Army Launches Competition for More Powerful Combat Rifle
 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...bat-rifle.html

IIRC didn't the army just conduct some sort of review that said the M4 was just fine the way it is?

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

TO

I did not intend to start another caliber "discussion", my issue is there seems to be a political bent. When the last goof was in office it seemed "everything if fine we can make do with less, not to worry". Now that there's a , can I say, pro military CNC it's "we need bigger and better, serious issues must be address".

It always troubles me to see a lack of integrity in what's suppose to be an honest assessment of the needs of the foot soldier.
,

You'd have better luck finding (female) virgins in a whorehouse than "integrity" in military procurement. Bluntly - the further the requirement gets from the end user, the less likely you are to encounter it. Especially if it's a big enough action to garner congressional interest. Eisenhower warned us; nobody listened.

Industrial military complex aside, are they now trying to bring back the "battle rifle" to augment/replace the carbine for infantry?

I'm open to the discussion of application of infantry in modern warfare, and the preferred rifle/carbine. I assume there will always be a need for dismounted, door to door fighting, so with a variety of missions, what is the preferred weapon for your standard issue 11B?

Maybe the wrong question, but I'm trying to get some perspective of what the troops need: short, maneuverable with more rounds carbine, or longer reaching, heavy caliber rounds rifles? I understand each mission varies, but I'm thinking along the lines of standard issue, not specialized for a specific mission.

Was the Carbine an evolutionary mistake? Should the battle rifle have matured?

If the QPs went into the infantry/big army, what would they want? (maybe a better question).

Thanks

These were along the lines I was thinking of, thank you.

Distance.........

For close in, 5.56 is supreme.

Outside of 300m you need to step it up to .30 cal.

Something in-between, I really doubt it. And while thinking about it and before you answer or throw out your opinions remember why we went to 5.56. You really want to carry 300 rounds of .30 cal ammo (and mags) as a basic load?

And I don't think the US Army is going to go BTHP for infantry ammo any day soon. So we're going to have to get used to the little damage FMJ does.

I have heard wild speculations and conjecture on other forums that there is some interest in some upper circles in a ".264 American", which is sort of like a modern redo of .280 British. I personally long for the timeline where we have that crazy bullpup FAL in .280, but hey. Its basically a close cousin of 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC or what not. I like it conceptually but it seems like an objectively wasteful thing to "upgrade" . Army just bought new handguns, just spent a bunch money getting M855A1 made, etc etc. I'd rather see a bunch of government dudes trying to get lighter body armor all figured, because the tech is very much out there in my opinion....

Disclaimer: I'm an armchair hack.

Why is it that the the Air Force and Navy/Marine air units get several different multi-million dollar platforms for various missions and the leg guys are saddled with one or two? The cost of one F-35 could procure oodles of special goodies for the ground pounders.

How about an armory which includes weapons of many calibers and capabilities available for the specific mission and at the request of the soldiers tasked with that mission?

Pat

James,
The question the article raises for me is two part:
Is the army considering, back to the battle rifle for a new type of warfare and is there to be an arms race between small arms and body armor.

The best answer from my modest perspective is what would an experienced soldier carry into battle as the infantry. The caveat is the particular weapon would be standard issue, not some specialized one off, if you get my meaning.

TO

What is the current training level and time spent per each infantry soldier on marksmanship/shooting?

How often is this armored threat being faced?

If the soldier cannot shoot well enough, far enough, what difference will a larger calibre rifle do, with added weight and reduced round count carried as penalty..

I would guess more $ and time on training, with a FF rail and a field capable two stage trigger would do more..

Doing a bit of googling on this subject to get myself a bit more informed (my previous post focused more on the "interim" part of this project somewhat blindly)

It seems as though there are a few factors at play here not readily available in the Original post at top:

1)Even though they're pitching M80A1 as "better" than M855A1, M80A1 has absolutely no fucking chance of popping an ESAPI either. ESAPI, and somewhat comparable civilian "Level 4" plates can somewhat reliably take .30-06 tungsten/steel cored AP. Civilian shit has to do it 100% of the time on the first hit, military just has to do it 50% of the time for weight reasons. Both of these EPR rounds are REALLY good against Level 3 armor, which is roughly equivalent to a regular SAPI, AFAIK. They punch holes in AR500 steel all day long, UHMPWE plates, and I think most L3 ceramics. It's completely unreasonable to expect them to beat something that takes AP .30-06 and keeps trucking.

2)The guy talking about this in the article is also involved in the production of some secret sauce AP round with better penetration stats than either of the aforementioned rounds, and they hope to be fielding it in the next year or two, specifically in 7.62x51.

3)There are (I believe) already 5.56 Tungsten/steel Cored rounds, along with 7.62x51 rounds of same, that are capable of beating the armor they want beaten, albeit with some range restrictions. The rounds I reference are the M955 AP for 5.56 and it's 7.62x51 equivalent. I can't be 100% about this, as while I can buy or acquire a plate to test on, getting the AP ammo itself is expensive, illegal, and very very hard, to say the least.

4)The reason it's interim is because the whole point of the program is to patch a gap in capabilities while a bunch of very technically qualified people continue evaluating a variety of 6mm rounds.... the army as a whole seems to have very very little interest in returning to .308 versus the capabilities of a 6/6.5mm round.

I think, but cannot be sure, that this is a program with a specific goal of equipping some units (which ones, I couldn't tell you) with a DMR or Marksman rifle capable of beating ESAPI plate equivalents, while someone else figures out a new service rifle in a 6.5mm/.280 type cartridge that can maintain an AP advantage over 5.56 or 5.45 projectiles.

I speculate that part of the reason for the transition or goal of transition from 5.56 to 6.5/6mm is that these rounds are intermediate between 5.56 and .308, or in more realistic terms, can probably be adapted to function well at longer ranges than 5.56, maintain most of the ballistic effectiveness and AP ability of .308, hopefully while keeping most of the weight advantages of 5.56 ammo. I definitely think that's been motivated by some infantry experiences in recent memory, but that is again only my opinion.

I don't know a whole lot about an arms race between ammo and armor, but it seems plausible. Almost all my experience is with civilian ratings of body armor, and I have some vague understanding that there is something of a bit of one up manship in terms of threat versus armor. I guess to be more clear, in something of a more civilian context, there already is an arms race. IIA for pistols, but if it's a big pistol then you need II and if they're some kind of gang banger and have an UZI or a MAC or whatever than you want IIIA, but if you've gotta deal with some kind of active shooter with an AK then III works and is all good and dandy but if it's some crazed lunatic with .30-06 AP then you better have some 4, and so on and so forth. The thing with the civilian world is that conceal ability is a factor, whereas with the military it's always been more like a weight thing, AFAIK. That means that .mil essentially defaults to a III equivalent in most cases, hard armor rated for rifles. That's actually what most units went to the ME with as far as I recall from various sources of literature, until the one up manship game came into play and snipers using AP 7.62x54R started targeting the side plates on people's IOTVs, and getting double kidney blowouts, which are fucking nightmares to try and treat in ideal conditions. As I've read (emphasis on read) that was the main reason for people getting ESAPI plates.

In most ways, the best armor currently available can't be beaten by the best standard infantry carried round available, which does present a lot of interesting questions. I doubt armor tech is going to regress any time soon (I actually expect that it will be getting a lot better, and I'm mildly hopeful for light, rifle rated, soft armor within the next decade or less, and that current soft armor standards will be available in materials that are generally comparable to the feeling of regular clothes, albeit very expensive, within a similar time frame) so the natural end result is that people need pointier bullets. The question for me being, how the fuck do we improve from here? Tungsten/steel is fucking hard. If modern armor can already beat Tungsten/steel core .30-06, then what exactly can we pull out of a lab to beat modern armor?

I can recall of one example of a promising concept, but it was very far from a battle rifle. It was essentially very strange, very swedish, UZI/MAC type clone. It fired very hot 9mm (I think it was 9mm, could be offbase) and had a specialty round that was a saboted AP core. It could beat not just the soft armor rated for SMGs but some of the lower end of the rifle rated armor as well, all out of a subgun barrel. I can't say whether we'll see similar things in rifles, but either more complex AP ammo like saboted projectiles, or some very impressive materials science is needed to go much further.

TL;DR: The army doesn't want battle rifles. There is definitely an arms races of AP versus Armor.

Hopefully I'm not just running my mouth here.

Thank you TS and WD,

I suppose any compromise between the carbine and rifle would be a failure of both.

I would hope the competition between philosophies will yield an improved system.

TO

Actually two rifles would be a great compromise. We have a jungle uniform, a winter uniform, desert etc.

Why on earth don't we have a short range, med range and long range rifle?

And making one that does all three, that's called a failure.

We have that Scar-L 5.56 Scar-H 7.62
Long range M-2010 in 300.WM :D

[QUOTE]
Strongly agree..

Up thru Nam, infantry had choices:

Infantry rifles

• Vietnamese Rangers with M16 rifles in Saigon during the Tết Offensive
• L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle – Used by Australian and New Zealand soldiers in Vietnam
• AR-10 – Limited uses
• A U.S. soldier with an M14 watches as supplies are dropped in Vietnam, 1967.
• M1 Garand – Used by the South Vietnamese, South Koreans and Laotians. Limited numbers were carried by early US advisors and USMC troops.
• M1, M1A1, & M2 Carbine – Used by the South Vietnamese Military, Police and Security Forces, US Military, and Laotians supplied by the United States
• M1903A3 Springfield – Limited numbers were used by the South Vietnamese and USMC.
• M14 rifle Issued to most US troops from the early stages of the war until 1967-68, when it was replaced by the M16.[7]
• M16, XM16E1, and M16A1 – M16 was issued in 1963, but due to reliability issues, it was replaced by the M16A1 in 1967 which added the forward assist and chrome-lined barrel to the rifle for increased reliability.[8]
• CAR-15 – Carbine variant of the M16 produced in very limited numbers, fielded by special operations early on. Later supplemented by the improved XM177.
• XM177 (Colt Commando) – Further development of the CAR-15, used heavily by MACV-SOG, the US Air Force, and US Army.[6]
• Stoner 63 – used by U.S. Navy SEALs and USMC.[6]
• Heckler & Koch G3 – Used by Thai forces.
• Heckler & Koch HK33 – Used by Thai forces that were not armed by the United States. It was chambered for the same cartridge as the M16 assault rifle used by American troops.
• T223 – which is a copy of the Heckler & Koch HK33 Assault Rifle under license by Harrington & Richardson used in small numbers by Navy SEAL teams. Even though the empty H&R T223 was 0.9 pounds (0.41 kg) heavier than an empty M16A1, the weapon had a forty-round magazine available for it and this made it attractive to the SEALS.[6]
• Winchester Model 70 – Used by the USMC.
• MAS-36 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
• MAS-49 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.

Sniper/marksman rifles

• M1C/D Garand – Limited numbers were used by the South Vietnamese.
• M1903A4 Springfield – Used by the USMC throughout the war, replaced by the M40.
• M21 Sniper Weapon System – Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) used by the US Army.
• M40 – Bolt-action sniper rifle meant to replace the M1903 Springfield rifle; used by the U.S. Marines.

Submachine guns

• Thompson submachine gun – Used often by South Vietnamese troops, and in small quantities by U.S. artillery and helicopter units.
• M3 Grease gun – Standard U.S. Military submachine-gun, also used by the South Vietnamese[6]
• Ingram MAC-10 – Used by U.S. special operations forces.[6]
• Swedish K – Used by Navy SEALs in the beginning of the war, but later replaced by the Smith & Wesson M76 in the late 1960s. Significant numbers were also utilized by the South Vietnamese,[6] and limited numbers were used in Laos by advisors, and Laotian fighters.
• Smith & Wesson M76 – Copy of the Swedish K, replacing it in 1967.[6]
• Madsen M-50 – Large numbers utilized by South Vietnamese and U.S. forces, supplied from Denmark.[6]
• Owen Gun – Standard Australian submachine-gun in the early stages of the war, later replaced by the F1.
• F1 submachine gun – Replaced the Owen Gun in Australian service.
• Sterling submachine gun – Used by Australian SASR and other special operations units.
• Sten submachine gun – Used by U.S. special operations forces, often with a suppressor mounted.
• Uzi – Used by special operations forces, supplied from Israel.
• Beretta M12 – Limited numbers were used by US embassy security units.[9]
• MAT-49 submachine gun – Captured models were used in limited numbers [6]
• M50/55 Reising – Limited numbers were used by MACV-SOG and other irregular forces.[6]
• United Defense M42 – Used by the South Vietnamese.
• MAS-38 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
• A180 – Used by the South Vietnamese Forces.
• Vigneron M2 - Used by the South Korea Army.

Shotguns

• Ithaca 37 - The shotguns were used as an individual weapon during jungle patrol; infantry units were authorized a shotgun by TO & E (Table of Organization & Equipment). Shotguns were not general issue to all infantrymen, but were select issue, such as one per squad, etc.
• Winchester Model 1912 – Pump-action shotgun was used by the Marines during the early stages of the war
• Ithaca 37 – Pump-action shotgun Used by NAVY SEALs and ANZAC.[6]
• Remington 7188 – Experimental select fire shotgun, withdrawn due to lack of reliability[6]
• Remington Model 870 – Pump-action shotgun primary shotgun used by Marines and ANZAC after 1966[6]
• Special Operations Weapon a modification for a Remington 1100 which made it fully automatic
• Remington 11-48 – Semi-automatic shotgun used by the Marines in small quantities
• Winchester Model 1897 – Used by the Marines during the early stages of the war, but was later replaced by the Remington Model 870
• Winchester Model 1200 – Pump-action shotgun used by the U.S. Army
• Stevens Model 520-30 and Model 620[10]
• Stevens Model 77E – Pump-action shotgun used by Army and Marine forces in Southeast Asia. Almost 70,000 Model 77Es were procured by the military for use in SE Asia during the 1960s
• Browning Auto-5 - Remington M11 Semi-automatic shotgun used by the South Vietnamese Forces
• Winchester Model 21 - Used by the South Vietnamese Forces
• Remington 31 - Used by the South Vietnamese Forces

Machine guns

• Stoner M63a Commando & Mark 23 Mod.0 – Used by U.S. Navy SEALs and tested by Force Recon.[6]
• M60 machine gun – GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun) Standard General Purpose Machine Gun for the U.S., Australian, New Zealand, and South Vietnamese forces.[6]
• M1918A2 – Issued to troops during the early stages of the war by the United States. But many were airdropped into Laos and used by Laotian fighters. Also used by South Vietnamese.
• M1917 Browning machine gun – .30cal heavy machine gun issued to some machine gunners in the South Vietnamese Army and also in limited use by the U.S. Army.
• M1919 Browning machine gun – Vehicle and helicopter mounted machine gun. Also fitted to Australian M113 Light Reconnaissance Vehicles.[6] Meanwhile, still of use by many South Vietnamese and Laotion infantry forces.
• Heckler & Koch HK21 – Used by Thai forces.
• Colt CMG-2 – Experimental light machine gun deployed by SEAL Team 2 in 1970.[6]
• Browning M2HB .50cal Heavy Machine Gun [6]
• M1941 Johnson machine gun – Used by South Vietnamese Forces.
• FM-24/29 – Captured models were used in limited numbers.
• Madsen machine gun - Used by the South Korea Forces.
• Chauchat - Used by the CIDG.

Plus miscellaneous pick-ups..

Granted, some were incremental improvements, as we learned..

But we had the ability to field a verity of weapons as the needs of the business.

We dont need a separate gun for long range shooting; why do you goons think we bought variable power Elcans for the M4? It's so we can shoot targets at longer ranges !!!

Boy, you guys are dumb
...some of you need to learn how to apply Lean-6-Sigma to the aRmy markspersonship programs.


Think of the waste reduction we could archive by applying some industry standard efficiency techniques:

-A 1-to-6 scope on top of our existing weapons means there is less equipment and ammunition to transport since a 6 power scope would be a 30% increase in the range that we can shoot our weapons !!!!

-Waaaay less inventory to maintain since we just recycle our current stockpile. Just purchase a few imporved Elcan scopes, some Danial Defense shorty uppers, and some drop-in trigger kits and the force will feel like we have up-graded their weaponry with no substantial increase in our inventory.

-The switch to commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components provided by popular vendors simplifies the amount of motion performed by the procurement specialists…. (yet ANOTHER increase in efficiency)

-The switch to COTS will decrease the wait times over the waiting associated with the standard supply system.

-Over-processing and over-production will no longer be a problem since COTS items are someone elses headache (plus… less inventory for the arMy to manage)

-Defects wont be an issue: think of how big the headache was a few years ago when we grounded some parachute equipment: stand-downs, research, reviews, retraining, excessive equipment inspections, etc. A COTS solution means we just go buy our shit from someone else when we decide it isnt performing to our liking any more.

-Last of all, the under-utilization of employees will be more manageable. By buying some recognizable COTS items to make people think we are moving forward, we will free up more manpower to develop training vignettes to address WISR implementation plans.


…now if this North Korea thing gets any more inconvenient, we may have to go back the white board to rethink a few issues, but overall, I think the current procurement process is looking great !!!!

How are they?

(Never used a Scar.)

What is the latest on polymer casing?
I have not followed it up since playing with some at AMU few years back.
The weight difference is significant and I doubt folks pick up the casings downrange to reload

I am not a graduate of Thermodynamics, but the brass case heating up would seem to me to some degree to act as a heat sink removing heat from the chamber.

Obviously, at some point you reach sufficient heat for a cook-off, and then all bets are off.

How many people need a rifle capable of 400 meter plus accuracy when the Army trains out to a maximum of 300 meters on a pop-up target?

How often do we get an opportunity much less a requirement for a squad to engage targets at more than 300 meters?

Has anyone taken their unit with their assigned weapons and effective long range ammo out to a real rifle range, out to 1,000 meters and taught them how to engage targets at longer ranges?

Why is the military always looking for a mechanical change, or a magic bullet to replace adequate training? The three round burst mechanism is a prime example of this. Doubling the time on BRM and allowing shooters with potential to attend advanced rifle marksmanship training would seem to me to be a much cheaper solution than replacing every rifle, light machine gun, and round in the inventory. But that is just my opinion.

The environment would seem to dictate the long range requirement and the interchangeability of the AR would seem to me to be ideal for maximum flexibility. Most of the team members I have known have used their M-4s a lot more up close or inside buildings rather than at extended ranges. Situations calling for 600 meter plus engagements are better assigned to a 7.62 NATO weapon for the terminal ballistics. A squad or an ODA could have an M-240 or two, a couple of M-249 SAWs, several M-4s, and a couple of designated marksmen with 7.62 long-range rifles while requiring only two different mags, two different belts, and two types/calibers of ammo, and that would seem to me to have them well-equipped for anything from muzzle to 800 meters or better. Any addition of intermediate calibers or SMGs could result in a half-dozen different calibers and as many feeding devices, most of which are not interchangeable.

The best solution I can see is for the units to have both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO caliber weapons in the arms room, allowing a unit to conduct their own threat analysis and deploy with whichever caliber (of the two) mix the units feel is optimal. If they want a longer range designated marksman with a reduced ammo load, so be it.

Allowing smaller-statured, lower-testosterone soldiers with lesser-upper body strength would seem to me to be an argument against allowing them into combat arms MOSs, but what do I know? How will they cope with the heavier weapon and ammo, and consequent reduced basic load? Will their male counterparts have to carry more to make up for them?

One of the major advantages of the AR series weapons is the ability (within the same action length) to go from a 7" to a 20" barrel merely by swapping out the uppers. You can configure as a submachine gun, a carbine, a DMR, or a full length rifle by just swapping uppers. All can use the same ammo and mags.

Having an arms room full of U.S. and foreign weapons is all well and good, but being able to borrow a mag from any other squad member when running low in a firefight has a certain appeal to me. Having a mix of three or more calibers and feeding devices among a handful of troops would seem to me to be a significant concern. 5.56 in the Mk 262 loading can be effective well beyond the range of most shooters. IMHO, there is little if any range gap between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, as long as the proper loads are selected.

If we have to go through this all over again, I would like to see the comparisons include the 5.56 Mk 262 Mod 1 rounds and a good 6.5 Grendel load.

Personally, I do not see the short, 5.56mm based 6mms/.243s representing significant improvement over the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

The .300 AAC Blackout has a niche for subsonic operation, and works as well as an AK at shorter ranges, but certainly has limited long range ability.

The long 6.5/.260 calibers such as the .260 Rem and .6.5 Creedmore are great performers in external ballistics, but require a change to a .308 sized action. The shorter 6.5 rounds, like the Grendel, are interesting, but until we are ready to replace the 5.56 in all applications, not really feasible for a couple of rifles per squad. I am not sure that the limited case capacity will allow the outstanding 6.5 projo to reach its full ballistic potential.

The 7mm/.284 rounds are again, going to require a larger weapon with a 7.62 NATO sized action.

Perhaps the real issue here is the movement of the Army toward "green", lead-free ammunition (like the M855A1) that appears to have been selected for environmental/political reasons and seems to be less effective than the rounds that proceeded it. When you place wacky environmental concerns over efficacy and our soldiers' lives, you have these problems.

Pardon my wandering, multiple issues occurred to me as I was writing this.

As always, my .02, YMMV.

TR

One note I will add is that since the issuing of optics to the combat soldiers the 300m range is now more like 500m. Hence my argument there should be 2x rifles using 2x calibers.

I'd like to see an infantry platoon with a 50-50 mix of 5.56 and 7.62 rifles. And the 7.62 rifles going to those that can actually shoot straight. ;)

This is why I never cease to admonish NCO, officer, and Soldier of various
Units to attend the small arms championship. There isnt that many venues where you can "true" the ACOG and ELCAN from 25m to 500m to actual silhouette w spotter, not pop ups. Yes, it's not as sexy as it was in mid 2000's w $$$ prize tables and the last vendor giving prizes was SIG 3 years ago (hmmmmm), but it's still a great learning event and skill validation.

FWIW, yours truly defeated all active duty competitors w optics (Ranger,
Sniper, DI school, 1ID, etc. but no SMU) using M16A4 iron sights this year.
No replacement for solid fundamentals :lifter

You shot supine vs. prone and still won? That's just being mean and rubbing in it their faces, ff. ;)

FF

Is that a Bad Moon Rising??

:D

Second this idea.

What about a bullpup design? Not SA-80, more like AUG.

It's the Indian not the bow, great shooting FF.

More Powerful Combat Rifle ???
 

Marksmanship and Shot Placement are the solution to this dilemma: Along with Training and PRACTICE.

Actually there is........ and it's on the market. Soon the fundamentals you speak of will be out the door. :munchin



https://www.tracking-point.com/


Very very soon it will be point in the general direction and push a button.

Looks like I need to get my M1A2 Abrams ready for trade-in??
Do you think ONE(1) M1A2 will be enough for a 20% down payment??

:D

The Army will need to increase upper body strength requirements to lug around a 12 pound rifle and its ammo!

Did you ever carry an M1 Garand with basic load?? 12lbs, plus.
Or M14 or L1a1 or M60 or .......

In WWII the standard load for the M1 Garand was only 80 rounds, but in Nam my troops carried 420(21qty 20rd mags).

Infantry will carry what ever they need, based on mission and resupply timing.

How about a $500 rifle that does ok on the battlefield and you only have to carry a basic load of lets say, 200-300 rounds. Or how about a 12 lb rifle that you only need 50-100 rounds for.......

Careful Squidward, you're entering a ground combat discussion. ;)

Sorry, forgot my sarcasm font. :D

Was trying to cross reference the debate about decreased requirements for women combat troops.

To whom.......

I completely agree with the analogy "it's the Indian, not the bow" vis a vis training and practice, but should advancements in body armor, as the general suggests, have an impact on the choice between a carbine or battle rifle?

Do are rivals even issue body armor to their infantry? It seems like top drawer equipment that is very expensive for million man armies to issue.

bit bulky but they run well its gas piston.
I don't like the charging handle on them could have made it none reciprocating like the G-3.