BREAKING: 7.62mm Rifle to REPLACE M4 Carbine – Interim Combat Service Rifle Solicitation Released by US Army

Original caption: "A Scout Sniper Team Marksman, part of the Recon Platoon from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment, 53rd Brigade Combat Team, Florida Army National Guard fires a M110 semi-automatic sniper system rifle at a 600 meter target during a live fire long range marksmanship training and qualification course at the Arta training range in Djibouti, Oct 14, 2015." The M110 SASS is a 7.62mm sniper rifle system, similar to many rifles that may compete in the ICSR competition. Image source: US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Gregory Brook. Public domain.

The US Army has released a solicitation for a new 7.62mm infantry rifle to replace the M4. The Interim Combat Service Rifle program, known to be in the works since April of this year, would replace M4 Carbines in use with combat units with a new weapon in the 7.62x51mm caliber. The new solicitation requires companies to submit 7 weapons plus ancillaries for testing, and includes the promise of up to 8 Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs, non-contract transactions), leading to the eventual selection of 1 weapon for a contract of 50,000 units.

The primary justification for the ICSR program are improved ceramic body armors that are resistant to existing forms of small arms ammunition. The logic goes that the Army’s new 5.56mm M855A1 round cannot penetrate these new armors, and therefore the service must switch to a new round. However, this is misleading, as current 7.62mm M80A1 is incapable of penetrating these body armors either – and specialty tungsten cored ammunition in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers are capable of penetrating armor of this type. The US Army seems to be banking on its yet-undescribed XM1158 ADVAP round to bridge this gap – however Chief Milley himself admitted in testimony to Congress that the ADVAP’s design could be applied to either 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition.

These facts leave us with very little justification for the move to 7.62mm. It’s difficult to ignore the picture that a move towards a larger caliber infantry rifle has been lobbied for by manufacturers for over a decade, as it would give whoever won a toehold on a highly lucrative exclusive contract. Sadly, all this program will do is take a load off Chief Milley’s back, and put it on the backs of our troops. One wonders if General Milley is willing to write to families of the dead when ICSR-equipped units run dry of ammunition and are overrun by 5.45mm-armed foes.

Thanks to James for the tip… I think?



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 nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • MeaCulpa

    Whuuuut? go creedmore or go home! But why are they stopping at 7.62 NATO when you have 30-06 and 338 Norma magnum in the inventory?

    • PK

      Better yet, just in case the armor gets better, or maybe it’s better than we think already, why not just replace all the M4s with .50BMG rifles?

      • Alex Jay

        Or just skip all that just in case the enemy’s armor is a solid steel wall and equip everyone with a 105mm howitzer

        • PK

          Of course! How could I be so blind?

        • I’mBaaaatmaaaan!

          screw that 107 . go 8 in or go home !

        • Longhaired Redneck

          Silly fellow! Why a dinky 20mm carbine would be sufficient, if only to make the (not in)fidels keep their little heads down with suppresive fire!

        • McThag

          Why not just give every infantryman a nuke!?!

  • Scott Wagner

    As a general question, given that they’re marking this as an interim weapon, would it be possible that they’re looking at doing this so that they have more options for caliber selection down the road with the longer OAL allowed for by a .308 compatible magwell?

    • PK

      You don’t replace an infantry rifle with heavier, older, less suitable designs “just in case”.

      At least, we shouldn’t.

      • iksnilol

        You could fit a 90 grain bullet in 5.56 hella close to the lands in a 308 magwell.

    • Not with a sole-source contract they won’t.

  • PK

    Less than no justification for the switch, at least none grounded in reality.

    What a crock.

  • Joshua

    Every single person who protested against this was ignored.

    We tried, but the CoS had his mind made up.

    He didn’t care what those of us doing this for a living said, he wanted this and he got it.

    I’m sorry everyone.

    • Uniform223
      • milesfortis

        “It briefs well.”

    • Tim

      It’ll be a great new periodic eval ‘bullet’, though: “Single-handedly tripled the effective combat power of deployed infantry forces, through implementation of radical new doctrine previously considered outside the realm of the ‘possible’. General Snappypants’ grit and determination is in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Army.”

    • nadnerbus

      You win again, military industrial complex.

    • 40mmCattleDog

      This is f@cking insane. So this is a 100% done deal now?

      • Joshua

        Yes. The fix was in the moment they released that RFI.

        Why do you think they are giving companies only 30 days to come up with a full auto .308 rifle? The civilian market doesn’t deal in .308 full auto rifles and there are only 2-3 that have even been tested as such.

        I can’t say one way or another who’s going to win, as I don’t know for sure.

        I do know this. The day before the RFP came out, there were some very high ranking guys firing .308 guns in inventory, and only one of those rifles have semi/full as an option. A lot of those guys like the SCAR.

        Next day the RFP comes out and manufacturers have 30 days to offer a COTS rifle capable of semi/full auto fire, with the stipulation that the government will not accept guns that require modifications to function.

        On top of that the guns must be capable of working with M80A1, a round that is new. Newer than M855A1 was when the ICC RFP came out.

        Only 3 manufacturers have a lot of time firing it in their guns and only one gun is full auto.

        Now I don’t know for sure what Milley wants, but looking at this from the inside, if I was a betting man I would say the fix is in for the SCAR.

        But have no doubt the fix is in and these RFPs are just legal formalities. They know the gun they want and they will get it.

        • 40mmCattleDog

          Dude I cannot believe this B.S. Were gonna have troops die running out of ammo because Miley has a hard on for the SCAR H? I really thought the Brass wouldn’t F@ck up this bad.

          • Joshua

            I mean I could be wrong, maybe one of the other entrants into the CSASS is what they want(considering the HK entrant placed third and was selected and is now unfunded).

            My hopes, and this is because of my spite of the SCAR platform is that they want the Remington entrant to win, because that was an excellent AR-10 that blew away the HK entrant.

            But my gut is telling me this is a pull for the SCAR…which I hope is wrong.

          • Brett baker

            But,but,but the scar is FN, even more magical than Colt or Glock!

          • Uniform223

            ” I really thought the Brass wouldn’t F@ck up this bad.”

            > Never met a 2nd Lt have you?

          • 40mmCattleDog

            More than I’d like and the arrogance usually outweighed the military skill.

          • frankspeak

            the smart ones rely on the sergeants…know I did!….

          • John

            i never had an issue using an m14 and running out of ammo. I didnt need usually more than 1 shot on the enemy and i didnt spray and pray like an idiot. Hmm hard concept for some.

          • 40mmCattleDog

            Uh huh. Let me guess. Your m16 had Mattel written on the side, you don’t trust “plastic” handguns and only use a 1911 and think we should go back to OD greens.

          • Brett baker

            Was it because the guys in your unit were keeping the enemy’s heads down with M16 fire, giving you time to get your M14 in action? Also, was your 16 ready for parts replacement? A lot of guys have said a lot of 5.56 guns needed rebuilding because they had so many rounds through them.

          • The Brigadier

            The SCAR H is an exceptional rifle with a longer barrel.

          • The Brigadier

            You can’t bear to part with your AR can you? That’s okay. Save it for the very possible civil war that might just happen faster than you think.

        • frankspeak

          full-auto.is not very effective in a large caliber battle rifle..my HK-91..while matching my sporting rifles for long distance accuracy..is almost uncontrollable in full-auto….heard the same thing about the M-14..even though it was heavier…..

        • The Brigadier

          The entire industry worldwide knew about the impending 7.62 procurement for the last year. Those interested have been getting ready. FN will participate and I heard of three others that will also.

          • Joshua

            FN throwing in their SCAR is a given, as it is likely the candidate with the biggest leg up in the competition.

      • Joshua

        On top of what I wrote. Looking at the requirements alone tell you all you need to know. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a90809a11d8302169954f29d1652777cf604c2244a63d15d6124e9b3bc712c15.jpg

        What does that say to you?

    • Samuel Millwright

      We’re sorry too, we failed to elect better people who could have stopped this if all else failed!

      Seriously, we know you guys tried.

      • Evo Shift

        Elect better people? Explain yourself.

        • JoshuaK27

          hes a fanboy idiot …sooo hes got that going for him.

      • JoshuaK27

        You don’t elect generals…….

  • Uniform223

    https://media.tenor.com/images/46b3847e48f6b8649ae1ca24db1e3e90/tenor.gif

    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc3ov8s5ug1qk8ni7.gif

    then infantry will complain that the 7.62 rifles are too heavy and that they are unable to carry as many rounds so then they’ll switch back to the 5.56 (or similar)…

    they cycle continues.

    • RealitiCzech

      I’m going to start/invest in a company making duplex rounds right now. If we’re re-adopting the M14, Project Salvo II can’t be far behind.

    • RSG

      POF Revolution. Problem solved.

      • Kris

        That POF Revolution still weighs more than an M4 carbine and does nothing to solve the problem of the added weight of 308 ammunition.

        • John

          The rifle is not being issued to every soldier…oh no its a few extra pounds what ever will we do !!

          • Samuel Millwright

            The fact that you’re so cavalier about weight issues that are literally grinding the joints of our soldiers into dust says everything about you and your “claimed service” …

            Seriously, if you had actually served and weren’t a horrible excuse for a human being you totally wouldn’t be disrespecting all the people actually out there in the field doing real work!

    • Sid Collins

      I was around when the justification for the M9 in 9mm was made. Soldiers with small hands (which was obviously a veiled way to say female) can learn to shoot with more ease. This proposal will not last.

      • ActionPhysicalMan

        We finally got old East German female athlete development methods. Our women should be good to .300 RUM battle rifles.

      • Anonymoose

        The M9 has thicc grips, though. That’s why they also adopted the P228.

      • Humpy

        Actually the better pistol for someone with small hands is a 1911, the grips on the M9 are big and fat.

        • Sid

          I didn’t say it was right. I said it was the “justification”.

      • Samuel Millwright

        Which is weird too because a single stack 1911a1 is far easier for someone with small hands to operate LOL

    • noob

      The Russians had issues with their opposition wearing body armour and fighting from fortified buildings. So they put twin 30mm autocannon on a 48 ton t72 chassis and broke the cycle.

      They call it the Terminator. We ought to make one that’s unmanned and fits in a doorway. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57178fac64766d6c6ff3c5b32986d5ec85df899fb21d7a7e65c93344d019df01.jpg

      • Some Guy

        The terminatot is made obsolte by modern ammunition of the artilery and the machine cannons.
        The artilery(everything up from 120mm mortars, but 155mm are a lot better) can hit targets with good accuracy and have different settings like delay or airbust.
        The modern IFVs(whelled and tracked) like the German Puma can fire airburst ammo that will decimate any infantry unit while still carrying modern ATGMs. This is why the terminator is not needed anymore(and why the Russians haven`t adopted them)

      • Likvid

        Terminator is a gimmick for export and it’s still not clear, if it can be actually usefull, or if it’s just dead end (so far it looks more like the later). Guns are often criticized, as two 2A42s are not good enough for intended role. Right now, Russians are moving towards the 57mm autocannon for their IFVs, which makes 30mm pretty laughable in comparision.

      • Samuel Millwright

        Couldn’t agree more with one exception, optionally manned not straight unmanned needs to be the approach for too many reasons to list here… (Biggest one being that making something like that which is fully compliant with the applicable mil standards would be eye wateringly expensive, and far too limited in actual capabilities to boot! It sucks, but it’s the truth.)

        All of that said though, i actually agree with you so much that I’ve been actively pursuing just such a project for many years now!

        Because I’m limited in both funds and connections that would allow me to circumvent other limitations all my work up to now has been done at subscale using mostly free or cheap software and hobby grade motors electronics and etc as well as being remote controlled / very limited in autonomous action and abilities.

        As an added bonus my concept is also designed to carry pretty substantial amounts of gear and supplies for you too!

        • Brett baker

          But, how will we get kickbacks from the medical-industrial complex if we Don’t send them disabled discharges?

          • Samuel Millwright

            Such are the crosses we must all bear in the name of winning wars…

          • frankspeak

            they still doing that?…thought they weren’t PC “correct” anymore…

  • The Army’s assets and enlisted personnel need to be bundled up and given over to the Navy.

    ThereISaidIt

    • PK

      Well, look what that did to the Marines, though!

      • I mean granted, LCS isn’t the shiniest program on the hill, but at least the Navy can get good programs through on a regular basis.

        The Army is basically run by Satan. Every program dies, except the worst ones. So my expectation is that ICSR will not only succeed, but we’ll be procuring these rifles from a single manufacturer for the next 50 years.

        • PK

          Hooray…

          You know what, I’m on board with the Navy idea. Screw it.

        • TeaPartyPagan

          Does this explain why they are still trying to push the F-35 over the finish line (Air force, child of the Army)?

          • F-35 is certainly a product of the MIC, but it’s not such a bad bird. If nothing else, it’s a proving ground for a bunch of useful technologies.

            It is also a gigantic money pit.

          • The difference is that at the end of the day the F-35 is actually going to be a damned good 5th generation multi-role fighter (albeit with short legs, and the F-35B being made of compressed snowflakes and garbage) despite the inarguable fact that its procurement process was so luridly corrupt and incompetent it reads like a hyperbolic anti-capitalist screed from a bloody-handed Communist manifesto. Saddling PFC Dirtkicker with a thunderstick from three or four wars ago is just going to be a FUBAR financial fiasco from start to finish, with no real ultimate benefit for the poor SOBs who actually have to use them for their day job.

          • venku

            “albeit with short legs”

            I’ve seen that claim a lot, but has anyone actually bothered to actually check it. In fact, every F-35 pilot, who has been interviewed, has claimed the exact opposite.
            Lets take the current fighters for comparison. The F-16 can carry a measly 7,000 lb internally, while consuming 0.726 lb/h/lb (pounds of fuel per hour per lb of thrust). The Super Hornet can carry up to 14,000 lb internally, while consuming 0.84 lb/h/lb. The F-15C can carry up to 13,455 lb internally, while consuming the same amount per pound of thrust as the F-16. The F-35A has internal capacity of 18,498 lb (!) and a suggested consumption around 0.7 lb/h/lb. If we ran all the planes at the same thrust to weight, then the F-35 would clearly come out as the plane with the longest legs.

          • iksnilol

            False.

            Planes don’t have legs, they’ve got wheels and wings.

          • The “short legged” myth is based on clean range estimates… Never mind that combat birds don’t fly clean.

          • jcitizen

            What?! I’ve never heard of a fighter with an internal weapons bay beside the two newest versions!! Are you SURE about that?

          • Big Daddy

            It’s a POS

          • TeaPartyPagan

            I agree it is a good test bed, but it is not a multi-role fighter. I think the whole concept of “multi-role” is stupid. If it does everything just “OK”, it’s not the BEST at anything. When it comes up against the best, it’s going to lose.

          • Out of the Blue

            The real problem is the lack of internal weapons storage. This can be rectified with external storage but that sacrifices the stealth characteristics. Which is why I favor the development of a laser to replace the gun on the plane. If you’re flying, you have ammo because the engine is generating electricity for it.

          • venku

            I don’t think internal weapon storage is that big of a deal. It can carry 4 AMRAAMs currently and they are looking to bump it up to 6 AMRAAMs – that’s the same as an F-16 can carry. And really, if you start combining stealth and non-stealth airplanes, which is what some of the air forces buying the F-35 are looking to do, then the picture gets more favorable. An F-35 could have provisions to carry up to 12 AMRAAMs, which would be more than enough if they were to co-operate with stealthy scouts acting as a sort of AWACS, running in front.

          • Out of the Blue

            Thanks for the correction.

          • It has as much internal storage as an F-22, which is about as much as any single-seat stealth aircraft has ever had.

          • Out of the Blue

            I mistakenly thought that the internal bays could only hold one missile each. I was unaware of what must be a vertical internal stacking of the missiles. Thanks for the correction.

          • https://defencyclopedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wpid-img_21156667134215.jpeg

            Difficult to find a good picture of a loaded F-22 bay, but here’s one with some AMRAAMs:

            http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=9621&t=1

            You can see they are the same size. However, the F-22 has two additional bays for Sidewinders.

          • Out of the Blue

            Thanks for the pictures. Looks like a good engineer could get three missiles in each bay, meaning the only advantages an F-22 would have is in the additional sidewinders and manuverability, which would mostly help up close.

          • Yeah, loadout is 3x AMRAAMs or 1x AMRAAM + 4x SDBIIs, or 1x AMRAAM + 1x JDAM, per bay.

            So it’s pretty capable in stealthy config.

          • Disqus ate my comment, but I noted that 6x AMRAAMs is a standard A2A load for the F-35.

          • jcitizen

            The creed is after you gain air superiority, he weapons can go on external pylons from then on. These are strictly aircraft that put the initial stages of a war in our advantage, much like the British wiped the skies of the Luftwaffe with their Spitfires.

          • Out of the Blue

            I understood that as the philosophy. I was just bringing up the possibility because I misunderstood the internal storage of the F-35.

          • jcitizen

            I see – it might not be the most maneuverable or fastest fighter, but test pilot reports indicate the systems and capabilities of the aircraft more than make up for it. I’d imagine the older fighters and UAVs will take up the grunt work. Heck, UAVs may make the F-35 obsolete!

          • Out of the Blue

            And when you’re beyond visual range, the electronic warfare capabilities are more important than the manuverability. That being said, some competent engineers could fit those parts of the F-35 to the rest of the fleet. Might be a good investment.

          • jcitizen

            Maybe that is what they should have done first, I don’t know. The UK was worried about what they were going to do now that the Harrier is just getting too old and obsolete, and they probably had less money to build a carrier with launch capability than just pony up and get the new VTOL F-35 variant. I’ve never put a pencil to it, but it makes me wonder.

            The huge cost does make one ponder, but then having enough of an advantage at the get go could possibly end a war before it even had a chance to begin – or at least you’d know it was the beginning of he end. Perhaps it is all worth every penny.

          • I don’t think that’s accurate.

          • MeaCulpa

            Multi role is smart, building a regular multi role plane, a VTOL and STOL airplane and trying to make it look like the same plane and use similar airframes is stupid.

            The F35 will turn out fine in the end, the gen 5 talk is mostly marketing and the plane will be more expensive then what’s needed but that seems about par for US procurement.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            I could go on at length about this, but this is the wrong thread…

          • Given the cost of aircraft development these days, I don’t think we have another choice.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Yup

            But i think i can very safely say that concurrency has been thoroughly proven to be an extraordinarily stupid and expensive way to do things without having anyone disagree.

          • Bullphrog855

            I chuckle every time I see someone bring up the F-35 here.

          • Uniform223

            because the first people to bring it up often don’t know what they are talking about

          • UWOTM8

            Yeah uhh with the restrictions being taken off of it now, the F-35 can do some fairly mouth-watering stuff. That bird’s been flying with a ball and chain attached to it for awhile and it’s finally about to get loose.

            But it’s still a huge money sink….

        • RSG

          Well, the Army could adopt the POF Revolution and solve all the expected problems (if the bolt can withstand the rigorous stress over extended testing).

          • I don’t see how the POF Revolution would in any way help.

            In fact, it would create further logistical challenges.

          • John

            if it maintains the gas piston then its already alot better.

        • eddie046

          The LCS is a travesty and I fear for the lives of all my Navy shipmates who are going to have to sail into harm’s way in one. Against opponents who are all better armed and harder to sink.

          • Brett baker

            4 LCS for the cost of 1 Arleigh Burke. Michael Vlahoss thinks we should have adopted something even cheaper and less capable than the LCS.

        • .45

          No, Satan is more organized than the Army’s upper management…

      • TeaPartyPagan

        Ummmm… Excuse me, the Marines were the FIRST infantry the US kept standing, and they *started* in the Navy.

        • eddie046

          They still are part of the Navy.

          • Kivaari

            Under the BIG Department of Navy, but a separate unit.

          • Mr. Katt

            (the Mens’ Department) : )

          • TeaPartyPagan

            That was my point… PK implied there was some problem with the Navy overseeing the Marines, but the Marines are, and always have been part of the Navy.

        • jcitizen

          The National Guard is the oldest, and the new US congress started the other branches within days of each other, Marines being last. However, I seem to remember a Marine militia was the first “National Guard” unit. so yes, you might be right about the “Marines” being the ones that superseded them all – If I remember correctly, this unit used a stolen British ship to attack a base in Britain during the war for independence. So the navy came later made up of ripped off assets of the British Navy.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            You are rightly proud to be a member of the National Guard. Thank you for your service, sir, but you are incorrect. The National Guard, as an organized militia was not established until the 20th century. You conflate the citizen militia with the National Guard, and that is just not the case. Citizen militias have existed in the United States since North America was first colonized. The US Constitution gave Congress and the President the authority to command the citizen militia at need, but even this did not *create* the militia. The militia was already in existence, and is made up of citizens, collectively exercising their right to self defense.The National Guard was created by the National Defense Act of 1916.

          • jcitizen

            You can’t just ignore the history of the US/colonies pre-1776. Besides that was what we were taught in the service, and I’m sticking with it. Sure we switched sides at the declaration of independence, but we were still the same personnel and band of volunteers as before.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            The facts, are the facts. The National Guard was created in 1916 as a reserve component of the US Army. PERIOD. The citizen militia existed long before, and *still* exists separate from the NG. The NG is a military organization of the US government; the citizen militia is, quite simply, every citizen of the US.

          • jcitizen

            I look at it as I was instructed and as I believe; one homogeneous history. Thanks for your input!

          • TeaPartyPagan

            If you are younger than 45, it is just possible, depending on where you went to school, maybe even likely, you were handed a load of crap in school. If you think you’re right and I am wrong, have the courage to challenge your beliefs, and read some real history. It may surprise you.

          • jcitizen

            No, I never said you were wrong, I’m just going by what we got in class in the Guard. It is a matter of perspective. Your historical facts are correct. I just view history in a different light. I have two college degrees and aced history, so it isn’t like I’m ignorant – just hard headed and opinionated. =)

          • int19h

            The best modern example of militias as they existed in the Revolutionary era is arguably the State Guard / State Defense Forces. These are maintained individually by the states, only usable within their boundaries, and cannot be federalized.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            No sir, I respectfully disagree. The State Guard (my state has one) is still a government controlled militia. The citizen militia, referred to in the Second Amendment is external to all government control. Think about it… Where would the Revolutionary era militias have been if they were subject to government control? What would they have done if their colonial governor had ordered them to cease and desist. The citizen militia is every citizen of the country, who organize at need to protect themselves. This is what placed the citizen militia as deterrent to over reaching government in the perceptions of the Founders.

          • int19h

            The revolutionary militia was very much under government control. It’s just that it was a different government from the one they rebelled against.

            This does not give the tyrannical government a free pass, since the militias are only bound to respect its authority for as long as it is legitimate, and it would stop being legitimate once it becomes tyrannical. For the same reasons, the military oath is sworn to the Constitution first and foremost, rather than to any specific position in the government, or the government itself.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            No, the only legal government was King George. The Continental Congress was a provisional government in rebellion to its legal government. It was no more legal than any other coup d’etat. Had the Revolutionaries lost you would be reading in history how King George quelled an illegal colonial rebellion, by renegade militias. No revolution is legal unless it is won, and a treaty is signed by the loser. Remember winners write the history, and apparently that history has been rewritten since I was in school. It is evident our schools have failed miserably at teaching history.

          • int19h

            I think you’re confusing “legal” with “legitimate”. The former matters a great deal less than the latter in practice.

            As far as the rebels were concerned, the Continental Congress was their government. And they did obey that government – because that was the only way to organize meaningful resistance.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            And you are splitting hairs… The definitions of the two words are very similar, and even considering the minor differences in the two, neither the Continental Congress, nor the Continental Army fit either. If you just read the the Founder’s concepts of militia in the quotes where they explained their reasoning you would see just how wrong you are. History DOES NOT support your statement.

          • int19h

            Do you seriously not understand the huge difference between “legal” and “legitimate”? It’s not splitting hairs at all. It’s a vast chasm.

            I’ve read the Federalist Papers. Insofar as it talks about militia, it’s all in the context of being subordinated to the (local/state) government.

    • Renato H M de Oliveira

      IMHO, Army is on the verge of adopting a pretty powerful, big and heavy 6.5 round for the CTSAS.
      If they adopt it over the 7.62, the PowerPoint graphs will look nicer than if the change is over 5.56.
      As 7.62 is an “interim solution” (5.56 rings any bells?), they could easily justify such change.

      • iksnilol

        Are you saying that they’re adopting the 7.62 so that it’ll look better when they replace it with a 6.5 (that’s heavier than 5.56 but lighter than 7.62)?!?

        • Renato H M de Oliveira

          Bingo.
          Would it be too much of a stretch?
          What I do know is that these people don’t decide anything out of a vacuum, and they do know exactly what the AP loads of 5.56 and 7.62 are (and aren’t) capable of doing.
          So… It’s just a theory of mine, but I’d not be surprised if it’s the real thing.

          • iksnilol

            Funny, because I was thinking the same thing.

            I mean, 5.56 to 6.5 “look guys, you’re gonna carry a quarter less rounds but you can hit a bit farther”.

            7.62 to 6.5 “Guys, you can carry more ammo and hit farther and less recoil and fun on a bun and everythang!”

            Yeah, the pitch is way easier that way.

          • John

            Makes perfect sense actually.

    • b0x3r0ck

      I think the armed forces should be changed to reflect a joint forces system. The different services would be army marines navy air force and officers(command/logical). Each forces would specialize in a role for instance marines would be infantry/SF. The army would specialize in wheeled tracked and other ground equipment. So depending on the need units would be formed from the different services. So each group can take back the info depending on there joint forces experiences to create gear and equipment to fit the most roles that they worked with.

      • MeaCulpa

        Or you know, just drop the marines and let the army ride boats if the need arises. Letting the navy keep an array of their own doesn’t make for great procurement or logistics.

      • jcitizen

        It may be a little more complicated than that – technically the US Army has the largest Navy, and Air Force when you count their assets, including mothballed but not rejected inventory.

  • Chop Block

    Dumb.

    • PK

      Pants-on-head, window licking, can’t feed yourself level of stupid. “Dumb” doesn’t cut it.

  • hikerguy

    For years the Turks stuck to the G3 because of the distances they shoot over large tracts of expansive country side. Despite that, they still had quite a few troops carrying the G33 in 5.56. They did this for CQC such as in urban areas inside buildings and the like. They even rejected the HK 416 and went to the new MPT76, another 7.62 weapon. But the HK33s are still around for urban fighting. After adopting this new rifle, I hope we keep a certain number of M4s around for the same reasons.
    I do find the term “interim” interesting. Perhaps the 6.5 telesoped round will be soon upon us.

    • Audie Bakerson

      Nothing the government does is temporary. There’s a group of “temporary” tax breaks extended every year so they don’t have to budget them. Johnson embezzling Social Security was temporary.

      • n0truscotsman

        The Stryker was the *I*BCT. As in Interim.

        Look how that turned out.

    • PK

      Yes, yes, let’s all look to the Turks for inspiration!

      • Paul Rain

        Most of that time that the Turkish military retained the 7.62, they were fighting both politically and militarily against the Arabized hadjis who have now taken over their country. kept

        Unless we’re prepared to do the needful and glass these countries, it makes sense to have something that will seriously stop an ullulating fanatic as far out as possible.

        • Stuki Moi

          …which for most people, even most soldiers, at reasonable rates of fire, means 5.56 over 7.62……

          It’s understandable that the army wants a round they can trust will do it’s thing, even against armor, if the soldier does his/hers. But 7.62×51 external ballistics is such a marginal improvement over 5.56 along the vectors that improves AP capability (velocity and SD), that it would make soooo much more sense to extract all they can from 5.56 first, and only then, if that is not enough, develop something more specifically for the armor age.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        I’ve heard worse ideas. The Turks make some pretty tough soldiers.

        • iksnilol

          Not that hard when you’re selling oil to anybody that would fight you and the only real action you do is imprisoning and killing kurds.

      • hikerguy

        I don’t disagree with you. However, whenever the 7.62 ammo runs low and the Ak based guns with plenty of ammo left come sailing in, the M4 carriers will be there to counter. If the Turks keep a certain number of 5.56 weapons for this reason, they have obviously learned from their errors. We may not.

  • Bob Smalser

    While it’s true that the M16 was adopted so infantry in Vietnam could carry more ammunition, it’s absurd to claim casualties will result if we switch back to 7.62. Quantity isn’t the short pole in the tent on current battlefields, range and effectiveness are, and there’s a lot more involved than just penetration on the receiving end of 7.62 vice 5.56. One likes to disintegrate, one likes to bounce around, taking debris fragments with it. My concern is that it’s a more difficult to make a competent marksman using 7.62, but that can be overcome, too.

    • Tell that to the guys at Wanat who ran out of ammo.

      • Joshua

        Not just Wanat, Keating ran Black on multiple calibers.

        If I’m remembering right 5.56 was nearly the last caliber they had available at the end of the fight.

        • BravoSeven

          That’s my understanding also. They were breaking down belts of ammo meant for LMGs to top off M4 mags.

      • Sean

        It’s my understanding that the commander at Wanat was criticized for undersupplying the base in the first place, as well as ignoring some of the signs of an impending attack.

        • Yes, there were several points of failure at Wanat.

          • iksnilol

            Like the part where the base was in the worst defendable location?

          • RealitiCzech

            Among other things. It was a gamble, and it did not pay off at all… ended with us suffering a whopping 40 casualties.
            We probably lose more troops a month than that to stupid motorcycle accidents.

          • iksnilol

            True.

          • Yes like that!

        • Joshua

          Yet Keating was well supplied.

      • cwolf

        wwwDOTslideshareDOTnet/James8981/wanat-finalreport

  • Audie Bakerson

    Can we at least get a mil-spec for 308 AR-15s from this?

    • No cuz it’ll be sole source lol.

      • Brett baker

        You are correct, sir!

      • PK

        They may as well set up a public service announcement at this point:

        “I AM RECEIVING A LARGE KICKBACK.”

        I can’t think of any other reason this is happening.

        • RealitiCzech

          Kickback? I’m offended. Some of us want to be able to send our kids to college!

          On yachts.

          • Dan

            Yachts that float on the tears of orphans.

          • Brett baker

            They float better on those.

          • iksnilol

            That float in the pools of larger yachts.

      • Joshua

        Being COTS it would end the war between KAC vs DPMS vs Colt pattern receivers.

        However if it is not an AR-10 expect a monopoly.

        If it is an AR-10 expect everyone to emulate it.

        • I don’t think so. If nobody can get in on the contracts, then they have no reason to rigorously follow the spec, only to take advantage of the aftermarket. Which means there won’t be any true unified AR-10 spec, there will just be a bunch of disparate manufacturers doing pretty much what they’re already doing – using SR-25 mags, AR-15 stocks, and AR-15 handguards.

          • Joshua

            I think it will unify the receiver specs personally.

            If a AR-10 is adopted that is.

          • Sounds like wishful thinking to me, but we’ll see I guess.

      • HK47.62– not only no parts commonality with AR-10s, but trying to mix parts between them will result in spontaneous energetic disassembly.

    • Zundfolge

      No. Frankly this seems to me to be written specifically for the SCAR 17.

      Maybe we’ll start seeing SCARs priced reasonably.

      • Kinetics

        Eh, with the fascination with H&K that has been going around lately, I highly expect a huge push to go for a kitted down CSASS/H&K 417.

        That’s why the RFI from a month ago specified such a high unloaded weight (12 lbs I believe).

      • CommonSense23

        Please god no. People have been trying to kill the SCAR for years and get a AR10.

        • Joshua

          Lol, honestly I have a feeling it will be the SCAR. I may be wrong as I don’t know what will be selected, but it would be fitting with the retardation of the Army.

      • Samuel Millwright

        And maybe the ones already out in the wild will just magically stop eating optics lasers and etc mounted on them too!…

        But i wouldn’t bet on it….

        Actually that optics etc situation in combination with what this will do to average # of rounds carried and now requiring much more tungsten and brass to fight anything other than third world bandits …..

        Gee thanks Millie!

        If we get in a real fight we’re going to completely zero out our tungsten reserves so fast, and with such severe results just from that alone (know what else we can’t actually afford to do and don’t have a healthy enough domestic production etc to essentially DOUBLE what a war would use by switching back to7.62? COPPER!)

        Factor in the horrifically multiplied rate at which ACOG’s Spectre DR’s thermal clip on’s and every other expensive accessory will be being destroyed by a 7.62 Scar and what you have is ….

        Well honestly, the end result of all this will be that we’re gonna get monkeystomped HARD and IF we do recover after the stomping it will be a long hard path bzck to anything close to normal

        • Brett baker

          I was wondering about all that myself.

    • RealitiCzech

      Lol. They’ll probably adopt a tapco’d M14.

  • Mr.SATism

    As much as I want the M4 to be replaced with a better weapons system, I do not see the reason why you would force a soldier to carry a heavier round, unless youre going to implement that suit that would reduce weight on the soldier from the post a couple of days ago

  • Mr Mxyzptlk

    So, there is apparently outrage that there is a body armour that can stop the current US issue round, so will there be subsequent outrage after this is introduced that there is a round that can defeat current US issue armour? Is the future soldier going to be wearing 60 pounds of body armour and carrying a .338 Lapua automatic rifle?

    • PK

      Of course not! That’s absurd.

      It’s planned to be a 20x102mm.

    • As long as it keeps making the Industry money, and keeps getting Army officers promoted and employed post-retirement, yes.

    • cjleete

      And enough ammo for 30 seconds of close contact..

    • Max

      “Is the future soldier going to be wearing 60 pounds of body armour and carrying a .338 Lapua automatic rifle”
      Clearly you haven’t read “Starship Troopers”, which addresses this exact topic; where the killing power of weapons will always be stronger than the stopping power of armor, so just ditch the armor in favor of maneuverability and more deadly weapons.

      • RealitiCzech

        No. You get in trouble if your troops get shot because you decided to ditch armor – not so much if you turn an entire company into disability cases by overloading them.

        • Or so smoked from humping all that crap they miss things and walk into an ambush. After all, we can’t PROVE PVT Skippy would be alive and trying to marry a Fayettenam stripper if he wasn’t sucking wind and got shot because he had too much weight.

      • I think you may have novel and film confused there, Old Sport.

        • .45

          Well, they did have some serious maneuverability in the books with the jumping and all. But yeah, I feel like ditching armor isn’t quite what the book portrayed.

    • Ark

      Sounds to me like this is about the “overmatch” fantasy, and the body armor paranoia was tacked on as a justification at the last minute. M855A1 still kills a lot of armor.

      Somewhere along the line, the brass forgot that after you knock someone down with a hit to the armor, you have the option of continuing to shoot them until bullets find something important.

  • Ithaca TrenchGun

    inb4 the SCAR-17 gets the last laugh and FN buys another fleet of gold yachts with the contract money

  • Brett baker

    Well, at least the people who Don’t understand suppresive fire will be happy.

  • Joseph A. Merrill III

    40mm DPHE to chest is sure kill through most man wearable armor.

    • But using what we’ve got to solve problems isn’t lucrative for anyone.

      • iksnilol

        Yeah, but 40mm is superior in regards to stopping power.

        • Major Tom

          It just has one problem of a lot of ballistic arc. Doesn’t fly very flat.

          • iksnilol

            Yup, but when we develop 30mm high velocity grenade launchers that issue will be solved.

          • Major Tom

            Until we encounter the problem of the XM25, not enough bang in the bangbullets. Makes a lot of noise but very few casualties.

          • iksnilol

            Was thinking something along the lines of a 30x204mm round (think a 308 hella upscaled).

          • Major Tom

            I wonder if could scale .50 BMG up to say 25mm-30mm APHE? Flies flat, has enough range to shoot to the other side of a city, enough firepower to destroy or disable anything short of a main battle tank, only drawback would be the rifle system is as big as a Barrett and can’t be used on Auto without a very sturdy bipod, tripod or vehicle mount.

          • Samuel Millwright

            That’s essentially what happened with the .60 caliber machine gun which was supposed to replace the .50 bmg round and gun combination. Instead the guns developed to fire the new .60 cal round never got adopted but the cartridge case was opened up at the case mouth and became 20mm vulcan.

            Also, the smallest case version of the 23mm round in Russia is based off the 14.5 kpv case.

            So yeah, it’s totally possible…

            Hell, it’s not only possible but it can also be paired with very light full auto guns which have nowhere near the punishing recoil and corresponding controllability issues you’d think it would have.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Except AGS-17/30 rounds are every bit as lethal if not moreso than 40×46 or 40×53 while having major advantages in several other areas to boot.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Personally I’m a huge fan of the Russian TKb-0249 arbalet “crossbow in American” which had the ability to fire full power AGS-17/30 rounds, had a drum magazine with > 6 round capacity an integral bipod and semi or full auto capabilities while coming in at a very competitive weight to milkor’s and other LV/MV 40mm revolver launchers.

          • iksnilol

            OKay, that thang’s awesome!

    • Brett baker

      I wouldn’t be suprised if one of our competitors starts sending M79 clones and ammo in foreign aid packages to ” freedom fighters”.

    • Sticky-eye Rivers

      So is 155mm. Or any other big army gun. Leave the Garand to history, bring back assault guns 😀

  • fintroll

    OTOH we can now nicely point at the US military (does not think the rounds used are deadly enough) next time they bring up our AR’s are horrible people killing machines…

    • Indianasteve

      That,s right. AR15’s will no longer be weapons of war.

      • .45

        I find that term to be a bit ridiculous anyway. A semi auto AR built specifically for civilian use by a company that probably has never even had a government contract is not a weapon of war and will almost certainly never see a battlefield or in many cases, even be shot by a veteran on the range!

        Now, my Lee Enfields, my Mosin Nagant, my 1903A3 Springfield, Type 99 Arisaka? They are genuine weapons of war, built specifically to be used by soldiers on a battlefield to kill enemy combatants, and very well could have for all I know. No 30 round magazine required.

        • Mr. Katt

          But they don’t have black plastic stocks . . . that is what makes them so deadly. (liberal logic)

        • Indianasteve

          I was being facetious. I agree with you about the term weapon of war, and throw in assault weapon also. Actually, we should be allowed all weapons used by our military, no matter what you want to call them. I was just saying that it would kinda take away that terminology from the anti’s at least in regard to the AR15.

        • Ark

          Hahaha, please tell me my Mosin is less a weapon of war than an AR. They didn’t beat the Nazis with AR15s.

        • nicholsda

          What, no love for the M1 Garand or the Carcano? 😉 I have always felt the same way. That while the anti-gun people are scared of the semi-auto AR-15, they forget that the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand are proven battlefield firearms but because they are wood stock equipped, they aren’t scary.

  • Salty

    Seems pretty ridiculous. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just bump up the ratio of DMR’s in a company, using SCAR-17 or similar?

    • Joshua

      Make no mistake, the RFI they issued told them the rifle they wanted, this is just legal formalities.

      The winner is already chosen.

      That’s my take on this.

    • hikerguy

      That’s the problem. Your solution makes too much sense…

  • joe tusgadaro

    Here we go again…

  • Eric H

    This seems be a case of the Army (namely General Miley) listening to a bunch of anti-M4/5.56 mm lobbyists (mainly the firearm numbskull Robert Scales) who are looking to profit from a switch from the M4, which is still a perfectly good weapon in most situations the military will face. A 7.62 mm rifle is only needed in certain situations, specifically when being engaged at a distance.

    • Joshua

      You forgot Schatz.

      • Eric H

        Who? I’m not familiar with that name.

        • Joshua

          Jim Schatz. Worked for HK and every NDIA showed up with a 62 page power point on why we need a larger caliber rifle.

          He created the whole overmatch fallacy.

          • Eric H

            Thanks. The whole wanting for 7.62 weapons seems to be over troops with 5.56 mm-issued rifles being outgunned and outranged by fighters with 7 mm or above MGs or battle rifles. The amount of dumb logic and reasoning in this situation is maddening.

          • Brett baker

            Speaking of overmatch, how long after adopting the new rifle will in take to realize we’re still “outranged” by Ivan and Chang? Thus a new rifle program, of course.

          • I dunno that he did it singlehandedly, but he sure helped.

    • Stuki Moi

      ….And even then, 7.62×51 is a pretty poor way of obtaining additional distance capability. To make life easier on those designing AP rounds, you want a cartridge designed to fire high SD projectiles at high velocity. For recoil equivalence with 7.62×51, say a hot 6.5, or a very hot 6. Which, by an amazing coincidence, is also exactly what you want for increased effectiveness at range…. Not some fat faced blunderbus leisurely rolling out of the barrel, on it’s way to smearing and splattering against shirts made of anything more resilient than prewashed Chinese cotton.

      7.62×51 just may be a bit better than 5.56 at both of the above (AP and range), at least round for round, but it’s still an ancient caliber, designed for an era of no body armor, and iron sights.

    • J

      It is not about overmatch. I think they are talking about improved body armor penetration with the 7.62×51 M80A1 round to be used with a new rifle. Which does not make a lot of sense. I thought the new 5.56×45 M855A1 round was good at penetrating the newest body armor using the M4 and M4A1 rifles. The M4s just need to be converted to 16 inch barrels for better performance and range.

      The Army’s overmatch round will be the 6.5 creedmoor or the Remington 260 if the articles I have read are correct.

      • Neither the M855A1 or M80A1 will penetrate Level IV, which is why this 7.62 plan is extra derp.

        Bufffman did a test of the M80A1 loaded into .300 Win Mag @ 3400fps – did not penetrate Level IV plate at 45 feet away.

  • Erik Joar Ahlberg

    just give the soldiers exoskeletons , two shoulder mounted 12.7mm tungsten machine guns and a 40mm autocannon with Anti-Armor,Anti Personel,sensor fuze,airburst, and Whiskey pete rounds. Oh and Thermobaric ofc. Essentially lets make Mech warrior real, cause equipments already heavy and its not getting lighter moving forward. Might aswell make each soldier a powered armour one man army. Probobly could have done it if not for the f-35 lol.

  • PaulL

    So the 50,000 units, would that simply supplement M4 carbines in a rifle platoon? That number sounds low for big army to replace all infantry M4s.

    • Joshua

      It’s a start. They’ll be given to rapid deploying units first.

      Expect follow on contracts to follow after the initial 50,000 are delivered.

    • jcitizen

      I’d hope that is exactly what they want – I’d rather keep it a mix.

  • HMSLion

    I’ll believe it when i see hardware in the hands of deployable troops. This sounds like the whole business with pistols over the last 20 years.

    • Kinetics

      Except…unfortunately, Congress has been very interested in this lately, mainly due to the testimony of multiple “subject matter experts” that have advocated for a 7.62x51mm rifle. They have convinced Congress that current AP rounds wouldn’t be practical/useful against combatants wearing Chinese Level 4 armor and that a new rifle and 7.62 round are necassary to defeat these combatants.

      There is much more interest in this in Congress than there ever was for the MHS, especially given all of the hate directed at the M4 for the last decade plus.

    • Joshua

      Did you miss where the Army just adopted a new pistol?

  • Brett baker

    BREAKING: ARMY DROPS M17 MHS READOPTS M1911A1.

    • RavishedBoy

      1911A3. Cooler!

    • Anonymoose

      Just convert their M17s to .45 Super!

      • Gary Kirk

        .460 Rowland.. We are after all trying to defeat armor..

        • Bad Penguin

          Like the soviet body armor that never existed that got use the flying icepick called the M855?

        • simpleman

          I wondered what ever became of his round…?

          • Gary Kirk

            I still love, and use it.. But, then again, I am an unusual person..

      • TeaPartyPagan

        I think you guys missed the sarcasm… If you readopt the M14, why not readopt the M1911?

        • Chris Welch

          The M-14 was and is a great weapon. It has given good service in Afghanistan. Read about what happened at Wanat. They should have gone with an 18″ barreled M-14. The Squad Scout is just the right length to handle well and can still reach out there. My father was forced to give his up in Vietnam and carried an M-16A1. He said the nice thing about the M-14 that made it worth the extra weight was that you didn’t have to worry about someone shot with it getting back up.

          • Agitator

            Know how I know you’ve never been issued, carried, or shot one?

          • Major Tom

            The fact that you’re being extremely condescending to the viewpoint told to him by a Vietnam veteran?

          • iksnilol

            Soldiers can be full of it too.

          • frankspeak

            chinese seemed to like this weapon…

          • iksnilol

            Duh, everybody likes the M1 carbine.

            The whole winter coat thing was just an excuse by folks who missed.

          • Chris Welch

            Most people who used them have liked the Garand, M1 Carbine and Mini-14. The action is reliable. I like my M1A and Mini-14.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            That was never in dispute. The part that was had to do with the full metal jacket projectile and it’s lack of stopping power at range. The Army issued the carbine as a sidearm replacement because so many soldiers were not proficient with handguns, and the commanders who deployed carbine armed troops did not take into account the human wave attacks of the North Koreans and Chinese. I know because my dad was a radio net chief in Korea in 1950. He was issued an M1 Garand after the first battle he was in where the M1 Carbine proved ineffective on enemy troops at 75 to 100 yards. They had to be hit several times to go down, because they were drugged prior to those frontal assault charges that the Communist troops were famous for.
            The Garand would take them down but recharging it with a new en-bloc clip was a little slow, and when his M1 froze solid and he couldn’t retract the bolt to load it, he knew this was also a problem. He overcame that by getting an M3 “Grease Gun” and he kept a case of grenades in the commo bunker next to him. He made it home without any battle wounds, and that was all anyone could ask for. Many of his fellow soldiers were not as fortunate.

          • jcitizen

            Good post – a friend of mine manned a .50 cal and he was glad that was his post!

          • The Brigadier

            M1 Carbines inflicted more casualties on our enemies then any other rifle in our two hundred plus year history. That is a fact and I will dig through my hard drives for the article in the shooting magazine back in ’15. The freezing of the mainspring occurred only at the fighting at the Chosen Reservoir in Korea. It was 40 below and they were fighting the Chinese all night long. It didn’t freeze at 20 or 30 below, it failed at -40 degrees.

            Century Arms fixed the problem with their post war version that had two mainsprings. It was tested at -45 degrees and functioned without fault. Unfortunately the nimrods who made the enhanced carbines welded the gas piston in place. Don’t ask me why.

          • Zebra Dun

            I’ve shot a .30 carbine, out to 300 yards it is accurate enough and lethal enough to kill or wound whom ever has the misfortune of being shot with it. Inside 100 yards it will kill or injure to the point you will cry uncle or crawl away bleeding.
            If you hit a target it will do the job, if you miss, well it missed. Most of those tales were of misses.

          • Zebra Dun

            Do you know how many Vietnam veterans I meet on the internet forums?
            Do you know how many are actually Vietnam veterans much less Veterans?
            Do you know any way short of posting a full SRB/DD 214 on the forum or meeting in person to establish who is and who is not a Vietnam Veteran?
            I can be a Starship Trooper with a tour on Klendathu for all that and no one could say I was or wasn’t without hard copy proof.
            Which would be stupid to post.

          • John Worrel

            Well, I’m a VietNam vet and carried an M14. Best rifle during VietNam. Never malfunctioned and hit hard..unlike Matty Matel’s “wonderful” toy.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            I am a Vietnam vet, was issued an M16a1. My father was issued an M1 in Korea and it froze shut – the M14 is the same rifle with a box mag and select fire (useless on auto due to recoil). The M14 did have issues with mud and debris in the paddies and swampy areas of the Mekong, and it did not perform well in that area of the south. This largely went underreported because of prejudices against the M16 were due to ordnance board changes to powder in the 5.56 round. Once the powder situation was resolved, the problems virtually disappeared.
            The ordnance board was also to blame for skipping Stoner’s recommended chrome plating of the bore and chamber. They made decisions due to McNamara’s cost cutting measures that cost men’s lives. The weapon itself was not deficient except for the pro M14 prejudices, hence the Matty Mattel moniker. Mattel had zero to do with the weapon, it’s parts or design, and the only attachment to the M16 was the fact they made a toy copy for children to play soldier with. Why the myths persist is anyone’s guess, but I can tell you from my own experience that at the combat ranges in Vietnam the M16A1 was very deadly and I never saw a center of mass hit fail to take down an enemy.
            When properly deployed with light machine gun support an infantry unit with M16s could deliver more effective fire in automatic mode than one with M14s. The assertion of the M16 being less than sufficient within 300 yards are not the fault of the weapon, and coupled with the facts of 30 round capacity versus 20, and that you can carry nearly twice the amount of ammunition for the 5.56 than the 7.62 caliber and you can understand the reason why the M16 family of rifles has been in service more than 50 years. I’m not disputing the M14 is a fine weapon, but it had shortcomings that largely are not mentioned because the Garand based design is rugged and reliable as long as you keep crud out of it, but then that is true of all battle rifles.
            You also have to remember the m16 is, was, and will always be a carbine, and comparing it’s performance to a full sized rifle is not a fair comparison. The same kind of comparison was made with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. Carbines are short range weapons whereas the battle rifles are for ranges out to 1,000 yards or more. Every weapon is designed to function optimally within specified parameters, and while there is no disputing that 7.62mm NATO is much higher energy and impact wise than the 5.56mm NATO round, that does not mean that it can’t be effective in combat.
            Weapons are issued and hopefully deployed in the field by commanders with respect to their range and capability against the intended target – where the trouble begins is when these aspects of effectiveness are ignored and that is what gets people killed. If you are fighting an enemy who has longer range weapons than you do, you are going to be at a disadvantage. The same is true in urban combat if you are carrying a full size battle rifle against an enemy with compact weapons fighting house to house. That is the reason the M4 platform exists. So every weapon has it’s proper circumstance, but this new push for a 7.62mm NATO caliber rifle is what we usually do – build up an arsenal that is good for the given circumstances, but ends up being wrong for the future.
            My dad went to Korea with an M1 Garand, but after Pork Chop Hill he got rid of it and used a M3 for the rest of his tour, because his M1 was not quick enough to fight the human waves that he faced in that battle. The old grease gun did a much better job at the ranges they were in contact with the enemy. Did that make the Grease Gun superior to the Garand? Not hardly, it just filled a different niche on the battlefield better than the M1. More firepower up close in that case was better than 30.06 out of an 8 round en-bloc clip.
            The next war’s warriors need to be armed with weapons that take into account the battlefield conditions, the enemy and their arsenal, and how effective the weapon/caliber is in relation to those factors. We always end up going into battle with the last war’s weapons. In my opinion, going back to 7.62mm NATO when 5.56mm NATO can do the job with the right advanced projectile, is a step backward. Our use of 5.56 NATO prompted the USSR to modernize the AK 47 to the AK 74 firing a new caliber, the 5.45x39mm cartridge. They recognized the capability of the 5.56 NATO round’s terminal effects and the advantages of the smaller bore caliber and they redesigned their weapon around a lighter cartridge capable of doing great damage.

          • WELLS SHANE

            AS FOR YOUR FATHER MY DAD USED THE M1 GARAND FROM 41 TO 45 MUD AND SNOW AND KOREA YOU HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR RIFLE .AND YES MINE WAS M14 NVA AND VC DID NOT HAVE BODY ARMOUR .THE 30.06 THEM MEN WERE MARKSMAN .NOT LIKE TODAY NOT EVERY THING WAS CLOSE UP .

          • Zebra Dun

            I carried one and the mud would enter the area behind the bolt and jam the sucker up good and tight, we wrapped ours in blankets, poncho liners and dog rags to keep the stuff out of the receiver.

          • Chris Welch

            That was my father’s experience. He did say his M-16A1 didn’t jam. He just didn’t like 5.56.

          • Chris Welch

            Also, I really like the form factor on the M1A Scout Squad. It points so much quicker than the Standard M1A, which I also considered. I liked the idea of the 22″ barrel, but when I held the Scout, the sale was made. The 18″ barrel still has decent performance with 7.62×51 although I have not shot mine past 150 yards yet. I think a shorter barrel would have helped in SE Asia, where ranges of engagement were probably right on top of each other compared to Afghanistan.

          • frankspeak

            .556 was adequate up to now…but the army should have seen this coming and made the necessary corrections…glacial change,..for whatever reason(s)…can cost lives…

          • Zebra Dun

            There is better than the 7.62 x 51 and the 5.56 x 45 mm for sure.
            Time to change this.

          • Chris Welch

            I don’t dispute that. First it was 6.8, then 6.5, the .300 whisper. They balk at eating the cost of 5.56. My bet is we’re stuck with these for some time.

          • FloridaFits

            I have been issued, carried and fired an M14 in combat. They work.

          • Zebra Dun

            I have too and once they get muddy they don’t work.
            Mud seeps into the open area behind the bolt under the rear of the receiver and stops any shooting after one shot.
            We wrapped dog rags, ponchos and blankets around ours to prevent such.

          • The Brigadier

            You ever try and fire an M16 or M4 with anything in them? Like a few grains of sand or water? They have to be cleaned. M4s are a little better than M16s in this regard, but not by much.

          • Salty

            And what I don’t like is when you hold your fwd hand wrong your fingertips drag the bolt extension and it causes the gun to short stroke or whatever

          • Chris Welch

            Thank you.

          • Chris Welch

            Beg your pardon. I have an M&P-15 and an M1A in my gun safe. Next caller please.

          • Chris Welch

            I’m not selling either one, but if I had to choose the M1A wins. It is far less delicate and you don’t have to worry about broken charging handles, buffer springs that wear out, etc. And if you broke the stock on an M1A, it would still fire. You pick up both and compare and you know which one is more rugged right away. Do you have both? Probably not.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Why would i have both when one’s an anachronistic piece of history with delusions of being a modern fighting rifle, and the other gets used day in and day out on several continents to stack bodies like cordwood?

            Thank you very much I’ll take my rack grade matty mattel wonder toy any day of the week and twice on sunday!

          • Chris Welch

            You clearly do not have both because if you had you would recognize that the M-14 is an outstanding weapon based on your personal experiences with it. Its trigger, its iron sights, its durability, reliability and accuracy. If it didn’t work, it would not still be in service. They took them out of mothballs to fix a problem the M4 and M16 could not in Afghanistan and guess what? The Army ordered new ones. I have both rifles so I can speak intelligently about them based on personal experience rather than theory and presumption. No offense, but guns are cool period. If you are not into weapons enough to want to know, how much can you know? I started out with SKS’s and AKM’s and pooh poohed the AR until I bought one to know the battery of arms. Now I appreciate the qualities of the AR and it has improved over time, but the basic problem of the action is only fixed by buying a piston upper. If you were in a prolonged fight with one, you are going to overheat it to the point where it can shut the gun down. Even shooting mine at the range it gets hot. It is a reliable gun and Stoner was a genius, but every gun does have its flaws. The Garand action is battled proved and it would not still be in service at the present time if it sucked. Period. Shoot one, then talk to me if you have not. Most who use the gun or own it wind up liking it for a reason.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Also, you keep bringing up gas piston AR’s as if they change the heat situation dramatically… They don’t

          • Chris Welch

            Clearly they do actually. Piston gun receivers absolutely don’t get as hot as DI receivers do. Trying to say that stopping the recycled gas before it gets into the receiver doesn’t keep the action cooler is nonsense. Blowing the gas and fouling into the action is the AR’s Achilles heel.

          • Samuel Millwright

            You know, maybe if the hk416 in it’s m27 form had a drastically higher sustained fire rpm rating than m4a1’s with Socom profile barrels you’d have a point… (to give rough equivalency to the very heavy profile barrel on the m27 aka not comparing apples to pears but apples to apples other than the difference in operating systems)

            But, the plain fact is that disparity in sustained fire rate which would exist if you were correct just is not there!

            Before you embarrass yourself and call shenanigans and say something dumb like the USMC is just keeping the fire rate lower because reasons…. Realize that the french MOD recently did very extensive testing on the 416 and confirmed that the fire rates really are what the usmc listed them as!

            And considering that a socom bbl profile m4a1 and m27 both have roughly similar handguards and both are closed bolt only weapons with a safe a semi and an auto setting there just is not even the slightest bit of wiggle room for you to try to twist things to fit your beliefs….

            And truthfully, the IAR competition as well as the adoption of the colt LMG (DI gas system full auto only) thoroughly upset the apple cart of your assertions that piston guns are magically better with heat for one, and for two that this heating even in weapons meant to provide a base of fire similar to what a belt fed lmg would ordinarily be used to provide is not even on the radar of Army or USMC procurement etc!

            Why do i say that? Because if you actually take a look at the various guns submitted to the IAR tender you will find that the Marines quite literally picked the gun with the lowest sustained fire rate and literally not a single thing done to it to increase either sustained fire rate, rounds to cookoff, or anything in it’s design specifically there to aid in heat dissipation!

            Look at the rest of the entrants and you will see all manner of effort put into all of the above yet they picked a gun which really isn’t any better at heat than a rack grade m4a1….

            Like i said at the very beginning… You don’t want to make this some kinda measuring contest with me!

          • Chris Welch

            You are ice skating uphill saying that the AR-15, M-16 and M-4 do NOT have an issue when it comes to heating up the receiver with sustained automatic fire beyond their tolerances. Period. I don’t have to argue with you. That is the way DI works. The HK416 is a wait for it… piston gun. I will answer your persistent comments with youtube vids of overheated M-16’s cooking off rounds because they got too hot from sustained fire. You want to argue against the obvious, go right ahead. When it really matters, I would prefer a piston gun over a DI gun in a SHTF scenario. That’s just me and a lot of other people too. If DI were the cat’s meow, the Army would not be looking to replace it, would they. I think the basic design is great when not stretched to its limits and I can provide you evidence of that. It isn’t personal to me. I like the way the weapons handle and I have one myself. The ergos on the AR-15 are well done, but pistons guns are generally better. One last thought, I would be willing to bet that the ARMY doesn’t replace the M-16 with a DI gun. Want to take that bet?

          • Samuel Millwright

            Except of course actual controlled testing shows you to be incorrect about how much of a difference a gas piston can make and just how incredibly critical that laughably small difference isn’t when it comes to a firearms suitability as a combat rifle….

            But ok sure, you tell the story however you want!

            You’ll be wrong of course, but having anything resembling a tight grasp on reality is clearly not a priority of yours.

            Truth be told, if any of this was actually even a concern of the army or marines even post wanat there’s a laundry list of mods from simple n cheap to a full up Cadillac build worth of tdp changes etc which would bring the per gun cost in serial production to AT MOST $2000 a pop (aka a full third less than a base m27 rifle) while giving every single soldier the ability to quite easily maintain double or even triple the m27’s sustained fire rpm for twice as long and or 3x the total round count….

            It would not be even a little difficult, so between that and the way the IAR competition went it’s almost like maybe there’s not really a problem

          • Chris Welch

            Check out the specs on the POF that has premium components to fix some of the issues with DI guns. Milspec doesn’t go that far, but as far as apologizing for the known issues with DI, you are spinning a tale. If they didn’t have issues, piston uppers would not exist and the HK-416 would be a DI gun. Perhaps Mikhail Kalashnikov would have copied our action and the AK-74 would be a DI gun too. Moreover, we would be looking to replace the M-16 with an updated DI gun. Is that the case? Um hmm.

          • Samuel Millwright

            You very literally have not a single god damn clue what you’re talking about, and even worse is that you’re too stupid/pig ignorant to actually learn from someone who pretty obviously has just a TINY BIT more knowledge on the subject than you do!

            And as far as what the army may or may not do next and whether that has any relationship with anything approaching a good or even passable solution…. Uhhh…. Yeah…. They’ve pretty much ignored the actual professionals and people with real knowledge on this subject and are headed back down a path we already know doesn’t work!

            So, you keep patting yourself on the back schmucko!

            And when the flag draped coffins start coming home, don’t be surprised when someone like me walks up to you out of nowhere and drills you so hard in the side of the head with the first punch they throw that your GRANDKIDS ARE BORN BRUISED

          • The Brigadier

            Here we go again. .308 vs. .223. I’ve been telling you all for months now this was coming. The brass thinks we might very well be fighting the Russians possibly as soon as next year and they want the longer reach of the .308 in rifles and 240L machine guns for the open field fighting in Eastern Europe. .338 Lapua has been chosen for the new sniper rifles, and .50 BMG will be for mounting on air, sea and land vehicles. Heavy time fighting is coming up guys and we are getting ready. If not then Russian and they have 12 million troops at arms. We are rebuilding as fast as we can in weapons and getting new greater numbers of troops. I hope we have enough time.

          • Samuel Millwright

            If that’s truly the case i just wish they’d spin up production on a quick dirty reboot of xm248 and “dover devil” both of which would be massively cheaper AND turned out in an order of magnitude higher quantity over a short timespan as m2 / 240L

          • Chris Welch

            Bzzzt! I actually have an M1A and an M&P15, the two rifles in this thread, in my gun case and have had semi auto rifles since I was 20. I shoot pretty much every month at a minimum and have belonged to my current gun club for 8 years. I probably shoot more than you do as my club’s about a mile from my house. You know Jack and Sh–, but thank you for playing.

          • Vitor Roma

            The M-14 was an upgraded M1, quite decent born already outdated. A modernized FAL would make more sense, and it still doesn’t.

          • William Elliott

            even the AR10 [the original design, not the scaled up AR15 designs, though those would be okay] would be an improvement over the M14…however they are missing quite a bit of OTHER issues. Yes, it can reach out pretty far, and yes it penetrates better than 5.56, BUT that comes at the cost of less ammo and more bulk.

          • Even Springfield Armory (you know, the guys who developed the M21 sniper rifle out of the M14 stated and who sabotaged the FAL in testing against the M14) said (in the early 1970s, in an official Army report) that the AR10 was far superior to ANY of the weapons it was tested against for sniper or (what we would now call) DMR type work, including the M21, both in then-current performance AND growth potential…

          • The Brigadier

            The AR10 failed a lot also Rick. It was a bit too light to handle 7.62. The FAL failed in the ’58 tests at Ft. Belvoir because it was quite simply too heavy. It weighed two pounds more than the M14. I always like the recoil adjustment dial on the FAL, but the M14 was easier to heft and aim.

          • Old Vet

            The best way to improve the M-14 was with the composite stock and that has been done, so why not give it another chance. I carried one in my service and loved everything about it but the damn old heavy wooden stock. Who the hell has to hit the enemy with your stock, it is rare, and I am sure the composite would hold up under any combat circumstances.

          • frankspeak

            got to match the weapon to the conflict..bean counter “once size fits all” mentality and logistics lovers…sometimes fail to accept reality..

          • The Brigadier

            Its all about battle rifles versus carbines William. Its battle rifle time. They are heavier and so is their ammo to reach out farther. Troops are really going to appreciate that extended range.

          • William Elliott

            I know the difference. I have put together my own 7.62×51 NATO AR rifles, BOTH of them came in LIGHTER than a G3 [I have an HK91 in my safe for comparison] and recoiled less [obviously no full auto test, but I would wager it would be MORE controllable than either the G3 or the M14].
            However, you can get that reach in a smaller, lighter package if you start thinking outside the 5.56/7/62 paradigm that we were forced into. We almost HAD a cartridge that would have been the basis for that, but General MacArthur decided he wanted the M1 Garand in .30-06 instead of .276 Pederson. As good as the M1 Garand was, a 10 round enbloc clip, more ammo, and lighter rifles might have made it even better…but I digress.
            Ballistics knowledge has evolved since then, and we should consider changes in small arms with that in mind instead of retreading old ground and “fighting the last war”.

          • 30845

            The FALs are great rifles. The big downfall with them is they’re not modular. The require actual gunsmithing to build and maintain, can’t just swap parts out-

          • Brett baker

            Didn’t the Israelis have trouble with them jamming?

          • Dave Buck

            Never had any issues with the SLR (well C1A1 actually), and I carried one and shot it a lot (rifle team, not combat). We never agonised over how few rounds we could carry – never occurred to us.
            My only issue with the SLR was that the recoil was a bit on the harsh side (the design actually encourages the stock to rear up and hit you in the cheek).
            I was really glad when I got promoted and made Section Commander and could trade mine in for a Sterling.

          • Kivaari

            They are easy to stop with sand.

          • The Brigadier

            So are most rifles with the exception of the AKs.

          • Kivaari

            AKs are easy to stop with sand. Especially, if the magazine gets dirty.

          • The Brigadier

            I believe 52 nations used the FAL and they were reliable, very heavy battle rifles. Three used the M14.

          • Chris Welch

            I have shot my friend’s DSA and they are balanced well and very cool looking. Mine shoots tighter groups than his with irons. He even shoots mine better than he shoots his. They do the same thing basically. At 100 yards the difference in accuracy isn’t that much, but I’m sure at 300 yards there would be a bigger difference.

          • frankspeak

            no need for going retro…we just need an upgraded platform for long range lethality….

          • Chris Welch

            The FAL is older than the M-14. Just because it has a pistol grip, it isn’t newer. It is less accurate than the M-14 and weighs as much. It also has a machined receiver so it is really the same generation of rifle as the M-14 and also pretty useless on full auto due to the round. Oh and the iron sights suck compared the M-14’s, which is what they used then. The tilting bolt action is a bit less reliable than the Garand action. The adjustable gas system is too many options for general issue.

          • Chris Welch

            The FAL is actually older than the M-14, which has a better, simpler gas system than the FAL does. The adjustable gas system was too many options for most soldiers. The M-14 has better iron sights, which are less relevant now, a better trigger. Most FAL’s are 2″-3″ guns. The M-14 can shoot 1″. They both had a lot of milling and machining in their construction and have a pretty useless select fire capability. Really the only “modern” feature you can attribute to the FAL is a pistol grip, which liberals try to tell us makes a gun “dangerous”. Anyway these guns are from the same generation in reality. The M-14 performs better accuracy wise. They are both reliable, but the Garand action is a bit simpler than the tilting bolt action in the FAL.

          • The Brigadier

            The FAL is even heavier than the M-14. The biggest problem with the M-14 is that it sucks on full auto. Its 17 degrees off from straight line and recoil causes the barrel to rise to the right in a climbing arc. What we need is a SCAR H with a 20″ barrel to get the speed up from 2300 FPS with the 16″ carbine barrel to up over 2800 FPS with the 20″ barrel. The procurement is going to require a longer barrel. This is NOT going to be a carbine for house to house, apartment to apartment fighting. Its for open field fighting at 500 yards and we will need as straight 0 degree recoil as the AR can do. The SCAR H does it and its piston works flawlessly. I hope that rifle makes the grade.

          • iksnilol

            Regurgigating myths again.

          • JoshuaK27

            they didnt even hand out cleaning kits because the gun was supposed to never need cleaning, this is not a myth but true, McNamaras team decided to forego the chrome lined bolt, carrier, and barrel. So what happens when you add wwII powder thats semi corrosive to a weapon system without the right alloys?
            Those problems werent address till later in the war. The myth was real but out of negligence of those who thought they knew better.

          • iksnilol

            M14 was and is a crap weapon.

            The cleaning kit thing is true though.

          • JoshuaK27

            Eh i’d have to disagree with the M14, I mean it is one of the few rifles in US inventory to be pulled out of retirement. Ive only shot the M1a, yes its heavy but i also find them very fun to shoot, and for its recent intended purpose foots the bill quite well.
            Not just the cleaning kit, the powders changed, they added the chrome lines parts like it was intended to be in the first place.

          • iksnilol

            Heavy doesn’t scratch the surface. Main issue it’s unreliable and is tough to maintain accuracy on it (bedding and whatnot).

            I can’t say about whether it’s fun or not to shoot, but I dare say that has no say on combat efficency.

          • JoshuaK27

            If youre basing your reliability off Inrange tv, idk what to say other than i dont think the test is honestly realistic. Ive never seen many people use their rifles as mud shovels. if im not mistaken the FnFAL surpassed the M14 in reliability but not much. The bedding is an issue as how to the guns action and barrel lock up with the trigger group, its very hard on the stock.

          • iksnilol

            No basing it on data from Vietnam (not anecdotes). M14s jammed all the time.

          • Raunchy Dawg

            I’ve fired both an M14 and an M4 extensively in combat. I prefer the M4.

          • John

            Im basing mine on real world use in iraq, powder like sand jammed the 16 constantly, never the 14.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Allow me to explain something to you, which I know from personal experience as a gunsmith since 1977 –
            Actually, bedding has no bearing on anything but the action. Actions are bedded, not barrels or trigger groups. Accuracy comes from locking the action down and letting the barrel oscillate freely, and again “locking” the trigger group into the stock would accomplish nothing. The trigger group mates with the action, the action is bedded and the barrel is either tied down with a barrel band, or allowed to move as it will when projectiles travel down the bore to the muzzle. The standard M14/M1A barrel is supported to 3/4 of it’s length which basically locks the barrel in place. Repeatable accuracy is assured when barrel movement is guaranteed to stop at the same point every time it is fired. The only two ways to do that are locking the barrel down solidly, or allowing it to move as it will. Every time it is fired and a bullet runs from the lead through the muzzle it will move to the same spot each and every time as long as your ammo is consistent.
            I have personally done hundreds of bedding jobs and free floated barrels on just as many rifles. Never once was I asked to bed a trigger group.
            I’m not sure where you got the information about M14s being hard on stocks, in all the time I’ve been around the M14 and M1A I have yet to see a stock fail on one. I worked on all the small arms in the Army’s inventory during my tour of duty, and I never encountered a broken M14 stock.
            Be careful who you believe concerning firearms – opinions are often given more weight than fact by those who wield them.

          • JoshuaK27

            Not going to disagree at all, but no i never did say anything about bedding a trigger group, I was merely pointing out the design and construction of the action to trigger group lockup, as the trigger pack is the main disassembly point on the m1a, the way its designed puts a non in line stress factor when it comes to the stock. i never said ive seen any break, I just notice around the areas in which the action lies it can be roughed up quite a bit, hence the need for a bed job. As far as everything else i cannont agree more. But had to clarify what i was saying prior.

          • Something that is regarded by pretty much all SMEs as an extremely stupid move, yes.

          • Samuel Millwright

            No actually it didn’t fit the use case for jack!

            Just to get them kinda sorta marginally acceptable huge chunks of cash and triple shifts by the guys in the AMU had to be devoted to them.

            Even worse was just how pitifully few rounds could be fired and patrols it could be hauled along on before it needed to go back to AMU for rework because it could no longer meet the accuracy requirements to do it’s job!

            The only people who think the gun is acceptable in any way are people who know too little about firearms for their opinions to matter, and people who actively buy into the BS spouted by old warhorses which is demonstrably false.

          • JoshuaK27

            ok mr internet commando who knows all in the world of firearms, even I know when to say Im wrong at points. but geez man you must always be right!!! Do you have any book signings I could attend???
            anyone who just plainly lambasts firearms with regurgitated informational bs know very little the difference between polymer and steel. Talking to you dude. Spit stuff out, spit comes back in full force.
            i cannont find a single bit of armorer reference stating a round count in to which the guns have to completely refitted. What you state is completely false information, pleanty of m16’s and their variants have made there way back because of cam pins, gas lines, etc, so keep the bs in your mouth. You wanna have a conversation, im totally about it, but dont state something without supporting documentation or verifiable reference. You just look stupid. WE’ve all been there.

          • Samuel Millwright

            I’m not here to hold your hand and frankly after reading all your posts in this topic alone i can safely say that your accusations and assertions in this response all fit somewhere between outright hypocrisy and shamelessly blatant lies.

            Like your assertions of being willing to have a conversation and exchange information…. No, frankly you’re very obviously not.

            P.s: if you don’t already know the history behind the rapid fielding of m21’s and hastily upgraded rack grade m-14’s. Wrt iraq and Afghanistan then frankly you have no business telling us what a good job they did etc etc…

            I know the history already and thus i called you out on your blatant bullshit… I’d give you a quarter to call someone who cares but honestly i like watching you cry and tell me how mean i am.

          • JoshuaK27

            Lol to be quite honest I really think your just dirt at this point, you’ve said nothing constructive other than the solid mass turd falling out of your mouth.
            Take your fanboy b.s and gtfoh . You’re not worth anyone’s response time

          • The Brigadier

            Long range shooters dubbed the M14 “the Deathstick”. In semi-match grade mode (service grade enhanced) with the tighter winter trigger and the small, long range reticle of the match grade rifle, it was extremely accurate at long distance even without telescopic optics. However, with modern optics we need a modern rifle and while the M14 was very accurate, its time in national battle is over.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Yeah, i don’t hate the m14 irrationally or anything… It’s just not a viable combat rifle at this point.

            It just doesn’t in any way fit to the realities of how the US military operates now, and it’s technologically just not competitive anymore.

            If people want to hunt woodland mammals with them, shoot at sharks in clear shallow Caribbean waters, or do any other of a million things with them THATS AWESOME!

            Hell I’d someday like to own a semiautomatic johnson LMG rechambered for 8×63 bofors, but i certainly wouldn’t try and shoot my way out of a city gone feral with it much less take it to war!

          • nadnerbus

            The M14 was reissued because it was in inventory, not because it was the best rifle for the job. It was in inventory because they had been taken out of use after a very short service life, before they could get shot out. They were taken out of use because the program was over budget, and not producing enough rifles, or non defective rifles, to meet the services needs, along with being heavy and inferior to the AK in jungle warfare.

            Accurized M14s are notorious for being labor intensive to accurize, and to keep accurate. They shoot themselves loose in a hurry. Maybe ok for a rack grade combat rifle, nor so much for a DMR.

          • TankGuy

            No, it was re-issued because it fit the requirements for a specific job- the designated marksman. I was issued one, well in actuality it was a National Match M1a, in Iraq back on ’06. It was outstanding at what it was intended for. Which was medium to long range targets from a trained to semi-trained marksman. Admittedly, I was probably more qualified than most who carried one, but knowledge is transferable. I loved mine, didn’t mind the extra weight, and because of my experience in Iraq I will have one soon. That being said, they’re not a one size fits all solution. Thankfully, the AR platform has evolved far enough that you can adapt the system to whatever caliber or configuration you need. I believe this will come down to who can supply the most reliable AND adaptable system. Just my 1.5 cents…

          • frankspeak

            likely outcome…

          • frankspeak

            if they weren’t adopted as sniper rifles…that, pretty much..makes your case…

          • Samuel Millwright

            So… Exactly what i said in the first place… ROFL imagine that…. For an internet commando i sure know my shizz muahaha

          • TankGuy

            I carried one for the better part of a year in Iraq. I did routine cleaning, just as I did with an M-4, and I couldn’t tell you how many rounds I fired. A lot. It never had a malfunction, and it never broke. Now, my command didn’t wanna sign out scopes etc. for the rifle ( in my commander’s words- Do you know how much that scope cost?!?!) but I managed to get what I needed without spending any of my own money. I can honestly say that my rifle saved many, many hours and I don’t know how many lives/injuries.

          • frankspeak

            not really,..but it was transitional…we can..and should..do better this time….

          • iksnilol

            A service rifle doesn’t get completely replaced in 5 years if it is good.

          • Brett baker

            I’ll say it. The Italians turned a Garand into a mag rifle.(bm59) We couldn’t pull it off.

          • John

            Politics? Oh and soft soldiers who cant handle a few extra pounds.

          • iksnilol

            But todays soldiers carry more than the soldiers of old. Then you can’t really call the new soldiers for soft. That, and y’know, the Army’s own testing proved the M16 superior to the M14 (they also compared it to the AKM).

            Also, it’s less “a few extra pounds” and more like 5-10 kg more.

          • The Brigadier

            The M16 was not superior to the M14, and even though it replaced the M14 in ’68 ten years after it was accepted in ’58, not five as you claim, most every unit in the Air Force and the Navy kept plenty of M14s for long range work even when they were all supposed to be turned in. I know because I used one in ’73. I don’t know why you’re rehashing this. The question is which of the new battle rifles will make the grade for this new procurement?

          • iksnilol

            Was officially replaced by the M16 in 66-67, further procurement of M14s was stopped in late 63′.

          • The Brigadier

            Ten years. Why do you still persist in that lie?

          • iksnilol

            It isn’t a lie.

          • John

            Worked fine for me, ditched my m16 for one in iraq, no more jamming or issues.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The M14 is a good rifle as long as you can live with it’s limitations. It is pretty much useless on automatic, but it hits hard out to 800 to 1000 yards and kills bugs dead. It’s heavy, long, and magazine size is limited, but it is a well made weapon. It is not a close quarters weapon, and the burden of ammo weight for a combat loadout is heavier than a soldier would bear in the real world, and it amounts to less in quantity for a given weight. I would personally want an M16 over the M14 because of ease of handling, and a somewhat controllable automatic fire option for times when suppressive fire will help maneuver against the enemy. Before you go off about that is what the light machine gun is for, you don’t always have a machine gun at your disposal, and a rifle squad can use their rifles to achieve the desired fire and maneuver tactics in order to overcome the enemy. That is why they put the auto selector in the M16 in the first place. It was never intended to serve in place of a machine gun, only to support the effectiveness of a small unit.

          • John

            =There is no need to use it full auto, the the 7.62 round is more effective than the 5.56, no question about that.

          • iksnilol

            It isn’t well made. The receiver is open and requires frequent maintenance (in the sense that it needs to be rebedded if you want to keep accuracy).

            Again, there’s a reason it was completely replaced within 5 years of being issued.

          • The Brigadier

            The mainspring rod failure is why is why it was taken out of service. It was soldered, not welded in place and it failed. Modern M1As have fixed the problem with welds, but we are arguing ancient history here as far as modern battle rifles are designed. We are going with new battle rifles with straight line zero degree recoil and gas piston operation. Yes they will be heavier than ARs, but they will have full auto fire for suppression and they will reach out to 600 yards with rack grade barrels, and 1000 yards in semi match configuration. M1As and FALs simply will not satisfy what the new yacht rifles can do and they are also extremely accurate and at least a pound and half lighter. The article in this thread is about the new procurement for these new battle rifles. Think SCAR H with longer match barrels and forget the ancient history. It has no bearing on the present except what not to do.

          • iksnilol

            It is still ancient history… Since 308 is retarded and doesn’t really do anything better than 5,56.

          • Samuel Millwright

            And or those actively sabotaging it so that SPIW wouldn’t get cancelled…

          • frankspeak

            …and people got killed as a result!

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The powder problem was not corrosion, nor was the powder corrosive, it was the fact they used the wrong type of powder that did not burn as clean as was specified for the 5.56 NATO ammunition. They put slower burning stick powder in ammo intended for use in combat, instead of the Ordnance Board specified ball powder because McNamara’s bean counters got the stick powder cheaper than the ball powder. The problems weren’t corrosion but excess firing residue from the stick powder that when fired and not cleaned for dozens of magazines (again McNamara’s bean counters insisted on saving money by not issuing cleaning kits), the action would get sticky and eventually would not go into battery, so you have a perfect storm of stupid decisions that caused too many men to die in combat with a jammed weapon they couldn’t clear. This is the true story of the infamous jamming M16s. There is another story that goes along with intentionally sabotaging the field trials in Alaska by removing the front sight post and welding in a piece of welding rod to replace it, several modified rifles were discovered by inspectors investigating reports of outrageous lack of accuracy. Some of the modified weapons front sight posts were so bad it was apparent they were bent and either too tall or too short. The officer in charge of the testing was a proponent of the M14 and hated the new weapon, so he manipulated the test results to fit his bias in a vain attempt to keep the M14. He was disciplined and the trials proceeded with new rifles that performed up to the expectations of the Ordnance Board, and the rest is history – the M16 was accepted and issued. (this happened before the powder swap.).

          • MisterTheory

            Thanks for the heads up on Wanat. I just read it. Don’t you think that people sometimes forget that war is a deadly business? The insistence of reprimands because US lives were lost.. If your enemy is serious enough, you can’t prevent losses. It sounds like they were in a tough situation and fought bravely and hard. What did you think about it?

          • sonny

            Yep, those M80 rounds had poison on ‘um!

          • Handsome Jack

            After the M16 failures in Vietnam, many rifle companies had one M-14 in every squad.

        • frankspeak

          some good, some bad, some questionable…

          • TeaPartyPagan

            The biggest reasons the M16 was deployed was lighter ammo load out, and no requirement for medium to long range capability in the jungle. Those were very good reasons.

          • nicholsda

            But when in a jungle, the 5.56 round gets deflected by a twig. The 7.62 punches thru and hits the target.

          • M.S.1

            Australia, which used the L1A1 (FAL) in Vietnam, found that 7.62×51 deflects just as much as 5.56×45.

          • The Brigadier

            Heavier bullets deflect much more than lighter bullets in foliage. That is counter intuitive but true. That’s why most troops in the Pacific Theater during WW2 wanted M1 Carbines rather than Garands. 7.62 doesn’t do well in jungles, but it does excel in open field shooting.

        • Zebra Dun

          “Heresy!” >Shakes Rowan leaf in your direction while crossing fingers and eyes<

      • Brett baker

        I was going to say M1860, but I wasn’t sure the kids would get it.😉

        • Anonymoose

          Needs moar Dragoon!

          • RealitiCzech

            We definitely need a modern dragoon pistol. The .45-70 BFR seems a perfectly rational choice for that purpose, then we will have additional reason to move to a rifle caliber with actual stopping power, not these goofy high velocity poodle shooters that have no chance of ever stopping a charging Zulu. I mean .30 caliber? Really? You would trust your life to a Colt .32 pocket revolver? No. But you think an even smaller caliber will be sufficient in a rifle? Impossible.
            Maybe we should just ditch this whole rifling fad and go back to the Brown Bess. A rifled weapon gives you too much range from the enemy, makes you unwilling to close with the bayonet.

          • Anonymoose

            Just replace all the sidearms with Benelli M4-Entries!

          • John

            What’s all this about rifles? Crossbows are where it’s at! Do you know how much we’d save by not wasting budget on gunpowder issues? And jamming isn’t a problem; you blink at a crossbow and it’ll go off! Perfectly reliable in combat!

          • simpleman

            Planes drop bombs on ya, men with guns shoot at you, throw grenades, oh watch out for that land mine, here come the artillery and wasn’t that a mortar round? and don’t forget flame throwers and napalm…….and you are gonna run around with a 14th century cross bow…..what an Idiot !.

        • Mr. Katt

          Swords, axes, spears . . . never need reloading. Good enough for the Romans and the Vikings, it’s good enough for . . . . bureaucrats.

          • Good enough to USE on bureaucrats…

        • Andrew Miller

          The Beretta 92 is Italian, perhaps they can make a comeback and have Uberti build some 1860’s, and Dragoons for SF?

          • Brett baker

            I understand SOCOM is getting 1873s, assembled by Heritage.

          • Handsome Jack

            Who needs more than a K-Bar and a box of Band-Aids?

      • Bucho4Prez

        .45 GAP, please…

        • AC97

          .45 Why Does This Even Exist?

          lol

        • The Brigadier

          Are they still making .45 GAP for the hundred or so pistols they actually sold?

          • Bucho4Prez

            Those hundred people know the rest of us made a mistake…

    • RealitiCzech

      That would just be dumb.

      We’re going to convert the M17 to .45 Schofield. Sig can surely make us a moonclip, right?

      • lowell houser

        Don’t forget the single-shot setting. Wouldn’t want them wasting ammo.

        • Some Rabbit

          The Brit’s are gonna give us their last stockpile of SMLEs with magazine cut-offs.

          • Wolf Baginski

            Don’t know the current status, but they have certainly made new Lee-Enfields in 7.62×51 in India. So it’s a possible option, but might not be sensible.

            Don’t forget the bayonets. They’re not magic, but they seem to still work on the battlefield, when things get a bit dodgy.

          • Andrew Miller

            But those won’t have the cutoffs, so perhaps just issue them without a magazine to fix that issue.
            Maybe one or two per unit for “just in case”.

          • BOB

            you’re not getting our smellies.

        • Bad Penguin

          You mean like spray and prey and jus squeezing off rounds into the air like they do now/

      • Brett baker

        My sources indicate Glock is making the clips.

        • CJS3

          Yeah, but where are they going to get their magazines from. 😉

          • .45

            According to my sources, Hi Point.

        • GUMBY

          They’re going to use CLIPS in place of MAGAZINES?

          • Edeco

            Yup, like a Grendel 380 or, erm, Steyr Roth 1906 or so. Saves weight, space and parts, promotes disciplined rather than profilgate fire.

          • Handsome Jack

            Whoa! What about the 30/40 Krag? Schultz carries in Hogan’s Heroes. Can that action handle something in a 20mm short?

          • Handsome Jack

            The clips are to hold the camouflage in place while the assistant gunner loads another 45/70 round into the new Spencer carbine with the roto choptor transport device.

      • Mr. Katt

        .45 Auto Rim . . . S&W, Colt and Ruger are all building “N” frame polymer revolvers.

    • lowell houser

      Well, considering the Army didn’t actually finish the testing on the Sig, the 1911 IS still the more proven handgun.

      • Samuel Millwright

        Nope, not even close….

      • Um, yeah, actually they DID finish the contract award testing.

        The testing they DIDN’T do yet is QUALITY CONTROL testing on the PRODUCTION guns. Which is kind of hard to do until you actually award the production contract and start getting the production guns…

    • John

      The hilarious thing is that the M17 is supposed to convert to 9mm, .40 S&W AND .45 ACP in five minutes. Can’t do that with a Beretta.

      • Kivaari

        It will never happen in USA service either.

        • FarmerB

          Maybe, but even if the conversion takes 5 minutes, the paperwork to do it takes 13 hours!!! 🙂

          • nicholsda

            And has to be done in triplicate. All originals.

    • Some Rabbit

      Hahaha, yeah, exactly. Who falls for this “big bullet” BS? Maybe a better question is who’s trying to convince the military they need to step back into the last century?

      • John

        Who falls for the big bullet BS.. Ok, so im going to shoot you in the leg, you get a choice of a 223 or a 308 oh wait, better yet, how about a 223 or a .50 bmg, which do you choose? Yeah we know exactly what you would choose.

        • 5.56

          M855A1 will instantly fragment and shred the leg, while normal .50 bmg mostly is overstable, and wont start to tumble legs, so it icepicks trough straight with its aero/aquadynamic nose.

      • The Brigadier

        People who have actually been in a fire fight at long distance. This procurement is for a battle rifle, not another short range carbine. Its reach out and touch someone time. Get it?

    • Richard Lutz

      Funny!

  • Common sense is dead

    Has Glock filed for protest yet?
    What? Too soon?

    • eddie046

      They did, already has been denied.

    • Zack mars

      Not familiar with .gov contracts are you? The looser ALWAYS protests.

      • Samuel Millwright

        It’s part of the dance!

  • Don Ward

    With the threat of troops running out of ammo with a 7.62 primary weapon, the Army has shown its wisdom in selecting the Sig modular handgun as its backup weapon…

    • J.T.

      Don’t worry. The Army will have soldiers carry the same number of rounds with them into combat.

      • Goody

        At least once our vets return home with ruined knees they will receive the best care available

        • John

          We came home with ruined knees regardless. Some didnt make it home because the m16 is unreliable junk and the 5.56 took multiple shots to kill the enemy because they were doped up. Not the case with the 7.62 and m14.

          • M.S.1

            Blame the folks who insisted in designing M855 to maximise performance against body armor to the exception of everything else. There’s a REASON the Russians took a look at that and then did things differently with their 7N6, because they realised that you also need to consider when the enemy is NOT wearing body armor.

          • Brett baker

            Thank you!

  • Kinetics

    Wow, Colt just died of excitement at the ability if possibly selling the CM901. Other likely competitors are the SCAR-17 and I’m guessing this will reignite the war between KAC and H&K.

    Anyone think of any others?

    • Joshua

      Remington has a COTS solution as well as LMT.

      • Kinetics

        What’s you feeling on whether or not this is aimed at rolling the CSASS into this role? As in this is a predetermined competition?

        • Joshua

          CSASS is not fairing well in field trials.

          I think initially that was the intent, but the CSASS is not likely to ever be funded so now they’re doing this instead and using all the civilian shooters who beta tested rifles to find a good one…..like the SCAR imo.

          However the CSASS was also supposed to be a 5.56 DMR until the RFP came out and surprised everyone. So I really don’t know who will get this, but I can guarantee the winner is already picked.

    • Scott

      Sig MCX in 7.62.

    • .45

      Finally. I hbeen looking to see if anyone was going to make a comment about Colt and you have done so. This could save them, for better or for worse.

      • Kinetics

        It’s hard not to. I think most people here know that the likelihood of the ICSR ever leaving 7.62 (as “interim” would suggest) is exceedingly unlikely.

        However, Colt was the only serious company that pushed 7.62 in the Induvidual Carbine comp and no doubt will tout the ability of the CM901 to switch calibers.

        Not that im pulling for the CM902 or any of this, but it does help them, evdn though this competition seems to be geared towards the COTS/GOTS offerings.

        • jcitizen

          Seems like doing that would be the most minimal impact on Army infrastructure, and parts.

    • Ah yes, that’s exactly what we needed. To give Colt their exclusivity back.

  • xebat

    Ayyy Macarena !

  • Sean

    Could the desire to switch to 7.62×51 also have something to do with the 5.56’s lack of effectiveness at range, as well as overall range? The 7.62×51 would add significant engagement range to infantry units, particularly with proper sights. Additionally, it would be significantly better at obstacle defeating. Let’s be honest, you wouldn’t have to hit enemies multiple times to stop them either. Now, none of this really requires switching to 7.62 (a modified 5.56 could and has addressed a lot of these issues, particularly the “stopping power” issues which are largely solved), but it could be their rational. The body armor thing is stupid.

    • CommonSense23

      7.62 is not giving significant range increase. The average shooter can’t take a 5.56 past 200 yards effectively. The amount of people in the world who can effectively use the extra range 7.62 provides in combat trading rounds, can fit in a medium sized conference room.

      • Sean

        That seems a little low. Not only does the 7.62 extend the range of the soldier but it is less sensitive to environmental conditions and goes through obstacles better. Even if the engagement ranges don’t change from the 5.56, it still brings something to the table.

        • Joshua

          Have you ever been in the military? Seen much combat?

          Or are you armchair quarterbacking here?

          • Sean

            Yes, if I’m not a SEAL then I can’t read combat reports and basic numbers, you’re right. You have an opinion on Congress? I’m going to assume you do, even though I doubt you’ve held federal office. You have an opinion on European gun laws?
            Are you a European, writing gun legislation?

            Or maybe, just maybe, it’s possible that we can look at information and build an informed opinion off it.

            Seriously, feel free to post why I’m wrong but that’s a stupid way to shut someone down.

          • Joshua

            Because what the civilian sector sees is but a small portion of data points the government has.

            90% is redacted and not for civilian distribution.

            Did you know we’ve held test that put two separate units against each other.

            One unit had a mixture of 7.62 and up calibers of rifles.

            The other unit had a mixture of 5.56 and up calibers of rifles.

            The unit with only heavy ammunition was defeated and overran every time, as they went black on 7.62 and .50.

          • Sean

            So the military has this secret data and still decided it needed a replacement for the 5.56 years ago and now this 7.62 request as well? Incredible! And they were able to run tests using 7.62×51 platforms and ammo types that haven’t even been developed yet, given that this is a new request. Doubly incredible!

        • Kinetics

          The issue isn’t “Does 7.62 bring something to the table?”. Of course with the right round and right weapon, used in the right role (as a DMR for example), adding 7.62 into a rifle squad can add capability.

          The question is, do whatever benefits that the 7.62 rifle/ammo bring outweigh the costs (financial is one but in this case the weight increase is much more important)?

          Here are a couple of graphics that illustrate the issue.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/383584448decb6d6a511c31641d47793895469e935e7bae00fdf30b5dbe24da5.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1baeab54f541316281429c762a67194dd01d4800fa87bf4e300d3f23b54c07e1.jpg

          The bottom one is critically important. 210 rounds of 5.56 weighs 5.55lbs. 108 rounds of M80A1 weighs 5.55lbs. So a “standard” combat load of 7.62 (as the RFP above requires) would weigh 10.8 lbs just for the ammo alone. Then you add in 7.62 mags which are much larger and heavier than M4 mags, the weight of the rifle which will, conservatively, add 4-5lbs, the weight of optics, lights, and an IR laser.

          The move to a 7.62 rifle could easily add 20lbs to an infantryman’s combat load for the rifle, ammo, and necessary accessories alone.

          So, are a few “benefits” that come into play in rare situations worth an extra 20lbs? Most people, regardless of military experience, and anyone who routinely shoots any 7.62.51 caliber rifle, would say not.

          • Sean

            Thank you for seeing my original point through the flames, I completely agree with you. My only thought is that potentially this program could yield lighter mags and rifles, somewhat softening the weight increase enough to justify it. Additionally, the weight increase in the weapons system could be offset elsewhere on the loudout. But it’d be hard and is probably wasted effort, given the military track record with these sorts of things.

            Finally, communication.

          • Kinetics

            I’m highly dubious of any weight reductions coming anytime soon. Everything is trending towards the standard loadout going up in weight, take the AN/PVS-20 ENVG for example, it’s a new nvg but it adds more than a lbs of weight for the goggle alone over a PVS-14, and that’s not counting the separate computer processor, extra batteries, and new additional weapon-sight that is envisioned to accompany it.

            As far as this rifle, I don’t know how a 7.62 mag’s weight could be lessened without compromising durability and there really isn’t a practical way of removing weight from a weapon when you go up in caliber. In fact, all trends point towards to increased weight even within weapons classes. A great example is the M4 and the shift to the M4A1 along with all of the accessories that became commonplace during the last 16 years which added capability, but also weight.

            This is a particularly serious issue for a lot of people, especially those who will carry it (literally) because adding 20lbs has numerous additional effects that are all negative. Also, this is for 210 rounds. It isn’t uncommon for troops to carry more than 7 mags which means even more weight, and it can’t really be spread around the way a DMR’s weight theoretically could because every guy in a squad will be carrying the same rifle. It’s not that people don’t see your point, but a lot of people, especially the ones here who have been there and done that, can easily see how something like this can harm troops and that’s not a good thing.

          • Recoil

            Have fun with HALF the ammo, and 3 times the recoil…..

            Complete lack of supression fire superority against russian 5.45×39.

          • iksnilol

            But they’re gonna 210 rounds of 7.62×51… so no, they won’t run out of ammo.

            This is a good idea /sarc

        • Samuel Millwright

          Yeah, it brings a total inability of the United states to fight a war with near peer foes that isn’t over quickly!

          THAT’S WHAT IT DOES

          Frankly, even if people really do honestly believe7.62 is oh so much better etc…. (Which it isn’t) but even if it were it’s still not actually a real option!

      • Bullphrog855

        “The average shooter can’t take a 5.56 past 200 yards effectively”

        Man that number has really been reeled it in over the years.

        • CommonSense23

          I’m being generous with the 200 yards. Is it one thing when you have fire superiority to make hits past 200 yards. Yeah it can he done. But when both sides are are trying to establish or the other side has established fire superiority. It’s real hard hitting some one presenting the bare minimum they need to shoot at you. With both of you ducking in and out of cover. Wearing 60 to 100 pounds of gear. With a heart beat of 140 plus. With a shoulder fired weapon.

          • Bullphrog855

            It’s your argument to make, I’m just pointing out a trend. Effective range projections show that our soldiers wont be able to effectively shoot at 50 yards in 5years though.

          • ostiariusalpha

            They actually never have been able to, it was largely a fantasy of the brass that performance on the range was in any way a real measure of performance in combat. It’s just that reality and actual study have whittled this fantasy down slowly towards the truth of the matter.

          • wicapiwakan

            yeah, for some reason there are still lots of people who think shooting a stationary paper target at known distance while calm is the same thing as shooting an intelligent, erratically moving target in cover while you’ve reverted to your primordial lizard brain due to evolutionarily hard wired stress responses to said target actively trying to kill you.

            it’s not to say soldiers CAN’T make hits at longer ranges, but your accuracy will always be drastically reduced against something that not only does not want to die, but is sincerely trying to kill you itself.

          • Uniform223

            That is the best way anyone has ever put it!

            Somehow these F-tards in congress and the military seem to be sold on the incredibly false belief that .30cal rifle will just make everything better…

            http://lolsheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Crappy-Fail.jpg

          • nicholsda

            I don’t see Obama Presidential Library written on that outhouse.

          • Paul White

            Never been in the military, but even just deer hunting…can I hit a 6″ plate at about 250 yards on the range? Yeah.

            Do I feel like I can reliably make a hit on a deer within the vitals at that range when I’m out hunting? hell no. And I imagine it’s a lot worse if it was someone that could shoot back.

          • RealitiCzech

            Yep. Go to a 3-gun or 2-gun match that has 100 yd targets. You will find that 100 yards is surprisingly difficult when you’re on the clock – and that’s when nobody is shooting back, and you aren’t tired from walking up mountains with 100lbs of lightweight gear, and they’re not in cover or wearing camo.

          • nicholsda

            Shoot, tell someone to put 6 shots from a handgun in a 8″ ( paper plate ) target at 7 yards. When they are finished, then tell them to do it again in under 3 seconds. Their heart rate will be way up and accuracy goes down. And a miss or an over time run means you are dead.

        • RealitiCzech

          The goofy myth of the rifleman making 1000 yard hits is slowly but surely dying off.

        • Ark

          As I understand it, you can qualify just fine on an Army range by only shooting pop-up targets at 200 and under.

          • cwolf

            wwwDOTslideshareDOTnet/James8981/rifle-score-card

      • iksnilol

        Also, y’all forget that 7.62×51 and 5.56 HAVE BASICALLY THE SAME TRAJECTORY

    • Uniform223

      “7.62×51 also have something to do with the 5.56’s lack of effectiveness at range, as well as overall range?”

      > though the standard NATO spec 7.62×51 is listed at an effective range (point target) at 800m and the 5.56x45mm is listed at an effective range of around 500m (point target give or take 25 to 50 meters). The reality is that the listed effective range is far more optimistic then the actual practical engagement ranges. In this regard practical engagement range for most troops falls into 25-250 meters for both calibers. Historically this was shown during studies for SCHV rounds when looking at engagements during WW2 and Korean Conflict. Troops (Army and Marines) often would not fire or engage until enemy troops were much closer.

      ” Additionally, it would be significantly better at obstacle defeating”

      > M855A1… look it up.

      “Let’s be honest, you wouldn’t have to hit enemies multiple times to stop them either”

      > M855A1… look it up. Larger caliber means better effect on target is a common fallacy pushed around the interwebs. The two most important factors is bullet design and shot placement.

      • Sean

        Yeah, I did look it up. Isn’t the whole reason the military was already looking for a 5.56 replacement the prevailing opinion that m855a1 hadn’t fixed the 5.56 lack of effectiveness at range and through obstacles? I get that it’s better than the old ammo but there’s only so much tweaking one can do to a round that was always designed to be a controllable, lightweight round first and foremost.

        • Uniform223

          The M855A1 in EVERY MEASUREMENT was/is better then the old M855.
          The biggest problem for the M855 was its lack of consistency. The older M855 is more yaw dependent. The steel core for the older M855 (according to legend) was designed to defeat soviet steel helmets. Also including the steel core made it a heavier round which meant longer engagement range than the even older and lighter 55g M193 when used with the 20inch barrel M16.
          However during the adoption of the M4, the M855 proved to be less capable as it had a lower muzzle velocity which meant less chance of yawing. Personally I don’t think the M855 is that bad as baddies and hajis were still getting dropped and taking an extended dirt nap with that round. It wasn’t the best (by far) but it still got the job done. The M855A1 addressed all the concerns and shortcomings of the older M855.

          By going to a 7.62×51 platform they just wasted all that time and money for the M855A1 and now they’re going to waste EVEN MORE time and money for a new 7.62x51mm platform.

    • Vitor Roma

      Nope, dozens and dozens of studies have shown that the vast majority of engagements happen 500 meters or less, where the m855a1is quite capable. It is a pipe dream to expect standard troops hitting enemies further than that often, and to make them carry heavier, more recoiling ammo for something so improbable is dumb.

    • Derrick Bonsell

      Just keep an inventory of M16A4 uppers or something. Issue them to troops in longer-ranged conditions.

      • iksnilol

        There isn’t really any range difference between M16 and M4 if you use optics.

        • And, M855A1 is optimized for use from a 14.5″ barrel, NOT a 20″ barrel.

  • ColonelColt

    On the rollercoaster again. The US army never seems to learn its lesson.

  • NewMan

    Just purchase the HK 417. Problem solved.

    • pwrserge

      Until your super special teutonic wunderwaffen starts messing the bed again. There is no rifle that HK makes that an appropriate AR platform doesn’t do better, simpler, and cheaper.

    • Joshua

      There’s a reason NSWDG and Delta dumped their 417s for Wilson and KAC rifles.

    • Uniform223

      Hey look! Slowman showed up!

    • Eric H

      If the HK417 was the solution for the problem the Army thinks it has, don’t you think they and other countries would have gone to it as a general-issue weapon instead of just a designated marksman rifle?

    • AC97

      Oh look, your average HK fanboy appeared.

      Stop pretending you know better than everyone else.

  • Ithaca TrenchGun

    Broke : Replace 5.56mm rifles with 7.62mm rifles
    Joke : Keep 5.56mm rifle
    WOKE : Replace both with .30-40 Krag Automatic Rifle

    • RealitiCzech

      Just make sure the rifle only has 5rd mags. We don’t want troops wasting ammo. Besides, this “suppressive fire” nonsense is killing a lot of endangered species.

      • We need to be able to lock the magazine out of the feed cycle, until the soldier throws a switch (after being ordered to do so by a commissioned officer, of course).

        If they have to single load through the ejection port, they’ll take more care in aiming, right?

        • RealitiCzech

          Single load is a great idea, that way their heart rate will have time to go down as they perform this restful, repetitive task.

  • pwrserge

    Why do I get the feeling we’re going to get another Mk23 fiasco out of this. The rifle will be a huge “offensive” rifle that will sit in unit armories while they draw M4s and M16s for actual duty.

  • GCDuffy

    The Army has suffered far too long with a weapon that lacked terminal ballistics capability. There are many instances of hitting the enemy with multiple rounds of 5.56 and not putting the enemy down. A brief excursion to the history of the .45 auto clearly tells the story. The military is aware of this and train to shoot at the head and neck area to be sure of a hit that will disable or kill the target. Whereas a hit anywhere should be incapacitating. Furthermore the 7.62 is inherently more capable of penetrating armor because of its terminal energy–the physics is still the timeless MV2. The argument of being able to carry more ammo is ridiculous as having a full ammo pouch is of little use when you are overrun. Also, current bullet design employs plastic cases and much higher velocity with less powder volume thus reducing the weight of the bullet. Furthermore, it is easier to design and manufacture an armor piercing projectile at 7.62 than 5.56. The heavier 7.62 also has better long range capability without loss of CQB effectiveness. Good system design can take care of the increased recoil as well as training. Note the the WWII Garand and the Springfield 1903 both had substantial recoil that was handled well by soldiers that were, on average, considerably lighter than today’s soldier. We should, at the same time, revert to gas piston action for its substantially greater reliability even though it is is slightly heavier. Better recoil handling also!
    The voices that oppose the change are reminiscent of the opposition of the Army, notably Winfield Scott, of the switch from flintlock to percussion.

    • Uniform223

      Wow that whole comment shows your level of knowledge on the subject…

      “The military is aware of this and train to shoot at the head and neck area to be sure of a hit that will disable or kill the target. Whereas a hit anywhere should be incapacitating. ”

      > obviously your knowledge and experience into this stems from Call of Duty.
      NO, the US military doesn’t train to shoot for head or neck, they train to shoot for torso. This is what we use on our firing ranges…

      https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yaQuKcLe8kY/maxresdefault.jpg

      https://bct4hs.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image11.jpg

      how difficult do you think it is to have accurate head shots out to 300m? Short answer, very hard…

      “Furthermore the 7.62 is inherently more capable of penetrating armor because of its terminal energy–the physics is still the timeless MV2”

      > Many people often say this but fail to note things like bullet composition and design. A 5.56x45mm with a tungsten core will be able to defeat armor better then 7.62x51mm a steel core. Mass x velocity is for the very simple explanations.

      “The argument of being able to carry more ammo is ridiculous as having a full ammo pouch is of little use when you are overrun”

      > if you’re about to be over run what would you rather have? More ammo or less ammo? In the doctrine of fire and maneuver tactics, what would you rather have? More ammo or less ammo?

      “Furthermore, it is easier to design and manufacture an armor piercing projectile at 7.62 than 5.56”

      “he heavier 7.62 also has better long range capability without loss of CQB effectiveness. Good system design can take care of the increased recoil as well as training”

      > in CQB faster follow up shots are more important. In that regards the 7.62 is worse because of its heavier recoil. Also it doesn’t matter how much training you get, a heavy recoil is still a heavy recoil. Ever been standing next to someone shooting dedicated muzzle break or compensator?

      “We should, at the same time, revert to gas piston action for its substantially greater reliability even though it is is slightly heavier. Better recoil handling also!”

      > just so ignorant…
      Gas piston systems are no more reliable then direct gas impingement internal piston of the current M4. Matter the fact they are even less reliable in terms of overall service life as they have more class 3 stoppages/malfunctions. These types of stoppages/malfunctions are complete mechanical breakdowns of the weapon that requires an armory level fix. Also having shot both piston and DI AR-15s, I can tell you that the differences in recoil are negligible. However some will say that piston driven AR-15s have a more mechanical or sharper recoil while traditional DI operated AR-15s have a smoother recoil.

      • GCDuffy

        No, my experience with the training is from shooting instructors at Fort Benning who teach to the Army Doctrine. So, I have the facts. The rest of your post is rife with inconsistencies such as bullet design which is equally pertinent to both calibers except that the added mass of the 7.62 makes the design less important in range and penetration. There is no doubt that gas piston is inherently more reliable than impingement and it is not as subject to fouling requiring fanatic cleaning. Clearly, you are clueless about facts of the dialog so any further response from me is a waste of time.

        • Uniform223

          “No, my experience with the training is from shooting instructors at Fort Benning who teach to the Army Doctrine.”

          > False claims are the best! Two can play at that game! Well my experience was that I spent 8 years as a Delta Special Tactics and Recon Direct Action Combat Applications Special Warfare Maritime Airborne unit and before that 4 years with US Army Special Forces Group 5 1st BN D Company often assigned to CIF.

          “So, I have the facts.”

          >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuL6cJPz3Nk

          and the rest of your comment is just laughable. It would be more entertaining for me to respond to this but I got to make dinner for my bratty kids!

        • Eric H

          You don’t like his information so you run away claiming you’re vastly more knowledgeable? That is just laughable.

        • Klaus Von Schmitto

          The Army does not teach soldiers to shoot neck/head shots. They just don’t. Never have. That makes anything else you say seem pretty suspicious.

        • CommonSense23

          If you think fouling causes issues with the M4 you have no clue what you are talking about.

    • The armor that is the whole justification for this program is by definition proof against all 7.62mm AP rounds except for those that use precious and expensive tungsten. And tungsten cored 5.56mm will penetrate that armor, as well!

      • CommonSense23

        Has there been any videos of M80A1 versus level 4 plates?

      • Tassiebush

        I’d imagine they’d use significantly less tungsten as well.

    • Able_Dart

      Yeah! And EXOSKELETONS!

      (Sigh…)

    • int19h

      > Furthermore the 7.62 is inherently more capable of penetrating armor because of its terminal energy–the physics is still the timeless MV2

      It’s amusing that you post the very formula that contradicts all your claims.

      Yes, kinetic energy is proportional to mass, and it’s proportional to velocity squared. What this means is that increasing velocity is an easier way to get more energy than increasing weight!

      As far as armor penetration specifically, it’s not just about energy. Sectional area of the bullet also matters – simply put, it’s more beneficial to apply that energy to as small patch of armor as possible. This favors long, sleek, high BC rounds (the correlation with high BC is not a coincidence, since it’s basically about “penetrating” air, and same physical principles apply). And 7.62×51 is not known for its exemplary BC.

      • iksnilol

        You misunderstood, it’s a typo, he meant MW2 as in Modern Warfare 2.

  • John

    I get the whole “You can carry more 5.56” argument BUT, you can’t deny the 7.62 has some ballistic advantages over 5.56. I hits a lot harder so fewer rounds should be needed to incapacity the enemy (theoretically). Also, if your target is hiding behind cover, how many rounds will it take to punch through with 7.62 vs 5.56? Is it easier to incapacitate a vehicle with AP 5.56 or AP 7.62? In a urban environment where you may have to shoot through walls, cars, sandbags, trees and a thousand other things, I like the idea of having a bullet that’s a bulldozer, not a cafe’ racer. JMHO

    • 7.62mm doesn’t perform that much better than 5.56mm, though. Especially not when it’s being shot by a 19 year old kid with a rifle.

      • Sean

        See, there’s the problem. I agree that switching everyone over to 7.62 is probably unnecessary and logistically problematic. However, it doesn’t follow that therefore there are NO advantages to a full power 7.62 cartridge in the hands of an infantryman. It will extend the soldiers range (both theoretical and effective), improve per shot lethality, and defeat obstacles better. The real question is if those advantages outweigh the disadvantages, not if the advantages exist at all. They clearly do.

        • I don’t recall claiming that 7.62mm had literally zero advantages vs. 5.56mm. Maybe a long time ago, I did.

          • Sean

            You said “it doesn’t perform much better.” I think most people would agree that the 7.62×51 is significantly superior in terms of ballistics to the 5.56 in almost every measurable category. The strength of the 5.56 originally wasn’t it’s “power,” it was its light weight and controllability. The designers took the hit to overall effectiveness because they anticipated shorter ranges and full auto fire. Our modern military uses their rifles a little differently. I’d argue the modern crop 7.62x51rifles can be made to be pretty soft shooting and nearly as light as the 5.56 rifles, especially the military M4s, while increasing the effectiveness of the fire significantly.

            Again, 5.56 is much better than it originally was and this switch is probably totally unnecessary, I’m with you there. But the 7.62×51 does bring a lot of capability to the table that the 5.56 simply doesn’t have (range, consistency, obstacle defeating, superior wounding potential, etc). As for the weight, I’d argue that the military massively overburdens their troops, even without the weapons system. Surely there’s better places to shed pounds than on the weapons system, especially if one is wanting to extend the range and increase the firepower of a squad.

            BTW, no disrespect. Love your content!

          • Most people would be surprised, then, I guess.

            Thanks for reading!

          • Sean

            Well, feel free to explain! Because I’d think if there was no meaningful ballistic advantage to the 7.62×51, it wouldn’t still be around and in widespread use, particularly in theaters with longer engagement distances. That was my point, why is it wrong?

          • 7.62mm has an energy advantage that gives it some more favorable characteristics, but ballistically – in terms of trajectory and some other things – it’s only a hair better.

            Is it worth it? Yes, for certain applications. For the rifle? Hell no.

        • Uniform223

          The disadvantages are very real too. Heavier weapon system for troops (at a time when congress and military leaders are complaining about the weight the soldier and marine has to carry into combat) Less ammo to be carried.

          • Sean

            Sure, in theory. However, I’d argue it’s a very different situation from the 1960’s. Current 7.62×51 rifles are actually pretty light, some lighter than military M4s. Our soldiers are overburdened, but I’d guess that there are lots of better places to lose weight than on weapons systems, especially if they increase the soldier’s lethality and effectiveness.

          • Joshua

            Got a list of all those 7.62 rifles that weigh less than 6lbs 12oz?

            Because that’s what the heavy barreled M4A1 with KAC RAS weighs.

          • Sean

            Where’d that number come from? I’m seeing more in the 7.5 lb range. Which is around where the Smith and Wesson M&p10 is, just to name one.

          • Joshua

            PEO weighs the M4A1 with empty magazine, sling, rail panels, VFG and rear BUIS.

            I have been issued a M4A1 for over 12 years, I’ve weighed them before.

            The M4A1 with KAC RAS and Matech BUIS weighs 6lb 12oz.

            The M4 weighs 6lbs 7oz due to the government profile under the handguard.

            Thank you for proving you have no personal experience with which to speak.

          • Sean

            “Beefier carbines en route to Soldiers” That’s the Army’s own article on this change, listing the weight at 7.74 lbs. Thoughts?

          • Brett baker

            You do know we’ve had trouble with recoil in the past, Right? From Korea back, There are stories of guys suffering from concussions in sustained firefights. Do we want to bring that back and worse?

          • Joshua

            Yeah the weight with magazine, sling, buis, rail panels, and VFG.

            My issued M4A1 weighed 10lbs 1oz with AFG, light, optic, sling, peq.

            However the base weight of a M4A1 with rail and buis is 6lbs 12oz.

            I mean you can do this at home. Get a Colt 6920, weight it and add 5oz(the weight of the heavy barrel difference.)

          • Aaron

            S&W m&p10? No. Try picking any 7.62 that actually is in use by a military. Scar-H, LMT MWS, H&K 417. The M&P is hardly a military or police worthy rifle.

          • Tassiebush

            Ammo weight is more significant than weapon weight as an issue.

        • CommonSense23

          You aren’t going to extend range at the cost of less rounds.

    • Drambus

      US army doctrine is to use infantry to make contact with the enemy and small arms to keep the enemy from moving while artillery or air support (fixed or rotor wing) can destroy the enemy. More ammunition = greater ability to prevent enemy movement for longer.

      • John

        Yes, but even in a suppressing fire situation, I would rather have 100 .50 cal rounds than 1000 .22LRs.

        Would you rather run through a cloud of bees….or a pride of lions.

        • AC97

          …You’re not getting it.

          If you have less ammo, that means you have less ammo with which to suppress them with, so you are less efficient at suppressing them,
          period.

          Oh, and the .22LR comparison is BS, because you could almost have that much 5.56 for the same weight; downplaying 5.56’s effectiveness like that isn’t really a sign of being well informed.

          1,000 62 grain 5.56 (M855 weight, but let’s assume M855A1 is very similar in weight, since it’s still 62 grain ammo) weighs about 27.14 lbs while 100 .50 BMG (MK 211, 671 grains) weighs 25.21 lbs.

          That, and the fact that you are obviously going to be more mobile with anything chambered in 5.56 as compared to 50 BMG.

          • Suppression has come up a lot. Obviously there is a dimension of ammunition power to be had here. More powerful bullets are louder and kick up more dirt, so they theoretically suppress better.

            Here’s the thing, though, the suppression hierarchy of importance goes like this:

            Closeness
            Volume
            Power

            So the closer your fire is, the better you suppress. The more you shoot, the better you suppress. And at the tail end, the bigger your bullet and the faster it’s moving, the better you suppress. Two of these require the Infantry to carry more (volume and power). One does not (closeness). So shouldn’t we try to optimize for closeness first? It’s not like our soldiers are as accurate or as effective in their marksmanship as we know they can be. So then the most efficient way to improve suppression characteristics while keeping the weight down is to teach people to shoot better.

            Might also have something to do with why SF tend not to think 5.56mm is so bad.

        • int19h

          For suppression specifically, and assuming the range is such that both are reasonably effective, I would totally take 1000 .22 LRs.

          And if you would be stupid enough to get your ass up and run through a cloud of that, you’d quickly find out why.

          • jcitizen

            The Austrians used to use one like the American 180, which now has a 275 rd drum. It felt like a water hose when on full auto. With just lead bullets I could chew through a rail track in seconds at close range. The new lexan drums with aluminum bases are very light, so only the weight of the cartridge is noticeable. Problem is, that it isn’t much effective beyond 300 meters.

  • Gregory

    It will never happen.

  • GordonTheDog

    I think almost no one actually uses 5.45 AK’s. Just Russia and it’s old Warsaw pact satellite states. 7.62×39 is still in use by way more countries.

    • Joshua

      That’s not because it’s superior.

    • 5.45x39mm is not as ubiquitous as 7.62x39mm, but it’s still used in the Third World. For example, Osama Bin Laden’s favorite gun was a 5.45x39mm AKS-74U.

    • int19h

      You’d be surprised. North Korea uses 5.45 AK as its standard issue infantry weapon, for example. Syrian army also uses it a lot, judging by the photos.

      • jcitizen

        If it was any more accurate that the 30 cal one, maybe it would have took off. That was what kept me from ordering an AK derivative in that caliber. Actually the only AK design I’ve had that was accurate even out to 500 meters was the Valmet M62.

        • int19h

          It is more accurate than 7.62x39mm. Accurate enough that 400m is the standard military zero.

          • jcitizen

            Well I’ll be, thanks!

  • Indianasteve

    So, they are soliciting for rifles to test. Then they will give the contract to the rifle that is the least expensive.

  • The_Champ

    OMG THE COMMENTS ARE GOING TO EXPLODE!!!!!!!!

    • Uniform223

      It already has! RUN!

  • dave

    As a currently deployed army soldier i am overjoyed for this. The solicitation itself is an interesting read.

    • Joshua

      So you want to carry a 12lb rifle with a 14lb 210 round combat load?

      • Emfourty Gasmask

        AR10s are a thing and no they are not 12lbs, they are much lighter

        • Joshua

          Read the RFP.

          It has to be sub 12lbs. I view all tentative RFPs as the worst case. Which is a 12lb rifle.

          • Kivaari

            That’s 12 pounds without optics.

        • Guaran-damn-tee you the rifle will come in just under the max weight, if it makes the weight at all. Just like almost every other military RFP of the last 70+ years.

          And that’s empty and stripped of all accessories.

  • Wetcoaster

    I think encountering 5.45mm-armed foes is nowhere near as likely as encountering 5.56-armed foes what with recent AR-proliferation everywhere…

  • Kinetics

    “The one (1) bid sample weapon shall include enough magazines to support the basic load of 210 rounds.”

    Holy crap. They want to keep the standard combat load with it. That’s insane.

    • Anonymoose

      Polymer-cased ammo in Pmags would help.

      • Kinetics

        Yes it would, but the Army is not fond of Pmags and polymer ammo was mainly being aimed at 5.56, plus it I guarantee that whatever new armor defeating 7.62 round they have developed won’t be polymer cased.

        Another issue is if they go with the SCAR-17, in that case, Pmags have even less chance.

        • Anonymoose

          Handl Defense, bruh.

          • Kinetics

            Of course it’s out there, but unless FN is interested in submitting a SCAR-17 with the Handle lower/magwell as standard (which I doubt because it would mean less money with the Army having to buy all new FN mags), it’s as good as dead.

            I really can’t see the Army going out of it’s way to modify it’s brand new rifle just to get commonality with SR-25 spec mags.

      • Gary Kirk

        Poly cased ammo, maybe.. Pmags, no, they’re heavier than aluminum GIs.. But seeing as there are no “GI” aluminum LFAR mags.. Who knows where this whole helmet wearing, window licking idea will wind up going..

      • Brett baker

        Is anybody actually using poly ammo? Ever since the 80’s every couple of years it gets reintroduced, then “oops, better luck next time.”

        • Anonymoose

          It failed spectacularly when Alex C tested it.

          • Kivaari

            It’s been tried for 30+ YEARS and has failed for 30+ YEARS.

        • Samuel Millwright

          Yeah there’s some hybrid case 50 bmg that’s type classified and in service.

      • matthew newton

        PMAGs? Don’t get me wrong, they work well and are inexpensive. They are heavier than aluminum mags though. I’ve got about a dozen sitting in boxes/cans because again, cheap and they work well. They are about 4.5oz for a 30rnd mag. A Lancer war mag 30rnd has steel feed lips, seems to tick all of the same reliability metrics and comes in at 4oz even. An aluminum GI mag IIRC is about 3.5oz for a 30rnd mag. So switching to PMAGs for a 210rnd load out would add about half a pound, Lancer’s would add 1/4lb.

        Not sure on the weights of others, but I’d imagine there is something out there as light or lighter than a GI aluminum mag and works better.

        Working out plastic casings for ammo would be a HUGE boon though. Which I am sure means MOAR AMMO rather than just a lighter load.

        I don’t like the budget crushing amount of funds the DOD soaks up every year. Of course one nice solution is stopping stupid trails like these that soak up hundreds of millions or billions because some General or Admiral gets a hair in their crack. Of course that is probably less stupid than when Congress decides they know better than the military or they want to keep jobs in their district. That can cost tens of billions for no gain.

        Anyway, can we please focus on advanced materials and maybe even more disposability with the infantry? I am sure it would add a lot of cost, but we should be focusing more on carbon fiber, titanium and advanced composites for even mundane things. Titanium spork anyone? Any reason not to issue Ti bayonets/combat knives? I am sure doing that kind of stuff would add thousands to the basic infantry kit. It might also save a few pounds. Maybe even a dozen or more pounds. Makes them more effective and it might save in medical costs and readiness status though. Might even save more than it costs in the long run.

        • Anonymoose

          Once again, we’re talking about .308 mags, and most .308 AR mags (with the exception of the Lancers, those Brownells mags, and the HK417 mags) are made of STEEL, which is much heavier than any aluminum or polymer. If they adopted the SCAR maybe they could get a deal with Moses Mag to supply polymer mags, assuming those hold up to abuse.

        • BeGe1

          I know, I know. Ounces equal pounds, pounds equals pain.

          But this is one place I’ll gladly take an ounce. GI mags are AWFUL. They just get bent out of spec under abuse and then fail REGULARLY.

          PMAGs run like cadillacs by comparison. And if you abuse a PMAG to the point of failure, it’s not silent failure like it is with a GI mag (where it just works more and more crappy every day). They either are still working, or are friggin noticeably broken. Which is good, cuz you can then immediately discard and/or replace the broken one.

          And is it really extra weight when you don’t have to worry about which of your 6 extra mags is actually gonna work? At least 1 of them will probably fail if they’re crappy abused GI mags. That’s essentially an extra pound of weight for no reason. I’d rather just carry 5 PMAGS. Same efficacy, less weight overall.

          • Gotta agree with this. EPM was something of a great white hope for a while, but now that program has turned out to be a disaster. And PMags have only gotten better.

          • jcitizen

            It is the manufacturer that makes the aluminum mags suck. When I was an armorer, I had all the 20 rd mags made by any mfr other than Parsons Kansas sent back to MATES as unfit for service; and they were unfit – as all you got with them was double feeds and stove piped rounds.

          • BeGe1

            I dunno about that. We actually had a mix between 3 kinds (I remember Brownells and Kay, can’t remember the third) and about an even split between green at tan anti-tilt followers.

            The tan followers did have better feeding. But still not magpul level reliability. The green followers all sucked pretty bad.

            But ALL of them had serious problems with insertion/uninsertion. And even moreso in the M27’s (when I carried an M27 I did not have 1 single mag that could drop free, about about 90% of the mags had to be beaten into place on every reload with multiple HARD hits…it was not uncommon for me to actually turn the rifle upside-down on the ground while prone, and hammer-fist the bottom of the mag multiple times and then turn it back over to send the bolt home and resume firing…and even that still had occasional failures to fully seat).

          • jcitizen

            From what witnesses have expressed on Military dot com. Your experiences sound familiar. I’ve been out of the loop since Desert Storm, when we finally started getting 30 round clips issued; but we didn’t use any of them. They stayed in the original plastic wrapping.

    • RealitiCzech

      And they want it select fire, because we know how well light 7.62 rifles work on full-auto.

      • CommonSense23

        In fairness. I like select fire just for the extra security it provides. I’ve seen a lot of triggers go down in semi, but work in auto.

        • Mr. Katt

          I agree – I’ve seen no other select fire weapon that can do what the M14 can do – go from ground level anti-personnel fire to anti-aircraft fire in 4 rounds.

          • FarmerB

            As somebody who spent all yesterday afternoon firing a G3 on full-auto, I have to agree – although my teeth are still chattering. Better to have it and not need it than…

          • frankspeak

            even with a 30 rd clip..it “empty’s out”..way too fast..

          • FarmerB

            Or even a 20 round magazine 🙂

        • noob

          Was it a bad disconnector?

      • William Elliott

        well, there was that AR10 rifle that was supposed to be more controllable in full auto…or something like that…;)

        • frankspeak

          not really…only marginally better..plus it kicked like a mule!..and that cocking handle inside the carrying handle was awkward…not to mention the lousy paint job….rejected it for the HK-91..[later converted]…and never looked back….

          • FarmerB

            I have an inside line on buying one of those – missed out in a recent auction because it went for silly money. A nice mate for the G3 🙂

      • frankspeak

        even with a 3 rd burst limiter…

      • Matt_from_Colorado

        I think part of the problem is the high rate of fire on most battle rifles. What was it they said of the M-14 compared to the BAR “half the weight and twice the rate?”

    • iksnilol

      Thus y’all whining about how troops will be less effective can shut up!

      Also, please ignore the strain of carrying 5 kg extra ammo will bring.

      • crackedlenses

        That would vaguely more sense than this move.

      • tsubaka

        but if Every man is a machinegunner who’s gonna carry the ammo belt 🙂

        • iksnilol

          EVERY. MAN. MACHINEGUNNER!

          WAAAAAAAAGH

        • Samuel Millwright

          The wimmin?

    • frankspeak

      that’s not gonna’ happen…average infantryman in WWII carried about 80 rds!…

  • leafermadness

    Can someone explain the attitude common in this threads that a .30 cal hit is a guaranteed man stopper? It isn’t. There’s plenty of combat experience to demonstrate that. And if you have no combat experience, just look at the plenty of gel testing that shows .30 cal rounds love to just poke .30 holes in people. And if you don’t believe in gel testing, just look at historical accounts. The whole reason the British invented dumdum rounds was because their new .30 cal rifles were just poking holes in people.

    Also, has anyone in the military thought exactly through what the Russians will do once we adopt a .30 rifle and a new AP round for it to defeat their new ceramic armor? Like say take their plates and make them thicker (like exactly what the US Army did with XSAPI)? Will that cost them more weight than what the increase in the American rifleman’s load was? And once they’ve done that, what do we do? Adopt .300 win mag? And then .338? Does it end with every rifleman carrying a .50 cal rifle firing DU sabot rounds? Or do we accept that body armor defeat might be beyond what an infantry rifle is capable of?

    • Joshua

      All this was put before the CoS, he ignored it.

      • Eric H

        So he’s just an idiot then, which is par for the course when you get up that high.

        • Klaus Von Schmitto

          No, they aren’t stupid. They are just working on their next job as a lobbyist or as an exec for a defense corporation.

          • lowell houser

            Exactly. When it comes to government procurement(or anything, really) never attribute to incompetence that which can just as easily be attributed to malice. You’ll save boatloads of time.

    • FarmerB

      Years ago, I saw plenty of British .303 military rounds used on medium game (culling pig populations). Unless they hit a solid bone, they were poor performers. They used to drill holes just like you said. Switching to a .243win with 80gn Soft points killed like greased lightening in comparison.

      • eddie046

        However a 303 firing a 180 grain softpoint is devastating on deer and hogs.

        • FarmerB

          Of course, it’s about the bullet, but we are talking effectiveness of military rounds here.

          • .45

            Did it make any difference which type of military bullet was used? I.E. Did Mk VII do any better than earlier types?

          • FarmerB

            Hi – I lament to say that I never really tracked which bullet it was, there was no Internet in the day to check all that anyway. But I’m fairly sure it was all Mark VII (WW-II surplus).

            For sporting purposes, it was very common to re barrel the SMLE in .303/25.

  • TeaPartyPagan

    I don’t see an issue with the rifle. The AR-10 is not that much heavier than an AR-15. I think what is happening here is no one see a a path to 6.5 from 5.56. What will happen, is they will got to 7.62, sacrifice a few too many troops, and say, “Ooops!” Then rebarrel these 7.62 rifles to 6.5… And say it is the best compromise, when in fact, if they need more punch, they ought to go with 6,5 from the gitgo. But, no, that would make too much sense. They have forgotten the lessons that Vietnam taught about totingt that heavy ammunition on long patrols

    • 6.5mm has built such a good brand lately. Most people regard it as Caliber Jesus.

      It isn’t.

      • Windick Gypsy Bellbottoms

        I read a very well-written article a few months ago arguing that 6mm bullets have the best balance.

        • S O

          If that was Stan Crist’s; he got the physics wrong and focused on energy instead of impulse when talking about recoil.

        • There’s no such thing as “the best balance”. Caliber needs to be a driven parameter, not a driving one.

          The problem is that, thanks to decisions made 120 years ago, the 6.5mm has currently received a reputation in everyone’s minds as the “value” caliber which provides ballistics above and beyond its class. The problem is that this can be true of every caliber, and it’s an accident of history that it’s true for 6.5mm and not .30 or .224 or .25 or .27.

          So everyone needs to forget about caliber. Let that be determined by the requirements and the technology. It’s a non-issue. Everyone buying up “TEAM 6.5” t-shirts and foam hands is bad, and needs to stop.

          • int19h

            There are some objective factors for having a “sweet spot” _for a given cartridge length_. This limits the amount of powder you can burn, and this in turn puts constraint on the caliber if you want to maximize BC and velocity for the longest point blank range (which also happens to favor fast rounds, which is good for AP). For short action, it would appear that 6.5mm is that sweet spot, no?

          • ostiariusalpha

            I kind of agree with your assessment when looking at external ballistics performance. If you bump up the case volume, then the caliber “sweet spot” goes up with it. And inversely, it goes down if you reduce the case volume. I love my 6.5 Grendel (and it shot fantastic groups at 750 yards for me yesterday), but I’m not going to pretend that it would beat a 6mm PPC for flat shooting and resistance to wind deflection.

          • jcitizen

            Colonel Hatcher said it when he developed the Hatcher scale; I’ll always believe it till I die!

          • You’d get even longer PBRs with 6mm, which is what the guys in long range comps are finding out now. 5.56mm/308 would probably be even better, provided you could stabilize bullets that were long and heavy enough.

          • int19h

            My understanding is that stabilization is indeed what places the lower limit on length to bore ratio. Well, and also barrel life – you can increase twist (and velocity), but then you start burning barrels too fast to be practical in an infantry weapon. Otherwise we’d probably be using something like .223 WSSM already.

          • Stabilization places a limit on how long your bullet can be, but there are already 90gr .224 bullets with good SDs and BCs.

            Relative capacity (the ratio between net case capacity and bore diameter) is limited by propellant burn dynamics, but 6mm Creed isn’t butting up against that limit.

          • Brett baker

            The 6.5’s rep was built on penetration. (Shooting African game you shouldn’t.) The .30 actually outpenetrates it. Of course those loading had cases of guys taking full mag dumps (from bolt guns) and still keep fighting. Of course the reason for the penetration was to stop a charging Calvary horse. Then again, I saw a marine shoot an M1 for the first time a couple of years ago. “I wish I’d had one of these in Iraq!”

          • iksnilol

            I like 6.5×55, and if that’s wrong, THEN I DON’T WANT TO BE RIGHT!

          • ostiariusalpha
          • Kivaari

            Even the Swedes don’t use it anymore.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Yes, but you like a specific 6.5mm round rather than having a misplaced belief that a bullet diameter of 6.5mm regardless of other factors relevant to cartridge design will magically perform better than a bullet of other diameter.

          • iksnilol

            Oh… I done guess that makes me A-okay then.

          • RealitiCzech

            You can’t mean you can make a high BC bullet for calibers outside of 6-6.5mm! That’s witchcraft.

          • iksnilol

            Well, you can. But people aren’t keen on 4.8mm needle bullets (which would be hella cool tho) and for obvious reasons a long slender hella heavy 30 caliber bullet is impracitcal.

        • 6mm 85gr EPR w/ .445 G1 BC @ 3000fps would offer almost all of the fragmentation range of the 7.62 or 6.5, but with less recoil then 7.62×39, and a much lower cartridge weight.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Except that it’s also a barrel burner. Not killing the throat is part of being a “sweet spot” caliber. The heat flux should stay below 24 kJ/cm², if you don’t want to be replacing barrels regularly.

      • iksnilol

        What about a 6mm copper bullet? That oughta work?

      • TeaPartyPagan

        There is no such thing as “the perfect round”. Every round has been designed for a specific purpose. Unfortunately the military doesn’t have the luxury of carrying a half dozen different arms to fit all of their needs. They need a lightweight round with better long range capability than 5.56. The military once before decided 7.62 was too heavy to carry an effective amount of ammunition. No, 6.5 is not perfect, but it is an acceptable compromise that should fulfill their requirement.

    • cwolf

      The real cost is in infrastructure. $400m to convert Lake City to a new round.

      Therefore, the hope is the new 6.5 CT ammo and lighter gun (when proven) will be worth the conversion costs.

      • TeaPartyPagan

        I never thought 5.56NATO was a particularly good round anyway, just expedient. In Vietnam, according to more than one account, Charlie was known to “armor-up” with jungle vines. So armored, it took a direct hit to stop them. A glancing hit didn’t do much to even slow them. Now that we are fighting at longer ranges, against more often than not, armored troops, it is easy to see a requirement for a higher powered cartridge. Still the weight of a 7.62NATO means a greater cost in energy to carry an effective ammo loadout. Sure you can tell them to carry more rounds, and they probably will, but the troops will be clumsier from the gitgo, tire faster, and in either case, won’t fight as effectively.

  • Kinetics

    So…a little simple math using Jim Shatz’s numbers shows that 210 rounds of M80A1 would weight 10.8 lbs, plus mags, the actual rifle, and accessories this could easily add 20 lbs to an infantryman’s combat load., and that’s assuming that the new AP-wonder round weighs what M80A1 does which i’m sure isn’t true.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1baeab54f541316281429c762a67194dd01d4800fa87bf4e300d3f23b54c07e1.jpg

    • Bryan Bagley

      How much does the 6.5 Grendel way for comparison?

      • 6.5 Grendel weighs 17.8 grams with a 123gr bullet. For a 5.55lb load (excl. mags), 141 rounds could be carried.

  • LazyReader

    We’ve been down this road before. Every time they army want’s some new rifle they abandon it for the tried and tested M16.
    The Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Cancelled
    the XM8, Cancelled
    the Advanced Combat Rifle, cancelled.
    And Vietnam was the laboratory by which intermediate and large caliber rifles were literally put to the test in infantry action. The Army’s decision, switching back to an all-7.62mm fleet; while the logistics for carrying a single round type for rifles and machine guns is good, it
    would still be a very, very poor thing for the Army to do.
    – Unit endurance would be cut in half. A platoon would go from carrying 16,700 rounds of ammunition to carrying 9,400, 44% decline. Fire fights in Vietnam barely lasted 10-20 minutes average, even still endurance was usually a US advantage cause the enemy usually run out of ammo first. HE WHO SHOOTS MORE ROUNDS usually wins.
    – Soldiers training would take longer to reach same levels of proficiency, accuracy, grouping.
    – Communications would suffer with a louder round

    But……..were gonna have to bite the bullet, pardon the pun and accept it. Less we forget the articles. US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
    … a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart. Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown
    Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.
    Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.
    “These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using … sharpshooter’s rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s,” said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

    • “… a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary.”

      That is simply false.

    • CommonSense23

      I’ve personally recovered the body of a guy shot from a MK18 at 600 yards. One round was all it took. Modern rounds are more than lethal at ranges.

  • JD

    This will not happen. All the transgender queers won’t be able to hump such heavy ammo and weapons.

    • Brett baker

      Another person to not invite to my Olivia Newton-John tribute.

      • JD

        My luck keeps getting better!

  • NINJA del TACO
  • Pigspit

    Continuing to use the same fundamental technology means that any caliber change will just be a trade of compromises.

  • leafermadness

    A question. This “interim” rifle will replace the M4s (which as a reminder is a variant of a rifle that itself was an “interim” solution that has been going on for 50 years and counting) in a squad. What about the M249? Is the Army going to issue a M240 per fireteam? Mk48s? Or use this interim rifle with a bipod like the Marine IAR?

    • Gary Kirk

      Mk48s (minus the ammo weight) would be a vast improvement over the overly worn crap we’re calling SAWs now..

      • CommonSense23

        It’s really a shame to see the reputation the SAW has got due to poor maintenance and replacement schedules.

        • Gary Kirk

          Truly is.. The “new” ones I got to play with were wonderful weapons.. But.. God, the crap they’re still sending into the field.. Quit wasting money on crap like this ICSR, and just get the needed hardware replaced so it’ll do it’s job properly..

          • CommonSense23

            I’m lucky, all ways had access to maintained MK46s and MK48. And I honestly can’t remember any malfunctions ever with live rounds with a 46. Then seen other units 249s that just couldn’t get thru a box without issue. What blows my mind is how easy it would be to triple a squads ability. Get everybody on comms. Not everybody needs to talk. But being able to hear commands instantly. And more importantly be up to date on what is about to happen is extremely important. Get everybody into a good set of armor and plate carrier. Push precision guided weapons like the Pike and Switchblade drone out. And get guys more quality range time.

          • Kinetics

            Since you’ve had experience with both, what do you think about the Mk46/SAW vs the Mk48. I’ve seen the public slides that units who got Mk48’s in Afghanistan really liked them and I always thought that going to the Mk48 could increase a squad’s firepower/reach but don’t have any experience with it because i’m a civvie.

          • CommonSense23

            So my experience in Afghanistan is a lot different than most people. On my last deployment to Afghanistan. We killed just over 50 TB and never took effective fire once. I would say 40 of the kills were made at less than 30 yards and mainly with suppressed 9mm, 45, and 5.56. I’m firmly in the camp that bad tactics and ROEs are the big issue there. Not gear. I’m a 46 fan. But will admit if I was stuck in a dedicated overwatch position I would take a 48.

          • jcitizen

            Just curious. what type of .45 was in use? I assume the 9mm were HKs of course.

          • CommonSense23

            MK24 and a MP5SD.

          • jcitizen

            Thanks!

          • jcitizen

            Wow! With all the business we give HK, you’d think they would not be talking bankruptcy about now. (thanks again)

          • DiBs

            This.

          • FarmerB

            Got to play with a brand new one yesterday. Ran belt after belt like a sewing machine, and had no problems with magazines. I’d take it.

          • They do look nice.

          • Brett baker

            I think people are still using the replacement schedules for 1917a1s, instead of updating for newer MGs.

          • jcitizen

            HA! I actually had a request from a unit to take their Colt 1917 water cooleds! They had three of them sitting on the floor at the armory vault!

          • Great guns. So long as you have plenty of water, and aren’t planning on displacing any time soon… LOL

            Personally, if I’m going to have a MMG water cooled, I’ll take a Vickers — one of those that was converted to 7.62x51mm… Probably the best “rifle caliber” water cooled ever made…

          • jcitizen

            Can’t dispute that. I’ve never wanted an air cooled 1919A1 because you really have to have he whole bolt and carrier group on the barrel to make as quick a barrel change as possible. I’ll just stick with my MG34.

  • Gary Kirk

    So.. 7.62 is moar betterest than 5.56 at hitting a target at long range.. Somebody hasn’t been to a service rifle match in a couple decades.. There’s a reason they made an entire class just for the guys that just could not give up their M-1As..

    • Samuel Millwright

      I know right!

      I keep thinking the same thing, specifically didn’t one branch of the military have their marksmanship team stick with 7.62 and then go on a decade plus losing streak against the branch whose team converted to AR’s in 5.56?

      I remember bits and pieces of the story I’m thinking of but not enough to even google search to find out specifics.

  • Jim

    The original justifications of going with the then experimental 5.56mm M-16 in the early ’60’s was to have a light weight rifle/ammo combination to ease the carry burden of ground troops. Also, another factor was reduced recoil to aide in marksmanship training of new recruits. DoD used these same justifications in the mid-80’s to adopt the 9mm handgun. So, now, they are going back to the old days?

  • You can post a link it just gets kicked back to be approved.

  • lowell houser

    “Interim”

    You guys aren’t paying attention. That’s the important word here. The Army is switching to a .308 sized magwell more than it is switching to .308 cartridge. 5.56 is NOT getting the job done in Afghanistan and has been a known problem the entire time(hence the most recent resurrection of the M14). Even though we’re possibly leaving soon, what does that matter because the Army always shows up ready to fight the last war.

    6.8SPC is crippled by the need to stuff it in a stanag magwell. Solution, get a .308 magwell while you’re developing a new 6.5 that’s in between 5.56 and 308 that doesn’t use the .308 as a parent case but still needs the extra length in the magwell. 6.5 Creedmore is still too heavy, so just assume that the Army is going to go ahead with the new 6.5 that the Army marksmanship unit designed and at some unspecified date the Army will switch to it.

    • “Interim” refers to “before 2025”, but yes it’s not exactly a secret that this will lead to a 6.5mm conversion.

      Which is immaterial, as that will have the exact same problems.

      • lowell houser

        Oh, please don’t misunderstand – this is a dumb, wasteful idea. VERY DUMB, VERY WASTEFUL. But this is still the thought process behind it. Simply adding a DMR back to every squad like the Russians still do would solve the long-shot problem. Maybe even a .300WM gas-gun as there are a few of those on the market already.

        • Eric H

          That would be the smart idea but that idea also doesn’t line the pockets of the companies and lobbyists who’d get a windfall should they get the contract.

        • lowell houser

          There is one other consideration – the machine guns. My Beloved Corps has already begun an informal phase out of the M249 but keeping the M240. How much you want to bet that even the most up to date version of the M240 will be deemed “too heavy” in favor of something brand new for the new cartridge? The Army just can’t get enough new toys.

      • int19h

        A 6.5mm conversion would at least have *some* upsides (like potentially flatter trajectory at longer ranges).

        7.62x51mm just doesn’t make ANY sense.

        • Soldiers already can’t maximize the potential of 7.62mm (and, arguably, 5.56mm even) so 6.5mm will probably not give them any perceptible benefits. Maybe it will make shooting at distance a little easier, but the weak links in that chain have much more to do with the soldier himself.

          6.5mm *IS* ballistically better than 7.62mm. But it is also not really any different so far as this question is concerned.

    • Anon

      ‘The Army is switching to a .308 sized magwell more than it is switching to .308 cartridge.’

      ‘6.8SPC is crippled by the need to stuff it in a stanag magwell.’

      My thoughts exactly. Plus the stanag mags are a load of s*** – of which the mag well is the problem. Firearms are easier to scale down than up.

  • Kurt Ingalls

    Hmmmmm….or how to overcome the media scrutiny of casualties by increasing perceived stand off distances……interesting……..

  • UWOTM8
  • b0x3r0ck

    It better to roll out a new platform now and change the round out later than roll it all out in one go. The 5.56 has been proven in many cases that it’s a under preforming round in almost every war we been in. Out side of 300 meters in most environment and for most troops it not the best round. Now we are moving into an era ie next 10-20 years where anyone that calls themselves a armed force can pickup body armor it better to be ahead of the curve than behind it.

    • CommonSense23

      How has 5.56 as a caliber been under performing.

  • DiBs

    Fake news.

  • Bryan Bagley

    Some of you have missed that Bill Alexander just left Alexander Arms to work in the defense industry. With the uproar this will bring it will make the discussion and request for a more powerful round in an AR… and the Grendel will be the round. Any bets?

    • All I know is that somebody desperately wants to spread the rumor that Bill Alexander is now working for the government.

      • Bryan Bagley

        It is posted on the Alexander Arms facebook page.

        • Incorrect, this is all they say:

          “Alexander Arms announces the departure of the Company’s founder and Chief Engineer, Bill Alexander. He is leaving to assume a new position with-in the defense industry.
          Alexander Arms thanks Bill for his years of dedicated service and innovation both to the Company and the broader firearms industry and wishes him well as he assumes his new position.
          Bill leaves the company well positioned to continue to provide the high level of quality, innovation and customer service that Alexander Arms is known for.”

          • Bryan Bagley

            Not to get nit picky… but I stated above he left to go into the defense industry. You made the comment about him working for the government. Then you quote the source I provided and say I am incorrect… when it says he left to work for the defense industry.

          • I made an entirely separate claim, which I thought you were addressing.

  • James Wilson

    “Interim” + plus Bill Alexander leaving Alexander Arms to “join the defense industry”… the hour of the 6.5 Grendel is at hand.

    Good.

  • Peter Nissen

    7.62 – Meh! – Just issue the M41A in 10×24 and lets get this over with………

  • wilbur

    It certainly the only winners in any of the military’s operations since WWII have been the defense contractors and those receiving their lobby money.

  • Simcha M.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9
    New International Version (NIV)

    What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

  • GR Arnold

    It appears somebody is making this harder than it has to be.

  • S O

    May be that 5.56 can penetrate, but lacks growth reserves in regard to penetration and soft tissue effect that 7.62 adds.

    The extra weight does force a reduction of munitions carried, and thus a change in doctrine and training. NCOs need to enforce strict discipline and control the fire team or squad’s fires tightly to ensure that the ~150 rds per man suffice. Suppressive point fires have to be trained to use an optimised interval and be well-aimed.

  • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

    “Good enough” is always the worst enemy of “better” and to myself the 5,56×45 is AT LEAST good enough.

    In any case we should be looking more towards what the soldier CAN do with any ammo/rifle combination and not towards what the rifle/ammo is capable of. Because the “x” round may be able to perform wonders but if the actual user cannot take advantage of those wonders then it doesn’t matter

    flanker7

    • FarmerB

      Exactly. They always seem to be chasing the last few percent. You will never have gear or a tool that can work for 100% of the situations. Just accept it and don’t turn yourself inside out chasing it.

    • iksnilol

      I remember reading something that only about 10% of troops are capable of reliably hitting targets in combat past 500 meters.

      • Paul White

        that wouldn’t surprise me at all. 500 yards for a man sized target is a pretty big reach, particularly with non-magnified optics.

      • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

        I don’t know this statistic, to me 500 seems optimistic, but 10% also sounds a lot like the percentage of hm… DMRs in a rifle Squad…

        • frankspeak

          it’s that 200+ meters where the gap exists…

          • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

            What gap; I mean, the range you can actually hit someone it nit depented on the caliber but on so many much more

  • marine6680

    Oh look… Another “early M16 in Vietnam” fiasco in the making…

    A series of poor/misguided decisions surrounding the infantry rifle and it’s ammunition… Which ultimately negatively effects the ability of the average infantry man to engage in combat actions.

    Fun…

  • Vosh Sahaal

    Has anyone stopped and thought that this is in response to developments in powered exoskeletons which could be armored?

    • CommonSense23

      Nope.

    • .45

      If I am going to have powered armor I want the 7.62 NATO to be in a sort of machine gun mount on the shoulder or something for suppressive fire or room clearing against opponents without such armor, and for the carried rifle type firearm it has to be at least .50 BMG.

      • Vosh Sahaal

        Wasn’t talking about the armor carrying it. Was saying it might be to help deal with lighter foreign versions.

  • Roguewriter

    So during WWII, the Germans learn that the average soldier does not need a thousand yard rifle. After WWII, almost all the other nations involved figure this out as well. America demands the .308 and uses their “muscle” to get the rest of NATO to go along. Eventually, America learns that not every soldier needs a thousand yard rifle. Intermediate calibers are adopted. Yay! This was fifty years ago. Now, in an era where the average soldier carries more weight than ever, some maladjusted doorstop of a military leader thinks we should take this opportunity to go back to thousand yard rifles because… reasons! Don’t leaders in the military realize the Peter Principle applies to them too?

    • wicapiwakan

      also, the USSR figured out that the assault rifle does have some limitations for long range work and then designed and widely proliferated a designated marksman rifle (along with literally creating the relevant doctrine for it’s use) in the 1960s, thereby solving the problem the US is just now figuring out.

      then again, this is the same army who’s response to the BMP (and the concept of the IFV) took 20 years and then was too expensive to build enough of them. i guess this is just how the pentagon rolls at this point.

  • Norman S Stahl

    The Warriors themselves have been asking for a return to 7.62 since the M16 first hit the swamps in Viet Nam!

    • CommonSense23

      Only the dumb ones.

    • Uniform223

      I find it strange that the US Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs seemed to favor the M16s over previous weapons when they were in Vietnam.

      • CommonSense23

        Why is that the most professional units in the US military in Vietnam were the biggest proponents of 5.56 and the AR15? Hmm. Also it’s insane that even though guys on the Son Tay raid were running red dots, it took almost 4 decades for them to become common place.

    • Brett baker

      And deployment of tac nukes. Seriously, you need to read the “Warrior vs. Soldier” comparisons. Warriors tend to lose.

  • William Nelson

    Hoo boy…glad to be close to retirement time.

  • 2wheels

    Is replace the best word? Sounds a bit sensationalist. They’re only asking for 50k from what I read, most likely they’d serve alongside the M4, not replace it.

    • It’s an IDIQ contract. Although from what I understand they are only looking to equip active combat units.

  • John Pate

    If they can make ammo lighter it might fly. An AP round could have a lighter bullet and use aluminium or polymer cases… except I haven’t seen anything about the fielding of lightweight 7.62×51 ammo.

    • CommonSense23

      Bulk is still a issue. This is one of the major issues the M27 had when they tried to use it as a IAR. Magainzes are bulky. They take up a lot of space. Even if you could carry 7.62 that weighed the same. How are you going to set it up to be efficient with it.

  • TDog

    Wow… a lot of crying over this. The cult of the AR is strong within this group! “But, but, but! But the AR is tactical! And my fat @$$ can’t carry as much 7.62! Wah! Wah!”

    Don’t worry, little kiddies! Your rifle will still be tactical and pseudo-military! No one’s going to take that away from you! ;-D

    • John Pate

      It’s not the cult of the AR, it’s about what the soldier has to carry when dismounted. If they’re looking to a war between mechanized infantry units this might make some kind of sense but in the kind of wars being fought now this is bullshit and the people pushing it should be shot.

      • TDog

        Carry less crap that isn’t needed. There: problem solved.

        I am apparently the only one thinking this issue through…

        • leafermadness

          List out right now the loadout of a rifleman in the US Army in 2017. List out what should be removed.

          • wicapiwakan

            uhh, all of it, obviously.

            our soldiers should literally go into battle naked, like the warriors of old before the PUSSIFICATION of society!

          • Mr. Katt

            Obama in his native attire, eh ?

        • John Pate

          Dumbass.

        • Louis Hodges

          TDog, I think you may be missing the point. Chalking up the very real hardships our troops will face regarding an already overburdened combat loadout to “not being tough enough” does them an extreme disservice.

          By extension of that logic we might as well make a 15lb .300WM gas gun general issue. I think the PRIMARY concern against this is whether or not we are pursuing an EFFICIENT remedy for the perceived lack of “overmatch” against ceramic armors and various opfor weapon systems. Think of the saying “work smarter, not harder” here.

          While 5.56 may not the end all ideal combat chambering, I would argue it’s merits are worth the compromise versus a 7.62. As has been stated many times over on this site, bullet COMPOSITION trumps caliber selection. And 7.62 is far from the holy grail this ICSR nonsense is making it out to be.

          While I wholeheartedly agree with trimming the fat off of our troops’ loadouts, given the competence of the Army’s brass to make logical decisions… that strikes me as wishful thinking. I fear that this decision is being driven by lobbyists and industry execs, rather than scientific methodology and legitimate troop input.

          -LH

        • .45

          Like what? Water? Body armor? Extra ammo? Grenades? Radios? All the heavy stuff is basically mission critical gear.

          • venku

            The largest contributors to weight in decreasing order are: armour, water, ammo.
            Depending on the environment and the mission, I’d drop the lasers, lights and other extra items from the weapon; exchange body armour for a lighter and slightly less protected vest; possibly change or lose the helmet because it isn’t going to stop a rifle round anyway and shrapnell has plenty of other vital uncovered places to hit, get rid of extra stuff like elbow and knee pads. Radio only for the officers that actually need it. If possible, shorten patrols and carry less water.
            But that is just my personal and peculiar way of looking at things.

          • Tassiebush

            I think some of your points could be worthwhile but i don’t think ditching the helmet would ever be viable. Shrapnel in the head would have to be right up there for seriousness and I suspect that a soldier is more likely to receive a fragment from an explosion than a direct hit from a bullet.

          • TDog

            It’s funny how “mission critical” everything is…

            Well, when the other guy is shooting at you from 500 yards, I always suppose you can tell him he’s not supposed to be and to please come into the 300 yard range you’re wanting him to be shooting from…

          • Kivaari

            The TB is using mostly AK and don’t have overreach.

        • iksnilol

          More crap is needed nowadays than before.

          • TDog

            Not really. The contractors and suppliers might have done a good job of selling that line to folks, but in reality all that’s needed is the means to kill the other guy before he can kill you.

          • iksnilol

            Alright.. so medical equipment isn’t needed? NVGs aren’t either (in spite of being a game changer during nighttime) or maybe radios and backup aren’t needed either?

      • TDog

        Did Americans suddenly shrink from the 1950’s until now? Did our bones become more brittle from too much yogurt, kale, and Internet ?

        It’s called get some exercise and ditch some of the useless crap they have in their kit. Do I have to do all the thinking around here? Sheesh!

        • Earlier today, someone told me I needed to write an article comparing the soldier’s load in 1945 to the soldier’s load today. At the time, I thought “I have better things to do than this”.

          I see I was wrong.

          • Brett baker

            During amphibious assaults inWW2 the carried weight was similar. Of course, a lot of grunts drowned because their kit weighed them down.

          • .45

            But but “Guns, not kit weight!” *whine* ;D

          • Mr. Katt

            Would be an excellent idea . . . compare individual combat equipment from WW-II with that from Vietnam with the current combat field equipment and load.

        • Uniform223

          go back into your kennel TPuppy… you obviously have no F-ing clue what you’re talking about.

          • Eric H

            Based on his posting history, he sure looks like someone who likes to play a tough guy behind the keyboard while making comments that have little to no factual basis.

        • wicapiwakan

          soldiers carry a lot of stuff now that literally didn’t exist in the 1940s, you know.

          some of these things are actually really important to ensuring soldiers do not die at the same rate as they did in the 1940s.

        • Brett baker

          They used to ditch a lot of useless crap in the old days… Right before they needed it.

        • iksnilol

          Soldiers also died a ton more back then today.

          i mean, vietnam had like 58k dead. AFghanistan (which lasts still, and has surpassed the length of the Vietnam war) has like 3k dead.

          • TDog

            Add in Iraq, which can’t be ignored, and that figure jumps a lot higher. Add to that the number that were wounded and we’re looking at a million casualties.

            Other than body armor, there’s a lot of crap that can be gotten rid of.

          • iksnilol

            Difference between casualties and dead.A wounded soldier will live, a dead one won’t.

            That’s what my figure was based on. I checked the Iraq war. Less than 5k dead from US troops (4500 approximately).

            So still, waaaay better survival rate in two wars than in one Vietnam war. That safely tells me that we shouldn’t be longing for the days of Vietnam era tactics and equipment.

      • gunsandrockets

        It’s ridiculous to fixate on rifle caliber as an important factor for overburdened infantry.

        And it’s silly hyperbole to accuse that U.S. infantry will die from running out of rifle ammo, just because of rifle caliber.

        You should dial back the outrage. It doesn’t help your case.

        • Caliber is absolutely an important factor for overburdened infantry. How do I know? I’ve done the math.

          ICSR will add 15 pounds to the soldier’s load. If they swap M249s for M240s while they’re at it, that’s an additional 10 pounds. In that case, the load goes up to 142 pounds, which is almost double the recommended AML.

          I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that things that happened recently (Kamdesh, Wanat) would be even worse if we switch over whole hog to a round that you can literally only carry half of vs. 5.56mm.

          • gunsandrockets

            “I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that things that happened recently (Kamdesh, Wanat) would be even worse if we switch over whole hog to a round that you can literally only carry half of vs. 5.56mm.”

            Kamdesh? Wanat? That’s your examples? Yet somehow I knew that was what you would reach for.

            Defensive battles at fixed fortified locations has ZERO to do with infantry foot mobility, let alone how rifle ammunition weight influences that mobility.

          • iksnilol

            Yes it does. You can ship more 5.56 than you can ship 7.62.

          • Brett baker

            You be amazed how many people think THEY would get a 50% hit rate in combat.

          • iksnilol

            You should’a done seen my hit percentage in Battlefield 4..

            6,87%…. git gud scrub.

          • You realize some guys had to hump that ammunition out to those locations, right?

            All of this stuff is interrelated. Bigger ammo, lower packing density. Heavier ammo, less rounds per shipment. Etc, etc, etc.

            Soldier mobility is one (very important) element. But there are others. How much can you carry into the battle? Can you get to your reserves in storage? How easy is resupply? Etc. None of the answers to these questions reflect well on 7.62mm.

          • gunsandrockets

            I’m underwhelmed by your math. Since it was full of unexamined presumptions regarding TO&E. Examination of the weight burden is more than simple lego play of one for one substitution of rifles, machineguns and ammunition of a different caliber.

            TO&E is where the weight burden comes from. Not rifle caliber.

            The Vietnam War era USMC rifle platoon had zero belt fed weapons and only three 40mm Grenade launchers. The Iraq War USMC rifle platoon had nine belt fed machine-guns and nine 40mm grenade launchers, plus the new heavy body armor, plus the new night vision gear. No wonder the weight burden has gotten crazy.

    • wicapiwakan

      yeah, except, you know, every professional army worth mentioning on earth uses either 5.56, 5.45 or 5.8.

      there MIGHT be a very good, well thought out reason why basically all the world’s military planners have made this decision, based on piles of data and decades of hard lessons.

      i mean, that might be the case.

      or, alternatively, it could be that everyone but you is just a sniveling weakling incapable of handling a TRUE OPERATOR’S WEAPON.

      either or, right? both equally valid choices!

      *borat voice* NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTT

    • XT6Wagon

      You talk like the AR-10 and its clones aren’t a thing. But, no go back to the dumpster fire that is the M-14, a weapon so bad that it took decades to make it reliable. Even today you are warned away from many of the civilian semi-autos made today.

      Even the legendary FAL is bad and should feel bad when compared to modern rifles.

      The real reason the AR-15 platform isn’t going away is that its had all the time and money thrown at it so that its well refined, and only the worst of manufacturers can get it wrong. The ammo helps too being that .223/5.56 is flexible enough that we have a new intermediate round in the 77gr ammo, while still having a gun that can fire the old 55gr if thats all that can be found.

      • TDog

        Wait… the M-14 was bad and took decades to perfect… but it’s still bad? That’s a contradiction right there, friend.

        And then the AR is great because… it took decades to perfect. Okay…

  • Max Müller

    Trump wants to drain the swamp. And here it is, the swamp in action. Buying rifles we don’t need, with money we don’t have, to satisfy manufacturers that will give us horrible quality stuff just for the shekels.
    Not sure if they will use 7.62 as an excuse to buy $3000 rifles or if somebody will come with a “great” rifle that is sub $1000 in both price and quality?
    Either way, they should stick with 5.56 untill there are significant advancemwnts made in ammo technology. Some shiny new tungsten bullets of which they will probably produce 10k pieces because they are too expensive isn’t a usefull advancement. Cased telescopic or caseless ammo that would allow for more firepower at the same weight or the same firepower with less weight would be an advancement.

    • John

      the 5.56 is already at its end. Its a designed varmint round, not intended or great for killing people.

      • frankspeak

        adequate (barely)..for “up close and personal”….

      • Samuel Millwright

        You have an actual honest to God allergy to truth don’t you?

        I take back every bad thing I’ve thought or said about you now that i realize you suffer from such a crippling affliction….

  • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

    I’ve using 7,62×51 for over 20 years in the Military. I’ve fired tens of thousands of rounds.
    I have also used extensively 7,62×39 (AKM and vz.58) and 5,56×45 (M-16A2 and SCAR).
    I would never change the 5,56. I can do more with that round that with the other two.
    Better said, I can do more in more situations with 5,56 that the rest. I’ve shot the 5,56 up to 600m. I’ve shot the 7,62×51 up to 700m.
    The 7,62×51 gives you the FEELING of power when firing from static positions and with no fatigue. I emphasize “FEELING” .
    If you are tired, cold, thirsty, sleep deprived etc you want the round you can handle, and for me that would be the 5,56. It allows me to do the most I can in the most situations.

    I’ve never been in combat, and that maybe a minus in my judgement, by I consider myself fairly logical and intelligent.

    The thing with range is that you have to spot your targets, identify them and engage them accurately, and all this while under stress of death, tired, while the enemy is trying to hide, move, fire back, deploy smoke, under exploding munitions etc etc etc.

    To end, a less powerful hit will always be better than a powerful miss, and firing more, at achievable combat scenarios will always be better.

    flanker7

    • Mr. Katt

      THANK YOU !

    • The Brigadier

      With a semi-match battle rifle and reasonable optics or long range reticles you can easily shoot out to a 1000 yds. That is the difference between 5.56 and 7.62. The next war will fought in deserts and open fields. It won’t be up close. The Russians have some very good new stuff, so we need and outstanding battle rifle and not
      some warmed over AR10.

      • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

        I can easily shoot to 1000 meters. But that does not mean I can do actual combat at that distance.
        Even in training. Extremely good shooters do at most, lets say average (more like badly) when you start introducing stess ( for instance a timer), fatique and other factors.
        I can imagine combat to introduce even more “marksmanship degrading” factors….

  • “One wonders if General Milley is willing to write to families of the dead when ICSR-equipped units run dry of ammunition and are overrun by 5.45mm-armed foes.”
    5.56 and 5.45 are calibers that one wouldn’t even hunt deer with. They’re varmint calibers, meant to kill badgers and coyotes. I’ve spent the better part of my adult life carrying and training Marines to combine arms, as well as deploying twice (04-06) to Iraq in al-Anbar. We need a bigger caliber in our service rifle. One that will kill people instead of just poking ice-picks through them.
    If you’ve read the history then you know that .30 cal worked well for as long as we’ve had breech-loaders. The last fifty year experiment with a .22 caliber varmint gun has finally been seen as a failure. Those who are going to haul a piece might as well haul one who might kill someone in a more efficient manner. Good evening sir.

    • crackedlenses

      “.30 cal worked well for as long as we’ve had breech-loaders.”

      .30 cal also has had a lower rate of fire and less volume of fire than what we have now. Unless you’re training the entire rifle squad to be DMs it won’t help you much.

      • X-Ordnance

        Why not dust off the Colt 901 modular rifle and use it as a transitional rifle? You end up with a lower receiver that can use the M4 upper, and a upper in whatever bigger caliber you decide on later. You save costs by keeping the M4 upper parts you already have in supply system.
        Want to try out the .30 caliber, you already have a lower you can run on it. Want to finally use the .260? Fine, you have a lower that can use it. For every M4 pulled for damage/repair, replace with the Colt 901 and phase them in.

        • Kinetics

          I’m sure Colt is going to scream that from the heavens and in this case, it might actually help them defeat the GOTS offerings.

        • jcitizen

          That Colt 901 is even better than the LEO version I saw a while back – your ideas seem like a no brainer. The impact on Army infrastructure would be greatly minimized by doing that. I’d fall out of my tree if they actually did something smart at DOD for once!

          I’ve been suggesting something like this at least for Spec-Ops for a while now.

    • I’ve killed deer with 5.56mm, and others I know have as well. So it’s not so impotent as you believe.

      Also, once upon a time, it was .30 cal that was the mousegun round, not .22…

      • iksnilol

        WE should never have abandoned .54.

    • wicapiwakan

      7.62 is much more likely to just poke a hole, though, especially the armor/barrier penetrating rounds. it does not yaw or fragment in it’s FMJ variety.

      5.56, on the other hand, violently fragments when it hits a soft target (read: a person) which causes horrific wounding. this is proven and supported by huge amounts of data gathered over decades. 5.45 tumbles and yaws, greatly increasing it’s wounding capabilities, far beyond that of the round it replaced.

      the major issue is that 5.56 needs to be travelling over a certain velocity to fragment, meaning that it needs a longer barrel to do it reliably at range. the trend of going shorter has hurt it, rather than help it.

      the simple fact is, virtually every army on earth is using a 5mm round now. the NATO 5.56 was quickly followed by the 5.45 once the soviets saw what the 5.56 could do in vietnam. the chinese followed suit shortly thereafter, then developed an indigenous round in 5.8. neither the russians nor the chinese actually issue 7.62 assault rifles to anything beyond reserve troops anymore, and produce them only for export. all their front line combat units are using 5.45/5.8.

      if chinese, soviet and NATO military planners all agree on something, chances are very good that it’s a good idea.

      however, what the chinese and soviet military planners figured out long before NATO was the need for designated marksmen in a force armed with assault rifles, which is why they started issuing them in 1963. the US was well behind the 8 ball on that, and still is. in the 1960s, every soviet motor rifle platoon had a designated marksman armed with a dragunov. the US could and should do similar, fixing their problem without crippling their regular infantry with overly heavy and less effective weapons.

      the US could also just drop the BS already and adopt a hollowpoint round, which they are already kind of doing with the MK262 (using the euphemism of open tip match and the excuse that it’s not DESIGNED to expand, despite the fact that it does so violently) since we never signed the relevant treaty anyway, and HP rounds are in fact safer due to limiting collateral damage.

    • Joe

      We were issued stabby/pokey M855, which sucked. The Corps and Army redesigned the bullet through two different programs, and restored lethality. Caliber < materials engineering.

    • Brett baker

      The 220 roundhouse loading didn’t. It put icepicks in targets too. It was only when we switched to 150 Spitzer that the .30 became a stopper.

      • Kivaari

        The .30 US and .30-03 were poor performers. A lung wound, with no bone impact upon entry, or a thigh wound could heal in 2 weeks. Same with all the early round nosed bullets, even in 6.5mm.

        • Brett baker

          Don’t let our Norwegian buddy read that!😉

    • Paveway

      How many men have you shot with 556 that didnt go down?

    • Recoil

      7.62×51 – verry high icepick change
      5.56×45 FMJ – medium icepick change

      5.56×45 EPR – instant fragmentation, extrem lethality
      7.62×51 EPR – instant fragmentation, extrem lethality

      7.62×51 = 3times the recoil, HALF the ammunition (extrem lack of fire superority), heavier and longer rifle for same barrel lenght, same trajectory and supersonic range.

      = projectile CONSTRUCTION matters

    • Kivaari

      The 5.56mm has lasted 50 YEARS. If it had been such a failure it would have been replaced 40 years ago.

      • iksnilol

        Like the M14 you mean?

        • Kivaari

          No the M14 as issued isn’t used. It has been configured into a heavy unreliable hard to maintain club. The EBR at about 15 pounds just isn’t a suitable general issue rifle. Originally, the M14 was a very troubled rifle. Nostalgia aside it was a piece of junk in the field. That said, it is my understanding that the newer AR-based sniper systems are not reliable. Should we adopt a new rifle that doesn’t work?

          • iksnilol

            That’s what I meant. The M14 got quickly replaced (just like 5.56 wasn’t).

          • Kivaari

            You got it.

          • jcitizen

            My NCOIC was in the Nam’ and he agreed with you. He liked the M16 because he said it made such a good bush jumper. They’d go in two man teams & cover themselves with magazines and 10 round bandolier clips, and sneak into VC encampments at night and turn Charlies’ game back on himself. They stacked up a lot of enemy bodies that way.

          • Kivaari

            The M16 and now M4 are so much handier in jungle or built up areas. Any rifle as long as the M14 or M1 is a pain to use.

  • Jack Matthews

    5.45mm or 5.8mm?

  • Fast Forward

    The current; ‘spray and pray,’ modus operandi that is also sometimes referred to as; ‘suppressive fire,’ may need to change if tungsten is to be the key to defeating current and future armour.

    Making a ‘mag dump’ in the general direction of the enemy may be a morale booster but it will be expensive in $ terms.
    Therefore; new optics, aimed fire, more thought regarding ammunition usage and a lot more training might be the order of the day.

    Let the MG team do the suppression.
    5.56 x45 should still be retained for CQB, but not for the wide open spaces. Select equipment ‘intelligently’ according to the task and the environment.

    It makes sense to everyone except the 5.56 fanboys.

    • .45

      Expensive? Meh, we’re Americans, we drop multimillion dollar missiles on sheepherders, money is no issue. ;D

      • Fast Forward

        Hope you have plenty of dollars.

        Food for thought; The world leading tungsten producers:

        China. 71,000 MT.
        Vietnam. 5,000 MT.
        Russia. 2,500 MT.
        Canada. 1,700 MT.
        Bolivia. 1,200 MT.
        Rwanda. 1,000 MT.
        Austria. 870 MT.

        “Work has started to excavate Britain’s first new metal mine for more than 40 years.
        Headline: Work starts on £130m Devon tungsten mine.
        “Tungsten sells at about $37,000 a tonne which compares to tin at about $23,000 so it’s a high value metal.
        BBC News.”

        UK£ is; ‘slightly,’ down, therefore; to avoid disappointment, place your orders now.

        • int19h

          We could always go for depleted uranium. ~

          • Fast Forward

            Headline:
            Riflemen successfully defeated tanks with; ‘new,’ DU 5.56 ammunition for Carbines.

            Apparently; one round went through three tanks and then a stone cow shed. Fortunately; no cows were injured.

    • crackedlenses

      By the time we’re doing as you’ve suggested we might as well make all rifleman DMs. I mean, that’s basically what you’ve described.

      • Fast Forward

        That’s a good point, but, it presupposes a binary answer. The problem is, however, multifaceted.
        Geography, topography, environment, armour and opposition capability, are not binary.

        I believe that the wider implementation of 7.62×51 represents an interim solution to a genuine set of problems.
        As mentioned above, one of the problems is; ‘spray and pray’ and the possible transition to more costly ammunition to counter armour. At that point, ‘spray and pray’ as applied to the infantry rifle, would, ideally need to be trained-out. In other words…aimed shots only.

        I believe that 5.56 should be retained for specific circumstances. When the circumstances are not favorable for 5.56 then don’t carry it.

        Don’t take tanks to the jungle.
        Don’t take 5.56 to the; ‘wide open spaces.’
        Don’t take MRE’s to a barbecue.

        • crackedlenses

          “new optics, aimed fire, more thought regarding ammunition usage and a lot more training might be the order of the day.”

          That’s basically a DM. You’re also assuming you will be able to see the target and that the target and yourself won’t be moving. This didn’t hold during WWII, and sure as heck isn’t a given now.

          “At that point, ‘spray and pray’ as applied to the infantry rifle, would,
          ideally need to be trained-out. In other words…aimed shots only.”

          I’m fairly certain the currently-issued versions of the M16/M4 are not capable of full-auto fire, so I don’t know how you would “spray and pray”.

          • Fast Forward

            Some references below that appear to refute your assertion that: “I’m fairly certain the currently-issued versions of the M16/M4 are not capable of full-auto fire,”

            “Conversion of M4s to the M4A1 began in 2014, the start of all U.S. Army forces being equipped with the automatic variant.”
            The 101st Airborne Division began fielding new-built M4A1s in 2012, and the U.S. 1st Infantry Division became the first unit to convert their M4s to M4A1-standard in May 2014. Upgrades included a heavier barrel to better dissipate heat from sustained automatic firing, which also helps the rifles use the M855A1….. The full-auto trigger group has a more consistent trigger pull…..”

            ArmyTimes:
            Army Continues Rollout of More Durable, full-auto M4A1
            By: Kyle Jahner, July 4, 2015
            “The re-vamp of the M4 includes a heavier barrel, ambidextrous safety controls and conversion from three-round burst to fully automatic.”

            If the above references are not correct, then please correct me?

            It is worth trying to see the; ‘big picture,’ through the noise and minutia.

          • crackedlenses

            Ah, I see. It was probably the either the Block II or + upgrades for the M4A1 I was thinking of then. I will say that I have yet to see anyone advocate for the adoption of the M4A1 on the grounds of needing full-auto fire, or advocate for “spraying and praying”. Just a little ways down you can find someone promoting a full-auto weapon for its trigger reliability, not it’s fire rate.

            I’m not seeing evidence of 7.62×51 mm. AP rounds that do not use tungsten that would also defeat the current armor in circulation, much less the future armors you have in mind.

          • Fast Forward

            Regarding tungsten, your point appears to support my earlier comments.
            Full auto is, I believe, helpful for CQB, but, as mentioned, much less utility in wide open spaces.
            Your assertion regarding ‘full auto’ is not substantiated and ‘blowing smoke,’ is not adding to the discussion..

            I think this has run its course.

            Have a nice day.

          • crackedlenses

            Only because no one has bothered to deal with you. Good day to you too.

  • XT6Wagon

    We should go back to 45-70, a round from the time that men were men, and used manly rifles that shot manly ammo.

    • Batmeat

      I think we’re ready to make augmentation reality. Put all men on wheel chairs, so their carrying capacity increases two fold. Replace one arm with a 12 pound gun, and the other with a .50 cal bmg. You can replace the viener with the necessary reloading. Perhaps a big, long ram rod to reload one another.
      Legs are now suspended to perform other actions.
      We’ll start with the chair force.

  • Risto Kantonen

    A snippet from an FDF podcast about field artillery, the original conversation was in finnish, this is my translation of a relevant section.

    Tommi Kangasmaa, the host of the Podcast, 2:51-3:02

    Well, what is the role of artillery on today’s battlefield?
    How would you describe, um, how artillery participates in the battle today?

    Colonel Pasi Virtanen, 3:02-3:28

    Well, artillery traditionally has a very significant role in causing casualties and affecting the enemy outside of the effective range of direct fire weapons. And this hasn’t really changed over the years and for example in the conflict in Ukraine we can state that according to studies, 85% of all losses are still produced with artillery.

    Tommi Kangasmaa, 3:28-3:51

    I remember reading about Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, it indeed seems that artillery is the most effective in destroying and crippling. If you think back to the role of artillery in WW2 and compare it to this day, has this changed in any way or are there any differences?

    Colonel Pasi Virtanen, 3:51-4:45

    The principles of effect are still the same, but maybe the operating procedures in the firing position and in fire control have changed a little. But the basic principles are very similar, meaning that you look to affect the kind of enemy targets that would reduce the combat
    effectiveness of the enemy forces the most, and artillery excellent tool for that. Large countries of course have air to ground capabilities, meaning capability related to immediate combat support, so they can use attack aircrafts for example. …

  • RSG

    POF Revolution. Problem solved. No additional weapon weight. I’d grab a few right off the rack and see if they can take a dozen 10,000 round cycles, just to see if their bolt can handle the stress. If so, there’s the answer.

  • eddie046
  • I know this will probably start a flame or something, but… I got you covered right there, US Army.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2c134ad8ea2f519f5f462838fc88d1cc608d5efe5ca4fb8f5bc3a76d06683545.jpg

    • iksnilol

      What is it? I can’t see non-existent things.

    • Uniform223

      Whats that? Is that from the new CoD game where they are in space?

    • That would be the cherry on top. Not only adopt a rifle in a caliber that’s too large, but get one that doesn’t work, too!

  • The_Champ

    For those more familiar with US military procurement, what exactly does this “solicitation” mean. Is it a given that this will happen, or do these sorts of things often fall through, and everyone is in a huff over nothing?

    • Kind of both? The solicitation means there is a real contract they are dangling in front of manufacturers. And from everything I’ve heard, the Army is very serious about this program.

      Having said that, the US Army’s program success rate is abysmal, so really anything could happen.

  • Doug Mildon

    Good the M4 is a POS

  • Kelly Jackson

    Something along the line of Remington’s GII would be interesting. It’s basically the size of a M4 but fires .308.

  • jerome

    I vote for the Colt 901 or m14

    • Kinetics

      Colt thanks you for your support and the vote of confidence.

      • CJS

        Correction: The Banks holding Colts debt thank you for your support and the vote of confidence.

      • jerome

        Actually, it had been so long that the 901 had came out that I forgot about it. It wasn’t until a few days ago that I read something about it on here that I remembered it. Please don’t call me Colt, Shirley or late to dinner…the name is 7718, jeromebill7718.

      • jeromebill7718

        Just make sure the rifle has 17 in the name because 17 is better than 16 or 15

    • iksnilol

      You sniveling, uncouth rapscallion!

      This is clearly trademark infringment, I demand satisfaction at once!

      • jeromebill7718

        Nyet!

        • iksnilol

          Guards! Arrest this scoundrel at once!

  • CJS3

    So instead of tested new ammo that would fit the current rifle and support apparatus, lets trash everything and start from scratch. That makes sense only to upper management government employees, and the defense contractors they’ll work for after retirement from government service.

  • John

    I take it that Heckler and Koch wants to sell the 417 to everyone now.

    • I think HK wants to have sole-source contracts for everything.

  • Fred

    Dumb idea.
    Far more rounds are fired getting/maintaining fire superiority than are actually aimed at point targets.

  • gunsandrockets

    So the Army wants a 12 pound 20 inch barreled selective fire 7.62mm rifle. Oh the wailing and tearing of hair!

    But the Army might be only ordering 50,000 of them at most.

    I think the panic over this Army choice is overwrought. Particularly if this decision is understood in the context of the testimony Milley gave to Congress. The “ICSR” strikes me as nothing more than a supplemental weapon to the M4 carbine, and not as a replacement for standard issue.

    For one thing the Army doesn’t have the money to dump it’s inventory of 5.56mm carbines for what may be just a temporary measure; keep in mind the “interim” portion of the ICSR. The Army has more expensive and more important priorities to fund than small arms.

    • Kinetics

      Stryker “Interim” Armored Vehicle. Cough. cough. “Interim”.

      • gunsandrockets

        So how many Stryker BCT are there compared to Heavy BCT?

        Did the Stryker replace the M1 tank?

        Your analogy supports my claims instead of contradicting them.

        • feetpiece _

          When was the last time an M1A2 was used for anything downrange?

        • Kinetics

          The Stryker replacing an M1 would be like the ICSR replacing the M2 HMG.

          However, the original analogy stands because the Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle, a bridge to a different/more capable vehicle, the same was the ICSR is envisioned as being a bridge to a different intermediate caliber rifle.

          The first never happened and the second likely will not either.

          • gunsandrockets

            You seem awfully focused on on one word, “interim”. And missing the point I was making.

            The ICSR does NOT seem to be an M4 replacement.

          • Kinetics

            Because that word is the key. The ICSR has been given the label “interim” but everyone knows that it won’t ever be transitioned out for a smaller round and will stay in 7.62, permanently saddling troops with an overweight rifle.

            How does it not seem to be an M4 replacement? The Congressional discussion that spurred this was focused on US riflemen being able to defeat body armor (including multiple Senators specifically decrying the M4 as a weapons system), testimony from service officials has surrounded adopting a new infantry rifle and general service round, and they want to buy 50,000 (minimum). What in that sounds like they aren’t trying to replace the M4?

  • gunsandrockets

    Is the armor piercing performance of the M855a1 5.56mm fired from a 14.5 inch barrel really the equivalent of M80a1 7.62mm fired from a 20 inch barrel? Even at say 100 meters range? 200 meters?

    Maybe the Army aren’t complete idiots after all.

    • CommonSense23

      Considering neither can defeat plates what is your point?

    • 22winmag

      Check GunBroker at $7/round and see for yourself… or not.

    • I can say with confidence, yes. Neither will penetrate Level IV at any range.

  • gunsandrockets

    How interesting, the renewed popularity of 7.62mm infantry rifles. First Turkey, then Pakistan, possibly India, and now the U.S. Army.

    • CommonSense23

      Wow, such powerhouses. Pakistan, Indian, and Turkey.

      • gunsandrockets

        Considering the size of their Armies and infantry forces, yeah those nations matter.

        In fact I believe Turkey has always had the 2nd largest Army of any NATO member.

        • CommonSense23

          Have you any idea about the quality of these countries. If you want to talk about having dance offs on their borders, these are your go to guys.

    • AC97

      Why should we care about what Third World countries think is a good idea?

      • gunsandrockets

        Because navel gazing is dumb?

        • int19h

          One doesn’t follow from the other. Why look at these countries specifically? Why not Russia or China?

  • Steven

    Maybe we should quit worrying about loading the infantryman with more weight and tell logistics to get off their ass and get the ammo to the grunt when he needs it. A never ending supply of preloaded magazines sounds good to me.

  • gunsandrockets

    Seeing the freakout comments here over this small beans Army decision, imagine how much worse it would be if the Army decides to buy the M27 IAR too!

  • BeGe1

    Well, thank god that the Marine Corps is still sane at least.

    • gunsandrockets

      Oh, most of the whiners over the 7.62mm ICSR also believe the USMC were idiots for adapting the M27 IAR!

      • CommonSense23

        They were. It wasn’t even the best IAR. Its breaks more than the M4A1. And doesn’t offer anything real world over a M4A1 with a DD rail as a DMR.

        • gunsandrockets

          Ah yes, the old dumb conspiracy theory that the USMC somehow rigged the IAR competition or rigged the IAR test evaluations.

          H&K won the IAR competition fair and square.

          • CommonSense23

            How is it dumb? FN made the better IAR. And now that the Marines are using the gun as a quasi DMR how is the M27 even close to a good idea.

          • int19h

            It’s not the competition that was dumb, it’s the idea of a magazine-fed LMG replacement.

          • gunsandrockets

            Your real problem isn’t with the IAR, your problem is with the USMC organization and doctrine.

            The Marines want to keep their current Platoon organization; they even experimented with some alternatives yet they still prefer their old organization.

            The belt-fed M249 Squad Automatic Weapon was always a bad fit for the USMC Fire Team Automatic Rifleman. The IAR is a much better fit.

      • BeGe1

        Yeah, they definitely don’t know much then.

        I’ve personally carried the M27, and that thing is wonderful. In infantry units people are constantly trying to be the ones that get to carry it.

        It is loved among the Lance Coolies, that’s for sure.

  • gunsandrockets

    Now if only the Army would buy the LSAT 5.56mm too! That is what would really save weight for a foot slogging Infantry Platoon.

    A mix of 7.62mm ICSR and 5.56mm LSAT could be less burdensome to the fire team than the current mix of Army small arms. And it would divide the weight burden of the fire team members more evenly, aiding cohesion of fire team movement.

    The point I’m trying to emphasize is that an Infantry Platoon’s LMG are more important to the weight burden of that Platoon than the type of rifle they use.

  • 22winmag

    You can rob me…
    …you can starve me, you can beat me,
    and you can kill me…
    …just don’t bore me with military procurement dramas

    • AC97

      How about you stop being a monotonous stick-in-the-mud? Or, better yet, stop clicking.

      You haven’t ever contributed anything meaningful to these discussions, after all.

      • 22winmag

        Quoting Gunny Highway is beyond meaningful you dolt.

  • Archer

    This post made me look up some test videos from, for excample, The Wound Channel. What I found to be interesting is that the M855A1 did go through a AR500 lvl 3 and AR680 lvl3+ steel plate, but not through a ceramic plate of the same level.

    InRangeTV even tested a soviet 7.62x54R API against a USGI SAPI plate. And it stopped it.

    Modern ceramic armor can take quiet the punishment, you need a .50 BMG to get through it in one hit. At least I didn’t see anything else go through it yet.

    Otherwise you need to shoot it many times untile there is not enough ceramic to stop the bullet.

    In conclusion, I would keep the 5.56 for up to 300m and over 300m suppression, together with the 7.62 for targets beyond 600m in infantry groups.

    That is pretty much what the Bundeswehr does with the weapon mix right now. 5.56 (G36, HK416(G38), MG4) and 7.62 (G27P (P=precision), G28 DMR, MG3, future MG5).

    To clarify, the G27P is a semi- and full-auto firing HK417 while the G28 DMR is the civil HK MR308, semi only, modified for military use.

    And they look for a new rifle in 5.56 right now, the KSK and other Spec Ops in the Bundeswehr, too.

    No .300BLK or something familiar.

    Only NATO standart ammo.

  • JoshuaK27

    General Miley having to write home about dead soldiers ??? C’mon man….really ? In the requirements they specifically state the same current amount of ammo as carried by legacy 5.56 rifles , 210 rounds. Pretty sure a 18″ or 20″ s.p.r with optics weighs in the 10 plus pound range , a scar-h is fairly close to the same. Specifically this adaptation relates to your long range infantry unit articles. These rifles makes complete sense when irregulars are taking pot shots at you 5 to 600 yards away . Experienced fighters close the gap, and even then we all know 7.62nato penetrates barriers well.

    • This scheme would add 15 pounds to the soldier’s load – 25 if the M249s are swapped for M240s.

      I’m not sure exactly what the planned squad configuration is under this, but you simply can’t haul as much 7.62mm as 5.56mm. Something’s gotta give. Either your soldiers break even faster and become medical non-deployables, or they don’t have enough ammo.

      • JoshuaK27

        You knowingly have an understanding that the army would not give an entire unite m240b’s to go on an offensive. i also think youre neglecting the other fact that the intended purpose of this interim buy is primarily for special operations individuals. The numbers make sense, for their intended purpose.

        • I would hope the Army wouldn’t do that, but I also hoped they wouldn’t be dumb enough to issue 7.62mm infantry rifles, too.

          It’s an IDIQ contract, with a 50,000 initial quantity. Doesn’t sound like special operations to me.

          • JoshuaK27

            Now youre just being plain arrogant, The army would never issue an entire unit with m240’s unless they all had exoskeletons, you damn well know they’re not that stupid.
            Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts provide for an indefinite quantity of services for a fixed time. They are used when GSA can’t determine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that the government will require during the contract period. IDIQs help streamline the contract process and speed service delivery.
            By structure of the contract these rifles will definitely be handed over to special operations for testing and evaluation, Theres a problem that apparently needs fixing and in haste.
            Guess you wanna take a subgun to the mountains or across open fields too… (i think this interim agreement has to do with certain areas of theater, its LOGICAL)
            And why are you digressing from the question of your articles on long range infantry units? These rifles and numbers have exactly to do with that.

          • I didn’t say they’d issue M240s to every person, I said they could replace the SAW with M240s. They *might* not do that (I hope not), but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.

        • There are not 50,000 front line special operations personnel.

          Also, that’s not what my sources say.

          • JoshuaK27

            Nathan , I have a lot of respect for you and your knowledge, but don t play with me haha. 50k would be more than a sizable chunk of combat special forces , just like the xm177 of it’s day interim weapons will be handled by these individuals to report back on their performance in the field. What have you to say though on your articles in comparison to long range infantry units though? I read all parts , and I see vast similarity in this approach

          • Rangers and Green Berets combined (just for good measure), there are less than 10,000 US Army special-ish forces. So a starting order of 50,000 does not imply SF use only.

            Plus, uh, I know for a fact this is a program for general issue M4 Carbine replacement in operational units.

          • I should clarify that my articles on the “Sharpshooter” paradigm were written from a critical perspective. I didn’t slam the concept, but I wasn’t advocating for it, either.

          • JoshuaK27

            ok sure, i’ll take your word for it in regards to the sharpshooter infantry units, and just throw that by the wayside since there was much digression to question.(although your points to moot in regards would make a strong case for a support unit.) Im sure you know that JSOC is far more reaching that just army……. There are currently “in total” around 100 thousand in combat or search and rescue personnel within JSOC. Was the xm177 not the predecessor to the M4? They are not going to give a grunt with little weapon experience to tell the DOD what is and isnt a good weapon system. I dont know who your sources are but yeah of course they are looking to replace the m4 but as they have tried and tried for a long time nothing has panned out, its simply not logical to hand new systems to inexperienced personnel to do the grading.

          • 100,000 for JSOC sounds like about 4x too much, but even if that number is accurate, that’s JSOC not ASF.

            My sources are people close to the program itself.

          • I noted that I wasn’t advocating the Sharpshooter concept in the post-publishing note for the first article:

            “Post-publishing note: In the original release of this article, I didn’t adequately clarify two things. First, I am not a proponent of this theory of infantry weapons and tactics, but I have read a lot of work from and I have talked quite a bit with people who are. Second, this article doesn’t directly examine the question of whether a system like this should be adopted, but just assumes that such a system will be adopted and explores the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.”

            If anything, I’m one of the higher-profile critics of this concept.

          • JoshuaK27

            Personally IMHO I think you get immense pleasure of being a critic, with all due respect.
            To be fair, Ive always looked at the rifles and thought about the terrain.
            To some it sounds stupid and expensive (the ar15 comes close to achieving this) But there is a need for a rifle that could have “urban”,”mountain”, “jungle/ Dense forest”, “desert”, type modular packs with features that pertain to specific fighting environments. All centered around a new cartridge, its time the 5.56 goes away. and im not talking about 7.62, Im talking an 85gr 6mm based of the same 45mm case length. (would also require a whole new mag change).

          • The XM177 was kinda-sorta the predecessor to the M4, the way the AR10 is the predecessor to the M16A1.

            The biggest two things the XM177 brought to the M4 design was the buffer/stock setup (although, originally, the XM177 only had two settings – all the way open, and all the way closed), and the handguards/gas system length. Colt carried over the XM177 gas system length and handguard to the CAR15 carbines, because it allowed them to reuse tooling. The M4 is that gas system length, with the barrel extended far enough that the bayonet lug for a standard pattern front sight/gas block will engage properly.

            But there are a LOT of tiny little tweaks “under the skin”…

      • Sticky-eye Rivers

        Body armor. Webbing/Load carrying gear. There’s your weight savings, because if that doesn’t get lighter it won’t matter the ammunition in the rifle when soldiers would still get injured from overloading.

        Hell, giving every squad on foot patrol a Jeep would give the generals what they wanted anyway. Walking is for the ancestors.

        • Yes, we need to reduce the weight of LBEs and body armor, absolutely.

    • iksnilol

      5.56 out of an M4 works just fine at 500 meters. It’s just you need to actually be able to ID a target and hit it.

      • JoshuaK27

        Im not saying 5.56 doesnt work at that distance but by limitations is on the cusp of being ineffective. I think a 5.56 75 grain out of a 20″ barrel is somewhere around 400 ft pounds of energy at that distance which is fine for soft armor/targets. I agree that it works, but i also believe there exists better tools.

  • MichaelBolton

    LOL. Full auto .308? That’s when you know you’re clinically retarded.

  • n0truscotsman

    Whatever.

    Im done with the stupidity that is the modern Armed Forces.

    At this stage, big army is approaching mid 19th century British Army levels of incompetence.

    They aren’t even trying anymore, which makes perfect sense if you look at exactly *what* they claim to be defending.

    • RealitiCzech

      When we changed the name from Department of War to Department of Defense we pretty much stopped doing actual defense.

  • Jimmy the cracker of corn

    HAH! CALLED IT!

  • hacedeca

    The M14 battle rifle would have been the right one for the vast deserts and hills of Afghanistan not to be overpowered by the PKM… but what, if the next wars will be fought in some jungles – does then the M16 come back?

    I am afraid there is no ultimate rifle or caliber!

    • iksnilol

      Yes there is, 40mm HV.

      • Brett baker

        25mm bushmaster.

  • Some Rabbit

    Everybody, repeat after me: “SCOUT RIFLE.” (/sarc)

    • Brett baker

      DON’T DUDE. They’ll think you’re serious, and we’ll be packing GSRs.

  • Warren Ellis

    Who exactly pushes for these overmatch claims or 7.62 rifles or anything? Is it people overreacting to claims about the Taliban outranging our troops? Is it old generals whose last combat posting was Vietnam or never?

    I mean where does it all come from? I mean have they ever carried stuff before?

      • Warren Ellis

        But in the end, they don’t have to listen to said lobbyists or whatever.

        So who is it that has enough clout to push for their particular ideas on warfare is what I wonder?

        • Congressmen who read too many gunrags.

          • Aaron

            Why read gunrags when the testimony of those so far removed from the current situation will do…

        • Watch the SASC hearing with Milley. Senators Cotton and Ernst are helping, I reckon.

      • Mr. Katt

        And you were pretty much spot on in that article. You have a bunch of armchair generals, promoted based on how many slots they punched on their ‘ticket’, who last saw combat when it was a television series in the 1960s.

        Was (is) the M14 a great rifle ? It was a good rifle, not a great rifle. No rifle platform is perfect, nor is any cartridge a do-it-all. You want power, then issue everyone a semi auto .338 Lapua. Ridiculous notion, but you’ll get your range and power factor. Never mind that you beat your infantry to dust.

        Riflemen engagement distance have been in the 200-400 meter range going back to World War Two (and earlier). The British, Russians, Germans, all realized after World War I that their full power rifle cartridges were great for machineguns, but overkill for infantry.

        Now the brilliant minds in the Five Sided Nuthouse want to go back, probably to the M1903 or M98 Mauser and the .30/06.

        • int19h

          What’s most interesting is that Russians and Chinese both went to <6mm caliber AFTER observing US go to 5.56mm, and its effects in Vietnam. In case of Chinese, they also had the opportunity to watch Russians and their experience with 5.45mm in Afghanistan.

          The fact that they went ahead with the switch anyway just goes to show that there were very good reasons for adopting that caliber, or something like it. Those reasons didn't go away all of a sudden.

  • hank hendry

    The answer is the Browning Automatic Rifle. Bring it back with the real 30 calibre cartridge 30-06

    • Steven

      And how much time on the butt end of a BAR do you have? Those that do are getting a little on the gray side. I crossed trained with one and decided WW-II was really its high point.

      • Samuel Millwright

        If we get stuck going with a BAR I’ll take mine built to a modified FN-D pattern with qcb and chambered in 8mm bofors aka 7.92×63… 8mm mauser bullets in 30 ’06 cases, what’s not to like?

        • Brett baker

          Dude, 6.5×55 or you’ll get hate mail!

          • Samuel Millwright

            If I’m gonna schlep that big sonofabitch i want to be able to one shot stop a god damn buick!

    • Kivaari

      You want to pack a 18-21 pound rifle with heavy ammo and magazines?

  • 7.74lbs includes other stuff. I’ve weighed an M4 before, they’re about 6 and change.

    Note that the front runner for ICSR, the HK417A2, is 9.7 pounds.

    I calculated loaded weights with full kit, and M4A1 is 9.3lbs with CCO, PEQ-15, M952, RAS, and loaded magazine. HK417A2 is 17.1lbs with VCOG, PEQ-15, M952, and loaded magazine.

  • William Wright

    Pretty sure this has more to do with a stockpile of 7.62 larger than needed. They just want something to shoot it up.

  • int19h

    I don’t get what this chart says… why does it go to “100% targets engaged” at 600m? Shouldn’t it really be more of a bell curve?

    • S O

      example desert:
      ~20% of targets engaged are within 100 m
      ~40% are within 150 m
      ~60% are within 200 m
      ~70% are within 250 m
      ~80% are within 300 m
      ~90% are within 400 m
      ~98% are within 600 m

      The curve adds up how many were engaged at up to a certain range, for urban ~100% are engaged before 100 m.
      In jungle ~100% are engagedn before 300 m.

      I suppose Afghanistan experiences fall into the urban, rurral and desert categories, with the whining about PKM harassing fires fitting into rural/desert terrain, where you can see that about 10-20% of engagements are past 300 m distance.

      • int19h

        Ah, I see, so the X axis should really read “up to …”. Thanks!

  • Noah Tahl

    “Lucratic?” That got past your spellcheck?

    • Evidently, it got past the spell checks of ~480 other commenters, too.

      But not you, sir! Thank you. 🙂

  • Jason

    My thought is likely that while the new advanced ammunition may be able to defeat body armor, it may not have enough energy after doing so in the 5.56 config to reliably stop a target. Penetration of body armor isn’t enough, you have to penetrate with sufficient energy to cause trauma.

  • Paelorian

    For a new do-everything cartridge adoption, a 6mm comparable to 6mm Dasher or 6mm Creedmoor in the LSAT cased telescoped ammunition. A tremendous increase in effective range on par with cartridges like 6.5mm Creedmoor and 7mm-08 for a very minor increase in recoil and cartridge weight. Those 6.5mm and 7mm cartridges hit harder but accuracy at range is essentially the same and for a general-purpose cartridge less recoil is better since performance under 300m is much more important than performance over 300m. Anything replacing 5.56 NATO, a stellar performer within it’s capabilities (unlike 7.62 NATO, which never compared favorably to it’s competitors in military roles), must not be a big downgrade from 5.56’s capabilities in any critical way. The downside to a 6mm non-intermediate rifle cartridge is barrel life, but technology has been extending barrel life. Proof Research claims their carbon-fiber wrapped barrels double or triple barrel life compared to conventional barrels. With the US military’s clout and budget, the military could implement that kind of technology at a far lower cost per rifle than high-end consumer shooters pay. Phasing this new ammunition in could be a cost-saver in the long run as polymer is cheaper than brass. The ammunition should be much less expensive to manufacture than 7.62 NATO. Or we can use 7.62 NATO for another half a century giving the excuse of the cost of switching, despite the fact that replacing it with a cartridge that offers superior capabilities and is less expensive to manufacture would ultimately save a fortune.

    • uisconfruzed

      A 6.5 or 7mm barrel will outlast the 6mm.

      • Logic

        With advanced propellant it doesnt matter…

        • uisconfruzed

          That’s something I’m not familiar with. What slow burning powder are you referring to?
          Everything else being equal, a 6.5CM barrel will last longer than a 260 Rem, even though they both have the same bullet and almost the exact same amount of powder. The difference is the CM’s longer neck of the brass, and the 30 deg shoulder.

  • Spencer W

    Could they be thinking of using sabot rounds? A 5.56 tungsten round going around 4000fps would be pretty neat! I love the 7.62×51 but there are better options for general issue

  • Rusty Shackleford

    Lets just make the PKM standard issue for all soldiers.

  • Ryfyle

    Not .50-70 Sharps. For shame!!

  • Bucho4Prez
  • Trey

    Maybe they will also adopt something like the shellshock Technologies cases which on 9mm are half the weight of brass cases assuming this is possible in 7.62 NATO this will alleviate some of the weight issue per round.

    It is interesting that so many people complained that we have not adopted some new cartridge like 6.8 PPC or something else because of the lack of down range energy of the 5.56 round now that the Army’s actually considering adopting something that has better downrange energy the 5.56 seems to be a Panacea I guess you just can’t please everybody.

    • crackedlenses

      “now that the Army’s actually considering adopting something that has
      better downrange energy the 5.56 seems to be a Panacea I guess you just
      can’t please everybody.”

      Most of the people backing 5.56 are more or less opposed to 6.8 or 6.5 mm. cartridges as well.

  • codfilet

    Breaking: the new caliber will be 30-40 Krag…..

  • RazorHawk

    More big govt wastfulness. It will cost taxpayers billions to move back to 7.62.

    • Sticky-eye Rivers

      We already have 7.62 so that has been paid for. But I know what you mean so let’s look at the wasting of tax money instead.

      Equipping 50,000 new rifles is going to cost hundreds of millions at least, but less than several billions. Ammunition is already bought and been in service for 60 years. Replacing the M4 entirely is the costly thing on the horizon, but the US already spends 600 billion/year on the services. The money question is bigger than just rifles.

      Spending money, and wasting money, will always be about politics. This site doesn’t deal with that.

  • feetpiece _

    Only Gun Jesus can deliver us from this evil.

  • Henan Xixiasaurus

    Had the .280 British been adopted……

    • Samuel Millwright

      It would’ve sucked as bad or worse than 7.62×39 m43 ammo and still been replaced by 5.56!

      So had it been adopted not a god damn thing would be different at all

      • uisconfruzed

        That’s silly talk, why do you think He’d damn a 7mm?

  • Howard

    7.62 x 51 a good cross between the 14 & the Mosen Nagant 7.62 x 54 , both good kick ass weapons , modified & better weighted they should be even better now.

    • 22winmag

      Can anyone recommend a good translator to help me decipher what in the world this comment means?

  • Kirk Newsted

    I see nothing in the linked article that says the Army is replacing the M4. The contract is for 50,000 weapons, not anywhere near enough to supplant the M4. This program looks far more like they are looking to put 1 or 2 of these rifles in every squad.

    • Sticky-eye Rivers

      Or make them standard rifle in only one or two deployed brigades.
      Perhaps intended for NATO’s eastern border, perhaps as a field experiment in one province in Afghanistan just to see how it affects things? The latter seems like it’d be an idea from the ones who’d actually would like replace the m4, but only if they could prove something new is better.

  • iksnilol

    You’re somebody who don’t shoot well… I mean, if you use 338 lap on deer, then you have to be a mediocre shot at best. At least not a good hunter.

    • John

      People use anything and every thing they want when hunting. Dont even try to pull that, oh he used a larger round so he doesnt shoot well. It requires more skill to use a .338 lap than a .223.

      • iksnilol

        More muscle to haul that.

        Why one bothers to haul it, that’s the question.

      • Samuel Millwright

        So only your “arguments and observations” are valid?

        How convenient for you since you’ve said several things which give away dead nuts an “observation” i and I’m sure several others have made about you and “your war stories” …

        But hey, our observations don’t mean anything so it won’t matter a little bit that most of the people reading this picked you out for a stolen valor loser three seconds into your first comment!

  • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

    As I said, emphasis on “feel”

    • John

      You cant honestly say the .556 is more effective than the 7.62. Dont even try that. I was able to get a get an m14 out of the armory in iraq and was able to get rid of my m16, not only did it not jam like the 16, it was almost always one shot, which you cant say that for the .556. There was no feel in that matter, it was results.

      • M.S.1

        Ok, John, you’re a superhero. Nevermind what generations of soldiers fighting wars under far harsher conditions than you experienced have to tell us.

    • frankspeak

      yeah,..there’s something reassuring about seeing all that dirt and mud fly when you fire a round downrange!….

  • Phillip Cooper

    Wow. Talk about clickbait.

    They’ve released a Request For Proposal, it sounds like. This is FAR from “is replacing”.

    Basically there is some working group somewhere that’s getting paid to daydream “what would we do with a 7.62 battle rifle”?

  • Friend

    Everyone’s freaking out about how bad of an idea this is and I’m just sitting here like “remember all those times they’ve tried this before? This is going nowhere.”

    For example:

    ACR
    XM8
    SPIW
    OICW
    Individual Carbine

    Need I continue?

  • nova3930

    They may be using armor penetration as the justification but I think the fundamental issue is the Army wants to get away from the AR platform and it’s inherent magwell limitations. Wouldn’t shock me if this morphs into a small caliber after the initial contract of 50k units. Convert the initial 50k to DMRs and then continue procurement at the smaller caliber…

  • Brett baker

    Read Hastings “Armageddon” about fighting in WW2, it’s an eye-opener.

  • And my reply has always been, “So why don’t we use the already issued M249 and M240 guns already organic to the fire team and platoon, to respond in kind? Especially since OUR MGs *are* more effective at those ranges.”

    That’s presuming you can’t whistle up some 60mm or 81mm mortar fire from higher in time.

  • Sonny

    Clicked through an RSS feed headline… when is the M4 being replaced? Not sure I read that in the narrative.

  • Brett baker

    Just had a thought. How will the heavier weapons and ammo we’re apparently adopting match up with the “we need to shrink the logistics tail” rhetoric that’s coming out of defense reformers? A guest post by Joshua or one of our other insiders on this topic would be interesting.

  • Uniform223

    Yet the M2 Bradley turned out to be very good at its job.

    • Samuel Millwright

      I still feel bad for the cav scouts though who call it their Bradley fighting barn

  • Richard Lutz

    Reintroduce M1 Rifle

    The M14 was better than the M16 as having a few powerful 7.62mm rounds is better than having lots of weak 5.56mm rounds, even at the cost of a heavy rifle and heavy recoil. Better yet, readopt the M1 Rifle (Garand) which is even more powerful and has no magazines to worry about (so many issues with magazines). For situations when more is required simply use GPMGs, RPGs, tanks, jet fighters and tactical nukes. Seriously, the US military still use the M2 Browning HMG, designed in 1918, so why not the M1 Rifle?

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    The Big Dog robot from Boston Dynamics is going to carry a few thousand rounds of 7.62X51 ammo, or the troops will be using those funky powered exoskeletons that DARPA has been testing. These individual force multipliers are needed, because the US military has lowered the physical requirements in the interests of being PC. Be all you can be… even if that requires tax funded gender reassignment surgery.

    • Richard Lutz

      We don’t need soldiers any more, just drone operators or – ideally – a computerized defense system like Skynet so humans can play with themselves all day long.

    • Funny you bring up robodogs, given the article that goes up in like five minutes.

      • LetsTryLibertyAgain

        After my half joking post, I scrolled down in my TFB email and saw there was also an article about another exoskeleton.

        I’m a geek, so I’m naturally attuned to developments in technology.

        I keep warning about SkyNet and terminators, but nobody is listening. 🙂

  • Anthony “stalker6recon”

    They could have gone with a better reason, like difficulty of the M4 to engage elevated targets in theaters where mountain warfare is common. I have not idea if the new rounds being used have given the M4 enough power to fire upwards with enough energy to engage targets with accuracy and lethal force. That might make sense.

    I carried the M4 when I was in the Army as a 19D, this was before they started issuing the M4 to everyone, so you could tell the difference between us and other units just by the weapons we had. It was loaded down with all the goodies of course, M68, PEQ-4, gangsta grip on KA rails, making this relatively light carbine more bulky. Fortunately, I was able to create a lanyard with a locking carabiner on my Camlbak assault pack, taking the load off my arms and making it easier to yield. I can’t imagine that this new rifle will be a carbine, but maybe it will. If it isn’t suppressed, I pity those having to fire that in close quarters, their ears will probably bleed.

    So add the extra weight of the ammo, and all the optic, lasers, grips and suppressors, I bet this thing comes in well over 12 pounds empty. Good luck with that. This is the reason that each squad had an M240B “pig” slinger, so we had the firepower when needed. That was the linebacker of the squad, and as a 19D, we had plenty of linebackers to choose from.

    • ProudInfidel

      Actually Anthony, with the right muzzle brake a 7.62 carbine isn’t all that bad to handle in any CQB situation. As a two decade plus 18 series, having access in our Arms rooms with LOTS of different mission specific or area specific weapons and calibers to choose from, I(my teams) always gravitated back to the 7.62 x 51mm as the caliber we found the most versatile. We could go into a mission carrying Carbine model M14s (suppressed if necessary), have one of our 18Bs with a Mag58 or M60 – our Snipers with an M21/M24/AR25 – and the remainder of the team with standard or modified M14s. The “new” optics that started coming out after the mid 80s didn’t extend the range of those weapons -they extended the lethality of the weapons due to better shot placement. Yeah, more weight to carry – agreed. But, as an example – if I needed to put 30 rounds of 5.56mm or more through a “skinny’s” cinderblock or mud hut to insure all were down and out of the fight, versus 20 rounds or less with that 7.62mm? I (my detachment) chose the 7.62mm everytime..Same with long range engagement in mountainous terrain or heavy jungle. Just some observations from a long since retired (key part of that word “tired”) action guy.

      • Anthony “stalker6recon”

        First, thanks for your service, good stuff brother. As a Cavalry Scout, I have to bow to your mindbending extraordinary experience. We did not have the latitude to choose our gear the same way you guys do, with reason. Level of training and mission type dictates these skills. I have no experience with ANY of the weapons you have described. I was tasked to go to armorer school, but my NCO failed to notify me, which to this day, pisses me off.

        Anyway, having said all that, is it your opinion that these weapons would work with any/all soldiers? Today, the lines between MOS and mission have been blurred. Guys that usually spend their days typing, are now kicking down doors (scary). The 19K’s are being told to ditch their tanks and start walking (with their motto “death before dismount”), I can’t image they are happy. The trade off of firepower vs weight is also blurred. The days of “standard combat load of 210 rounds” is over. You carry what you want, and I would always trade ammo over socks and t-shirts, the latter doesn’t keep me alive.

        I joined at the young age of 33, with goals to go SF. What an idiot I am. To be honest, when I joined post September 11th, the Army was already different. I did everything I was ever tasked to do, passed all the courses, did all the PT, got all the scores required, but I was broken before graduation. I was unable to straighten my left leg during some exercises without deep pain. My DS’s knew I was hurt, but they knew I would never quit either. No way I was going to be recycled. The dream of SF died before graduation though, sucks. Ended up under the knife three times, trying to repair my lumbar spine, but no regrets.

        Got a friend still in the teams, funny since he is nearing 50 and a fatbody, but still kicking down doors, I envy him. Anyway, thanks again for ALL you have done, this site lets me know that there still are American’s that make us proud and are worth fighting for.

        • ProudInfidel

          Hey Anthony, you drive on Soldier and hold your head high, injuries of every kind shifted damned good soldiers from SF training or even from ODAs back to units that are in desperate need of their leadership and you sound like one of them. My experiences in regards to this subject are not nearly as extensive as a lot of Special Operators. I do remember some things in regards to METT-T…I preferred accuracy over volume, range over rapid fire and ft lbs energy over fragmentation. That was me. Yes, it is harder to train soldiers to shoot rapidly and accurately with a larger caliber round like a 7.62 x 51mm vs 5.56…those rounds are heavier, recoil is greater and signature is more obvious. However, new flash hiders/muzzle breaks, as well as new buffer assemblies can reduce those last two elements significantly. The element of rapid/accurate fire can be achieved with reducing recoil and lots of practice. The weight? New polymer mags and lighter/stronger materials for stocks has definitely improved things. One positive? Very few females will be jumping for joy to join combat units employing 7.62mm weapons..

          • Anthony “stalker6recon”

            Roger that, Scouts Out!

    • I did the math on what a fully equipped HK417A2 would weigh. 17.1 pounds.

      :fine:

  • ProudInfidel

    There is, without a doubt a bigtime Silver lining in this entire issue..Can anyone guess what it is? All you fellow Infantry/Rgr/SF ground pounders – what is it? I’ll giver you a hint; When they adopt this rifle and caliber, the estimated number of combat tampons and pads will be reduced dramatically.

  • ProudInfidel

    When I was active, about midway through multiple decades, I started asking for a Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range – all I keep getting told is “Only what you’re issued buddy, only what you’re issued” dammit. Now this. Talk about slow to the parade. Sigh.

  • Should have moved to the 6.5, 6.8, 7mm range of cartridges back when the decision was made to go all the way down to the extreme of 5.56.
    Now they’re flip-flopping between too big to too small and back to too big again.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    The original article wasn’t dated Apr 1, was it?

  • William Taylor

    Full power .30 rounds are just flat wrong. Switch to 6.5 Grendel, if anything. Little, if any, heavier than .223, with a much more effective, larger bullet.

    • KitCarson

      half-stepping

    • 6.5 Grendel is 50% heavier than 5.56mm, functionally 70% heavier than 5.56mm if a new lower spec is not used.

      So 6.5 Grendel is closer in mass to 7.62mm than it is to 5.56mm, and it doesn’t shoot as flat as either. Not really a solution.

      • Phil Hsueh

        Closer in weight, not mass; weight and mass are not the same thing.

  • uisconfruzed

    6, 6.5mm Grendel?

  • KitCarson

    Ballistic performance 6.5 Grendel

    Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy

    90 gr (6 g) Speer TNT 2,880 ft/s (880 m/s) 1,658 ft·lbf (2,248 J)

    108[3] Scenar (moly) 2,790 ft/s (850 m/s) 1,866 ft·lbf (2,530 J)

    120 gr (8 g) Norma FMJBT 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s) 1,942 ft·lbf (2,633 J)

    123 gr (8 g) Sierra Matchking 2,650 ft/s (810 m/s) 1,917 ft·lbf (2,599 J)

    130 gr (8 g) Norma 2,510 ft/s (770 m/s) 1,818 ft·lbf (2,465 J)

  • KitCarson

    Ballistic performance 6.55 Swedish

    Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy

    100 gr (6 g) HP 3,183 ft/s (970 m/s) 2,250 ft·lbf (3,050 J)

    120 gr (8 g) BT 2,812 ft/s (857 m/s) 2,108 ft·lbf (2,858 J)

    140 gr (9 g) SP 2,651 ft/s (808 m/s) 2,185 ft·lbf (2,962 J)

    140.4 gr (9 g) DK 2,854 ft/s (870 m/s) 2,540 ft·lbf (3,440 J)

    160 gr (10 g) EVO 2,559 ft/s (780 m/s) 2,266 ft·lbf (3,072 J)

    • bobk90

      The ballistics of the .308 is much better than this bullet or your 6.5 grendel

  • KitCarson

    6.55 Swedish would be perfect for a belt fed weapon

    • bobk90

      The .308/7.62×51 does a Fantastic job and no need to change it.

  • KitCarson

    why not bring back a BAR too
    we should adapt to the Australian AUG two barrels 308

  • KitCarson

    30.06 and .308 same head many are already there, give the crew served weapons a break on weight

  • Gary Hoffmann

    Why exactly do they need an interim combat service rifle? Interim is defined as temporary, provisional, short term, stop gap. Why not just go for the next new gen CSR as a permanent replacement for the M4. Also, aren’t we sort of constrained to the NATO rounds, 5.56×45 and 7.62×51? Sure, the 6.5 Grendel is a superior choice, but not a NATO standard round.

    • bobk90

      SCREW NATO!

  • Bad Penguin

    Disagree on your conclusions. First it’s an acknowledgement that we will be in the ME for the foreseeable future and that we need to be able to lethally and accurately engage the enemy at longer standoff ranges. Next it will be good for the army as they will finally start teaching soldiers to actually shoot the enemy instead of ammo wasting suppressive fire. Yeah sometimes it needed now with full auto coming back spray and pray will burn more ammo than the soldier could carry. If the soldier is already to lazy to fuel up his vehicle or check the oil then maybe it’s time to start teaching discipline again instead of transgender sensitivity.

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      So your position is that supressive fire is a bad thing?

      • Bad Penguin

        When you are exspending all of your ammo on suppressing the enemy instead of actually shooting the enemy yes it is a bad thing.

        • BeGe1

          Suppressive fire is an important part of shooting the enemy. That’s how you buy time to shoot them while not getting shot yourself, that’s how you maneuver into a better position to shoot them from, etc. etc.

          • Phil Hsueh

            That or to keep them in place while you either call in for an arty fire mission or some air support.

        • I was taught that while I’m laying suppressive fire, my buddies in the other team, squad, or platoon are supposed to be bounding around to a flank so they can get around the enemy’s cover and shoot him in the back (well, usually, side, actually…).

  • durabo

    It’s about time for a vigorous caliber to replace the “poodle-popper” that is so inefficient against barricaded enemies!

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      Tried to take out a lot of barricaded enemies have you?

      • durabo

        In law-enforcement.

  • Brick

    Interim Service Rifle? Interim? Meadow Muffins! Crud the AR-10 as been around for years and is fairly well proven! Additionally what is going to be done with SAW? That’ll have to replaced also!

  • Momsbasementisntsobad

    A whole new rifle? Can’t you just adjust the hop up?

  • Mr. Privilege

    Just start issuing depleted uranium 5.56 instead.

  • Omerli

    The Turks also re-adopted the 7.62×51 in the MPT76, though they are also producing a version in 5.56mm. With the varied combat scenarios and environments militaries face in today’s world, there is room for both. That does mean a heavier logistical tail but with today’s vastly improved transport and communication options, this may be less of a problem than even a few years ago. Note that Indians are also considering a move to 7.62×51 as are a few other armies. Indeed the Russians are also thinking of introducing a heavier caliber for their newest version of the Kalashnikov.

  • ToddB

    And the US military screws up again. They adopted the 5.56 as the 7.62 was over powered. Took them 50 yrs to figure out the 5.56 is under powered. So now instead of looking at one of the new in between ammos. No lets swing back to the 7.62, then in a couple years mount another expensive search for something else. And who wants to imagine no matter what it is, it will be in an AR15 format. 500 years from now, everybody else is using energy weapons, the US military will be issuing the M16A12 with a laser gun attached to it. And still trying to fix the M16 mags.

    • ProudInfidel

      I just want a Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

  • Colonel K

    At last, a chance to adopt the Tanker Garand or BM-59, or maybe even that super cool FAL. Retro rifles may not be practical, but in the virtual world it’s being cool that counts. P.S. Make sure all our commando units are armed with 1928 Thompsons and teach them how to howl when they attack. It worked so well in the comics.

  • fnu lnu

    Needs more cow bell.

  • Buck

    Make the m-14 more lite weight and go back to it. A smaller flash supressor and a different butt platt would be a start . And a lite weight stock. I have a full size m1a . Back when I was in good health that was my carry gun. But sickness today has made me go lite on every thing .my ar15 weighs a little over 5 pounds. .
    Cancer from agent orange and a stroke put a halt on me.

    • ProudInfidel

      Hang in there Buck, keep fighting and just know a whole bunch of us are praying your strength returns, the pain is lessened and you always sleep well sir!

      • Buck

        Thank you my friend. Buck

  • Jason Bourne

    We won WW2 with the .30-06… So is the metric .308 such a bad choice. In the words of a southern acquaintance of mine, “The’ ain’t no substitute for cubic inches.” I understand ammo weight would be more constraining, but in actuality, I doubt a full scale decommissioning of the M4 will instantly occur. All of the aforementioned comments are from a civilian, but are musings of thought after reading a purely opinion-based article. Thus, I respond in kind, with opinion. Please identify in comments below any holes in my logic. I am interested to know others thoughts…

    • Jason Bourne

      Please note, I am not advocating a shoulder-fired anti-personnel missiles to be carried as a primary weapon. While effective, probably not a prudent choice.

      Also, an honest question that someone could answer for me. What contributes to armor penetration? Is it bullet speed? Bullet mass? A combination of these? Thanks in advance for the response

      • DwnRange

        IMHO, head-shots make any new hi-tech body armor irrelevant?

        • Jason Bourne

          So true! Never thought of that… So unless that exo-suit is ready, a well placed head shot renders body armor moot.

  • BREAKING: TFB once again suckers readers by using a clickbait headline!

    because if you think that “leading to the eventual selection of 1 weapon for a contract of 50,000 units.” equates to “REPLACE M4 Carbine”, well, I want some of what you’re drinking.

    • Do your research: 50,000 units in an IDIQ contract is not a “special forces only” program. My sources corroborate that this is a program for a standard issue rifle for all deployed BCTs. Eric Graves’ sources corroborate this.

      This is real.

      • a) You said SF, not me. I didn’t reference it at all.
        b) 50k units isn’t even a drop in the bucket for the quantity of M4/M16 units in the US Army.
        c) Eric Graves’ Source, as you’ve linked, indicates: “According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. ”

        It was a DMR equipment replacement, that had grown in scope to Basis of Issue for BCTs. That’s still a long, LONG way away from “7.62mm Rifle to REPLACE M4 Carbine” .

        And, that same link states – “It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal.”

        As far as 50k units in an IDIQ contract, well, this ain’t an IDIQ contract. Hell, this isn’t even a contract period, yet – this is still a solicitation. Or, do you have no experience in the procurement side?

        So, bub, I re-state: if you think that “leading to the eventual selection of 1 weapon for a contract of 50,000 units.” equates to “REPLACE M4 Carbine”, well, I want some of what you’re drinking.

  • Cfindlay

    I understand that Springfield has a bunch of M1A Scout Squads (about 50,000) they want to sell

  • Larry

    You people that have not used the M14 really are in the dark. This stupid mindset of spray and pray started with the puny little 5.56 in Vietnam and was a very distance second place round to the 7.62×39 .

  • supergun

    Surprise that the Creedmoor did not get chosen. But I still like the 308 better. With todays advances and technologies, there should be no problem with the ammo supply. You always plan around the player and his strengths.

    • BeGe1

      Barrel life on Creedmoor makes it almost useless for military.

      • supergun

        You are exactly right. I forgot about that. Also if you make the Creedmoor bullet the same size as the 308, then the 308 outperforms it.

        • BeGe1

          Other than barrel life you’re right, it’s a great round. Just can’t burn through barrels that quick in the field. Maybe some powder/barrel/bullet advancements will change that in the near future though, which would be cool.

        • supergun

          When you shoot that many bullets to wear the barrel out, then you are spending more money on bullets than what a barrel would cost. But in the military that would be impractical like you have commented.

  • XRGRSF

    As a retired infantry officer with 5 combat tours I can’t fathom how bad an idea this is. The three main things a battle rifle must provide are accuracy, penetration, and fire power. The 5.56 X 45 provides a sufficient quantity of all three plus the combat load is much lighter than any system based on 7.62 X 51. Switching to 7.62 X 51 is the answer to a question that wasn’t asked, and a prescription for disaster.

    • bobk90

      Sir, American Soldiers of WW2 and Korea did just fine with their Equipment Loads, right? So do tell how it would be “…a prescription for disaster”???

      • XRGRSF

        I left a detailed response to proudinfidel; you may find it interesting. Yes, American soldiers have always done well, but we aren’t fighting WW2 or Korea (yet). However, that doesn’t mean that they can’t do better given more appropriate equipment. Switching to the 7.62 X 51 decreases the soldiers round count per basic load, the increased recoil of the rifle doesn’t lend itself to precise aimed fire by most troops, and there is little to no benefit of increasing the power of the weapon. Bottom line: In my opinion the M16/M4 system is not broken, and does not need to be fixed.

        • bobk90

          Sir, six 30rd mags with 1 in M4/16 = 210 for basic combat load, right? and six 20rd mags with 1 in AR10/FAL etc. = 140 for basic combat load. So your right in that a man can carry 70 more rds. of 556 to the 308. But shouldn’t it be considered that the 3rd burst or full auto will become allot of missed shots? Wouldn’t it be better to take a single shot with a higher percentage of a hit, not wasting ammo in the 1st place, with the larger bullet? I am not saying the 556 does not have its place because it does. I think it is better for Urban Combat like Iraq but in Afghanistan I think a 308 would serve our troops better, imho. Now a solid mix is having the 308 battle rifle for a squad/fire team along with 1 guy with an M240 for suppressing and you can work from that depending on the situation or mission type. For everyone here, think about the 7.62 x 54R that has been in Service since 1891 and is still used heavily in Russia with their PKM’s! That round falls in between the 308 & 30.06 if not mistaken. We need to ask ourselves why has the 54R been so effective for the last 126yrs?

          • By and large, US troops don’t flip the Happy Switch to the Go Faster position, EXCEPT to gain initial fire superiority. Because we’ve been training troops (for at least 40 friggin’ years) to leave the damned thing on SEMI 99% of the time.

            To put it another way — the senior NCOs talking to troops today about fire discipline were counseled by THEIR Sergeants senior NCOs about fire discipline when they were privates, who were counseled by THEIR senior NCOs about fire discipline.

            Spray and Pray happens in video games, movie screens, and undisciplined rabble (by US standards).

      • BeGe1

        Exactly. And their equipment loads were significantly smaller than current day.

        On top of that, they did not need to carry as much ammo in addition to that other equipment in order to maintain firing superiority, because their opposition was carrying smaller amounts of it too.

        It was when your exact mindset was tested in Vietnam (M14 vs. AKM) that the need for carrying smaller ammo and more of it became apparent. Troops had an extremely hard time maintaining firing superiority…and firing superiority is VERY important.

        • bobk90

          WW2 Fire Teams had Browning’s BAR 12-20rd mags = 240 rds, the SMG, M1A1, Thompson 5-30rd = 150 rds and they were good weapons for suppressing fire. The M1 guys carried 128 rds. Mind you this is just basic combat load and like today the troops always carry more than TOE!

          • BeGe1

            BAR is the direct equivalent in the fireteam to the IAR today. Standard IAR loadout is 22 mags (660 rounds) compared to the BAR’s 240. Modern loadout almost 3x as much ammo.

            Standard load for normal infantry is 7 mags (210 rounds) compared to your quoted 128 for the M1. Modern loadout almost 2x as much ammo.

            Even your SMG standard loadouts are smaller than the rifleman loads of today.

            They were good for firing superiority at the time because they were being used against OTHER smaller loadout forces (often even bolt-action weapons with 2 digit loadouts in some cases).

            Firing superiority is an equation with TWO values. How much you can fire VS how much they can fire. You cannot simply say “this loadout worked then, so it works now”. Because the other side of the equation can change. The prevalence of intermediate rounds with high loadouts has changed it. Those with the intermediate rounds are more able to maintain firing superiority.

      • M.S.1

        “Soldiers of WW2 and Korea” were also allowd to napalm and flatten whole villages and cities at any sign of resistance. Think that’d be allowed these days?

        • Brett baker

          And if they couldn’t get support, they broke off the attack and waited for it to show up. Embarrassing, but true.

        • cwolf

          Historically inaccurate. Sorry.

      • cwolf

        There are really two aspects: weight and heat load. Most focus on the weight (up to 140 pounds in some cases), but the heat load is also important.

        wwwDOTslideshareDOTnet/James8981/orr-history-soldiers-load

        wwwDOTslideshareDOTnet/James8981/knapik-hx-load

        http://www.DOTslideshareDOTnet/James8981/historic-loadouts-soldiers-kit-from-1066-to-2014-soliders-load

    • ProudInfidel

      Really? And so all those VICTORIUS Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman of the 40s and 50s..they were ignorant rubes who knew nothing about small arms effects on the battlefield huh? By the way, those factors you described (accuracy, penetration, firepower) the 7.62 x 51mm far outperforms ANY 5.56mm round. Lightweight mags, stocks, new flash hiders/muzzle brakes dramatically change the equation. The 7.62mm round extends the max effective range, provides much better penetration and stopping power as well. Finally, with today’s advanced optics, the overall system compared to the M14s of the 60s, the combat load will be much lighter and more effective. By the way, as a Retired Army SF 180A, (18F, 18C and 18B) for almost 3 decades, having fired more than a few battle rifles, I’m all in with this. But, that’s why we all served and fought for this magnificent country, so we can disagree and still smile afterward.

      • XRGRSF

        Once again I am confronted by sarcasm, and rudeness, but that’s not particularly surprising. It seems to be a common response from the younger generation. Please stay on subject, and drop the dramatics. We are no longer fighting WW 2, and the soldiers of that era could only compare their battle rifles to bolt actions which the Germans, Japs, and Russians used to great effect. We could go on about the WW 2 era for ages, and never get to the subject of the replacement of the 5.56 X 45 cartridge with the 7.62 X 51.

        As a commander the things I’m concerned with are, as I stated, accuracy, penetration, and firepower. The M-16 / M4 platform has all three of these attributes, and most importantly it can sustain its firepower due to the superior quantity of the soldiers basic load of ammunition. A soldier can carry twice as much ammo for the M4 as he can for the 7.62 X 51. The M4/M16 system has excellent inherent accuracy, and most soldiers can be trained to fire it effectively due to the mild recoil.

        Why do we need to extend the range of the 5.56 X 45 when it will penetrate people to 800 plus meters? That’s what it’s designed to do, and it does it well. People don’t like to be shot, and they tend to lose interest in what they’re doing when they get shot. So called “stopping power” is not required in a battle rifle. People, especially when they are 100 meters or more down range, generally only need to be shot once, and they don’t need to be shot with an elephant gun.

        The basic load will not be lighter. The 7.62 X 51 rifle may be of similar weight, but the ammo is, round for round, over twice the weight. I want my troops putting as much effective fire as they can down range. I would much rather they have two rounds to fire rather than one. If I need throw weight that’s what I have my designated marksmen, and belt fed MG’s for.

        I enlisted in 66. I was an 11C, and an 11A in Special Forces from 68 to 75. After that I did Rhodesia 77 – 79. I finally retired as CDR of a mech inf. bn. in 95. I’ve pretty much shot it all, been shot at my all of it, and hit by some of it. I understand that I was before your time, but the rules to the game haven’t changed; just the playing field.

        My opinions relate to the commons soldier in light infantry units, and not to soldiers in special operations units. Spec. Ops. is a different animal, and should be treated as such.

        • BeGe1

          I like what you’re saying about hits at a distance.

          People bring up that at a distance 5.56 starts to lose stopping power. I’ve often tried to point out that at a distance…I don’t care. If I put a hole in them then at a few hundred yards away they’re not doing anything effective anymore against me anyway. I don’t care if it takes them 3 seconds or 30 minutes to die, that’s not my problem.

          • XRGRSF

            EXACTLY !!

        • Yup, at 400 meters, particularly against a hajji with an AK using his BIM – Basic Insh’Allah Marksmanship – I can afford to “icepick” them a couple of times if need be, and wait for them to punk out or bleed out before they close to THEIR effective range.

          At 100-200m, I’ll start worrying about “stopping”.

          • XRGRSF

            Rick, I absolutely agree. However, I’ve found the good news is that the 100 to 200 meter range is where the 5.56 X 45 is devastatingly effective. Once it’s out past 400 it’s pretty much just punching holes unless it hits bone.

          • cwolf

            Agree. Ph/Pk can be a complex formula. Clearly all the casualty data says dramatically more folks are wounded than killed.

            Setting inter-visibility range aside (which varies by terrain), we really have not improved shooter training much. The new 3 position qual is better.

            Range estimation (especially uphill/downhill) is very difficult. And bullet trajectories are pretty much rainbows at >500m.

            Where do we train shooting moving targets?

            Sights are relatively fragile and you really need to zero every day. Army ammo can vary 3-5 mils lot-to-lot (NSWC).

            There are some folks who believe that a 60-70-120 grain mostly FMJ bullet will instantly kill anybody hit anywhere on their body, usually knocking them back 5 feet and up into the air. Which is why we need ballistic targets that accurately depict weight and bullet effects.

            And, somehow, we need ways to demonstrate that full auto fire is wildly inaccurate. I have little hope for that.

            Human beings have a wide variety of tissues and voids. The really important bits are armored. Instant kills are in a few small spaces (brain & spine). Most kills are from bleeding out (which can take 5 minutes).

            So, my biggest hope for improved lethality (Ph/Pk) is not the caliber, but rather in far better training and smart sights (laser RF and auto aim point adjust).

            Cheers.

  • Kodi

    Nothing is going to happen anytime soon if past history of big Army small arms procurement are any indication. We could be 7-10 years away from any resolution to this solicitation, if it amounts to anything to begin with.

    • ProudInfidel

      You got that right! It’ll probably drop 5.56mm costs on civilian mkt and jump 7.62 x 51mm (.308 win) just so somebody can make big $$$

  • JoshuaK27

    It’s a case for an argument ,but there was really nothing substantial other than here say this , army is smarter , corps are stupid, commentary quotations. That’s all I saw in the article. I know the t44 had production problems for their prototypes , stuff like that happens with prototypes ,just like the first ar10 prototype that blew up in the hands of the tester. If you went to the beginning of what I said and what I’ve constantly reinforced since is that the m14 filled a niche in which people needed a tool for and did it well. The wooden stocks are to weak for the action, the sage stock removed all of that play locking the steel of the rifle to a rigid billiet frame . As far as breakage ,I really think it’s a toss up. They are machines after all .

  • Greg Kelemen

    One shot kills will be the norm, even if you get hit square in your plate, with a 308. you’re going down, the backface trauma and energy transfer of a round weighing x3 that of the 223. is why they’re doing this, it’s all about knockdown power even without armor penetration, I don’t know why this article overlooked this crucial detail.

    • Annnd… someone just failed high school physics…

    • Logic

      Bullet Momentum = felt Recoil minus propellant momentum

      = lower than the freaking tiny recoil on your shoulder!
      Newtons law…!
      A friend of me got shot with 7.62×39, didnt even noticed until back at camp seeing his slightly crumbling ceramic.

    • cwolf

      Yet casualty data says wounded are 5x killed. And most killed are from bleed-outs. One shot kills are relatively rare.

  • sonny

    OK for fortified positions(but machine guns and rockets are, too)……… but for humpin in the boonies………. every ounce has to be humped!

    • bobk90

      Take a look at How Many Countries today are using the FAL.

      • Hardly any that have well-regulated professional militaries.

  • squareWave

    I always thought, if anything, they would go to an entirely new caliber. Something in the 6.5mm class.

    How long before the complaints about small statured females and excessive recoil?

    • ProudInfidel

      This is the genius of the proposal! How many females want their shoulders, collar bones and soft tissue (boobs) damaged every time they go to the range with those Combat arms units they’re so hyped about joining?

    • bobk90

      I don’t understand WHY people claim the .308/7.62×51 has excessive recoil? I’m just 5’7″ and have no problem what so ever shooting this round all day long. In fact, I NEVER have a RED MARK on my shoulder and it is NEVER sore from shooting all day! Hell for that matter, I can shoot 20 rounds out of my 300 Win Mag Rifle and doesn’t bother me! I think the PROBLEM is folks are NOT using proper RIFLE Fundamentals and are just little girls!!!!

      • BeGe1

        To be honest, I’d really hate to be using 7.62 with the body armor we use. Rifle fundamentals are hard to do in most shooting positions with that crap on. Half the time the only thing that was keeping the rifle in my shoulder was the fact that the .223 hardly had any recoil. I’m honestly not sure how well it would go with a 7.62 NATO rifle and that same armor.

      • Maybe because they’re not worried about whether they have a bruise on their shoulder at the end of a 1 hour range session dialing in their deer rifle. Maybe they’re worried about “how fast can I make this gun go if I pull the trigger as fast as I can?” It’s pretty well established that 7.62mm is much slower than 5.56mm. One comparison test showed a 7.62mm SCAR had a 40% lower rate of fire than a normal AR-15, even with a muzzle brake.

  • I’m waiting for the flood of 5.56 rifles coming in as trades this weekend.
    Dude, the Army’s droppin’ it, dinja hear?

    • ProudInfidel

      Lmao..ain’t that the truth..

  • john

    This makes zero sense. Something must be missing from the equation here.

  • Sarge McVey

    The Army has in Storage in two different locations M14 Rifles that utilize the 7.62x51mm Round, (.308 Cal) so someone tell me what the hell this idiot carry over from Obama is doing.

    • If we WERE going to reissue 7.62x51mm rifles for line infantry service (and, actually, we don’t have enough M14s in storage), the M14 is WAAAAY down on the list of rifles I would select.

      It’s an update of a 1920’s design, further updated to add a box magazine and a gas system it works DESPITE, not BECAUSE, of… it was obsolete the day it was standardized.

      • Sarge McVey

        Actually the total number of the New Rifle that the Army is referring to would be 50,000 whereas there are close to 6.5 million M14’s in Storage, in St Louis and the Pokonoe Army Depot in NY which is in the Mountains, well actually buried in the Mountains. The Congress has not authorized the Army to get rid of them or to sell them to any other country. And yes I have been to both places and the weapons are safely stored and treated to prevent rust and or caroshion and they are in a humidity controlled storage facility.

  • 33Charlemagne

    This should not be surprising considering all the rounds developed to give the M16/M4 more effective terminal performance. Ultimately I think the military should have both a full powered “battle rifle” and a carbine firing an intermediate round like 5.56 or 762×39.

  • bobk90

    Breaking Fan-Boy ALERT: “write to families of the dead when ICSR-equipped units run dry of ammunition and are overrun by 5.45mm-armed foes.”
    Stop being a PUNTA since we would NOT run out of 7.62 AMMO!
    US Troops walked across EUROPE and the Mountains of Korea with the 7.62 just fine!!!!

    • Kivaari

      Against mostly bolt action rifles and SMGs.

    • BeGe1

      Not with the same loads they work with today. In fact, not even close.

      • bobk90

        You have NO IDEA what your talking about…. Look at rifle loads for the M1.

        • BeGe1

          Not cartridge loads, bud. Weight loads. Packs, armor, etc.

          I think I have an idea…cuz I’ve carried it. Our body armor alone weighs more than their entire carry load at the time.

        • Do you have any idea? Because the combat load of an infantryman in WWII was 5 en-bloc clips and 2 bandoliers, for a total load of 136 rounds. That was just over 4 kilograms of ammo.

          Today, the soldier carries 7 magazines of 5.56mm, plus a 200 round belt of ammunition for the M249 SAW. That’s over 6 kilos of ammo.

          So already the soldier is carrying 50% weight in ammunition today than he did in Europe during WWII.

    • “Punta” is Spanish for “end”. Do you mean “puta”?

      • bobk90

        Thanks!

    • They also didn’t have to carry a lot of other things, like body armor.

  • DetroitMan

    I’ll believe it when I see it. I still remember how every other program to replace the M16/M4 has ended.

    That said, it is interesting to speculate about this program. First, a 50,000 unit procurement seems too small to replace the primary service rifle. FN’s recent M4 contract was for 120,000 units, and those would be added to weapons already in inventory. Second, we all know the critical issues with the weight of our current combat load. So my first speculation is that this will be a dedicated DMR rifle, not a replacement for the M4 as the service rifle. It is my hope that we have finally seen the wisdom of maintaining some longer range rifle capability on the squad level by having one or two men carry a larger caliber weapon.

    My second speculation is that this could be paving the way for for a new round in the 6mm to 7mm range. The best rounds in this class will not work in the standard magazine length for 5.56mm NATO, but most will work in a 7.62mm NATO magazine length. Some will not, but the Army could specify a slightly longer magazine / action length to accommodate the future round.

  • jcitizen

    They better keep the M4 in inventory, because for urban use, it will have to come back.

    • bobk90

      Wasn’t allot of URBAN FIGHTING happening across the whole of Europe?

      • jcitizen

        OIF, nuff said.

  • cwolf

    As always, folks will argue calibers and guns. Hmmm, an 8 gauge punt gun!

    More interesting is where will 50,000 OTS full auto rifles go? Even assuming it’s an IDIQ (Indefinite Quantity)(which would still have limits), what would be the proposed BOIP (Basis of Issue Plan)? Pure fleet units? High-low mix? Which units? Or where (the modified M14 EBR are in-theater assets I believe)?

    The Army just doesn’t buy a weapon system and hand it out. They need manuals, tools, multiple training courses, etc. Then changes ripple throughout the system. Arms rooms, racks, vehicles, ranges, etc.

    600m? Iron peep sights? Sights likely TBD. Apparently according to previous articles some think a 1×6 scope is the hot ticket. Could be if it was a laser ranging and auto aim point adjust. 7.62 drops roughly 70-80″ at 600 yrs and 120+ at 700 yds.

    And, since it is “interim” and OTS, there are no new capabilities (e.g. powered rail, etc.).

    Hmmm, what will the suppressor requirement do to the requirement? Some guns have an adjustable gas system. But the OSS suppressor has little back pressure. Gets complicated fast.

    Cheers.

  • Jamie Clemons

    Nothing wrong with 7.62

  • Rollin L

    Now I have never served, and so have no experience in the sandboxes out there. This qualifies me as a non-expert. So here is my non-expert question. Given that I have heard many stories, and read articles, pointing out that the 5.56mm round often requires 3-5 hits to drop a targeted enemy soldier vs 1-2 shots for 7.62mm, is this not also part of the equation as well as how much weight and bulk in ammo our soldiers can be expected to carry? Maybe I am overstating this, and those who have served in combat duty over the last 15 years or so are certainly more qualified than I. But I would like to see this brought into the discussion by those with the experience. I remain unconvinced that just having more ammo per soldier is going to save lives versus the actual effect in numbers of enemy casualties.

    • crackedlenses

      From what I have read, more ammo means more shots fired, which for infantrymen translates into more hits. Reducing the ammo load would reduce shots fired, lowering the hit rate regardless of the round used.

    • There are two problems:

      1. Those “hits” estimates are essentially fiction, and even less relevant with the issuance of M855A1.

      2. The math doesn’t work out the way you think it does:

      “X. “Stowed kills”
      Ex. If it takes 3 hits to put down a Taliban Fighter, are you saving weight over a cartridge that takes one hit to do so? I think not.
      This is the way I have seen the term “stowed kills” used in small arms circles (it is used in a completely different way when talking about AFVs): the speaker describes (explicitly or implicitly) some sort of modifying coefficient to ammunition. e.g., it has been argued that 6.8 SPC is 3.5 times effective as 5.56, and weighs 40% more, therefore it is overall 2.5 times as efficient as 5.56.

      I argue that this is nonsense. The reason being that very few rounds fired from infantry rifles ever hit their intended targets. Most infantrymen who’ve seen combat have not shot directly at another person very many times at all. I would hazard a guess that the number of enemies hit by ammunition fired from rifles in combat per combat veteran rifleman is decidedly in the single digits, and may even be less than one (I’m being extremely generous here, given figures from past wars). The number of rounds expended per combat veteran rifleman, however is assuredly much higher, probably in the triple digits bare minimum.

      Let’s go with some ballpark figures. Say the average combat veteran rifleman expends 5,000 rounds of ammunition over his combined tours of duty, and hits and at least wounds 2 enemies in that time. That means, if he was using a 5.56mm rifle, he would have expended 60 kilograms worth of ammunition, only a few tens of grams of which had any physical affect on the target at all. Nearly 5,000 rounds he expended, minus the ones fired that hit their targets, produced exactly zero kills. Only a handful of cartridges were directly responsible for taking the enemy out of action, so even if a more poorly-performing caliber is used which requires a soldier to fire many more rounds to incapacitate a target, that fraction of the total rounds expended over that soldier’s tours in terms of weight is still very small. This will be true regardless of whether the cartridge is 5.56mm, 7.62mm, or anything else. Therefore, “stowed kills” as it is typically used in the context of infantry rifles, is not a useful metric.”

  • jcitizen

    Just get Knight’s Armament on the stick, and get us an AR-10 derivative in carbine form. For something that light shooting 7.62x51mm, you want that long bolt travel to reduce recoil (and a good recoil suppressor on the muzzle.

    There is nothing out there as modular and ductile as the AR platform. ( or as accurate either)

  • ONTIME

    I could work with a well made M 14 and a modified round for penetration…….

    • maodeedee

      An M4 with a modified round like a 6.5 Grendel with a 120 grain projectile would work great not only for grete penetration, but longer range.

  • frankspeak

    why not just admit the obvious…the M-4 is totally unsuited for open-country fighting in places like afghanistan…the army has known this for a while now but appears reluctant to admit it…

  • Al Bee

    Will some other branch of service please take over. I’m pretty sure they’re gonna F-up again like they did with the MHS program.

  • jcitizen

    Tactics and technical proficiency. Things they teach you in officer’s school. but the battle field teachers you better.

  • Steven Kaspar

    This is why the military budget should have been cut the idiots we have running our armed forces just love spending the tax payers money on junk we don’t need and are moving backwards instead of forward!

  • Silence Dogood

    Is it possible that the real reason for this change is combat against armed robots like Russia and many other countries are developing now?

    • Tamara Keel

      You don’t want to lose Overmatch against Future Threats.

  • Yes, and guns still ran dry because soldiers were cut off from their supplies, so what does that tell you?

  • So the rifleman’s AML in WWII was 82 pounds.

    Today it’s 117.

    And you feel it’s *fine* to add 15 pounds to his load by switching out the M4 for a 7.62mm rifle?

    Okeedokee.

  • Enjoy getting into the prone with a 30 round 7.62x51mm magazine…

  • That don’t add up to 121.94 pounds, it adds up to just over 72 pounds… Which is the recommend AML weight.

    You added up all of the equipment AND their totals. So, uh, yeah, you shouldn’t do that.

  • But hey, thanks for doing all the work for me.

  • John Gregory

    What a joke… 6.5 Grendel. Long range capability of 7.62, with just bolt, barrel and followers in magazines changed out in the current inventory of M4’s. Duh. Makes more sense than throwing away what we already own. Although I would suggest a 16″ barrel.

    And I’m a 7.62 guy. Never shot the Grendel, but the body of evidence as to it’s effective
    range and accuracy cannot be ignored.

    • XRGRSF

      I’d really like to see something like the 22. Nosler necked up to .257. Then we cold keep everything on the M4/M16 platform but the barrel.

      • John Gregory

        Still, that requires the development of a whole new cartridge… The Grendel is a proven performer.

  • frankspeak

    they’re doing that now..embedding sniper teams all the way down to the squad level..but it’s still not enough..

  • Wow!

    I’m guessing they aren’t replacing the M4 as a whole, as much as they are just augmenting the current workhorse with more 30 caliber options, and taking the opportunity as some old rifles are being retired. Which makes sense to me.

    • They are replacing the rifles in deployed units.

      • Tamara Keel

        They are *intended to*. Nobody’s replacing nothing, now.

  • Dan

    I believe that thy are looking at the colt SA revolver in 45LC.. better keep up with the times

  • Brett baker

    FACTS HAVE NO RELEVANCY TO TRUTH. Love your books by the way.

  • iksnilol

    I dunno, .30 carbine is stronger than .357. And nobody complains about .357 being weak.

  • Herbie

    Great news. 5.56 is a nice round for groundhogs, not jihadists.

  • Phillip Cooper

    RFP: “A request for proposal (RFP) is a document that solicits proposal, often made through a bidding process, by an agency or company interested in procurement of a commodity, service, or valuable asset, to potential suppliers to submit business proposals.”

    I’ve worked around the government for nearly 30 years. I’ve seen PLENTY of RFPs end up going nowhere.

    Basically an RFP is a heads-up to industry partners (and wannabe partners) to submit bids to produce an item. It *in no way* is a contract for purchase, or even a promise of a contract to be awarded.

    I’t s very much a way to see what is out there in terms of economic viability and supply chain, and is indeed part of the process of getting the items in hand. But it’s not anything like the final action to get an item delivered.

  • jcitizen

    All i know is I stopped several wild dog attacks running straight at me with an M1 carbine pistol! Some of these dogs weighed more than a hundred pounds, and were coming full speed! By the time I’d get the 1st round in the chamber and get it off safety, the dog would only be 15 feet away, and it would literally make them flip backward and kill them before they hit the ground. The only rifle I had that did as well, was a Valmet M62. Even shotguns didn’t do as well, even with buck shot!

  • jcitizen

    Especially doing the Austrian crawl down a cliff face!

  • Zebra Dun

    Hmmm a bullet that travels faster than a .357 magnum is pathetic?

  • Zebra Dun

    We were young and strong but yes it was a heavy rifle and long as a browning upland bird shotgun.

    • Handsome Jack

      I wonder how much the ammo weighted. 100 rds of fun ammo was 7 1/2 pounds. Even an M79 with a demo bag of rounds seemed lighter.

  • Tamara Keel

    I vote for a bullpup version of the M14, but converted to .300BO.

    • Tamara Keel

      Wait! Telescoping caseless .300BO in an M14 bullpup. With a high-ROF burst setting.

  • We’re going about this all wrong, if we have to go back 45 years lets go with 4.85×49mm in a nice handy bullpup.

  • Chris Welch

    Umm, piston guns keep the heat up front. The M-16 was known to heat up the receiver to the point where cooking off rounds was a problem. That’s the downside of gas impingement. I have an AR-15, it craps where it eats. That was documented to have shut M4’s down at Wanat. Sorry you didn’t get that.

  • jack daugherty

    Ha!ha! Now we can shoot ragheads through block walls!

  • HoodooTexas

    Weapon procurements are not based on sensationalist predictions of doom and gloom in rare situations. They are based on doing the most good for the most soldiers in assisting them in obtaining their tactical objectives under the doctrine of acceptable casualties. It is accepted that situations might occur that could adversely effect small numbers of soldiers in unusual situations.
    Then again, to be fair to the naysayers, the Military-Industrial complex always needs feeding so you never quite know what is legit and what isn’t.

  • jack daugherty

    Ha! Ha! now we can shoot ragheads through block walls!

  • Chris Welch

    The same Army that still uses the M-14 as a DMR rifle. The only mythical fault that stuck with the M-16 that I didn’t talk about was “unreliability”, so please don’t misquote me. The AR is reliable, but it is not as robust as the M-14. No way, no how. Charging handles break under hard use. Break the stock and the weapon is done. The M-14 is more rugged period. A gas piston is better, cooler and cleaner than DI IMO.

  • LilWolfy

    BREAKING: Army ditches Kevlar ballistic helmets and goes back to M1 steel pot.

  • cageordie

    The Interim Combat Service Rifle was on the back of the recently improved 5.56 ammunition’s continued inability to penetrate hard combat armor. So they did give a reason.

  • Chris Welch

    LOL, the Army is not keeping the M-16. I guess you didn’t get the memo. Furthermore, they are not staying with the DI action because they have finally admitted it isn’t ideal and have done studies that indicate there are better actions. Otherwise, you know what? They would use the action again. The AK12 still uses the same basic action over half a century later. How many rifles have copied that action btw, FN, Valmet, IMI, Beretta, Hk, etc. etc.? How many nations have copied the DI action in their service rifles, that is non M-16’s? There it is, simple, logical, final. You can talk all the eclectic, theorectical crap you want, but at the end of the day, that’s how it is. Grow up.

  • Wesley Hartle

    What about an ar 10 in .276 pedersen. It was almost adopted in ’36. And it was well reported in field trials for the pederson and garand rifles.