Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 19
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 1:39:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm hoping we get a AR-10 on the GII platform.

To me that's the best rifle to fill the void and not much more weight than the M4. It would also bring about the civilian market boom of the AR-10 akin to the AR-15.
View Quote
Whose G2, though?
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 1:46:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm hoping we get a AR-10 on the GII platform.

To me that's the best rifle to fill the void and not much more weight than the M4. It would also bring about the civilian market boom of the AR-10 akin to the AR-15.
View Quote
Is the DPMS G2 the "small-frame" 7.62 AR that gets mentioned?
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 1:50:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
My vote is for the SCAR17. It is already proven and in the system. Suppressor ready too.
View Quote
Like proven to break optics proven?
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 1:51:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Like proven to break optics proven?
View Quote
Attachment Attached File
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:14:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If the leadership is so worried about Russia, why aren't we going back to 24 gun artillery battalions in the armored BCTs? Even during the Cold War, the Russians possessed far more artillery assets than we did in comparable size units. Today, that gap has only grown. If we get into a fight where we don't have complete control of the skies, we are seriously going to be sucking hind tit when it comes to fire support. I'd even argue that beyond up-gunning from 18 to 24 Paladins in the direct support field artillery battalions assigned to the BCTs, division artillery should be given a battalion or two of its own, either rocket, self-propelled or some combination. The Russians use a shit-ton of artillery. In order to counter that on a relatively equal basis, you'd need at minimum something along the lines I have suggested. An 18 gun SPH battalion would have likely sufficed had we actually adopted something like Crusader with a very high rate of fire (10 rpm). Yet we are still stuck with the same basic Paladin and its slow-ass rate of fire that should have been replaced 10 or 15 years ago.
View Quote
Milley is a Cold Warrior from the 80s, even though every warplan called for nukes and most called for chemical weapons, most of the training they got was based on conventional ground warfare. They didn't focus on the strategy, they didn't focus on what the Air Force and Navy were doing (besides air support, deep strike, and REFORGER protection, which the US Army relied on). They stayed in their lane and built up into their head a hypothetical conventional war with the Soviets, akin to Clancy, Bond, or Peters' books. Notice whenever somebody writes such a book about a hypothetical WWIII situation they always come up with some dramatic reasoning that NBC aren't used, because then its a less entertaining story. Milley, along with many, had this same question popping around their head for a decade and a half, "What would it had been like if we fought the Russians conventionally?" Now we are in Cold War II, and Milley is in the highest position of power and authority while wearing a uniform in the Army.

My guess is Milley wants to be personally responsible for some sort of rebirth/great reform of the current Army to bring us back to the mindset of the 80s to early 90s, when we had a purpose, when we had a mission, when we could train train train, have fun, get experience, buy new toys to help the machine sustain itself, all while not actually worrying deep down about deploying for combat because that battle was impossible. Its like focusing on the zombie apocalypse instead of the American Civil War 2.0, its easier to prep for the first since its less horrifying than the second. So he's going to focus on rebuilding our military to face his dreaded rival, Mah Russia.

And I think even a fool can see that our troops in Russia aren't there to stop the Russians with arms but by their presence. Meat shields really is the most appropriate name, because to take any Baltic country or Poland now means definitively needing to kill US soldiers or Airmen or sailors, which means war. And war means Putin will at the very least eat a B-2 delivered MOP, but more likely he'll die in bath of brilliant heat from a nuke. Or he'll asphyxiate or be crushed when the underground bunker he's in is smashed by a deep penetrating nuke. Either way, if Putin kills US soldiers he has an almost zero chance of surviving the following war.

Trump and Mattis talked about rebuilding the military a bit, Milley wants in. So when he asks for more arty, Mattis laughs at him and say "Are you fucking crazy? The meat shields are in more need of condoms to protect themself from the local women than arty for the Russians. Their presence alone is the deterrent, not their strength. Besides, you think Congress would fund that? Hell no." Same for more armor BCTs, same for more BCTs deploying to E. Europe. "We don't need more, a company blocking the advance into friendly is sufficient to stop a Russian division because they wont dare invade."

So maybe the only thing Milley has the ability to change for his Mah Russia reforms is a service rifle. After all, he controls that and doesn't need permission for funding or implementing it, especially if its limited issue to only troops in E. Europe. If Mattis tried to veto it Milley could tell him about body armor and shows the HK dudes' powerpoint about the range disparity and as much bullshit it is Milley is connected enough to make a stink about it, especially with the press "Trump refuses new rifle Army needs to survive possible war with Russia, proving collusion!"

With this shit done Milley can leave his mark, leave a legacy. In his own mind, He is making soldiers more lethal and he can prepare them better for fighting those Russians he so desperately still wants to fight. After all the shit he's gone through, avoiding risk for 37 years, checking all the blocks, playing by the book, politicking and throwing anyone he has to under the bus, even going as far as support the trannie/female combat arms stuff from Obama and Ash Carter, he sold his soul to get to his current rank and position, he's going to make the best out of it.  Even if its just a stupid gun.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:18:11 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Is the DPMS G2 the "small-frame" 7.62 AR that gets mentioned?
View Quote
Yeah, I just want standardization of the AR-10 and a market boom like the AR-15.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:26:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Infantrymen don't slug it out at 800m.

They can't see each other at 800m (without high power optics).  That's why the maximum effective range of a human-eye sighted rifle is 250m.

Yes, I know Marines shoot 500m targets (prone) on the range.  A 6'x6' paper with a silhouette on it - not a guy hiding behind cover at 500m.
View Quote
I generally agree with what your'e saying, especially about realistic combat ranges. When it comes to the rare times that longer range small arms fire is called for Marine rifles all have ACOG RCO's so they might spot the guy partially exposed from behind they might hit him too if they do everything else right and luck is on their side. And they're only getting points for hitting the torso silhouette, nothing for just the paper.

The Army qual is out to 300 meters with iron sighted rifles against limited exposure partially camouflaged targets. That's a point target, so its beyond 250 meters. Actually, an M4 max effective range on a point target with iron sights is only 500 meters due to size of front sight and limited sight radius and its area fire Max is 600 meters because the detachable carrying handle 1/2 MOA elevation knob runs out of elevation at that range. With an M68 or Eotech, I'd say everything is much shorter because they are usually zeroed for inside 300 meters and few if any soldies can ID a target and know th holdover for the 4 MOA dot. However, with a properly zeroed ACOG in condition similar to those the BDC data is based on, a well trained soldier can make hits out to much further ranges than the manual says, I'd say 600 meters against point targets is a gimme for T level soldiers, 800 to Area is definitely doable, as the RCO M4 reticle has a holdover for that range.

A carbine/rifle can't have a reticle like this with a bullet still able to kill at those distances and be labeled only effective inside 300 meters.

Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:30:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Money should be going into something with more boom. Like an ultra lightweight high pressure caseless 40mm "mountain mortar" concept weapon that has a max range of 1500m or so. Outranges MG's and is far more effective than small arms will ever be. Something designed for direct lay only and can be fielded with minimal training. Issue with a quality rangefinder and an easy to use sight. Rounds small enough to be carried in a 40mm bandolier.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:31:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This happened a thousand times. The soldier needs a longer range weapon in mountainous and desert environment. So we adopt a 7.62 rifle. next week we'll be in the Congo and needing a 5.56 rifle. I don't know why we don't just have 2 rifles to choose from for these type things.
View Quote
Or a Colt 901/SCAR type weapon that can be swapped with conversion assemblies withheld at the BN small arms maintainer level and employed based on the area of operations.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:38:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The "Art" of war...

My guess would be that officers like change and championing things that get adopted and they get the credit for...on the other hand things that don't get adapted make their champions look bad...for them perception is reality...and getting the highest rank to retire on their personal goal.I could be wrong...
View Quote
Youre not wrong
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 2:44:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Milley is a Cold Warrior from the 80s, even though every warplan called for nukes and most called for chemical weapons, most of the training they got was based on conventional ground warfare. They didn't focus on the strategy, they didn't focus on what the Air Force and Navy were doing (besides air support, deep strike, and REFORGER protection, which the US Army relied on). They stayed in their lane and built up into their head a hypothetical conventional war with the Soviets, akin to Clancy, Bond, or Peters' books. Notice whenever somebody writes such a book about a hypothetical WWIII situation they always come up with some dramatic reasoning that NBC aren't used, because then its a less entertaining story. Milley, along with many, had this same question popping around their head for a decade and a half, "What would it had been like if we fought the Russians conventionally?" Now we are in Cold War II, and Milley is in the highest position of power and authority while wearing a uniform in the Army.

My guess is Milley wants to be personally responsible for some sort of rebirth/great reform of the current Army to bring us back to the mindset of the 80s to early 90s, when we had a purpose, when we had a mission, when we could train train train, have fun, get experience, buy new toys to help the machine sustain itself, all while not actually worrying deep down about deploying for combat because that battle was impossible. Its like focusing on the zombie apocalypse instead of the American Civil War 2.0, its easier to prep for the first since its less horrifying than the second. So he's going to focus on rebuilding our military to face his dreaded rival, Mah Russia.

And I think even a fool can see that our troops in Russia aren't there to stop the Russians with arms but by their presence. Meat shields really is the most appropriate name, because to take any Baltic country or Poland now means definitively needing to kill US soldiers or Airmen or sailors, which means war. And war means Putin will at the very least eat a B-2 delivered MOP, but more likely he'll die in bath of brilliant heat from a nuke. Or he'll asphyxiate or be crushed when the underground bunker he's in is smashed by a deep penetrating nuke. Either way, if Putin kills US soldiers he has an almost zero chance of surviving the following war.

Trump and Mattis talked about rebuilding the military a bit, Milley wants in. So when he asks for more arty, Mattis laughs at him and say "Are you fucking crazy? The meat shields are in more need of condoms to protect themself from the local women than arty for the Russians. Their presence alone is the deterrent, not their strength. Besides, you think Congress would fund that? Hell no." Same for more armor BCTs, same for more BCTs deploying to E. Europe. "We don't need more, a company blocking the advance into friendly is sufficient to stop a Russian division because they wont dare invade."

So maybe the only thing Milley has the ability to change for his Mah Russia reforms is a service rifle. After all, he controls that and doesn't need permission for funding or implementing it, especially if its limited issue to only troops in E. Europe. If Mattis tried to veto it Milley could tell him about body armor and shows the HK dudes' powerpoint about the range disparity and as much bullshit it is Milley is connected enough to make a stink about it, especially with the press "Trump refuses new rifle Army needs to survive possible war with Russia, proving collusion!"

With this shit done Milley can leave his mark, leave a legacy. In his own mind, He is making soldiers more lethal and he can prepare them better for fighting those Russians he so desperately still wants to fight. After all the shit he's gone through, avoiding risk for 37 years, checking all the blocks, playing by the book, politicking and throwing anyone he has to under the bus, even going as far as support the trannie/female combat arms stuff from Obama and Ash Carter, he sold his soul to get to his current rank and position, he's going to make the best out of it.  Even if its just a stupid gun.
View Quote
I like what you said, however Milley is purposely allowing for the total number of rifles to be changed in the IDIQ for a reason.

He wants this fleet wide, not just rapid deploying units going to Europe.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 4:42:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
How does it handle in full auto fire?

Because that is a big thing here, a COTS gun that reliably and controllable fires in full auto???

Only one gun really fits that bill, and its the SCAR...Who do you think will be making our next rifle?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I still vote Colt 901.

Great gun, lightweight, well-balanced, reliable, and when the thinking changes to, "What were we thinking?" you can pop an M4 upper on it and turn it back into an M4.
How does it handle in full auto fire?

Because that is a big thing here, a COTS gun that reliably and controllable fires in full auto???

Only one gun really fits that bill, and its the SCAR...Who do you think will be making our next rifle?
Recoil impulse really isn't bad for a .308. I would throw on something like a Warcomp 7.62 as the official flash hider to mitigate muzzle rise as the muzzle rise is worse than the recoil itself, but aside from that it's okay. I'd wager if you can control a SCAR 17 on full auto, you can control a CM901.

Reliability is really not an issue. I ran that gun dry and dusty all day long and it gave no fucks. The only thing that makes it choke occasionally is when it gets dirty, it's not lubed, AND you feed it underpowered 7.62 NATO it can short-stroke. Give it in-spec 7.62 NATO and it'll shoot lubed and dirty all day long. Give it full power .308 Win and it'll shoot dry and dirty all day long.

It's also even lighter than the SCAR 17 overall; it weighs with an HBAR profile barrel just slightly more than a SCAR with a pencil barrel does. Plenty of room to trim some fat depending on what you're expecting out of the barrel, and if you throw an M4 upper on it it weighs like an ounce or two above an actual M4. Lower also shares quite a few parts with the M4; it's basically more an AR-15 that shoots .308 than it is an AR-10. Pretty great for simplifying TCO and parts supply if you're going to leave the M4 in inventory for support and close quarters users.

Also doesn't hurt than you can get match-grade accuracy out of a production rifle if you're expecting the designated marksman to work magic with it. Our own Shawn got excellent groups out of his during his T&E, and the three I've fired including mine have done just as well with match ammo.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 4:46:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I bet a tungsten core 5.56 round with an incendiary tip would poke through any body armor the Russians and Chinese could realistically field.

I also bet that developing and fielding this 5.56 API round (if it doesn't already exist) would be cheaper and easier than doing the same thing for a 7.62 rifle.

Just hand out tungsten core incendiary tip 5.56 ammo for situations where you think you might encounter enemies wearing high-end body armor. Now the units don't have to sacrifice the advantages of 5.56 carbines or add extra complications to their logistics by fielding an extra kind of weapon.
View Quote
The M995AP, I'm not sure why they don't just increase the quantities they buy and actually make it available? I mean it's not even a XM995, but it's a bonafide accepted and in inventory round.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 5:49:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Youre not wrong
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


The "Art" of war...

My guess would be that officers like change and championing things that get adopted and they get the credit for...on the other hand things that don't get adapted make their champions look bad...for them perception is reality...and getting the highest rank to retire on their personal goal.I could be wrong...
Youre not wrong
I don't know the names of anyone who ever worked to get weapons changed in the military, so much for making a name for themselves. Names I do remember are John Moses Browning, Samuel Colt, Robert Gatling, John T. Thompson, Melvin Thompson, Kelly Johnson, Eugene Stoner, John C. Garand, etc., etc.

Military acquisitions officers are nothing but go-betweens shopping for the least expensive product that they can get the best deal on. Nobody will ever remember their names.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 6:21:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I don't know the names of anyone who ever worked to get weapons changed in the military, so much for making a name for themselves. Names I do remember are John Moses Browning, Samuel Colt, Robert Gatling, John T. Thompson, Melvin Thompson, Kelly Johnson, Eugene Stoner, John C. Garand, etc., etc.

Military acquisitions officers are nothing but go-betweens shopping for the least expensive product that they can get the best deal on. Nobody will ever remember their names.
View Quote
Everyone remembers Robert McNamara.

Milley is wanting to be the next McNamara and his implementation of this weapon may be worse than that of the M16.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 7:16:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Youre not wrong
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


The "Art" of war...

My guess would be that officers like change and championing things that get adopted and they get the credit for...on the other hand things that don't get adapted make their champions look bad...for them perception is reality...and getting the highest rank to retire on their personal goal.I could be wrong...
Youre not wrong
Change = a positive OER support form bullet.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 8:53:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Milley is wanting to be the next McNamara Shinseki
View Quote
FIFY.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 9:51:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

FIFY.
View Quote
Not sure I know that name, can you refresh me on what he did?
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 10:07:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Not sure I know that name, can you refresh me on what he did?
View Quote
Army Chief of Staff a decade or so ago. Pushed the Stryker 8x8 Interim Armored Vehicle through to adoption, despite historical institutional opposition (within the Army) to wheeled combat vehicles.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 11:11:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm hoping we get a AR-10 on the GII platform.

To me that's the best rifle to fill the void and not much more weight than the M4. It would also bring about the civilian market boom of the AR-10 akin to the AR-15.
View Quote
A "second gen" AR10 that's really damn close in size and weight to an AR15, but chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor (or 260 Remington), would be the ticket if they're going to go bigger.
Link Posted: 8/6/2017 11:31:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Army Chief of Staff a decade or so ago. Pushed the Stryker 8x8 Interim Armored Vehicle through to adoption, despite historical institutional opposition (within the Army) to wheeled combat vehicles.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure I know that name, can you refresh me on what he did?
Army Chief of Staff a decade or so ago. Pushed the Stryker 8x8 Interim Armored Vehicle through to adoption, despite historical institutional opposition (within the Army) to wheeled combat vehicles.
Don't forget "Everyone is now Rangers" berets.
Link Posted: 8/7/2017 1:18:27 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Don't forget "Everyone is now Rangers" berets.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 12:47:55 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Just like everyone said "joglee thread what a tard" when I said the RFI would result in a RFP.

Yet a RFP has come out, and when it finished and the M4 begins being phased out I'll enjoy being able to say I told you so to everyone who mocked me.
View Quote
"I made a prediction on the internet...and it came true!!!"

I hereby award you 1xARFCOM Credibility Point...when you get a 1,000 or so (in tech), people will start to listen.

Good luck!
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 12:57:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Army Chief of Staff a decade or so ago. Pushed the Stryker 8x8 Interim Armored Vehicle through to adoption, despite historical institutional opposition (within the Army) to wheeled combat vehicles.
View Quote
The Stryker was a good call.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 2:23:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


"I made a prediction on the internet...and it came true!!!"

I hereby award you 1xARFCOM Credibility Point...when you get a 1,000 or so (in tech), people will start to listen.

Good luck!
View Quote
Hey I have a ton of Tech credibility points. It's GD cred I lack.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 2:40:38 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This happened a thousand times. The soldier needs a longer range weapon in mountainous and desert environment. So we adopt a 7.62 rifle. next week we'll be in the Congo and needing a 5.56 rifle. I don't know why we don't just have 2 rifles to choose from for these type things.
View Quote
Cause then you need two types of camo, you big dummy. 
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:42:25 AM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The Stryker was a good call.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Army Chief of Staff a decade or so ago. Pushed the Stryker 8x8 Interim Armored Vehicle through to adoption, despite historical institutional opposition (within the Army) to wheeled combat vehicles.
The Stryker was a good call.
*when not used like an MRAP
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:47:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Infantrymen don't slug it out at 800m.
.
View Quote
Wrong.

That may hold some truth in real life, but in Hollywood, Gunshops/shows, and O8 land they do.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 8:59:34 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
*when not used like an MRAP
View Quote
New ones have V shaped hull, so now they are MRAPs.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 1:13:37 PM EDT
[#30]
You know looking over the requirements again the Colt 901 is also a 100% match for what they're wanting here.

That wouldn't be a bad choice Imo.

The 901 also has a beefy bolt that should be near impossible to kill.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 1:50:56 PM EDT
[#31]
DPMS GII, anybody?

http://dpms-gii.com/full.html#configurations

This part is interesting, seems the bolt carrier group redesign allowed them to shrink the upper receiver and thus the lower DPMS GII redesigned bolt carrier group
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 2:02:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
DPMS GII, anybody?

http://dpms-gii.com/full.html#configurations

This part is interesting, seems the bolt carrier group redesign allowed them to shrink the upper receiver and thus the lower DPMS GII redesigned bolt carrier group
View Quote
I think the biggest issue manufacturers will see is that the rifles must be a COTS S-1-F solution with no custom modifications made.

Very few .308 rifles can fill that gap.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 2:16:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think the biggest issue manufacturers will see is that the rifles must be a COTS S-1-F solution with no custom modifications made.

Very few .308 rifles can fill that gap.
View Quote
We've done full auto 7.62x51 in light rifles-  I thought the military conclusion was that it was a retarded idea?
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 2:18:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


We've done full auto 7.62x51 in light rifles-  I thought the military conclusion was that it was a retarded idea?
View Quote
It is retarded. Box fed 7.62 in general is retarded.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:10:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


We've done full auto 7.62x51 in light rifles-  I thought the military conclusion was that it was a retarded idea?
View Quote
It is, but it's what they want.

A 100% COTS rifle by September 6th, it must be 100% ambi, 16-20" barrel length, capable of S-1-F fire settings, and companies are not allowed to extensively modify the rifle.

It has to be a true commercial off the shelf rifle.

I can only think of two, maybe three companies that build 7.62 rifles to function in fully automatic fire.

Colt with their 901.
FN with the SCAR.
Maybe LMT.

And that's about it. I don't know of many .308 rifles built to work in full auto these days. Most are built with semi auto fire in mind.

Of those two only the Colt is 100% ambi on all controls.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:34:38 PM EDT
[#36]
210 round 7.62 load out? Fuck me that would suck to carry....

The thing is, I don't care how effective of a round you use. If they are still only going to mount acogs on everything, sort of defies the point.

They should just issue 75 grain or 77 grain 5.56 cartridges and be done with it. I like 308. But no No way in fucking hell I'd want to carry 210 rounds of it though.

Using armor defeat capability as the excuse seems kind of stupid also. 308 doesn't defeat armor any better than 556 does.

If it were me and I were serious about making infantry more lethal, they would have more accurate, flatter shooting hi cap rifles, and Superior Optics and training to go with the equipment.

Headshots for the win.

At least use a 6.5 Creedmoor or a 260 Remington. One magazine shot through a family member's custom 260 bolt gun, and I wanted to go throw every throw every 308 Winchester I owned in the trash. They are just better. It is so much easier to get shots to connect at 6 and 800 yards is not even funny. All the energy in the world doesn't matter if you miss.

And what the fuck is it with these guys thinking we are going to get into a near Peer engagement with a nuclear enemy? Do they actually think this is a real possibility? It just seems completely fucking stupid me. I equate getting into a conflict with a near Peer nuclear superpower as walking into a room with 100% CCW participation and thinking you're going to get shit done. It's just not going to fucking happen. Death is guaranteed.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:41:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
It's official the ICSR is going forward.

This is the first step in replacing the M4A1 and the 5.56 round in Infantry Units.

More than likely this will mean the eventual full replacement of the 5.56 M4A1 due to acquisition chains and fleeting one rifle being easier than two.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/05/army-launches-competition-more-powerful-combat-rifle.html
eapon officials just opened a competition for a new 7.62mm Interim Service Combat Rifle to arm infantry units with a weapon potent enough to penetrate enemy body armor.

"The Army has identified a potential gap in the capability of ground forces and infantry to penetrate body armor using existing ammunition. To address this operational need, the Army is looking for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR) that is capable of defeating emerging threats," according to an Aug. 4 solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.gov.

The service plans to initially award up to eight contracts, procuring seven types of weapons from each gunmaker for test and evaluation purposes. Once the review is concluded, the service "may award a single follow-on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract for the production of up to 50,000 weapons," the solicitation states.

"The Government has a requirement to acquire a commercial 7.62mm ICSR to field with the M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) to engage and defeat protected and unprotected threats," the solicitation states. "The ultimate objective of the program is to acquire and field a 7.62mm ICSR that will increase soldier lethality."

The opening of the competition comes just over two months after Army's Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley revealed to Congress that the M4 Carbine's M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round cannot penetrate modern enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.

This past spring, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn released a directed requirement for a new 7.62mm rifle designed for combat units, prompting Army weapons officials to write a formal requirement.

The presence of a 7.62mm rifle in Army infantry squads is nothing new. Since 2009, the Army's squad designated marksman rifle has been the Enhanced Battle Rifle, or EBR, 14 -- a modernized M14 equipped with a Sage International adjustable aluminum stock with pistol grip, a Leupold 3.5x10 power scope and Harris bipod legs.

The Army adopted the EBR concept, first used in 2004 by Navy SEALs, in response to the growing need of infantry squads operating in Afghanistan to engage enemy fighters at longer ranges.

The EBR is heavy, just under 15 pounds unloaded, compared with the standard M14's unloaded weight of 9 pounds.

The Army's Interim Combat Service Rifle should have either 16-inch or 20-inch barrels, a collapsible buttstock, an extended forward rail and weigh less than 12 pounds unloaded and without an optic, according to a May 31 Army request for information.

Multiple proposals may be submitted by the same organization; however, each proposal must consist of the weapons, proposal, and System Safety Assessment Report. All proposals are due by 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time Wednesday Sept. 6 September 2017, the solicitation states.

In addition to the weapons, gun makers will also be evaluated on production capability and proposed price, according to the solicitation.

All weapons should include items such as a suppressor, cleaning, specialized tools and enough magazines to support the basic load of 210 rounds.

The competition will consist of live-fire testing and evaluate the following:

Dispersion (300m - function, 600m - simulation)
Compatible with Family of Weapon Sights - Individual and laser
Weapon length (folder or collapsed)/ Weight (empty/bare) / Velocity (300m and 600m calculated)
Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic function testing (bursts and full auto)
Noise (at shooter's ear) / Flash suppression
Ambidextrous Controls (in darkness or adverse conditions) / Rail interface
20-30 round magazine to support a 210 round combat load
Folding sights
"Areas to be evaluated could include, but not be limited to: Controllability and Recoil, Trigger, Ease/Speed of Magazine Changes, Sighting System Interface (e.g., ability to acquire and maintain sight picture), and Usability of Controls (e.g., safety)," the solicitation states.

"Additionally, a small, limited user evaluation may be conducted with qualified soldiers," it states.

Milley told lawmakers in late May that the Army does not believe that every soldier needs a 7.62mm rifle. These weapons would be reserved for the Army's most rapid-deployable infantry units.

"We would probably want to field them with a better-grade weapon that can penetrate this body armor," Milley said.
View Quote
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c3a0df63ed769522a0cdf3df867774e8&tab=core&_cview=1
The Government will be evaluating the performance of the various bid samples against each other using the below-listed attributes. The Government will be using a weighted point scoring system to perform its evaluation of the ICSR bid samples. The attributes are ranked in order of importance, for further details see Attachment 0003 (Bid Sample Testing Attribute Ranking Explanation). The evaluation will consist of live fire testing of the attributes listed below. These attributes are ranked in descending order of importance. The evaluation results will then be tallied to determine the overall rating.

1. Dispersion (300m - function, 600m - simulation)
2. Compatible w/ FWS-I and laser
3. Weapon length (folder or collapsed)/ Weight (empty/bare) / Velocity (300m and 600m calculated)
4. Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic function testing (bursts and full auto)
5. Noise (at shooter's ear) / Flash suppression
6. Ambidextrous Controls (in darkness or adverse conditions) / Rail interface
7. 20-30 round magazine to support a 210 round combat load
8. Folding sights

NOTE 1: Attributes 2, 6, 7, and 8 above will be evaluated on a zero/full point basis. An Offeror whose bid sample receives zero (0) points for one (1) or more of these attributes will not be automatically eliminated from the competition; however, receiving a zero (0) score for one (1) or more of these attributes will adversely impact an Offeror's overall score.

NOTE 2: The proposed candidate will be eliminated from the competition with no further evaluation if at any time the weapon becomes inoperable during testing.

NOTE 3: In order to evaluate the bid sample, the Offeror must include the cleaning, lubrication and preservative (CLP) that is currently on the weapon. The Offeror must be aware that during the evaluations, the weapon will be cleaned with standard, military CLP.
View Quote
View Quote
Because giving soldiers with a single Digit accuracy rate less ammo for more weight...... sounds like a great plan
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 3:55:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Because giving soldiers with a single Digit accuracy rate less ammo for more weight...... sounds like a great plan
View Quote
And reduce that hit rate further.  Might actually have to write/call my senators and congressmen about this one- the deeper I dig, the more retarded this sounds.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 4:50:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
We've done full auto 7.62x51 in light rifles-  I thought the military conclusion was that it was a retarded idea?
View Quote
In regard to the US military, the main thing that was retarded was the use of a drop-comb stock on the M14 rifle.
With the E2 stock, which has a more "straight-line" configuration, full-auto controllability is improved significantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU



Apparently SOCOM didn't think full-auto with 7.62x51 was a retarded idea. They specified the Mk17 be select-fire.

Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:00:28 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

In regard to the US military, the main thing that was retarded was the use of a drop-comb stock on the M14 rifle.
With the E2 stock, which has a more "straight-line" configuration, full-auto controllability is improved significantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU

http://www.m14br.com/images/muzzlerise.jpg

Apparently SOCOM didn't think full-auto with 7.62x51 was a retarded idea. They specified the Mk17 be select-fire.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/c6/05/a9c6054337cba590f54aec152d4d58bd--bearded-men-tactical-beard.jpg
View Quote
Most of SOCOM has dropped it anyway.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:08:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

In regard to the US military, the main thing that was retarded was the use of a drop-comb stock on the M14 rifle.
With the E2 stock, which has a more "straight-line" configuration, full-auto controllability is improved significantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU

http://www.m14br.com/images/muzzlerise.jpg

Apparently SOCOM didn't think full-auto with 7.62x51 was a retarded idea. They specified the Mk17 be select-fire.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/c6/05/a9c6054337cba590f54aec152d4d58bd--bearded-men-tactical-beard.jpg
View Quote
And Crane has defunded it soooo....
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:17:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
210 round 7.62 load out? Fuck me that would suck to carry....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
210 round 7.62 load out? Fuck me that would suck to carry....
I'm not even sure how it would be carried.
Typical basic load for 7.62 rifles currently seems to be a mere 100 rounds, with 4x20-rd mags on the body.



25-rd PMAGs (left, below) are COTS available items, but would only increase the ammo load to 125 rounds.



Quoted:
The thing is, I don't care how effective of a round you use. If they are still only going to mount acogs on everything, sort of defies the point.
You mean, like this?

Attachment Attached File


Quoted:
At least use a 6.5 Creedmoor or a 260 Remington.
That reportedly is the plan, and why it's called an "Interim" Battle Rifle: Field it ASAP in 7.62 NATO, since that caliber is in the system, then convert to a still-to-be-determined 6.5mm round at a later date.
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:34:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It is, but it's what they want.

A 100% COTS rifle by September 6th, it must be 100% ambi, 16-20" barrel length, capable of S-1-F fire settings, and companies are not allowed to extensively modify the rifle.

It has to be a true commercial off the shelf rifle.

I can only think of two, maybe three companies that build 7.62 rifles to function in fully automatic fire.

Colt with their 901.
FN with the SCAR.
Maybe LMT.

And that's about it. I don't know of many .308 rifles built to work in full auto these days. Most are built with semi auto fire in mind.

Of those two only the Colt is 100% ambi on all controls.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


We've done full auto 7.62x51 in light rifles-  I thought the military conclusion was that it was a retarded idea?
It is, but it's what they want.

A 100% COTS rifle by September 6th, it must be 100% ambi, 16-20" barrel length, capable of S-1-F fire settings, and companies are not allowed to extensively modify the rifle.

It has to be a true commercial off the shelf rifle.

I can only think of two, maybe three companies that build 7.62 rifles to function in fully automatic fire.

Colt with their 901.
FN with the SCAR.
Maybe LMT.

And that's about it. I don't know of many .308 rifles built to work in full auto these days. Most are built with semi auto fire in mind.

Of those two only the Colt is 100% ambi on all controls.
Pretty sure I've seen something about LMT offering auto as an option on the MWS, so yes, you can add them to that list. Beretta's new ARX-200 also supports auto fire.

The 901 is missing an ambi bolt catch actually; you still need to use the classic bolt catch to manually lock it back. Bolt release and everything else is ambidextrous though. ARX-200 is 100% ambi like its smaller 5.56 brother. ARX from what I hear has more SCAR-level accuracy out of the box though, it's not quite on the level of the 901 and the MWS. Weight is about on par with an SR-25 APC, so a little heavier than the 901 and SCAR but still a good bit lighter than the MWS.

Rumor has it Beretta will be or is in the process of moving some ARX-200 production over here too, but that might just be because they're going to target the civilian market in future.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:37:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That reportedly is the plan, and why it's called an "Interim" Battle Rifle: Field it ASAP in 7.62 NATO, since that caliber is in the system, then convert to a still-to-be-determined 6.5mm round at a later date.
View Quote
It's called "interim" because "Pants-On-Head Retarded Battle Rifle" was deemed to be bad for morale.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:40:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
25-rd PMAGs (left, below) are COTS available items, but would only increase the ammo load to 125 rounds.
View Quote
They also really suck for prone because of how far they stick out. Had PMAG 25s for a while. I've since sold them all and switched to 20-round Lancer L7 AWMs. I'd rather try to find a place for an extra magazine or two than use PMAG 25s.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 5:54:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Look for this RFP and competition to do exactly what the XM17/XM18 did.
RFP 2015.
Winner selected 1/2017
Units getting the gun 11/2017.

This will happen very fast, and it will be pushed out to units just as fast.
View Quote
I'm sure they won't fuck it up just like the XM17.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:05:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Pretty sure I've seen something about LMT offering auto as an option on the MWS, so yes, you can add them to that list. Beretta's new ARX-200 also supports auto fire.

The 901 is missing an ambi bolt catch actually; you still need to use the classic bolt catch to manually lock it back. Bolt release and everything else is ambidextrous though. ARX-200 is 100% ambi like its smaller 5.56 brother. ARX from what I hear has more SCAR-level accuracy out of the box though, it's not quite on the level of the 901 and the MWS. Weight is about on par with an SR-25 APC, so a little heavier than the 901 and SCAR but still a good bit lighter than the MWS.

Rumor has it Beretta will be or is in the process of moving some ARX-200 production over here too, but that might just be because they're going to target the civilian market in future.
View Quote
I'm not sure if the ARX-200 can enter.

Is it a COTS item they can buy today? I haven't kept up with the system one way or the other.

This will likely come down to Colt, LMT, and SCAR.

Remember these have to be COTS, delivered by the 6th with minimal to no modifications.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:09:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'm not sure if the ARX-200 can enter.

Is it a COTS item they can buy today? I haven't kept up with the system one way or the other.

This will likely come down to Colt, LMT, and SCAR.

Remember these have to be COTS, delivered by the 6th with minimal to no modifications.
View Quote
the DPMS GII would be fascinating to consider, if they could get ambi controls on it.

The LMT would be VERY durable, reliable, and accurate, but the MWS is a heavy bitch (I used to own one, I miss it but I don't miss its weight).  If the Army buys it, you might just see a return to rifle PT in the mornings.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:11:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


the DPMS GII would be fascinating to consider, if they could get ambi controls on it.

The LMT would be VERY durable, reliable, and accurate, but the MWS is a heavy bitch (I used to own one, I miss it but I don't miss its weight).  If the Army buys it, you might just see a return to rifle PT in the mornings.
View Quote
I also wonder if the GII was built with full auto in mind?

It makes a difference. I know for a fact the SCAR and 901 we're both built with full auto in the forefront of function.

My hopes, without seeing what and who enters is currently with the 901.

Their CSASS was a nice rifle that weighed sub 8lbs.
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:11:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It's called "interim" because "Pants-On-Head Retarded Battle Rifle" was deemed to be bad for morale.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


That reportedly is the plan, and why it's called an "Interim" Battle Rifle: Field it ASAP in 7.62 NATO, since that caliber is in the system, then convert to a still-to-be-determined 6.5mm round at a later date.
It's called "interim" because "Pants-On-Head Retarded Battle Rifle" was deemed to be bad for morale.
Did anyone even try to make a cool acronym out of that?

Quitters.
Page / 19
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top