US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

[ahillock]

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.

It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with what’s available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected. Additionally, the transition to this proposed intermediate caliber cartridge is possible from a 7.62 platform. Such a transition is all-but-impossible with the current 5.56 receiver sets.

More of article here:
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-...tle-rifle/

[ricsmall]

Sounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability? SMH. I would think the weight on the larger platform will be too much for some to bear. If the 5.56 has worked this long, why can't someone see the sensibility in swapping to Grendel? Just my common sense thoughts. I'm sure I'm missing something.

I may get flamed a bit by the guys that have been there and done that, but I'll take it as well as I give it!! Lol.

Richard

[Rickc]

I wonder how many millions.of.rounds of 5.56 our military has. Will be a long.transition.

why we wound up with a .22 cal military rifle always baffled me. Guess when you are mass producing troops that have never touched a rifle in six.weeks you give them a low recoiling rifle with light ammo where they can carry a lot of it.

[mdram]

264 usa info

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/...u-264-usa/

[LR1955]

Guys:

Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.

[ahillock]

Guys:

Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.

Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.

[MeatAxe]

Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/04/jim...on-system/

Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.

Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"

[LR1955]

Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.

AH:

Why wouldn't the author at least say 'Infantry School'? After all, they are the proponents of such things, particularly since the article concerned the BCT's. The guy didn't even say 'Brigade Combat Teams'.

I got a feeling this guy was on a deadline to produce X number of words for a publication and so that is exactly what he did.

LR55

[LRRPF52]

Guys:

Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.

My exact response as well. Soldier Systems is run by someone who knows 2 things about dismounted infantry reality and weapons mix:

Jack and squat

"According to multiple sources...."

Reminds me of when Defense Review said the USMC has decided to adopt Arsenal milled receiver AKs in the middle of OIF because of reliability issues with the M16A4.

Or the time where Defense Review said the USMC just adopted the .45 GAP Glock pistols to replace M9s.

This article is total BS, concocted by someone with barely enough information to make a mess.

[LRRPF52]

Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/04/jim...on-system/

Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.

Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"

Name me one single assault rifle design you have personally burned higher round count through with better reliability, deployed with, and is the number one choice by units who actually have the ability to select their small arms mix.

[LRRPF52]

The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?

The PKM, which is used more like a squad-level LMG than a GPMG.

It's as if someone never even cared to look at the MTOE, certainly not someone who spent even a week as an 11B or 0311.

We never did anything without M60s and M240s, and since then, the Mk.48 7.62 NATO LMG has been fielded to provide more maneuverability.

But no, we need every swinging rifleman, grenadier, team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, assistant gunner, ammo bearer, RTO, etc. carrying an M14 or some garbage from HK now, with less than half the basic load per weight.

Someone needs a urinalysis or education before they put things into articles, maybe some editorial oversight from someone that actually knows what's going on.

[Klem]

Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.

Can we just say it lacks credibility?

I have the impression the author has a snippet of information and built a story around the hypothetical. 2% is the snippet and 98% is what he thinks might happen.

[LRRPF52]

It's as if someone never saw an Infantry Platoon and the weapons that are not only organic to it, but central to much of the planning, training, and operational use.

Then there is the reality that whoever wrote the article never worked with a dismounted infantry unit and our attachments.

They're talking about over-matching an enemy equipped with 17lb PKMs firing linked 7.62x54R for starters, which is something we've discussed for how many years now?

The rifleman does not do that, doesn't have the optics and training to do that, and no system that I am aware of can provide the necessary training for every rifleman to do that, which is why we have SAW gunners, gun teams, and snipers.

When gun teams and snipers go to the transition range, all we would do was practice engaging targets at distance.

Guess who goes out with Platoons when they leave the wire? Gun Teams are part of the Platoon, so them.

Every single Rifle Squad has 2 SAW gunners, who have also been upgraded with 7.62 NATO Mk.48s in later years.

As Snipers, we were almost always attached to line Platoons, or as line Platoons, we had Snipers attached. That was before widespread replacement of the M24 with the M110 too.

Nope. Soldier systems says we need 7.62 battle rifles. The level of ignorance about how things work never ceases to chafe my backside.

[stanc]

Sounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability?

7.62 ammo is already in the system. Adopting a new caliber would take much time and testing, in addition to developing new loadings like Tracer, AP, etc.

Regarding a transition to .260, the following remarks may be of interest:

"...US SOCOM is currently conducting an operational test with .260 Remington carbines and light machine guns. ... Anecdotal feedback about the US SOCOM test of .260 Remington suggests that users are highly satisfied with it. It shoots flat and fast to deliver much better accuracy than 7.62 mm M80 and has less felt recoil. What is interesting is that ARDEC has also gone to the trouble to develop a 6.5 mm EPR bullet for it."

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/m...g=6622.145

[ricsmall]

Stan

Roger on the ammo availability. Just doesn't make sense to change platforms to go with a 7.62, then swap again to a 260 or other cartridge. Looks like bogus info so it's a moot point. The discussion you linked to on the 260 testing is encouraging though.

Richard

[LR1955]

Meat Ax needs to take a little break guys.

We can take a bunch of crap off of folks but sometimes it goes too far. Meat Ax went too far.

Yes, we realize MA hates everything AR. Got it and we don't care. However, when someone's blind hatred becomes repeated obnoxious rants on this and other threads, we care.

So Meat Ax can go to some AK board and rant about how much AR's suck for six months. Then he is back on the Grendel Forum.

LR55

[stanc]

Roger on the ammo availability. Just doesn't make sense to change platforms to go with a 7.62, then swap again to a 260 or other cartridge.

I disagree.

Going with 7.62 allows a long-range rifle to be fielded ASAP (and at lowest cost), instead of waiting years for the requisite .260 loadings to be developed, tested, approved, and produced in quantity so that a .260 rifle could enter service.

Looks like bogus info so it's a moot point.

In the absence of sources or substantiation, I think the story should certainly be treated with a healthy skepticism, but I'm not prepared to say the report is false. Just because sources may wish to remain anonymous, doesn't necessarily mean the info is bogus.

The discussion you linked to on the 260 testing is encouraging though.

Yeah, but that claim is also unsubstantiated, so who knows if SOCOM really is testing .260 rifles and machine guns.

[ahillock]

What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?

Based on economics and availability, my guess would be this:

[ahillock]

Going with 7.62 allows a long-range rifle to be fielded ASAP (and at lowest cost), instead of waiting years for the requisite .260 loadings to be developed, tested, approved, and produced in quantity so that a .260 rifle could enter service.

I would agree with this and was exactly what came to mind. Rather than wait for years and years of testing and other bureaucratic time wasting, it gives the Army the chance to get a long range rifle ASAP and at a fairly low cost as you mentioned. That also gives them the chance to do all the testing that needs to be done to move to .260 for long term use. That will take time, but at least in the meantime they would have the 7.62x51 to hold them over until that time point in the future.

[ahillock]

Going with 7.62 allows a long-range rifle to be fielded ASAP (and at lowest cost), instead of waiting years for the requisite .260 loadings to be developed, tested, approved, and produced in quantity so that a .260 rifle could enter service.

I would agree with this and was exactly what came to mind. Rather than wait for years and years of testing and other bureaucratic time wasting, it gives the Army the chance to get a long range rifle ASAP and at a fairly low cost as you mentioned. That also gives them the chance to do all the testing that needs to be done to move to .260 for long term use. That will take time, but at least in the meantime they would have the 7.62x51 to hold them over until that time point in the future.