AR Sponsor
HICAR - High Pressure 82kpsi M855A1+ rifle for SOCOM (Page 2 of 5)
|
Originally Posted By FedDC: They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. Originally Posted By FedDC: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By FedDC: We can't run the M-4 to its basic capabilities. The average soldier, LEO, Marine, can't run the legacy rifle anywhere close to what it can do with a simple ACOG. We don't even pretend to train to that level or hold a standard approaching it. But, yeah...we should buy magic rifles. This is a misconception about high pressure ammunition. It's not magic. Faster bullets shoot flatter. Joe doesn't need to know his holds if we're shooting +/- 1 mil out to 300 yards. Pair that with an optic that does the thinking for you, and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards. They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. The new Army marksmanship program, as little as it is, pretty much forces Joe to get a good zero to qualify. Before he can shoot for qualification, he has to confirm his zero from the 25 yd range on the 300m target. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By FedDC: They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. I work with Soldiers all the time. Every Joe isn't a complete and utter fucking idiot who can't figure out how batteries or gravity work. We are talking about simplifying elements of the shot process to lower the bar to entry for successful long range engagements, which benefits all shooters, not just novices, but especially novices. I have strong opinions about the level of training and readiness especially in combat arms, but to me the answer isn't fewer tools, it's education and training. There is a lot of fuddery in military marksmanship programs. Anyone who says "all you need is iron sights" in 2026 should be strapped to the next glide bomb destined for Eastern Ukraine. |
|
pretty decent article discussing this cartridge and a number of other rounds and setups they're toying with. https://www.twz.com/land/inside-socoms-search-for-new-machine-guns-rifles-and-ammo |
|
Originally Posted By Stillnothere: pretty decent article discussing this cartridge and a number of other rounds and setups they're toying with. https://www.twz.com/land/inside-socoms-search-for-new-machine-guns-rifles-and-ammo This section caught my eye - mentions Federal, and not SIG, so likely going with PEAK case: "But there’s a lot of 5.56mm and other common cartridges of that nature, and so what we want to…achieve is maybe not the same effect as what the Army’s done with the M7 and the M8 and that high-velocity ammunition that they have, but where could we get close to that in 5.56 and potentially other calibers in the future. It really goes back to the evolution in steel case ammo that Federal started several years ago, and there’s been more iterations of that coming out – new alloys for cases that far exceed performance of the standard brass that we’ve been using for the last 100 years. And the really amazing part is they can actually be cheaper than brass as well, so we get more performance at a lower cost. It’s a win-win. At this point, it’s still a significant science project, and so there are no specific high velocity rounds that are fielded at this point. It’s an R&D project, and we’re trying to see where we can take that technology." |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
9733
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: It starts beating itself to death, resulting in a shed lug, possibly a cracked lower. A case failure would be a little bit more exciting than normal. Didn't we already hike the pressure on M855A1 over M855? Just load the 77gr out to 2.5x so it won't fit in the old cartridges mag. Place that in an SFAR pattern lower . Loaded out ,high bc , high sd , NAS3 , PXT |
|
Originally Posted By Gamma762: What happens when some of that ammo makes it's way into a standard M4 somewhere, or some allied military firearm. Just change to a different cartridge. Good point. Maybe nothing bad "right away"...but nothing good can come from it. I'm also curious about the 5.56 requirement. Seems like having a gun that can cycle 5.56, would get beat up real quick by something 82k. Or something that can shoot 85K without beating itself up would struggle to cycle 5.56. Adjustable gas block? New variable suppressor tech? |
|
What's the problem the .mil is trying to solve here? It seems hard to evaluate the efficacy of a solution unless the problem is clearly identified. If the problem is killing people 800 meters away, developing new ammunition, barrels, and bolts for short-barreled M4s doesn't sound wise or effective, no matter how fast the bullet gets pushed. If the problem is needing more velocity from compact, suppressed M4s for shorter range combat, it seems like a longer integrally suppressed barrel or an over-barrel suppressor on a longer barrel with a shorter overall length than a conventionallly suppressed barrel would be faster, cheaper, and easier to develop. Lately, it seems to me that .mil has been looking to solve minor to non-existent problems with the AR platform with the most expensive and complex solutions possible. |
|
Originally Posted By cttb: What's the problem the .mil is trying to solve here? It seems hard to evaluate the efficacy of a solution unless the problem is clearly identified. If the problem is killing people 800 meters away, developing new ammunition, barrels, and bolts for short-barreled M4s doesn't sound wise or effective, no matter how fast the bullet gets pushed. If the problem is needing more velocity from compact, suppressed M4s for shorter range combat, it seems like a longer integrally suppressed barrel or an over-barrel suppressor on a longer barrel with a shorter overall length than a conventionallly suppressed barrel would be faster, cheaper, and easier to develop. Lately, it seems to me that .mil has been looking to solve minor to non-existent problems with the AR platform with the most expensive and complex solutions possible. We don’t have a monolithic Army. Conventional does one thing, SOF does another, and within SOF different units perform specific missions, requiring slightly different equipment. From the very beginning of the country: Roger’s Rangers had a different mission and different equipment than the conventional force. There is some overlap and sharing, of course. |
|
Originally Posted By cttb: What's the problem the .mil is trying to solve here? It seems hard to evaluate the efficacy of a solution unless the problem is clearly identified. If the problem is killing people 800 meters away, developing new ammunition, barrels, and bolts for short-barreled M4s doesn't sound wise or effective, no matter how fast the bullet gets pushed. If the problem is needing more velocity from compact, suppressed M4s for shorter range combat, it seems like a longer integrally suppressed barrel or an over-barrel suppressor on a longer barrel with a shorter overall length than a conventionallly suppressed barrel would be faster, cheaper, and easier to develop. Lately, it seems to me that .mil has been looking to solve minor to non-existent problems with the AR platform with the most expensive and complex solutions possible. The Army exists to spend money, not to fight wars. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By medieval_flail: I require Pew Science data for an objective assessment, as with any can, however the doubled up ridiculous MFMD that I heard in person was pretty quiet even under covered shooting. Originally Posted By medieval_flail: Originally Posted By PacificNic: The moment that they tried to sell me on the MFMD being "hearing-safe" on a 5.56mm platform, I stopped listening to any of the marketing slop about this. It might genuinely be a great piece of hardware, but I cannot stand gimmicky tactics. I require Pew Science data for an objective assessment, as with any can, however the doubled up ridiculous MFMD that I heard in person was pretty quiet even under covered shooting. It's almost two fucking pounds on the end of your gun. That thing better suck my dick on command for that much weight and cost. |
|
Dream on: "...and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards..."Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By panthermark: Good point. Maybe nothing bad "right away"...but nothing good can come from it. I'm also curious about the 5.56 requirement. Seems like having a gun that can cycle 5.56, would get beat up real quick by something 82k. Or something that can shoot 85K without beating itself up would struggle to cycle 5.56. Adjustable gas block? New variable suppressor tech? I was thinking about this, I wonder if something like the Geissele Phased Array gas ports would be something that could handle legacy rounds and the high pressure stuff to the point there is a reliable system without the need for adjustable components. |
|
Originally Posted By coldblue: Dream on: "...and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards..."https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/19411/Dave_Thank_you_jpg-3766918.JPG Lol, not even close to a dream. Bipod and bag literally anyone can do this with a high enough bc bullet and a firing solution. It's not 1968 anymore. |
|
Originally Posted By rb889: It's almost two fucking pounds on the end of your gun. That thing better suck my dick on command for that much weight and cost. Originally Posted By rb889: Originally Posted By medieval_flail: Originally Posted By PacificNic: The moment that they tried to sell me on the MFMD being "hearing-safe" on a 5.56mm platform, I stopped listening to any of the marketing slop about this. It might genuinely be a great piece of hardware, but I cannot stand gimmicky tactics. I require Pew Science data for an objective assessment, as with any can, however the doubled up ridiculous MFMD that I heard in person was pretty quiet even under covered shooting. It's almost two fucking pounds on the end of your gun. That thing better suck my dick on command for that much weight and cost. It's nearly 2lbs with the clip on 'extra suppressor' added. The bare MFMD which they claim is 138.5db / 50% recoil reduction is only 20oz, and $1800. Most importantly it barely adds any length, so you can have a suppressed 14.5 the length of a normal suppressed 10.5-11.5. Even a 16" would be shorter than an unsuppressed 18". https://strategicsciences.us/mfmd/mfmd-5-56-1-3-1-2x28/urg-i-14-5 https://www.capitolarmory.com/strategic-sciences-mfmd-5-56-suppressor.html 
. We're going to get riflemogged by Canada when they adopt this pimp ass setup: https://soldiersystems.net/2026/04/07/colt-optics-selected-to-support-the-canadian-modular-assault-rifle-cmar-program/  |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Lol, not even close to a dream. Bipod and bag literally anyone can do this with a high enough bc bullet and a firing solution. It's not 1968 anymore. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By coldblue: Dream on: "...and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards..."https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/19411/Dave_Thank_you_jpg-3766918.JPG Lol, not even close to a dream. Bipod and bag literally anyone can do this with a high enough bc bullet and a firing solution. It's not 1968 anymore. Are military quals done with bipods, bags, and computers? |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Are military quals done with bipods, bags, and computers? Military quals have been fucked up and silly for a very long time, but they're getting better with the Army's new course of fire incorporating barricades. I wouldn't treat military quals as a metric for anything. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Military quals have been fucked up and silly for a very long time, but they're getting better with the Army's new course of fire incorporating barricades. I wouldn't treat military quals as a metric for anything. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By 03RN: Are military quals done with bipods, bags, and computers? Military quals have been fucked up and silly for a very long time, but they're getting better with the Army's new course of fire incorporating barricades. I wouldn't treat military quals as a metric for anything. I never said it was a metric but it is what we're working with. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Military quals have been fucked up and silly for a very long time, but they're getting better with the Army's new course of fire incorporating barricades. I wouldn't treat military quals as a metric for anything. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By 03RN: Are military quals done with bipods, bags, and computers? Military quals have been fucked up and silly for a very long time, but they're getting better with the Army's new course of fire incorporating barricades. I wouldn't treat military quals as a metric for anything.  .mil weapons quals are a pretty decent indication of a service's or unit's improvement or degeneration, year to year.
|
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: .mil weapons quals are a pretty decent indication of a service's or unit's improvement or degeneration, year to year.Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. |
|
The high pressure stuff is definitely interesting. I don't know if it will ever be mainstream but it has some real interesting applications. There's a lot of interest in bigger bolt guns like the Seekins SIC which is rated to 80k. The 7mm Backcountry was basically said to duplicate 7PRC but out of a 20" barrel. That's pretty handy for a hunter. Someone dropped this vid a couple days ago and I finally got around to watching it. One of the things I found interesting was that he said the MCX is suited for the high pressure rounds and they have tested it. He goes into some comparisons ie a 10" high pressure gives 20" normal ballistics.  The Truth About the SIG MCX From a Guy Who Built It |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By backbencher: .mil weapons quals are a pretty decent indication of a service's or unit's improvement or degeneration, year to year.Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. I was in the Army since late 2006 til 2022, and never qualled from a foxhole.
|
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By backbencher: .mil weapons quals are a pretty decent indication of a service's or unit's improvement or degeneration, year to year.Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. What does a fighting hole have to do with shooting quals? |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: What does a fighting hole have to do with shooting quals? Army quals do a poor job of approximating the shooting you'll actually do. The USMC qual is a lot better. That said, the goal with new weapons programs isn't to pass the (usually outdated) qual. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: Army quals do a poor job of approximating the shooting you'll actually do. The USMC qual is a lot better. That said, the goal with new weapons programs isn't to pass the (usually outdated) qual. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By 03RN: What does a fighting hole have to do with shooting quals? Army quals do a poor job of approximating the shooting you'll actually do. The USMC qual is a lot better. That said, the goal with new weapons programs isn't to pass the (usually outdated) qual. Irregardless, bipods, bags, and a computer solution are irrelevant to quals, and real world use in the field. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Irregardless, bipods, bags, and a computer solution are irrelevant to quals, and real world use in the field. High pressure ammo increases hit probability. Fact. Advanced optics increase hit probability. Fact. The Army does not share this Luddite view which is why we're pouring billions into high pressure ammo, optics to aim it and new guns to shoot it. It's not really a debate. The argument is, do we ignore the benefits of new technology? From my perspective as both a former end user and current stakeholder, I want the best weapon available regardless of how much I liked my issued m4, acog and bipod. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: High pressure ammo increases hit probability. Fact. Advanced optics increase hit probability. Fact. The Army does not share this Luddite view which is why we're pouring billions into high pressure ammo, optics to aim it and new guns to shoot it. It's not really a debate. The argument is, do we ignore the benefits of new technology? From my perspective as both a former end user and current stakeholder, I want the best weapon available regardless of how much I liked my issued m4, acog and bipod. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By 03RN: Irregardless, bipods, bags, and a computer solution are irrelevant to quals, and real world use in the field. High pressure ammo increases hit probability. Fact. Advanced optics increase hit probability. Fact. The Army does not share this Luddite view which is why we're pouring billions into high pressure ammo, optics to aim it and new guns to shoot it. It's not really a debate. The argument is, do we ignore the benefits of new technology? From my perspective as both a former end user and current stakeholder, I want the best weapon available regardless of how much I liked my issued m4, acog and bipod. Its not about ignoring new technology. Bipods and bags and computerized optics are not going to teach you how to be better marksmen. They do absolutely increase hit probability but its not relevant to this discussion. High pressure ammo increases parts wear and breakage. Fact Advanced optics are unreliable and the sig ones the army adopted suck and emits IR that the enemy can hone in on. Fact. If the .gov was serious about the best weapon they would focus on better instruction and more practice with what they have. Fact |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
The whole point of the RFP is to acquire rifles designed to shoot this ammo and 1540+ nm lrf are currently issued. I agree military training in many cases is inadequate. Anyway this exchange has run its course. Hopefully the RFP generates some innovation for the military and civs |
|
Originally Posted By JoshNC: The solicitation was likely written for a single manufacturer to win. Someone who already has exactly what the Army wants. Given the one letter change, my guess is the HICAR is for the Surefire ICAR 5.56. (I have zero data to support this other then the name similarity, but feels right)
|
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: The whole point of the RFP is to acquire rifles designed to shoot this ammo and 1540+ nm lrf are currently issued. I agree military training in many cases is inadequate. Anyway this exchange has run its course. Hopefully the RFP generates some innovation for the military and civs Lol, ok. Not sure how you navigated from," Just give them the new tech with a bipod, bag, and a firing solution" to this. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: In this thread we’re arguing convenient size vs power. I thought this argument was settled when the M14 was retired. I guess not. If suppressor use isn’t part of the equation, a M16A4 with a collapsible stock might be a decent compromise. Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: In this thread we’re arguing convenient size vs power. I thought this argument was settled when the M14 was retired. I guess not. If suppressor use isn’t part of the equation, a M16A4 with a collapsible stock might be a decent compromise. I had to qual with one of those, it is a horrendous configuration. Not really a lot shorter, front heavy, the worst of both worlds. Originally Posted By FedDC: They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. What are we even talking about here? Why does an 0311 PFC need to know what mils are to shoot a man sized target at 500 meters or less with an optic that has labeled stadia lines? Whose rifles don't run? What is even the basis for that statement? They get an LTI every time they're issued to go to the range. They BZO before quals, and as part of RSO&I when they deploy. Dented mags? Everyone's been using PMags for almost a decade now. Bizarre vague doompost. Originally Posted By 03RN: Are military quals done with bipods, bags, and computers? Now? Yes. |
|
Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Given the one letter change, my guess is the HICAR is for the Surefire ICAR 5.56. (I have zero data to support this other then the name similarity, but feels right)
I hope so. Reports from those who have shot the ICAR are that it’s awesome. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: High pressure ammo increases hit probability. Fact. Advanced optics increase hit probability. Fact. The Army does not share this Luddite view which is why we're pouring billions into high pressure ammo, optics to aim it and new guns to shoot it. It's not really a debate. The argument is, do we ignore the benefits of new technology? From my perspective as both a former end user and current stakeholder, I want the best weapon available regardless of how much I liked my issued m4, acog and bipod. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By 03RN: Irregardless, bipods, bags, and a computer solution are irrelevant to quals, and real world use in the field. High pressure ammo increases hit probability. Fact. Advanced optics increase hit probability. Fact. The Army does not share this Luddite view which is why we're pouring billions into high pressure ammo, optics to aim it and new guns to shoot it. It's not really a debate. The argument is, do we ignore the benefits of new technology? From my perspective as both a former end user and current stakeholder, I want the best weapon available regardless of how much I liked my issued m4, acog and bipod. The army struggles to field the smallest number of infantry since WW II and can’t afford to train to standard on current Gen gear, but quadrupling that cost with a heavier system that has less magazine capacity and requires constant battery changes will fix it. It’s definitely not going to end with less training as it’s now more to train and no leader will assume they don’t training as the magic computer gun replaced the need to train. Go watch any CQB video from Ukr. That’s the future for the Infantry. There’s no requirement for these systems in that world. It solves no gap and creates problems. |
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Wait...seriously? Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By AK-12: Now? Yes. Wait...seriously? The first 20? rounds of the Army rifle qual from 2009? - 2021 were off sandbags. Army infantry now has a computerized optic on the |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Wait...seriously? Originally Posted By 03RN: Wait...seriously? Yes. They shoot the old ART (now called ERT-Entry Level Training) qual at boot camp, and their annual rifle qual thereafter is the ARQ. ARQ allows you to use your pack as a rest, or use a bipod. Most Marines seem to prefer using a grip pod. ARQ isn't perfect, but from a "gunfighter" perspective it's a substantial improvement over the old ART course of fire because it features barricades and positional shooting. What it lacks is primarily that it doesn't teach marksmanship fundamentals, which is why they still shoot ERT at boot camp. Originally Posted By FedDC: The army struggles to field the smallest number of infantry since WW II and can’t afford to train to standard on current Gen gear, but quadrupling that cost with a heavier system that has less magazine capacity and requires constant battery changes will fix it. It’s definitely not going to end with less training as it’s now more to train and no leader will assume they don’t training as the magic computer gun replaced the need to train. Go watch any CQB video from Ukr. That’s the future for the Infantry. There’s no requirement for these systems in that world. It solves no gap and creates problems. We need to be cautious about how broadly we apply lessons from the war in Ukraine to our expectations of future conflict. My biggest issue with what the Army is attempting to do with these new weapon systems is that they're "modernizing" the wrong equipment, which seems to indicate that their expectations are for small arms gunfights to determine success or failure. Infantry needs to be viewed as a maneuver capability, to supplement or be supplemented by fires, armor, etc... What they should be doing is making it easier for infantry formations to maneuver. Over the past few decades we've significantly encumbered them with armor, batteries, and all sorts of other things that make maneuver more difficult. One of the reasons the M4/AR is becoming even more prolific than it already was even after being in service for 50+ years is that it does everything an infantry rifle needs to do while also being very light. With these new small arms solicitations the Army seems to want weapons that do things an infantry rifle doesn't need to do at the expense of doubling the weight and reducing durability. We are still issuing bulky ICW body armor with soft inserts that become less effective when they get wet. Our new light family of vehicles is triple the weight of what it replaced, and somehow less reliable. We are spending a lot of money in the wrong areas IMHO. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: There's a lot of tilting at windmills going on here. "Heavier with less ammunition," read the RFP again. This isn't about buying another M7. Also is for SOCOM, the guys that actually train and kill people for a living. Must be a reason those guys are looking at something like this. |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
4324
EE: 67% (3)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By FoxValleyTacDriver: If they go with a 6mm arc it'll be fine. I can hit my 10 in steel plate repeatedly with my 12 in arc at 650 yards. Hunter Constantine was hitting a large plate at 1k yards with his 10.5 They should have just went with 6mm arc Originally Posted By FoxValleyTacDriver: Originally Posted By panthermark: It seems really short to me as well, but maybe they are going that short on the assumption that it will always be suppressed whatever future can is in the works, so they are leaving room in terms of OAL. If they go with a 6mm arc it'll be fine. I can hit my 10 in steel plate repeatedly with my 12 in arc at 650 yards. Hunter Constantine was hitting a large plate at 1k yards with his 10.5 They should have just went with 6mm arc If you understand holds the same thing is achievable with a 11.5" 556 and an ACOG. Now the bullet might just bounce of your target 
|
|
Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: Biggest weakness in the program is sticking with the Gen 3 PMAG / AR15 2.25" COL cartridge spec, which prevents using a longer lower drag projectile that would really open up long range velocity retention. Think a 5.56 version of the VLD projectile used in the new 6.8 NGSW: https://i.ibb.co/4FWj696/6-8-mm-cartridge-vs-M80-A1-1800.jpg A rifle based on the Six8 receiver (such as the SF ICAR) might have allowed for a "5.56 Long" loaded to 2.32" COL, both allowing a more VLD projectile shape and also preventing the newer high pressure 5.56 being chambered in legacy rifles. Although from the SSD article it sounds like the Army may want to convert all M4's to high pressure in the future. To give a sense of the limiting effect of the 2.25" COL, and the drag of the M855A1 projectile shape, I ran the numbers through Berger: https://bergerbullets.com/ballistics-calculator/ M855A1 = G7 BC 0.152 (common number I've seen citied online) 11.5" regular velocity ~ 2750fps 11.5" High Pressure ~ 3150fps Goal was turning current '300m effectiveness' into '600m effectiveness'--> 11.5" regular = 1836fps @ 300m 11.5" HP = 1836fps @ 420m Without a lower drag projectile shape, the +400fps only leads to modest gains in range. By comparison: 5.45 7n6 53gr G7 bc 0.168 @ 2950fps (basic 70's AK74) 1836fps @ 402m So the worlds most advanced AR15 with state of the art high pressure ammo will only modestly outrange the AK74, simply because the 5.45 has a modestly lower drag projectile 
|
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
9736
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By spydercomonkey: To give a sense of the limiting effect of the 2.25" COL, and the drag of the M855A1 projectile shape, I ran the numbers through Berger: https://bergerbullets.com/ballistics-calculator/ M855A1 = G7 BC 0.152 (common number I've seen citied online) 11.5" regular velocity ~ 2750fps 11.5" High Pressure ~ 3150fps Goal was turning current '300m effectiveness' into '600m effectiveness'--> 11.5" regular = 1836fps @ 300m 11.5" HP = 1836fps @ 420m Without a lower drag projectile shape, the +400fps only leads to modest gains in range. By comparison: 5.45 7n6 53gr G7 bc 0.168 @ 2950fps (basic 70's AK74) 1836fps @ 402m So the worlds most advanced AR15 with state of the art high pressure ammo will only modestly outrange the AK74, simply because the 5.45 has a modestly lower drag projectile Stepping up to 85gr , you can have nosler RDF at .245 g7 . Load out to 2.5x" for 10% more volume and utililize NAS3 for another 10% effective capacity. * the 5.56 case capacity gets mighty close to grendel/ARC capacity with 20% more 28.5 up to 34.2gr . Should be spicy pushing a 85gr bullet ...and at 70ish-ksi vs 50ksi . |
|
Originally Posted By panthermark: It is all basically better new fangled space age materials. But yeah, when something goes tits up, it could get ugly. Originally Posted By panthermark: Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: I have a feeling a lot of bolt lugs are about to be sacrificed. It is all basically better new fangled space age materials. But yeah, when something goes tits up, it could get ugly. They said the same thing about the SIG M17, and we saw how that turned out... |
"Make mistakes of ambition, not mistakes of sloth." - Macchiavelli
|
Originally Posted By FedDC: We can't run the M-4 to its basic capabilities. The average soldier, LEO, Marine, can't run the legacy rifle anywhere close to what it can do with a simple ACOG. We don't even pretend to train to that level or hold a standard approaching it. But, yeah...we should buy magic rifles. "The funding doesn't exist for that level of training." 
|
"Make mistakes of ambition, not mistakes of sloth." - Macchiavelli
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: The new Army marksmanship program, as little as it is, pretty much forces Joe to get a good zero to qualify. Before he can shoot for qualification, he has to confirm his zero from the 25 yd range on the 300m target. Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By FedDC: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By FedDC: We can't run the M-4 to its basic capabilities. The average soldier, LEO, Marine, can't run the legacy rifle anywhere close to what it can do with a simple ACOG. We don't even pretend to train to that level or hold a standard approaching it. But, yeah...we should buy magic rifles. This is a misconception about high pressure ammunition. It's not magic. Faster bullets shoot flatter. Joe doesn't need to know his holds if we're shooting +/- 1 mil out to 300 yards. Pair that with an optic that does the thinking for you, and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards. They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. The new Army marksmanship program, as little as it is, pretty much forces Joe to get a good zero to qualify. Before he can shoot for qualification, he has to confirm his zero from the 25 yd range on the 300m target. I watched in tooth-grinding rage as a USAR MED DET of a hundred "soldiers" took four days (!) to finish on the 25m range at Fort Wolters. No amount of remedial training will work on people who simply don't give a fuck. You know they don't even do assigned weapons anymore in some units? That's insane to me. |
"Make mistakes of ambition, not mistakes of sloth." - Macchiavelli
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: What does a fighting hole have to do with shooting quals? Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By backbencher: .mil weapons quals are a pretty decent indication of a service's or unit's improvement or degeneration, year to year.Shoot out of a lot of foxholes during the GWOT? The pre-2020 is an anachronism that was long due for an overhaul. What does a fighting hole have to do with shooting quals? Some Army installations still had foxhole firing positions in use for qualifications. Fort Bliss still has one of those ranges, but AFAIK they only use it for the Contractor Readiness Course. I shot my first qualification after OSUT from a foxhole position at Camp McCain, MS in 2003, with an M16A2 that was dazzlingly accurate. Not a day goes by that I don't miss that rifle. |
"Make mistakes of ambition, not mistakes of sloth." - Macchiavelli
|
Originally Posted By doubleclaw: I watched in tooth-grinding rage as a USAR MED DET of a hundred "soldiers" took four days (!) to finish on the 25m range at Fort Wolters. No amount of remedial training will work on people who simply don't give a fuck. You know they don't even do assigned weapons anymore in some units? That's insane to me. Originally Posted By doubleclaw: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By FedDC: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By FedDC: We can't run the M-4 to its basic capabilities. The average soldier, LEO, Marine, can't run the legacy rifle anywhere close to what it can do with a simple ACOG. We don't even pretend to train to that level or hold a standard approaching it. But, yeah...we should buy magic rifles. This is a misconception about high pressure ammunition. It's not magic. Faster bullets shoot flatter. Joe doesn't need to know his holds if we're shooting +/- 1 mil out to 300 yards. Pair that with an optic that does the thinking for you, and you can take a relatively unskilled shooter and have them hitting a reduced c zone out to 800 yards. They can't do any of that because they don't understand the basics of gunfighting. It's not the tool...it is the user. Nobody is missing because they don't know their hold, just like they don't understand how much a mil is or what the magic lines in the optic mean. They can't gunfight. More expensive rifles and optics with batteries won't fix that. It has to be built and nobody wants to build it outside SOCOM and a few Infantry units. Their rifles don't run. Their optics aren't zero'd. Their lasers are a disaster with completely incorrect settings and switches. Their slings and white lights are a mess. Their mags are dented and broken. Their kit is set up to prevent any semblance of effective use of a rifle or pistol... This isn't a new problem. It was this way in early GWOT. It is back to it now. Casualties are the only thing that fixes it. The new Army marksmanship program, as little as it is, pretty much forces Joe to get a good zero to qualify. Before he can shoot for qualification, he has to confirm his zero from the 25 yd range on the 300m target. I watched in tooth-grinding rage as a USAR MED DET of a hundred "soldiers" took four days (!) to finish on the 25m range at Fort Wolters. No amount of remedial training will work on people who simply don't give a fuck. You know they don't even do assigned weapons anymore in some units? That's insane to me. With a red dot, if eye position doesn't matter, then when the weapon is zeroed, it's zeroed for everyone, no? Individual eye position matters for irons. Drove past Wolters yesterday. My late FIL was a big part of a civilian shooting club that used that range for many years when .mil wasn't training. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
Joined:
Apr 2023
Posts:
320
EE: 100% (4)
FL, USA
| I don't see much about a bolt redesign. M855A1 already sheared bolt lugs, I'm not sure Aermet 100 is the answer. A larger more robust bolt would solve some problems, and given the move towards 6 ARC, a bolt designed to accommodate that correctly would be appropriately overbuilt with a 5.56 bolt face. The tactical application is pretty much nonsense and based on the needs of an Afghanistan style fight from 20 years ago, but as said above, the Army exists to spend money, not to fight wars. |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
9738
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By medieval_flail: I don't see much about a bolt redesign. M855A1 already sheared bolt lugs, I'm not sure Aermet 100 is the answer. A larger more robust bolt would solve some problems, and given the move towards 6 ARC, a bolt designed to accommodate that correctly would be appropriately overbuilt with a 5.56 bolt face. The tactical application is pretty much nonsense and based on the needs of an Afghanistan style fight from 20 years ago, but as said above, the Army exists to spend money, not to fight wars. The ICAR dimensional bolt would be good to mitigate use of specialized materials, especially with a 5.56 bolt head size . Combine that with the ability to load out with an SFAR sized lower to keep pressures lower along with the added capacity of NAS3 type cartridge cases. Keeps everything small frame , but with added capability...if incremental. * I forgot to throw in that Proof exponential twist...maybe that'd be good for some incrementalism... |
HICAR - High Pressure 82kpsi M855A1+ rifle for SOCOM (Page 2 of 5)
AR Sponsor
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter