View Full Version : The "Interim Combat Service Rifle"
"Interim" presumably meaning this is a gap-filler until something better comes along?:
Desired Attributes of Interim Combat Service Rifle:
• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.
• Caliber: 7.62x51mm
• Available barrel lengths, to include 16 and 20 inch barrels, without muzzle device attached.
• Muzzle device capable of or adaptable to auxiliary devices for:
** -- Compensation of muzzle climb
** -- Flash suppression
** -- Sound Suppression
• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.
• All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users
• Capable of mounting a 1.25 inch wide military sling
• Capable of accepting or mounting the following accessories.
** -- Forward grip/bi-pod for the weapon
** -- variable power optic
• Detachable magazine with a minimum capacity of 20 rounds
• Folding or collapsing buttstock adjustable to change the overall length of the weapon
• Foldable backup iron sights calibrated/adjustable to a maximum of 600 meters range
• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic
• Extended Forward Rail
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b9307a94cc133202b117677113fe8e8f&tab=core&_cview=1
Don't they currently have something in that already with the FN SCAR 17?
NYH1.
Hell the M14 only weighs 10.7 with loaded magazine. With an improved stock probably less.
Time for Winchester, H&R and TRW to bring their old M14 production lines out of mothballs.
Back to the future!
This may turn out to be just another paperwork exercise, but it is interesting that they seem to be holding on to the old "tried and true" 7.62mm NATO, and not trying something new.
Beretta has a new(ish) 7.62mm rifle:
http://www.berettadefensetechnologies.com/assault-rifles/arx-200-assault-rifle
Sounds like they want an AR-10. It would be nice to have one that meets a Mil-spec standard for a general issue rifle.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
How does the LMT MWS fit into something like this? Aren't the Brits using them?
I was thinking, they already use KAC 308 rifles.
Is this from 1980? Is HK lobbying politicians to sell G3s?
Moose-Knuckle
06-04-17, 04:33
Guess it's high time to bring out those T48's from the time capsules and modernize them . . .
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Quantico08101.jpg
http://www.recoilweb.com/recoil-exclusive-sig-sauer-csass-the-mcx-mr-65405.html
Sig Sauer CSASS submission.
This goes hand-in-hand with the article being discussed in the Terminal Ballistics forum on here. Instead of adopting the better 5.56mm loads now available out there some think-tank type people are stepping backwards in time with their ideas. Firefights at 600, 700, 800 meters are going to be the domain of crew-served GPMG's and indirect. Just seeing a target at that range is difficult enough. The enemy may be lobbing in AK rounds but they are doing just that---lobbing them in. Those distances are a battle between PKM's and M240's, with a little 60mm indirect thrown in for good measure, maybe a Gustav too.
Going to a platform with a 1950's era cartridge as a general issue weapon is not wise. Of course this is going nowhere fast so it may be a moot point.
Looks like a long-term SAW replacement is also being considered:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f53689202076acc298ae9ddb9cd849fc&tab=core&_cview=0
Another effort that will probably spend lots of money and time with no tangible results?
hotrodder636
06-04-17, 10:53
Items that come to mind are KAC Sr-25 series, LMT MWS and FN SCAR. All COTS and 7.62.
As said above this may just be all for naught so it seems.
I wonder if this is supposed to end with the squad designated Marksman or equivalent being issued a 6.5 caliber rifle.
MountainRaven
06-04-17, 14:59
Doesn't matter what rifle they're issuing if Joe can't shoot well even to just 300 meters, never mind 500+.
Doesn't matter what rifle they're issuing if Joe can't shoot well even to just 300 meters, never mind 500+.
Hardware solution to a software problem. There is a discussion in the terminal ballistics forum about "size matters" that is related. There are some good points and a link to a primary and secondary video that, while dry, has some good points.
Argentina just adopted Beretta's ARX-200 (7.62x51mm) to replace it's well-worn FALs and Turkey is now accepting into service it's home-grown MPT-76 rifle in the same caliber to replace it's old G3's. Probably not first-line players on the world firearms stage, but it goes to show that some countries have no issue with the larger round. It was reported (rightly or wrongly) that Turkish troops were unimpressed with the 5.56mm round after decades of the G3. Could be just a case of being comfortable with the older round, I suppose.
How does the LMT MWS fit into something like this? Aren't the Brits using them?
The Kiwis use them as well.
This goes hand-in-hand with the article being discussed in the Terminal Ballistics forum on here. Instead of adopting the better 5.56mm loads now available out there some think-tank type people are stepping backwards in time with their ideas. Firefights at 600, 700, 800 meters are going to be the domain of crew-served GPMG's and indirect. Just seeing a target at that range is difficult enough. The enemy may be lobbing in AK rounds but they are doing just that---lobbing them in. Those distances are a battle between PKM's and M240's, with a little 60mm indirect thrown in for good measure, maybe a Gustav too.
Going to a platform with a 1950's era cartridge as a general issue weapon is not wise. Of course this is going nowhere fast so it may be a moot point.
In all fairness, isn't the 5.56 a 1960s era cartridge? (Edited for correct terminology)
Before people talk about the advances in 5.56 ammo making it better (with which I agree), those options apply to 7.62 too (OTM rounds and bonded rounds)
So, go with light and effective. Stick with 5.56 and use a better bullet.
After looking at the OP's link again, it looks like as I understand it anyways, that they only want 10,000 of these Interim Combat Service Rifles. If that is the case. Who exactly will these rifles be for?
SOCOM already has contracts with FN & HK for the SCAR 17 and HK417 among others. Wouldn't it make sense to buy more of these in the meantime and be done with it?
NYH1.
In all fairness, isn't the 5.56 a 1960s era cartridge? (Edited for correct terminology)
Before people talk about the advances in 5.56 ammo making it better (with which I agree), those options apply to 7.62 too (OTM rounds and bonded rounds)
So, go with light and effective. Stick with 5.56 and use a better bullet.
That's what I was advocating. One thing that has NOT changed with 7.62 is weight per round and recoil, the latter not being an issue at longer ranges ('cause the follow-up shot times are not as critical as at CQB yardage) but the former will still suck humping those distances!
With today's tighter budgets and the military's propensity to drag things out, issuing better 5.56mm ammo is the more efficient, timely, and least costly alternative to a whole new caliber or a whole new weapon system.
I agree with whoever said use good bullets, good handguards, and improve the trigger.
I'll add: Change the grip and fill the trigger guard gap that shreds fingers. (the A2 grip stinks in about 5 ways)
Use some type of gas piston design to keep lube in the receiver and carbon out. (this is being done) Yes, even at the cost of a little added weight and reduced accuracy.
Of course every squad needs a couple guys with something in 7.62 nato.
How far are we from using a Barnes TSX-style bullet across the board? That bullet breathes new life into the 5.56.
At the end of the day, 7.62 is heavy and as dated as 5.56. If there is a switch to be made, let it not be back to the 1950s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
vicious_cb
06-18-17, 18:46
Since the army is actually moving forward with this, more reasons why this is retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh1gNW4yeI
Cagemonkey
06-18-17, 19:13
This all goes back to the 50's and the adoption of the M14 Rifle. After WW2 the consensus among combat statistics and small arms experts was that a true Intermediate Cartridge needed to be paired to a future Combat Rifle. The British proposed a BullPup rifle and this cartridge; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British The US wouldn't except anything less than .30 Caliber on par with the 30-06. Winchester developed the .308. 5.56mm was too far of a step. The solution has always been between 6.5 to 7 mm.
BoringGuy45
06-18-17, 21:28
The issue with the military, especially when it comes to small arms, seems to always be whether or not a new technology will be a big enough improvement to justify disrupting current supplies. Take the 6.8x43; is it, generally speaking, a more effective round than the 5.56? Most tests prove that it is. But is the 5.56 deficient to a point that we need a new round and need it now? Will the 6.8 make our soldiers that much more effective that it's worth the heavier weight, plus buying new magazines, bolts, and barrels? Do we have anything other than anecdotal stories proving that lives, or even battles, were lost due the ineffectiveness of our 5.56 rounds vs the 7.62x39, .308, 5.45 of our enemies? If the answer is no, then until a true intermediate "universal" round is found, I'd imagine it'll remain the status quo for awhile.
Since the army is actually moving forward with this, more reasons why this is retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh1gNW4yeI
Great episode.
Excellent info.
Everyone should watch.
Official Kremlin Transmission
From what Im hearing from my friends in Afghanistan over the last couple years, the new M855A1 is working pretty well on Taliban/ISIS.
I worked with a guy that was in one of the SOCOM units that used the 6.8. He wasn't all that impressed with it. He said it worked but they saw no improvement over 5.56.
Great episode.
Excellent info.
Everyone should watch.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Yeah that P&S modcast was very solid. They start droning off in the last hour or so, but some really good shit in there. The short version that answers at least one question here, apparently they're really just going to be put into the system as insurance. If we do square up with the ruskies or someone else with armor, they'll equip a few BCTs going in first. So pretty much, everyone will keep the M4s until its go time, then they'll get issued a brand new weapon that most won't know shit about. Brilliant.
Nice to know our military wants to relearn the lessons of WW2 again on the taxpayer dime.
I've done lots of training and recreational shooting with army dudes that can't hit the broad side of a barn with M4s or handguns. A new rifle that is more difficult to shoot isn't going to fix the issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.