella large area (the plate) shouldn’t hurt too much. Would still hurt, but I guess soldiers are trained for that kind of stuff, no ? Personally I’ve no idea.

          • CommonSense23

            I know and have worked with guys who have taken a round or multiple rounds to stand alone plates from close ranges. And I have yet to see one describe it as debilitating. I have heard guys describe it from I knew something hit me. Just didn’t realize it was a bullet. To felt like a real solid teep(type of front kick). One of the guys I did a lot of sparring with took a AK round from around 12 ft inside a building to the side plate. And he had a rib broken in a amateur boxing match. And he considered the broken rib far worse. Now if you take a round off the helmet its probably going to be a lot more debilitating than the chest or side.

      • Vosh Sahaal

        Yup. Do you want to talk steel or ceramic. Cause with ceramic causing premature fragmentation may very well be the goal.

  • Raptor Fred

    My cousin Billy Ray Bob said they are definitely going to Saigas this time. Because the Russians are hacking this too.

    • Tim

      I hear they hacked the requirements and is now for a rifle in 7.62X54R…

      • Major Tom

        Well based off Nathaniel F’s(?) Modern/Historical Caliber series here, the 7.62x54R Russian round does beat out just about everything in the competition at raw ballistics.

        • Tim


          Plus the Russian Federation would love to sell us some rifles and ammo!

          CNN would have enough content to stay on air another year

          • n0truscotsman


        • That’s… Not really what the graphs say. 7.62x54mmR is pretty much your bog standard full power .30 cal round.

          Versus 7.62x51mm, the big advantage it has is the tighter twist rate and API bullets.

          • neckbone

            Are we to read anything into this request for a fast off the shelf item, that the military is already facing issues with ceramic armor issues in the areas we are fighting now? Not just about a future adversary like china and Russia?

          • AFAIK there have not been major problems with ceramic armor yet. But the chances are unfortunately good that it will become a problem in the future.

            But the answer does not necessarily have to be a super awesome AP round.

          • neckbone

            Trying to figure out why there seems to be such a rush on this all of a sudden though? Or it seems to be from where I’m standing.

          • People with hidden agendas, I reckon.

          • Kinetics

            Don’t forget that lots of people, including those in government, that speak/give opinions on these issues have either no clue or terrible information. This might not be as nefarious as a hidden agenda; rather, it is entirely possible that those in Congress who are pushing for the adoption of larger caliber/7.62 rifles might actually, genuinely think that this will solve the “problem” that they are so concerned with.

            I’m not saying that they are right (obviously issuing 7.62 rifles to “defeat” armor that by definition itself defeats 7.62 projectiles is nonsensical). Just don’t underestimate the distinct possibility that this is gaining traction due to bad/uneducated info/opinions.

          • Brett baker


          • mazkact

            Nyet. God give Rasputin 7.62x54R and he give to Czar perfect round for all time.

      • Sermon 7.62

        These rumors are correct.

        It has been decided that intermediate calibers are not going to be suitable for the battlefields of the future. Due to the acceptance of bulletproof vests as standard equipment in most NATO armies it has been decided that Russian soldiers must be armed with a more powerful rifle.

        And since the automatic fire in such a situation becomes in fact unmanageable it has been decided, as well as being more benefitial from the economical point of view, to use an existing design instead of making a new one. From now on, most units in the Russian forces are going to replace AK-74M with the old and tried SVD-s.

        These rifles have 20″ barrels and are different from the standard sniper model: the sniper model use 320mm twist and 24″ barrels and the SVD-s have 240mm twist and 20″ barrels, required to better stabilize armor-piercing bullets. The dispersion of these rifles is 1.5 MOA at 300m, because of that. The sniper model of the SVD is a sub-MOA rifle.

        During the latest parade on the Red Square there was a whole batallion of marines armed with SVD-s. That’s it. The Russians are going from the automatic fire preference to “one shot, one kill” tactics. And designated marksmen will use VKS rifles instead of SVD.

        Speaking of snipers, the classic SVD remains in use as their main rifle, and the more powerful Orsis T5000 has been accepted as well. For the anti-materiel rifle OSV-96 remains in use, being the best in its class and unique, folding long-barrel blaster.

        As for the existing AK-74M most of them are going to be converted to semi-auto and offered on the civillian market, and also sold to the 3rd-world countries like India.

        • JoJo

          >As for the existing AK-74M most of them are going to be converted to
          semi-auto and offered on the civilian market, and also sold to the
          3rd-world countries like India.

          Hmm. If you used the Ratnik modernization package with a standard AK-74M… maybe India would in fact buy it.

          Do you have any proof of this?

          • Sermon 7.62


            It’s like this new aircraft, MC-21. No information, and then, boom: MC-21. The Russians.

        • neckbone

          What civilian market?

          • Sermon 7.62

            Russian, European.

          • neckbone

            Didn’t know they could sell those types of firearms to civilians in those countries.

          • Blackhorse

            Not on the “legal” market. Nor is there any official statement by anyone in Russia of this conversion from intermediate cartridge (AKs) to full power cartridge (SVDs) or anything similar.

          • iksnilol

            You can buy SVDs (“Tigrs”) legally in Europe. If a semi auto rifle is legal where you are, a Tigr is as well.

          • Blackhorse

            Semiautomatic converted AKs won’t be allowed in the vast majority of EU countries since most make it illegal to own military style rifles and military caliber weapons. Add in the sanctions still in place over Crimea and Donbas, which really limits any markets in Europe.

          • iksnilol

            Semi auto AKs are legal plenty places. Though they were made from ground up as semi autos.

            Doubt that Russia is getting rid of the AKs tho.

          • FarmerB

            And that’s the secret. In most of Europe, you basically cannot buy an ex-machine gun (and the new EU “anti-terror” gun laws reinforce this). You have to have a version made as a semi-auto from the ground up.

          • iksnilol

            Well, it feels a bit dishonest “calling out” Europe for that when the same applies to the US.

            Once a machinegun, always a machine gun is in the US as well. In Europe you could get an ex machine gun, it’s just that most conversions are likely to be easy to reconvert (IE replacing trigger pack in an M16).

          • Blackhorse

            In the US ex full auto weapons can be converted with a new receiver and fire group. Imported also requires barrel and a few more 922 parts.
            Plus there are legal to own “machine guns” in the US.

          • iksnilol

            New receiver and fire group isn’t converting. It’s making a new one, legally speaking.

            And in regards to imported, so you need a new receiver, fire group, barrel and (I assume furniture and magazine to comply with 922)… I’ll have to ask you then, what’s left that’s original ?

          • Blackhorse

            Can’t have more than 10 imported parts;
            (1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
            (2) Barrels
            (3) Barrel extensions
            (4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
            (5) Muzzle attachments
            (6) Bolts
            (7) Bolt carriers
            (8) Operating rods
            (9) Gas pistons
            (10) Trigger housings
            (11) Triggers
            (12) Hammers
            (13) Sears
            (14) Disconnectors
            (15) Butt stocks
            (16) Pistol grips
            (17) Forearms, hand guards
            (18) Magazine bodies
            (19) Followers
            (20) Floorplates
            So a trigger group would count as 4-5 parts and a magazine will count as three. Add a receiver and barrel with a flash suppressor your at 10-11 parts.
            So approximately about half the gun depending on design and firing system.

          • FarmerB

            Of course, but Somewhat irrelevant. I was referring to the comment that these could be converted and sold in Europe.

          • Sermon 7.62

            There are converted AKM rifles being sold at the moment in Finland, converted M70 in Slovenia.

          • FarmerB

            Not for much longer, I suspect.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Not all AKs. Support units and concripts are going to continue to use AK-74M or something like it. But the professional part of the forces and combat units are going to use SVD-s. Because it’s much easier to hit center of the mass with a scoped rifle and defeat a soldier with an API round.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

          • The Brigadier

            Yes it is, and when we have graphene armor it will easily stop 7.72X54 AP. That will give us a leg up on the Russians should that conflict break out. Considering the belligerence of both our nation’s and the Russian’s air forces the risk of this gets greater each day. Just today a Russian jet forced off a B-52 flying too close to the Russian coast in the North Sea. Our Raptors have had to routinely intercept their Mig 31s over the Bering Sea and the Russkies have over flown Alaska. We had to move a small squadron of Raptors to an Alaskan base to intercept them faster. Its heating up and we need open field rifles if it escalates to something less than a full nuclear exchange.

          • Ralph Mouth

            Semi-auto military styled rifles are legal in: Switzerland, Italy (29rd limit), Germany, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Ukraine (no magazine limit! but folding stocked rifles cannot fire from folded position if below a certain length – telescopic stocks are fine), Finland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Romania, Moldova, Russia (10rd limit and 5 year waiting period after you are approved for a shotgun).

          • Sermon 7.62

            Switzerland, Finland, Slovenia, Germany, Italy, Sweden, New Zealand, Pakistan sell Russian firearms.

    • SerArthurDayne

      I just wanted to say I love you very much.

      • Raptor Fred

        Tacos and Champagne for U Ser Arthur!!!!!

  • Allan Stickley

    Are you listening, Karl Lewis?

  • Spear Fish

    I don’t get it, it weighs more, recoils more (completely useless for full auto), costs more, troop can carry less ammo……..than the current rifle/caliber, pretty much it’s an M14 with a plastic stock. There going back in time 52 years. Kind of like texting and the telegraph, only there we went backwards about 130 years 🙂 .

  • TJbrena

    For once I hope a weapons program goes nowhere.

  • Ralph Mouth

    The huge logistic task of introducing a new rifle in 7.62×51 (even if it is AR-10 type) seems to be very odd knowing the task involved for just the “interim.” The testing of 6.5 and 6.8 has been going on (and off) for over 15 years so why a rush to get a .308 right away for an expensive and temporary fix UNLESS we are going to war soon.

    • iksnilol

      WW3 here we come, can’t wait, it’s gonna be just like fallout… wait, deathclaws were in fallout, CRAP, I DON’T WANT FALLOUT IN REAL LIFE!

      • ostiariusalpha

        Me neither… but I still want a Liberty Prime.

        • iksnilol

          Screw it, WE WANT WW3 Y’ALL.

          Daddy needs some power armor.

        • DW

          Truth has never sounded so good.

      • DW

        Of course you do, provided that it’s a modded one.
        …so you won’t be stuck doing settlements the rest of your life

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        I’ll bet a railroad spike can defeat level IV body armor.

  • Edeco

    Keep shortening the barrel of AR15 variants then ask for something with more butt. Meh. But the lost velocity is negligible to real fighters, and because todays modern cartridges are made for short barrels.

  • ReadyOrNot

    Seems like a huge waste of money for a temporary fix.

  • Ben

    Oh man! Can they build a rifle like the under 12lbs!?

  • Brett baker

    Give everyone an ACOG, train on making headshots. Much cheaper. If we need a new toy, how about an air rifle trainer for indoor ranges? Of course maybe this rfi is a case of”abandon all hope and don’t rock the boat and we’ll all make a few hundred grand” to quote Warren Zevon;)

    • Pete

      ? senceless 5.56×45 M955 does go trough ALREADY

      • Pete


  • PTMcCain

    For those of us who are not professionals here…can you quickly explain what the process is the Army uses when doing this sort of thing?

    Where does an RFI fit in the process? And what is the result of the RFI process?

    Thanks for anything anyone could share on the whole acquisition process.

    • Hi PTM, an RFI is just a request to the industry to share information about their current and upcoming products and technology. RFIs may be as simple as a solicitation for spec sheets, or it may be a prelude to an industry shoot where hopefuls demo their guns. There is no guarantee of a contract in the RFI process.

      Requests for Proposal are similar to RFIs, but generally attached to a contract and involving competitive bidding.

      You can think of RFIs as the service saying “we’re interested in such and such, show us what you got”, while an RFP is more like “we want to buy such and such, how much?”

      • James Kachman

        Maybe we’re all losing our collective minds over nothing, then? Since this is just an RFI.

        • Joshua

          We are. The only time to lose our collective minds is when the RFP comes out.

          That said there is a ton of people, myself including fighting this behind closed doors.

          Theres a lot going on now and most of these types of ideas are coming from Generals who have never been front line soldiers.

          • James Kachman

            “myself including fighting this behind closed doors.”

            Thank God. If I might ask, what percentage of tip-of-the-spear types actually want a rifle bigger than 5.56? What percentage actually know what that increase would mean and could use it?

            (Also your input on earlier threads regarding infantry tactics in Afghanistan was much appreciated, thank you.)

          • Joshua

            I can’t really get into specifics, but outside of things like a DMR no one who actually goes out and shoots people at night want a larger caliber.

            No one except those getting out of their lane are advocating for anything beyond 5.56 for a general issue carbine. M855A1 is a laser that explodes out to 500M.

            The issue is people are using their titles to push things they do not understand.

            I’ll give you a public example. Look at Joni Ernsts feelings on weapons and you will see why we have to fight tooth and nail to keep stupid from hindering our soldiers.

            She is a Lieutenant Colonel, who served as a logistics officer in the National Guard, yet she somehow acts like a small arms subject matter expert and a lot of ignorant congress critters listen to her.

            That is what we are facing.

          • James Kachman

            No need to violate OPSEC on my behalf, appreciate the feedback. Any experience with Mk. 318/SOST?

          • Joshua

            SOST is not a bad round, it just doesn’t work as well against hard targets as M855A1 and it doesn’t fragment nearly as well as M855A1 at distance either.

            That said for soft targets out to 300M its a good round, plus it’s easy to get on the civilian side.

            M855A1 is already the standard issue round for SOCOM.

          • James Kachman

            Any idea if there’s any M855A1 in use by SOCOM?

          • Joshua

            There’s lots of M855A1 in use by SOCOM.

          • James Kachman

            Are the different rounds used on a “Round A for Mission B” setup, or do guys carry mags of both? Do they intermix their mags with both?

            (Feel free to stop responding if I ask too many questions.)

          • Brett baker

            Wasn’t Ernst in Iraq when the “we need a bigger, more manly caliber deck was at it’s peak?

      • PTMcCain

        Got it, very helpful.

      • FarmerB

        Exactly, and well put – I think a lot of commentators don’t get that.

  • Steve

    Id guess they look with the idea of designing or adding in the 6.5 or 260 rem type round into the platform. Wasnt there a group in the service already testing out those two calibers in platforms? Maybe this is just to see on a larger scale platforms that could handle a modified version of one of those rounds. To me with the cost of everything just keep hammering out new 5.56 or 300blk out round designs. Id much rather have multiple round options in lighter weight and more capacity category. Just like having the right tool for design if the government really wanted they could tool up enough to have speciality rounds for frontline troops and standard 5.56 for the rest. But what do i know really.

  • adverse4

    Don’t need a rifle, just more body armor. Curl up into a defensive ball, like an armadillo. Current crop of wussies can’t carry the load anyway. Why? Because their armor is already too heavy. Jesus……

  • Joshua

    This is just a RFI it won’t go anywhere. Now if it was a RFP I would say everyone freak out, but generally in military weapons it goes straight to RFP with no RFI ever coming out.

    Plus a lot of people myself including are fighting the leaders who think this is a good idea tooth and nail.

    We will do our best to keep a 7.62 rifle from becoming standard issue.

  • Paul Rain

    The correct solution is DU.

    • .

      *no its Tungstencarbide…

    • iksnilol


      • Gary Kirk

        See my comment on the new rifle..

        And RAUFOSS..

        • iksnilol

          Can… can we have HEAT and Raufoss in one?

          • Gary Kirk

            They pretty much are the same..

            But I guess we could give everyone an AT-4 also..

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but like a mini-AT-4, so that you can carry multiple ones easily.

          • Gary Kirk

            AT-4 revolver..

          • iksnilol

            YASS, SLAY QUEEN!

    • Uniform223

      10mm explosive tipped caselss round.

  • John

    1. AR-10. Daniel Defense and Lewis Machine and Tool make some quality rifles already, and it’s pretty similar to what troops already know and have.

    2. The HK417. It’s expensive, but hey, it works.

    3. The FN SCAR 17. Because FN’s gotta sell their rifle to someone outside SOCOM.

    4. One of the hundred platforms chambered in 7.62 that the rest of the world uses/has used.

    5. Just issue the M1A with a pistol grip and be done with it.

  • Gun Fu Guru

    Just buy the LMT or HK. We all know the eventual winner of a possible contract will be one of those two.

    • Logic

      5.56×45 M995 already goes trough. No need to waste a sh*tton of money for nothing, and a ton of drawbacks…

  • RSG

    POF Revolution FTW!!!!!

  • Gary Kirk

    Need to defeat modern armor you say.. Tungsten cored ammo is too expensive..

    I’ve got it!!

    Everyone gets a Barrett!!!

  • Guy Slack


    • Logic

      5.56×45 M995 already goes trough. No need to waste a sh*tton of money for nothing, and a ton of drawbacks…

    • CommonSense23

      Please no. People have been trying to kill that rifle for a while now.

    • Live wire
  • tiger

    If your Kel Tec, do you throw your hat in the ring?

  • iksnilol


    -Respectfully, anybody with two brain cells.

  • John

    Are there really that many 7.62x51mm COTS rifles in production capable of full auto? It seems like that list would be pretty short.

    • Gary Kirk

      Any of them that use an AR fcg.. Can be made to use an M16/M4 fcg..

  • JoshuaK27

    Doesn’t p.o.f have the highest round count completed without failure in their .308 piston rifles ?
    I’m actually a SOCOM 16 fan in this scenario ,but alas we all know how we feel about the Tory Springfield company …..

  • Ed

    Full auto 7.62mm rifle again! Did they learn from the 60s. So full auto is uncontrollable and with the influx of wemon and small men in service weight and recoil will be a issue.

    So everyone will use M-110s CSASS or M-14 ebrs now. If we enter a urban or jungle war again we’ll have the same issues our fathers did in Vietnam.

    • Brett baker

      How many tankers and arty guys will practice enough to be effective?

  • cwolf

    The USMC RFI is far more specific (perhaps too much so re M27).

    Ideally, the next gen rifle would be designed from the ground up as a system (see the USMC articles about what they see as future features).

    There seem to be two major discussion threads behind moving to another caliber (7.62 or 6.5 or ….):

    1. Bad Guys don’t immediately drop dead when shot at.

    2. Bad Guys are shooting from longer ranges.

    Combat interview data tends to be iffy. You have to ask these shooters exactly what they expect to happen when they shoot somebody. Then test their marksmanship on high-fidelity targets. The moving target test showed zero hits which is why one Service is buying moving targets.

    The responses I’ve seen is the shooters say they’re shooting a running Bad Guy at 200m and he doesn’t immediately die. Lots of variables there. Just look at the Miami shootout; the two Bad Guys were clinically dead as they shot the FBI agents.

    So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, equip some test Infantry companies with the SCAR H/HK 417/whatever, run tests at the CTC, then, if reliable, send them into combat. Collect data. I’d even send them deer hunting at APG.

    My opinion is it will make little difference. Why? Because Ph/Pk is a multiple variable equation that is more than bullet diameter. Maybe everybody needs to be a SDM?

    In addition, accurate rifle fire past 800-1,000m is very tough. True, there are things like Tracking Point. There are other weapon systems that are better at longer ranges (Pike missile, M6 smart knee mortar, 40×53 smart grenade with a light ground launcher)(realizing they all need to be tested).

    Everybody has opinions. Everybody wants to be responsive. I’m just not sure caliber alone will solve 100% of the issues.

    Although the DI issue which has little visibility is lead poisoning. Blood tests don’t accurately catch it because lead is bound into bone with a month or so. So, I’d vote piston.

  • Flounder

    It sounds like they are just looking for a way to get more 308 rifles into the service without dealing with the bureaucracy. Looks like someone may have found a a way to play the game and capitalize on public opinion.

    AND 12 LBS UNLOADED WITHOUT OPTIC! That is seriously heavy!!! Like a M1A in a heavy target stock! With bipod and sling! I mean holy crap! Does the weight discount any gun at all?!?

  • Audie Bakerson

    Can this at least give us a “milspec” for AR10s instead of the weird conflicting standards we have now?

    • Brett baker

      No. Too many people will say they chose wrong.

  • TDog

    “All this raises the question: Is the armor issue simply an excuse for a larger-caliber infantry rifle?”

    Yes. Despite all protestations to the contrary, 5.56 is a pretty lousy round. It takes multiple hits to take an enemy down – more than 7.62×51 – and it is out-ranged by a lot of the rounds our opponents use.

    5.56 by many accounts leaves us out-ranged and out-sticked.

    But why blame body armor? Because it’s a lot more palatable to lay the burden of change on the other guy’s tech than to admit that we went the wrong way decades ago. I know all the AR/5.56 cheerleaders will wail, gnash their teeth, and throw out the tired old argument of “if 5.56 is so bad, why don’t you get shot by it?”, but the fact is that it has been found wanting and this is the Pentagon’s way of trying to admit fault without taking responsibility for it.

    • Logic

      5.56×45 M855A1 has a fragmenting range of 600yards, a supersonic range of 700-800yards (same as 7.62×51), better trajectory and PBR at midrange than 7.62×51, same trajectory at higher range.

      M855A1 EPR will totally shred your arms/legs/neck/organs/lungs and explode your skull.

      Its has HALF the weight, a THIRD the recoil. +10Rounds per mag. Lighter Rifle. And longer barrel for the same overall lenght…..

      Non tungsten 7.62×51 doesnt get trough LVL4, tungstencarbide 5.56×45 M995 and 7.62×51 M993 does.

      • James Kachman

        “M855A1 has a fragmenting range of 600yards”

        Out of curiosity, what’s the source on that?

        I believe you, just would prefer something solid to share with others.

      • TDog

        No one’s arguing these rounds won’t kill you, least of all me. What I am saying is that 5.56 will take longer to kill you than 7.62×51.

        It’s simple anatomy and physics: a smaller round, no matter how much or how little it fragments, will cause less damage than a larger round. Smaller rounds simply have less material with which to shred human tissue.

        And despite being half the weight, does that matter if it takes twice the number of rounds to achieve the same result?

    • No round will ensure a 1-shot stop. That is an impossible goal.

      An impossible goal which, it seems, many people are willing to sacrifice a large portion of the mobility and endurance of the infantry to pursue.

      • iksnilol

        40mm HE is one shot stop if you hit someone directly.

        • Not if the fuse fails.

          • iksnilol

            Double tap, always, sonny.

        • Number

          A fat woman in somalia once wasnt stopped by 40mm (but not sure if frag or he).

          • DW

            *gasp* The mythical “yo mama”?

      • AK™

        .50BMG is a one shot stop if you hit them..

        • Joshua

          No it’s not. I’ve seen people survive hits from a .50.

        • Logic

          Depends on the round. FMJ is too stable and takes to long to tumble, with its aerodynamic nose it goes straight trough.

          You need hollow points or other constructions to actually use the energy.

        • Not guaranteed. Even then.

      • TDog

        One-shot stop is one thing – ice-picking the other guy to death is another.

        I suspect many folks will get over their worship of 5.56 once the military changes to another caliber. A lot of its mystique comes from the military seal of approval – if the military uses it, it must be great!

        But the military has given us failures before and this weird and somewhat slavish devotion to all things Military is counterproductive at times. 5.56 is far from perfect – not that “perfect” exists – and so while it allows troops to move easier and carry more rounds in combat, it’s kind of putting the cart before the horse if that weight savings will be taken up by other stuff and more rounds are needed to achieve the same number of kills.

        7.62×51 is perhaps not the best round to replace 5.56, but it has three advantages over it – it has a longer range, it has greater penetrating power, and it certainly does more damage per round than 5.56. Its disadvantages are it weighs more and has increased felt recoil. The latter can be trained to be dealt with – unless they’ve been recruiting utter children and I haven’t been told about it – and the former is immaterial as soldiers and marines already carry an enormous amount of gear.

        • FF

          7.62×51= Same supersonic range, worse PBR, worse midrange trajectory, double the weight = half the rounds, complete LOSS of fire superority, stupid recoil (over 300% recoil for only 170% the energy, totally out of sence).

          Also heavier Rifle (larger bolt carrier etc), and SHORTER barrel for the same lenght due to mag and chamber OAL….

          • TDog

            And yet we’re not talking about supersonic range because a subsonic round can kill as well.

            As for point blank characteristics, the problem is not getting into their face but having them being able to out range us. There is absolutely no reason to worry about how effective your knife is when the other guy is hitting you from five blocks away.

            Midrange trajectory: only because time and resources have not been given over to turning out a flatter-shooting .308.

            Recoil can be managed unless you’re a total child.

            Heavier rifle: do more exercise.

            Shorter length: are we making rifles for midgets here? An additional inch or so may be an important buying point for the ladies, but in a rifle it’s not going to get anyone killed.

    • int19h

      If it’s a mistake, you’ll have to explain why not one, but three countries have made it – and consecutively at that. First US adopting 5.56, then USSR adopting 5.45, then China adopting 5.8. Each of the latter two has done it after seeing how the other ones before fared. Soviets had 10 years to watch. Chinese had 25. They both did it. Were all the people involved idiots?

      • TDog

        Given that there is a difference between 9mm and 10mm, that there is a difference between 7.62×51 and 7.62×39, Russia adopting the 5.45 and China adopting the 5.8 doesn’t mean they adopted something that performed identically to 5.56.

        And since 5.8 hasn’t been used in combat, we have no idea how well it functions in real combat situations. China may find itself in a conflict and say, “Hey! What the heck!? This new round sucks!”

        • int19h

          In the context of this discussion (about whether <6mm caliber is "good enough", and whether we should go back to 7.62×51) any such differences are insubstantial. We're talking about calibers that have similar effective range, similar trajectory etc. It's nothing like x51 vs x39.

          The point about China is that it saw *two other* countries use a similar round in combat. In fact, in both cases – Vietnam and Afghanistan – Chinese were involved in some way or another with the side against which those rounds were used, and so almost certainly had direct access to data on efficiency on the battlefield.

          Afghanistan is a particularly interesting example, since that's purported to be the worst case scenario for these types of rounds… yet Russians didn't complain about the performance of 5.45 there, and Chinese (who, to remind, were actively supplying the mujis with weapons, and had direct contacts with some of their warlords) didn't find any cause for concern – they officially adopted 5.8mm in 1987, when that war has been going for 8 years already.

          So, the question remains. To make this theory viable, you would have to provide a convincing explanation as to why not only the Americans were incompetent when adopting that round, but also why Russians and Chinese were similarly incompetent when adopting their own equivalents – *after* seeing how the round performs on the battlefield.

          • TDog

            The worst logic one can use to confirm one’s beliefs is “they did it too.” Note that Russia still employs 7.62×39 on a regular basis. Their new service rifle comes in two flavors, so to speak, and so if 5.45 were such a be-all, end-all, why the side-by-side?

            As for China, they were likelier looking for something with greater range than 7.62×39. But given its lack of combat testing, who are we to say it’s superior?

            Also of note: Turkey, a major US ally, used 7.62×51 for a lot longer and is going back to it with the MPT-76.

            I personally think that if we’re looking to lay on the firepower while up-gunning our troops, leave the SAW’s in 5.56 – the advantages in weight really come into play with that. Give everyone else 7.62×51 to allow them greater range and them train them to handle it.

          • int19h

            > The worst logic one can use to confirm one’s beliefs is “they did it too.”

            Not at all. Unless you assume everyone around you is an idiot, and you’re the only smart guy, if you’re doing something that everybody else didn’t do – and you know they did in fact consider it! – it’s entirely reasonable to ask why.

            > Note that Russia still employs 7.62×39 on a regular basis.

            Not in the military, they do not. MVD (internal troops) employs x39 on a *limited* basis for urban operations – not because of any difference in armor penetration or range, but because heavier bullets are better at barrier penetration against bricks, concrete etc. Essentially, it fills the same niche that some people are trying to fill with .300 BLK in the West now. Of course, it is nothing like the proposed reversal to 7.62×51 for the *primary* weapon.

            > Turkey, a major US ally, used 7.62×51 for a lot longer and is going back to it with the MPT-76.

            Turkey has only experimented with 5.56 very briefly – until recently they’ve still mostly been using G3. That said – yes, it is a very good question as to why they decided to switch back. Of course, you have to properly weigh that question against all the other countries that switched and didn’t look back.

          • TDog

            Well, to be fair, most people ARE idiots. Think about it: even in something as benign as an internet debate, people sling the label “idiot” around an awful lot – and they can’t all be wrong, can they? When we look even deeper, we see flash mobs running amok, “peaceful” protesters setting things on fire, etc.

            The human condition is not prone towards wisdom. To assume that military planners possess any more of that rare commodity known as intelligence and forethought is a mighty large one to make. And given that the US has hardly won any wars these past couple of decades and Russia finds itself stuck in not one but two quagmires while China has seen fit not to fight very much in the past thirty years, the possibility that small-caliber firearms was the way to go is about equal to the possibility that they were the wrong way to go.

    • Uniform223

      Tpuppy, don’t comment on something you know nothing about.

      • TDog

        Note that by default you are proclaiming yourself an expert.

        How nice that you think so highly of yourself.

        • Uniform223

          People have already called out your male bovine fecal matter. No need to for me to reinforce the fact that you’re wrong and do not know much of this subject. Go back to playing your CoD for all your insights into smalls arms.

  • Eric Frey

    I’m betting on the SCAR-H. good gun.

  • Nimrod

    My Ruger SR762 is a pretty decent rifle. It is piston driven and is accurate and reliable. Uses standard mags. Very soft shooting. I have numerous .30 cal battle rifles and it is my favorite.

  • Treiz

    Sounds like they put a new guy in charge of the giant money toilet and he wants to try it out…

  • gunsandrockets

    Interim Combat Service Rifle.

    Emphasis on the Interim.

  • Sean

    SCAR17 or HK417. Period. No other brand makes anything that can compete with these 2 in the reliability department with a proven track record. S&W AR-10 is of laughable quality that stands up to about 70% of commercial use, imaging how it would fare under military use.

  • Jim_Macklin

    The WWII .30/06 M2 AP black tip could be loaded in 7.62×51 and be very effective.
    Daniel Defense has a 7.62×51 rifle now. “Off the shelf” doesn’t mean that a product must be in inventory today.
    Ruger ST762 or DD V5 could meet the requirements.

    • Level IV is by definition proof against M2 AP to over 2,800 ft/s.

  • hikerguy

    I can see this as a DM rifle or for use in areas with wide open spaces like the Turks have in their country. But as a general issue? No.

  • 3 of 11

    Solution to ceramic body armor? Keep using 5.56 and shoot them in the head or legs or a dozen times. Or just shoot lots and lots in their general direction, pinning them down while you maneuver and/or arrange for artillery or air strike.

    5.56 doesn’t need fancy new bullets. Though it wouldn’t hurt. What you need are vast quantities of them and that’s what makes 5.56 so great. It pins people down and increases hit probability in a critical area (body armor ain’t gonna cover 100% of you). That’s how they got the Hollywood bank robber. Covered in body armor? Shoot em in the feet / lower legs until he bleeds to death.

  • George

    Please for the love of all that’s unholy…

    M-14 EBR by Springfield Armory
    G-3 by anyone
    T48 FN FAL
    Galil 7.62

  • Uniform223

    To me this is just a stupid exercise trying to find a solution or a problem that doesn’t exist.

  • Orlin Pettit

    The requirement for full automatic fire in a 7.62×51 that weighs 12 lbs (5.5kg) is a waste (I’m sure others have already mentioned this). It will end up just like the M14/M-14A/M-15 issued rifles.. though with the pistol grip, heavy barrel, high capacity magazine, and a bi-pod the M-15 may have looked like a light machine gun .. it wasn’t. The M-14/M14-A1 over heated and was hard to control on full auto. It was enough of a problem that I was never issued an M-14 with select fire in Vietnam … and never knew anybody that had one.
    A military rifle is a compromise and past experience is that a rifle that is supposed to do everything ends up not doing anything very well. Answer: Carry two rifles!

  • mosinman

    hello M-14 v.2 because we apparently didn’t learn the first time around

  • mosinman

    7.62mm APDSFS?

    • Logic

      5.56×45 M995 already goes trough.

      Flechettes are rather inaccurate.

  • Risto Kantonen

    Another thing that comes to my mind is the question why 7.62x51mm? Wouldn’t an intermediate cartridge with high ballistic coefficient somewhere between 6 and 7mm make more sense? Such cartridges are already available, 6.5 creedmoor being one.

    • Army logic

      Way to efficient an logical….

      We much rather want a round with stupid weight, stupid recoil, stupid trajectory and winddrift, low supersonic range, low mag capacity, no fire superority. 7.62×51 is excellent for that job.

  • Bulldogdriver

    Having too high standards will ensure that a lot more money be paid for a weapon that is marginally better in real world usage. I am sure an S&W MP10 will provide similar capabilities as a HK417 in normal infantry operations. And i think that the weight issue is overhyped. Brazilian BOPE seems to be doing fine in urban CQB operations with their 7.62mm AR-10A4.

  • Joel

    “• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic.”

    So, how much loaded and with all accessories? How much total, including ammo, added weight for one soldier to carry, versus the current solution?

    This RFI looks like a “gap filler” in that it will provide some billable hours for project management staff. One suspects it will end in the same fate as so many other snipe hunts.

  • EC

    The Chinese PLA uses about 6 different types of body armour. Levels I – IV are all for protection against handgun/submachinegun rounds, using 7.62×25 as a standard. Level V protects against 7.62×39. Level VI protects against Chinese 5.8mm as well as 7.62×51 (no idea if multi-hit capable).

    The only question is whether such armour will be regularly issued to Chinese soldiers. This is difficult to answer because the PLA doesn’t really deploy abroad all that much in great numbers. In their anti-piracy actions they seem to be wearing hard rifle plates to protect against AK fire. Their peace keepers in Sudan are equipped with fairly heavy-looking armour, similar to the older Interceptor carriers with groin and neck protection. They are possibly Chinese Level VI (our Level IV).

    But these are relatively small, high-profile forces. As of 2014, there does not seem to be the standard issue of body armour to your typical PLA grunt. This might have changed in the past few years, but at least with the Chinese it is uncertain whether they will be so heavily armoured that 7.62×51 will be necessary.

  • Bierstadt54

    Just pointing out that all those mentioned objections and issues with 7.62 in general issue are very real problems, this is merely an RFI, and is almost certainly not going to ever go anywhere beyond. However, I will point out that if effective warfighting requires expensive AP ammo, then it WILL be purchased and issued.

  • noob

    Are DU 5.56 projectiles a thing? Or is 7.62 a thing ie the smallest DU round developed for machine guns?

  • The_Champ

    If there is one thing I’ve learned about the TFB comments section, it is that nothing gets more comments than an article discussing the US Armies primary infantry rifle, and the possible replacement there of.

    And here I am, sitting in the corner, wishing someone would discuss Steyr Mannlicher Straight pulls, old 6.5mm military cartridges, and old school ‘wood n’ metal’ battle rifles with as much vigor! 🙂

  • 8166PC1

    So wait does this mean they want to replace 5.56×45 rifles with 7.62 rifles?

    • Logic

      No. Its just a RFI, it almost doesnt mean anything. Also 5.56×45 M995 already goes trough these plates.

  • MrBrassporkchop

    Is the military anticipating an enemy in the foreseeable future that may utilize this heavy body armor?

    • Logic

      5.56×45 M995 goes trough anyways

    • Sermon 7.62

      The Russians

  • gunsandrockets

    Hmmm… what might you do with a 7.62x51mm interim rifle?

    In theory a 7.62mm interim rifle could:

    1) Fire standard issue rounds like the M80a1 ball

    2) Fire a heavy bullet subsonic round with a suppressor

    3) Fire a lighter-recoil lighter-weight lower-pressure load, more suitable for full-auto fire, say the M80a1 bullet at 2,200 fps MV from an aluminum case.

    4) Fire a new discarding sabot armor piercing round

  • FactChecker90803

    Let’s see who gets paid off to select the HK417.

  • valorius

    Perhaps it’s the cynic in me, but i see 0% of this actually being adopted.

  • valorius
  • valorius

    “Caliber 7.62x51mm”
    “Weigh less than 12lb without optic.”
    “A 16 or 20 inch barrel, not including muzzle device.”

    So everything the M4 is NOT.

    LMAO you can’t even make this crap up if you try.

    PS: M995 5.56mm will defeat a half inch of RHA main battle tank armor, but hey, who’s counting.

    PSS: This rifle will be very popular with the lady grunts. I wonder how many dumb male privates will be carrying the ladies TA-50 gear on road marches so they can handle the extra weight of this rifle.

    • Eric H

      And if you had read all the analysis of this decision/news here and other knowledgeable gun sites, this weapon isn’t really competing with the M4. It’s taking over a role that’s currently being serviced by a hodgepodge of guns that the military (at least the Army) is looking to standardize and modernize with a single, newer weapon.

      • valorius

        By hodegepodge, you mean several very capable firearms already in service, right?

  • valorius

    These new 7.62x51mm rifles will be great for stopping knife wielding muslims on the London bridge.

    • XT6Wagon

      Find some stored M-14’s in case the service men need to use their rifle as a club. Or maybe some FN FAL if shooting people is also needed.

  • FactChecker90803

    The Army will Never Select the M&P10, it’s American Made, Not Expensive Enought, Smith & Wesson do not bribe like H&K and there is no Glamour in saying, ” I have an American Made m&p10″, versus ” I have a German Made H&K417 “.

    • SCAR 17???

      • FactChecker90803

        I was referring to AR platform, it yeas the SCAR 17, should be the primary contender.

        • The Brigadier

          I agree since the the charging handle can be moved to the left side for lefties. I always preferred the side charging handle over the ARs back handle. I got used to it, but I never liked it.

          • FactChecker90803

            Dccdxmc” God c$$  ‘fc,”$CVS from f vvvcv cv gvcVSent via the Samsung Galaxy S8, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date: 6/6/17 21:11 (GMT-08:00) To: Subject: Re: Comment on BREAKING: US Army Releases RFI for New 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle
            “I agree since the the charging handle can be moved to the left side for lefties. I always preferred the side charging handle over the ARs back handle. I got used to it, but I never liked it.”


            A new comment was posted on The Firearm Blog

            The Brigadier

            I agree since the the charging handle can be moved to the left side for lefties. I always preferred the side charging handle over the ARs back handle. I got used to it, but I never liked it.

            12:11 a.m., Wednesday June 7


            Other comments by The Brigadier


            to The Brigadier

            The Brigadier’s comment is in reply to


            I was referring to AR platform, it yeas the SCAR 17, should be the primary contender. Read more

            You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to FactChecker90803.

            You can unsubscribe
            from emails about replies to FactChecker90803
            by replying to this email with “unsubscribe”
            or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by
            adjusting your notification settings.

  • Christian Lowe

    To answer your question, Nat…it’s range not body armor that’s the problem…7.62x54R from bad guys and 5.56 from us is considered an “overmatch.” Body armor is just to get money from Hill.

    • Everyone seems to forget that wars are combined arms affairs.

      Also, expecting 19 year old infantrymen to successfully “overmatch” tripod-mounted machine gun teams is utter folly, regardless of the caliber of rifle you issue them.

      • Christian Lowe

        Problem is, the PKM and Dragunov are more common and are targeting US troops where those troops can’t reach them with M4s. I’m just telling you what I’m hearing from mil sources on this, not coming down on a side of the debate.

        • Uniform223

          When we engage them with 300 winmag or 50cal they are in the same situation. So this false sense and notion that our (U.S.) forces are out ranged and out gunned is just that, false.

  • J.T.

    Nothing will happen.

  • Sermon 7.62

    The Russian river is a Russian river. It is called the Russian river, because it is Russian. Isn’t it?

  • LazyReader

    4-5x more expensive…. In slow motion I can literally see money fly out the barrel

  • n0truscotsman

    An article from a gun rag isn’t a refutation of my point above. Its advertising.

  • Max Glazer

    SR-25 with an auto mode.

    But what is the point? Re-arming the US military to it (assuming that it’ll replace 5.56 as US military standard ammo for general use) would also mean re-arming the whole of NATO. Considering that very few NATO states are even complying with the 2% GDP rule that will probably not happen.

    Body armor? Last I checked it’s easier to ramp up production of hardened steel AP ammo then re-arm the entire military.

    Another aspect is the recoil. People still talk about how 5.56 ARs are so much easier hit targets with then 7.62 AKs. And here we are with THIS thing popping up. What happened to the adage of being able to fire more accurately in short-burst or single fire and fast follow-up shots?

    To be able to take that ammo, weapon will have to be stronger structurally and hence heavier. Last I checked the trend was to make equipment for soldiers as light as possible.

    The ONLY use I can see for this weapon is to arm DMRs with a weapon that in an absolute emergency can go auto.

  • Joe Deats

    Range and energy are just as much a factor as armor penetration. The M14 was taken out of mothballs because the military discovered that the 5.56 wasn’t effective at ranges where the enemy was engaging us with the ancient 7.62x54R round. They have also after 50 years discovered that the 5.56 doesn’t turn cover into concealment like the 7.62×51 does.
    So we have come full circle, the rediculous obsession with replacing a full power round, the years and lives spent making the M16/M4 as good as it will ever be and we will go back to what worked in the first place. Who would have guessed that Springfields ads asking “Bring enough gun?” Would ring true to everyone but the most ardent 5.56 fanboy.
    I’ve posted before that the military should go back to the 7.62×51, I thought they would be to dense to see the common sense in using a round that we can already mass produce and that the private sector has spent years and millions of dollars to optimize. Maybe common sense isn’t dead…..

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      7.62X51 never “turned cover into concealment” either, but boy does that phrase sound cooooool.

  • John S

    Must be COTS, and must be select fire, modified or customized systems not considered? How many AR-10s in production today are select fire? Sounds like they want the SCAR H.

  • survivor50

    WHAT ??? No bayonet lug ???
    It’s California Compliant “DUDE ” !
    Just kidding…glad to see my favorite round come back to the fold
    (Yes I’m an OLD M-14 fan, and I always had an M1A)

  • Guido FL

    Personally I have recently built two AR15’s in 7.62×39 and now these are my go rifles. Being much more deadly than the .223 cal. out to two hundred yards these are cheap to shoot using Russian ammo are surprising very accurate ! Let’s face it .30 caliber rds. are battle rifle ammo.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Let’s face it, you don’t even know the definition of “Battle rifle.”

  • Accurate Okie

    Sounds like an AR-10 to me and i mean an actual Armalite rifle not a copy of it. Uses everything already in inventory and it works.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    InB4 the Garand fanbois talk about “The finest implement of battle ever devised” by 1943 standards.

  • – must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system
    – 16 and 20 inch barrels
    – Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic
    – Extended Forward Rail

    The above (along with the other listed requirements) sounds like a personal invitation to FN for the SCAR!!! Would be nice if CZ made the Bren in .308 to compete.

  • Conrad Cimino

    No bayonet lug, . . . or option in the specs.


  • The Brigadier

    I posted in another thread a few months back that the brass has decided on three calibers for riflemen. Baby Bear will be this 7.62X51 and it is the first procurement. Mama Bear will be a semi-auto in .338 Lapua with optics for snipers, and Papa Bear will be .50 BMG for both sniping and as an anti-material rifle against light armor, slower moving aircraft and light water craft. It appears the threat of a conflict with Russia is the overriding factor and open field fighting if it happens will require calibers that will hit harder at much farther distances open field fighting requires.