LRRPF52 Wrote:Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.If you want to know for sure, you would have to ask the Army Chief of Staff, or someone involved with the ICSR program. My thinking is that full-auto capability would be wanted if (as I suspect) they plan to use some ICSRs in the automatic rifle role, as was done with the M14A1.
LRRPF52 Wrote:If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed.Your continued ranting on the poor full-auto controllability of 7.62 battle rifles makes it sound as if the ICSR is meant for blasting away in fully automatic fire, when it will undoubtedly be fired almost exclusively on semi-auto, the same as is SOP with select-fire 5.56 carbines.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find.If they come up with a practical way to carry 210 rounds, then combat endurance will be unchanged from that with the M4 carbine, thereby avoiding the feared plague of overrun incidents.
If the ICSR is only issued to units facing the Russkis, the risk of escalation to nuclear war means those soldiers will likely never be involved in any firefights. So again, no overrun incidents.
Personally, I see the ICSR program as a good thing, as lessons learned from it may result in the NGSAR being dropped in favor of a belt-fed LMG, and rethinking of CT carbine ammo power.