View Full Version : Army Interim Combat Service Rifle RFP releases.
sinlessorrow
08-05-17, 17:20
Beginning order will be 50,000 rifles given to front line rapid deploying units, replacing the M4.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/05/breaking-7-62mm-rifle-replace-m4-carbine-interim-combat-service-rifle-solicitation-released-us-army/
Has the good idea fairy struck again?
Dosen't sound like it to me....
The M4 will be replaced with the piston-driven HK product. That is all.
The idea that it will replaced with a 7.62 NATO weapon is so laughable it doesn't even deserve a response. Oops.
Although I have not seen it, the POF Revolution seems to fit the bill for a direct size replacement for the M4 in 7.62x51. One would think that the replacement for the M4 should not be pigeon holed to the 7.62x51 make it an open competition for all the Calibers that fit in-between the 5.56 and 7.62.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/25/how-much-does-cartridge-matter/
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/10/14/rifle-calibers-what-the-pros-use/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/31/modern-intermediate-calibers-021-us-army-marksmanship-units-264-usa/
Although I have not seen it, the POF Revolution seems to fit the bill for a direct size replacement for the M4 in 7.62x51. One would think that the replacement for the M4 should not be pigeon holed to the 7.62x51 make it an open competition for all the Calibers that fit in-between the 5.56 and 7.62.
Not ever... POF makes guns for magazine covers and the Gunsite Academy crowd. For phuck sakes, if caliber is the issue, lets just form and equip the 1st Charlie Gutsache Division. Nothing says overwhelming firepower like 10, 000 men with 84 mm man-portable multi-role recoilless rifles. The Army's caliber crap is so tiresome. Enemy body armor isn't the problem, a stomach for solving the problem is.
If the ADVAP round technology can be applied to 5.56 as well as 7.62, why the hell go in this direction? While I am not opposed to exploring new calibers for the future combat rifle/carbine, 7.62 ain't the answer. Welcome to the 1960's.....
IMHO improved 5.56 is the way to go for now to address logistical, cost, and expediency purposes.
hotrodder636
08-06-17, 09:27
I am surprised they are not thinking along the lines of a WSM cartridge.
Averageman
08-06-17, 11:28
Interim,...?
So does that mean we don't have the complete answer, but we are going to take a swing at it anyway?
I keep thinking this is a problem that might be better addressed by keeping the M4 and working on advancing the ammunition instead of a new carbine.
BrigandTwoFour
08-06-17, 12:44
Interim,...?
So does that mean we don't have the complete answer, but we are going to take a swing at it anyway?
I keep thinking this is a problem that might be better addressed by keeping the M4 and working on advancing the ammunition instead of a new carbine.
The problem with "Interim" is that it usually ends up becoming permanent. If I recall, the M-16 was supposed to be an "Interim" solution on the way to the SPIW program coming to fruition.
I'm not an infantry guy, but there's a whole lot about this that doesn't make sense. What problem are they trying to solve? If it's a body armor problem, isn't the EPR supposed to do that?
If the problem is being outranged by PKMs, shouldn't we be considering more 240's?
A combat load of 210 rounds? Of 7.62? Yeah, that weight increase is going to go over well.
Perhaps this is a step along the way to fielding a 6mm class cartridge (.260 Rem?) for both individual weapons and support weapons.
Maybe those in the buildings with no windows know something about the possible pivot to the Pacific theater that the rest of us don't, and they need a solution real friggin quick.
Maybe it's just some general or colonel looking to move up the ladder by pushing some new program, through. Who knows?
In all honesty, it will probably end up like the last few efforts to replace the M4.
BrigandTwoFour
08-06-17, 13:11
Of note, Lt. Col Dave Lutz (who was responsible for the M16A2) posted this comment on SSD's Facebook page
...can't, CAN'T, adequately design a weapon for a new round that yet exists...if the Army can't supply 1,000's of rounds to each qualified vendor, you are just wasting everyone elses time while Soldiers wait patiently...
The problem with "Interim" is that it usually ends up becoming permanent. If I recall, the M-16 was supposed to be an "Interim" solution on the way to the SPIW program coming to fruition.
I'm not an infantry guy, but there's a whole lot about this that doesn't make sense. What problem are they trying to solve? If it's a body armor problem, isn't the EPR supposed to do that?
If the problem is being outranged by PKMs, shouldn't we be considering more 240's?
A combat load of 210 rounds? Of 7.62? Yeah, that weight increase is going to go over well.
Perhaps this is a step along the way to fielding a 6mm class cartridge (.260 Rem?) for both individual weapons and support weapons.
Maybe those in the buildings with no windows know something about the possible pivot to the Pacific theater that the rest of us don't, and they need a solution real friggin quick.
Maybe it's just some general or colonel looking to move up the ladder by pushing some new program, through. Who knows?
In all honesty, it will probably end up like the last few efforts to replace the M4.
I would think that the push for 7.62 (range-wise at least) is focused on The Sandbox, i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. If there was a pivot to the Pacific that is where the body armor concern would likely imply China specifically. Of course any near-peer (to include the Rooskies) could be expected to be sporting body armor of some sort.
Doesn't M995, the elusive "Black Tip", penetrate body armor? That would seem to be your answer to that concern for 5.56mm.
BrigandTwoFour
08-06-17, 15:24
I would think that the push for 7.62 (range-wise at least) is focused on The Sandbox, i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. If there was a pivot to the Pacific that is where the body armor concern would likely imply China specifically. Of course any near-peer (to include the Rooskies) could be expected to be sporting body armor of some sort.
Doesn't M995, the elusive "Black Tip", penetrate body armor? That would seem to be your answer to that concern for 5.56mm.
That was my initial thought, too. There's been far too much written about the issues with being outranged by PKMs in the 'Stan for there not to be some kind of response. I guess it just took a while for the officers who had been there and done that to get to positions of influence. From a planning/logistics standpoint, though...does it make sense to try and force a new service rifle that would have been useful for Afghanistan right when it looks like we may just walk away from the country?
If we do find ourselves pivoting to the Pacific, are we going to learn lessons from Korea/Nam all over again about weapons that are too heavy and designed for ranges far longer than typically engaged in?
Coal Dragger
08-06-17, 15:58
Not that my observation is a new one, but maybe the answer is a modular rifle/carbine that can easily be converted from 5.55 to a larger round in the .308 family. A chassis that allowed say a swap of bolt head, barrel, and magazine well. As long as weight could be kept reasonable that might be a decent solution. Then the mission can dictate what caliber or mix of caliber is used.
Of course this would be hugely expensive, take forever given our DoD contract process, and only really address a small fraction of situations where 5.56 simply won't do.
There's a lot of background noise going on, just look at the CSASS selection and some user group selections. With a possible addition of something like this to the mix, I do not expect less than more of that.
Not that my observation is a new one, but maybe the answer is a modular rifle/carbine that can easily be converted from 5.55 to a larger round in the .308 family. A chassis that allowed say a swap of bolt head, barrel, and magazine well. As long as weight could be kept reasonable that might be a decent solution. Then the mission can dictate what caliber or mix of caliber is used.
The Mk17 does this.
Seems like a new crop of former Generals with ambitions of a corporate nature, queueing up with their sponsors product ambitions.
While we fight the last war, with the last war's weapons, the grunts carry heavy things up hills day in and day out.
They are a beast of burden, over tasked, under appreciated, unknown but to their families and brothers in arms, invisible to America.
You can't buy will, and when the tables turn as they always do, the will we will need more than anything will have been exhausted
by our never ending imperialist ambitions.
There does seem to be a base problem with PK type and PKM's that out reach past our M240's, among a few other things. We don't have the base that supersedes them range, or in any capacity/quantity or a non high capacity precision that meets this for use the same that applies that towards us for one for aa offense role at least.
Sure, some will mention things like .338 Lapua, but they are are a limited few compared to what we face.
That was my initial thought, too. There's been far too much written about the issues with being outranged by PKMs in the 'Stan for there not to be some kind of response. I guess it just took a while for the officers who had been there and done that to get to positions of influence. From a planning/logistics standpoint, though...does it make sense to try and force a new service rifle that would have been useful for Afghanistan right when it looks like we may just walk away from the country?
If we do find ourselves pivoting to the Pacific, are we going to learn lessons from Korea/Nam all over again about weapons that are too heavy and designed for ranges far longer than typically engaged in?
Okay, it's been a while since I've been a grunt (ETS'd 30 years ago) but I'll wager that the Taliban have a similar distribution of weapons like we do, i.e. not everyone is toting a PKM. One for every X amount of troops just like we do with our GPMG's. So why are we "outgunned" by the PKM? Our 240's have basically the same range, and every platoon will have a couple. Is our goal with this 7.62 push to allow every grunt we have to be able to duel with a PKM from a distant hillside? This is a rhetorical question, not aimed at you BrigandTwoFour.
Every time I hear this "mismatch" crap it makes me wonder exactly what those espousing it are driving at. Hell, a Muj with an AK isn't going to fare any better shooting it out with an M240 at 700 meters than a GI would engaging a PKM with his M4. In fact, I'd submit that with M855A1 and an ACOG at least the GI could possibly make the bad guy duck with area fire (which is what it would essentially be at that distance), more so than the other guy with an AK plinking at a 240 .
To harken back to when the average American grunt carried the same caliber as his GPMG you'd need to look 50+ years ago with the M14 and M60. I just don't see the need.
Averageman
08-06-17, 18:12
Historically we've done this to ourselves so many times I cannot believe we are about to do it again. We learn nothing from the history of others, or even our own recent history.
Designs being brought to the drawing board for T&E take so long and are usually fraught with dangerous, but the best of intentions. By the time they unscrew this we will likely be in it knee deep and with an unproven battle rifle/carbine again.
This is an all volunteer Military this time, that might make a remarkable difference when they screw this one up.
They are looking for a 7.62x51 carbine. With all the weight our guys carry Id think a 7.62x35 would save them several pounds. Still interested in seeing what comes out of this.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170806/ade9ff1b392238abd18524ba9570866e.jpg
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I just don't think they can ever replace 556 with 7.62. Too many compromises and 556 does so much so well. I'd love to see them replace their current 7.62 guns with a modern 7.62 AR10 type gun.
PB
I just don't think they can ever replace 556 with 7.62. Too many compromises and 556 does so much so well. I'd love to see them replace their current 7.62 guns with a modern 7.62 AR10 type gun.
PB
So true AR10 platform, or Scar? So much weight either way.
I don't think 50,000 rifles is going to replace all the 5.56 rifles. These were supposed to be supplemental DMRs.
Beginning order will be 50,000 rifles given to front line rapid deploying units, replacing the M4.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/05/breaking-7-62mm-rifle-replace-m4-carbine-interim-combat-service-rifle-solicitation-released-us-army/
Has the good idea fairy struck again?
So how much money do they blow before they come to the realization that a intermediate cartridge closer to the 5.56 is needed? Or that something that works so perfectly in Iraq might not the solution in Afghanistan?...
BrigandTwoFour
08-06-17, 20:54
Okay, it's been a while since I've been a grunt (ETS'd 30 years ago) but I'll wager that the Taliban have a similar distribution of weapons like we do, i.e. not everyone is toting a PKM. One for every X amount of troops just like we do with our GPMG's. So why are we "outgunned" by the PKM? Our 240's have basically the same range, and every platoon will have a couple. Is our goal with this 7.62 push to allow every grunt we have to be able to duel with a PKM from a distant hillside? This is a rhetorical question, not aimed at you BrigandTwoFour.
Every time I hear this "mismatch" crap it makes me wonder exactly what those espousing it are driving at. Hell, a Muj with an AK isn't going to fare any better shooting it out with an M240 at 700 meters than a GI would engaging a PKM with his M4. In fact, I'd submit that with M855A1 and an ACOG at least the GI could possibly make the bad guy duck with area fire (which is what it would essentially be at that distance), more so than the other guy with an AK plinking at a 240 .
To harken back to when the average American grunt carried the same caliber as his GPMG you'd need to look 50+ years ago with the M14 and M60. I just don't see the need.
I think you and I are on the same page. I was referring to a few things in particular:
1. The paper by Maj Thomas Ehrhart about Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer (https://www.defensetech.org/2010/03/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer/) that made is rounds a while back.
2. The work of Jim Schatz, which really got noticed during his 2015 NDIA presentation (https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2015/smallarms/17354_Schatz.pdf), which has continued to be built upon (https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2017/armament/Zhou19394.pdf) and is the likely source of what we are seeing now.
MountainRaven
08-06-17, 21:46
They could issue everybody 338s and it wouldn't make a difference because the soldiers they're issuing them to still can't shoot straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUha3UAZMM4
MountainRaven
08-06-17, 21:59
Also on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh1gNW4yeI
mkmckinley
08-06-17, 22:12
They could issue everybody 338s and it wouldn't make a difference because the soldiers they're issuing them to still can't shoot straight.
Not to mention, wasn't increasing hit probability for minimally-trained soldiers one of the "selling points" of 5.56 in the first place?
Sadly this is too true. There are, and yes only a few, soldiers who struggle just to qual with their M4's. It is worse with the 240's and 249's. The Army should allow us to shoot MORE, instead of changing the round.
They could issue everybody 338s and it wouldn't make a difference because the soldiers they're issuing them to still can't shoot straight.
What was all that time and money spent on the SCAR-L and -H worth exactly?
Wasn't that supposed to solve this problem back in 2004?
SomeOtherGuy
08-07-17, 10:23
There does seem to be a base problem with PK type and PKM's that out reach past our M240's, among a few other things. We don't have the base that supersedes them range, or in any capacity/quantity or a non high capacity precision that meets this for use the same that applies that towards us for one for aa offense role at least.
Sure, some will mention things like .338 Lapua, but they are are a limited few compared to what we face.
If long range is an issue, why are the GPMGs still shooting a 150gr FMJ with a .400 (G1) BC? There are literally dozens of .308 diameter bullets with much higher ballistic coefficients, and there is a military legal opinion that open tip match is permissible for warfare, not in violation of the Hague Convention. The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored targets.
I don't know of any COTS option for >1000 yards effective range on armored targets, but it would seem possible to take the high-BC shapes of OTM bullets and adapt one for a steel or tungsten core bullet.
vicious_cb
08-07-17, 13:34
If long range is an issue, why are the GPMGs still shooting a 150gr FMJ with a .400 (G1) BC? There are literally dozens of .308 diameter bullets with much higher ballistic coefficients, and there is a military legal opinion that open tip match is permissible for warfare, not in violation of the Hague Convention. The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored targets.
I don't know of any COTS option for >1000 yards effective range on armored targets, but it would seem possible to take the high-BC shapes of OTM bullets and adapt one for a steel or tungsten core bullet.
Read the requirement and Gen. Milleys statements. It about putting holes in uber armor at CQB ranges...
That's overly basic. From all the noise I've heard, the interim concept was intended to eventually lead to more than just armor penetration. Extending effective range has always been in the noise among a few other things. If putting holes in some newer armor close up was the only issue, then we already know that there isn't a "need" for change to a different platform.
I do question some of the requirements though, but I see it more of a wish list. If they try to follow this like the CSASS, I wouldn't be surprised when they run into issues.
Coal Dragger
08-07-17, 17:27
Here's an even better idea:
Take all the money they propose to spend on 50,000 new rifles, and instead put Geissele SSF triggers, and free floating Geissele rails on all the M4's issued to combat arms units. Then take the left over money, and give those units more funds to actually get their boys out to shoot. Between improving mechanical accuracy potential, improving shootability, and improving shooter skill I'll bet the results would be pretty positive.
There's more than something to say about that. When we decided to not pursue us as being the highest lethal force, we ended up changing course, slowly at first, then taking tangents and worse. I really think that we should redirect our ideas more towards going back to the concept of being the highest lethal force, without being PC and requiring sizable projects into unknowns that possibly divert us from that without a proof of concept in some way. There's a lot of things we could mention about that
BrigandTwoFour
08-07-17, 18:36
Here's an even better idea:
Take all the money they propose to spend on 50,000 new rifles, and instead put Geissele SSF triggers, and free floating Geissele rails on all the M4's issued to combat arms units. Then take the left over money, and give those units more funds to actually get their boys out to shoot. Between improving mechanical accuracy potential, improving shootability, and improving shooter skill I'll bet the results would be pretty positive.
If my recent experience is any indicator, it's not lack of funds that keeps people from getting out to shoot. It's a lack of time due to other stupid priorities.
vicious_cb
08-07-17, 18:42
That's overly basic. From all the noise I've heard, the interim concept was intended to eventually lead to more than just armor penetration. Extending effective range has always been in the noise among a few other things. If putting holes in some newer armor close up was the only issue, then we already know that there isn't a "need" for change to a different platform.
I do question some of the requirements though, but I see it more of a wish list. If they try to follow this like the CSASS, I wouldn't be surprised when they run into issues.
You're not wrong, Im sure the word "overmatch" was thrown around quite a bit in those briefings. Combine that with some new threat armor that fell of the back off a truck somewhere why wouldnt that sell to the DoD?
There's more than something to say about that. When we decided to not pursue us as being the highest lethal force, we ended up changing course, slowly at first, then taking tangents and worse. I really think that we should redirect our ideas more towards going back to the concept of being the highest lethal force, without being PC and requiring sizable projects into unknowns that possibly divert us from that without a proof of concept in some way. There's a lot of things we could mention about that
Fortunately for us rifles dont win wars so we have some leeway in screwups like this.
Coal Dragger
08-07-17, 19:19
If my recent experience is any indicator, it's not lack of funds that keeps people from getting out to shoot. It's a lack of time due to other stupid priorities.
You're spot on about that too.
sinlessorrow
08-07-17, 20:04
Fortunately for us rifles dont win wars so we have some leeway in screwups like this.
It can however get a lot of people killed though.
Imagine a Wanat or Keating, tet offensive, ect where your only gun is a 7.62 battle rifle.
I imagine going black on 7.62 would be a very major concern.
But hey, what's a bunch of soldiers lives anyways? Generals gotta make a name for himself in the history books.
FlyingHunter
08-07-17, 20:09
The BC could go up to .475 with no effort beyond loading the cartridges differently, and as high as .530 is probably an option with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) options. This would add several hundred yards of range on unarmored target
I've been shooting Hornady ELDx Precision Hunter, a 178r 308 with a BC of .535. Remarkably accurate in my long range rig.
RetroRevolver77
08-12-17, 10:24
Is this about range or reliability?
sinlessorrow
08-12-17, 10:39
Is this about range or reliability?
Reliability to defeat armor at ranges 5.56 cannot.
M995s max distance to defeat armor is around 45M I believe
If my recent experience is any indicator, it's not lack of funds that keeps people from getting out to shoot. It's a lack of time due to other stupid priorities.
My experiences mirror Brigand's. As I have said before, I cannot for the life of me understand why people whose lives may very well depend on their proficiency in the use of assigned equipment would not spend personal funds, if needed, to increase their proficiency. Or at least volunteer to go to the schools their organizations will pay for it to make them more proficient.
It's just like PT. If you don't like to exercise, "good for you", but you being in shape may make all the difference to a buddy one day. Unfortunately, even with the desire to improve troops, etc often don't get the chance because of other aforementioned responsibilities. Things seem to be getting better in this regard and I'm hoping that General Mattis will do a good job scrubbing the list of things that troops are required to spend their time on.
RetroRevolver77
08-12-17, 11:35
Reliability to defeat armor at ranges 5.56 cannot.
M995s max distance to defeat armor is around 45M I believe
I am betting this is about going to a modern piston.
7n6
BoringGuy45
08-12-17, 12:03
Why isn't something along the lines of the 6.5 Grendel getting a look? I know it's not the wonder round that some of its cheerleaders claim it is. But it would be a step up from the 5.56mm in terms of lethality and, with the right bullets, its effectiveness against armor and intermediate barriers would be improved. The recoil increase would be negligible. Plus, the high BC would increase the effective range greatly. The biggest arguments against the 6.5 and the 6.8 were that the military has such a huge supply of 5.56, and we would need new barrels, bolts, and magazines. But if we're going to throw these logistics out the window in favor of looking for a more lethal round and a (supposedly) more reliable rifle, why not look for a better intermediate round? Why are they turning back to the 1950s for the answer to today's problems?
I worked with a guy who was a beta tester of the 6.8 and he didn't believe it to be better than 5.56. Good hits were good hits. Bad hits were bad hits. Just like 5.56.
Plus with new rounds like M855A1 the 5.56 isn't lacking lethality or barrier penetration.
Every platoon has at least 2 M240 machineguns. Many probably have more. Our guys are not being "outranged" by PKM and RPD machineguns. They are being attacked at long range, many times out of line of sight.
I worked with a guy who was a beta tester of the 6.8 and he didn't believe it to be better than 5.56. Good hits were good hits. Bad hits were bad hits. Just like 5.56.
Plus with new rounds like M855A1 the 5.56 isn't lacking lethality or barrier penetration.
Every platoon has at least 2 M240 machineguns. Many probably have more. Our guys are not being "outranged" by PKM and RPD machineguns. They are being attacked at long range, many times out of line of sight.
If they are being attacked out of line-of-sight then they are being hit with indirect, which of course the best counter for is your own indirect. I'll guess a large enough patrol has at least one 60mm mortar with them for this purpose (?).
Averageman
08-13-17, 08:30
If they are being attacked out of line-of-sight then they are being hit with indirect, which of course the best counter for is your own indirect. I'll guess a large enough patrol has at least one 60mm mortar with them for this purpose (?).
I'm pretty sure he isn't talking about mortars or any other form of artillery.
It's a way to fire a machine gun, most likely from an ambush it requires the gun to be staked in, in both elevation and azimuth and causes the beaten zone to fall on a predetermined position.
Think of it this way, continuing to add more elevation at some point has the barrel pointed past the maximum range, at that point, continuing to add elevation walks the projectiles back toward your position, it will however allow you to fire over an object or terrain feature to your direct front.
A spotter and even a semi experienced machine gun crew can make this happen with the correct firing data for the position and communications to adjust that fire.
Moose-Knuckle
08-14-17, 05:09
Reliability to defeat armor at ranges 5.56 cannot.
M995s max distance to defeat armor is around 45M I believe
With every passing day I feel better and better about pulling the trigger on a 7.62 AR last year.
The "zombies" of the near future will be donning PCs.
I'm pretty sure he isn't talking about mortars or any other form of artillery.
It's a way to fire a machine gun, most likely from an ambush it requires the gun to be staked in, in both elevation and azimuth and causes the beaten zone to fall on a predetermined position.
Think of it this way, continuing to add more elevation at some point has the barrel pointed past the maximum range, at that point, continuing to add elevation walks the projectiles back toward your position, it will however allow you to fire over an object or terrain feature to your direct front.
A spotter and even a semi experienced machine gun crew can make this happen with the correct firing data for the position and communications to adjust that fire.
I didn't think about defilade fire from a machine gun, so yeah I guess it could be that. Wonder if the Muj get that detailed with a Dishka or PKM though (spotters and all).
Averageman
08-14-17, 10:56
I didn't think about defilade fire from a machine gun, so yeah I guess it could be that. Wonder if the Muj get that detailed with a Dishka or PKM though (spotters and all).
If there were two or three machine guns available with commo, coordination and spotters, you can imagine the combined beaten zone.
I have this theory that they want the Mk17 to later be able to buy .264USA conversion kits without having to compete a new weapon for it at a later date, when they might possibly have a less favorable congress and administration.
But that is just my personal theory crafting.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
crusader377
08-14-17, 12:35
I think issuing a 7.62 NATO rifle to replace the M4 with regular infantry is a step in the wrong direction for a host of reasons many of which are listed. Instead here are some steps the right direction the Army can take.
1) Improve marksmanship training for all personnel so they can use their weapons at long range more effectively.
2) Issue one DMR per squad with a 7.62 capability and soldier with appropriate training to use it to 800M
3) Either issue an additional M240 or two in the platoons or better yet develop a lighter 7.62 LMG that is pushed squad level while keeping the two M240s at Platoon level or consolidating all M240s at company level. For the squads, something along the lines of the IMI Negev 7.62 or Russian PKP Pecheneg. Basically a 7.62 beltfed in the 17-20lb range.
4) Issue "Commando Mortars" down to Platoon level. Basically a light hand-held mortar that weighs about 15lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-4_Commando_Mortar
5) Pushing more indirect fire assets at all levels. Best way to win an infantry fight at 1000M is not by trading bullets but by throwing a 81mm mortar round, 105mm howitzer, or 155mm howitzer round at the enemy.
BrigandTwoFour
08-14-17, 17:37
IMO, The major thing we should be planning for is how we are going to handle fighting in environments with non-permissive airspace.
No more drones constantly circling, ready to provide intel and a rocket on demand. No more heavy bombers at high altitude loaded with JDAMs.
We should be planning to make the squad and platoons as capable as possible. I'm not an infantry guy, so I don't know exactly what that looks like. But I agree with the above- it starts with better training that focuses on the stuff that matters.
RetroRevolver77
08-14-17, 23:33
IMO, The major thing we should be planning for is how we are going to handle fighting in environments with non-permissive airspace.
No more drones constantly circling, ready to provide intel and a rocket on demand. No more heavy bombers at high altitude loaded with JDAMs.
We should be planning to make the squad and platoons as capable as possible. I'm not an infantry guy, so I don't know exactly what that looks like. But I agree with the above- it starts with better training that focuses on the stuff that matters.
You are basically stating, what kind of weapon can we field if there is no air support and no quick exit. Think Chosin Reservoir, 1950, three weeks of fighting with temperatures dropping to -35 degrees.
BrigandTwoFour
08-15-17, 21:00
You are basically stating, what kind of weapon can we field if there is no air support and no quick exit. Think Chosin Reservoir, 1950, three weeks of fighting with temperatures dropping to -35 degrees.
Like I said, I don't know what it looks like. It's not that I think there will never be air support or resupply. Those will exist, but they won't be as readily available in a contested environment.
In my unprofessional opinion, I don't think any one weapon is the answer. I think it's a mixture of capabilities and the training to integrate them together effectively. Maybe that means mostly 5.56 rifles with a couple weapons teams (mix of 7.62 MG's, scoped 7.62 semi-auto rifles, light mortars, whatever). Maybe that means fielding a common intermediate caliber across all three platforms (6.5, 6.8, 7mm). Maybe it means fielding autonomous robots that don't need sleep, food, or water.
Failure2Stop
08-16-17, 08:48
Beginning order will be 50,000 rifles given to front line rapid deploying units, replacing the M4.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/05/breaking-7-62mm-rifle-replace-m4-carbine-interim-combat-service-rifle-solicitation-released-us-army/
Has the good idea fairy struck again?
TFB is being misleading.
Here's the actual solicitation:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c3a0df63ed769522a0cdf3df867774e8&tab=core&_cview=1
Once the test and evaluation is concluded, the Government may award a single follow-on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract for the production of up to 50,000 weapons. This estimate is subject to change.
Moving from an OTA purchase to a FAR based purchase is a whole other ball of wax as well.
I think issuing a 7.62 NATO rifle to replace the M4 with regular infantry is a step in the wrong direction for a host of reasons many of which are listed. Instead here are some steps the right direction the Army can take.
1) Improve marksmanship training for all personnel so they can use their weapons at long range more effectively.
2) Issue one DMR per squad with a 7.62 capability and soldier with appropriate training to use it to 800M
3) Either issue an additional M240 or two in the platoons or better yet develop a lighter 7.62 LMG that is pushed squad level while keeping the two M240s at Platoon level or consolidating all M240s at company level. For the squads, something along the lines of the IMI Negev 7.62 or Russian PKP Pecheneg. Basically a 7.62 beltfed in the 17-20lb range.
4) Issue "Commando Mortars" down to Platoon level. Basically a light hand-held mortar that weighs about 15lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-4_Commando_Mortar
5) Pushing more indirect fire assets at all levels. Best way to win an infantry fight at 1000M is not by trading bullets but by throwing a 81mm mortar round, 105mm howitzer, or 155mm howitzer round at the enemy.
Unfortunately the Brass has no interest in spending the money for #1, the cynic in me says this is because there are no new defense contracts in #1.
And the Brass would rather have the XM-25 than #4.
Failure2Stop
08-18-17, 09:34
Unfortunately the Brass has no interest in spending the money for #1, the cynic in me says this is because there are no new defense contracts in #1.
And the Brass would rather have the XM-25 than #4.
And none of which relate to the stated purpose of the ICSR.
Averageman
08-18-17, 09:54
And none of which relate to the stated purpose of the ICSR.
Well if the purpose is to defeat certain ceramic body armour's could we be chasing a technological goal who's finish line always move further forward?
It would seem advances in ammunition would be an interim fix, but 7.62 is going to still have limitations. Weight for Soldiers being one of it major issues.
When we finally do have the perfect ammunition for this hypothetical body armour, will it have an ice pick effect when it hits those without body armour?
Well if the purpose is to defeat certain ceramic body armour's could we be chasing a technological goal who's finish line always move further forward?
It would seem advances in ammunition would be an interim fix, but 7.62 is going to still have limitations. Weight for Soldiers being one of it major issues.
When we finally do have the perfect ammunition for this hypothetical body armour, will it have an ice pick effect when it hits those without body armour?
Absolutely. I remember when Level III (SAPI) was the in thing. Then it was Level IV (E-SAPI). Now there is rumored to be a Level V (Uber-SAPI?). Yes, it is a continuously forward-moving evolution of body armor. Catch up now ballistic-wise and in 10 years (or less) you're behind again.
Failure2Stop
08-18-17, 12:11
Well if the purpose is to defeat certain ceramic body armour's could we be chasing a technological goal who's finish line always move further forward?
It would seem advances in ammunition would be an interim fix, but 7.62 is going to still have limitations. Weight for Soldiers being one of it major issues.
When we finally do have the perfect ammunition for this hypothetical body armour, will it have an ice pick effect when it hits those without body armour?
Absolutely. I remember when Level III (SAPI) was the in thing. Then it was Level IV (E-SAPI). Now there is rumored to be a Level V (Uber-SAPI?). Yes, it is a continuously forward-moving evolution of body armor. Catch up now ballistic-wise and in 10 years (or less) you're behind again.
Yup.
And the fact of the matter is that man-portable armor really only covers 1) a small area of the target whole, and 2) stuff that makes you die when perforated, even if the hole is relatively small.
Discussing armor alone; look at what happened to tank development. Tells a pretty good tale of what's now happening.
No disagreement from me on the burden of a 7.62 platform at a non-specialist level, but ultimately that's up to them to decide, and the whole reason for the multiple submissions and requirement development.
MountainRaven
08-18-17, 21:23
Absolutely. I remember when Level III (SAPI) was the in thing. Then it was Level IV (E-SAPI). Now there is rumored to be a Level V (Uber-SAPI?). Yes, it is a continuously forward-moving evolution of body armor. Catch up now ballistic-wise and in 10 years (or less) you're behind again.
I believe it's X-SAPI. Apparently they have been made, are so heavy and bulky that even US .mil brass doesn't want to issue them without cause, and thus are sitting in a warehouse in Kuwait, waiting for somebody in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria to be killed by some super-bullet that can defeat E-SAPIs.
BoringGuy45
08-19-17, 00:49
Armor vs. weapon has been a struggle for pretty much all of recorded history. It's a vicious cycle:
-Armor is invented to protect against the weapons of the day
-New weapons render armor ineffective
-With armor no longer effective, armies begin fighting without armor in order to be quicker and more agile
-High casualties lead to the invention of armor able to better protect against the new weapons
-New armor renders new weapons ineffective
-New weapons render new armor ineffective. Soldiers fight without armor until high casualties become a bigger issue.
-Rinse
-Repeat
MountainRaven
09-20-17, 22:43
The program is reportedly dead. Dee-ee-dee, dead.
Link: BREAKING: Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED - ICSR is No More - The Firearm Blog (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/09/20/breaking-army-7-62mm-rifle-program-cancelled-icsr-no/).
BoringGuy45
09-20-17, 22:55
Well, I'm not surprised.
My guess is that the people who pushed for this idea were guys who never served in combat and got their advice from old timers who insisted that we would have won Vietnam if we had a rifle "designed to kill instead of just wound."
As the early posters (including me) predicted in this thread There was never a chance this would happen. And I'm not a big fan of the m4 or 5.56.
I'm glad to see this die out, but I do see a role for 7.62 for some uses.
LSAT is coming, it only makes sense.
Textron has been working on this, but it always seemed to me like it was another dead-end project:
http://www.textronsystems.com/what-we-do/weapon-sensor-systems/LSAT
LSAT is coming, it only makes sense.
Textron has been working on this, but it always seemed to me like it was another dead-end project:
http://www.textronsystems.com/what-we-do/weapon-sensor-systems/LSAT
I saw on modern weapons on something like that a few years ago, pretty much the same video in the link (just more of it) comparing the LSAT to the SAW. Then heard nothing more. Kind of always wondered what ever happened to the LSAT.
NYH1.
BrigandTwoFour
09-22-17, 20:36
TFB has been following the LSAT program pretty closely.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/tag/renamed-lsat/
Trend seems to be moving towards a 6.5mm based cartridge, which will be heavier than 5.56 but lighter than 7.62, while far outperforming both. The problem is the increased weight of the base weapon, which looks like 9.2 lbs for the carbine version (as compared to the 6.5 lb base weight of the M4A1).
I don't know if this ends up being the way things go, but it does look the furthest along for replacing current weapons. It's the best example out there of a new cartridge and rifle being developed together rather than shoehorning a different cartridge into a rifle that wasn't originally designed for it.
Given the history of US small arms development and procurement, I'm not terribly optimistic.
The TFB interview series on LSAT is a great read. I've been following that as well.
The current LSAT weight hasn't been optimized yet, it's just a prototype housing basically.
While the round is also not optimized yet (they use the same telescoping case as the 7.62), it likely will always be heavier than 5.56mm brass cased. Once all is said and done, the weight increase shouldn't be too bad.
They also have a brass base/polymer cased .264 USA under development, hedging their bets against LSAT.
I'm waiting with baited breath to see a SCAR-H with a .264USA conversion kit. I would almost bet money that one exists as some top secret prototype somewhere.
titsonritz
10-01-17, 16:18
Guess not after all...
BREAKING: Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED – ICSR is No*More (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/09/20/breaking-army-7-62mm-rifle-program-cancelled-icsr-no/)
Reports of it's death greatly exaggerated:
https://kitup.military.com/2017/09/interim-service-combat-rifle.html
TFB gets it wrong, again
I'm not a fan of the concept nor are any active serving military that I know. Simply does not solve a problem that they have, and makes existing problems worse.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.