With an infantry PL son in one of the units that would be first to get any new technology, I can tell you his perspective is there is no support much less pull for any 7.62 rifle / carbine.
It does not solve any problem they have. And would only make problems they do have worse (weight & sustainability).
This is not LT wisdom, this is the combined wisdom of very senior ncos who have been in some of the worst situations we've seen in the last 10 years. And with a large percentage of Ranger regiment experience.
As to the Marines, my understanding is they are supplementing the 249, not replacing it. Just gives them the flexibility to go back to a 249 situation in less urban environments, but not be forcing the 249 into close-quarter stuff.
The mythical rpk range advantage is largely the result of not understanding plunging fire and poor tactical siting decisions / ROE in some of our recent battles. 240 Bravo's out range rpks in pretty much every situation. We just don't train or use them in extreme long-range plunging fire situations. There are better tools to solve that problem, where it's the only solution for insurgents.
Raise the topic of the taking back the rifleman half kilometer to anyone actually leading and fighting modern infantry and the first thing out of their mouths is "that just tells me those people don't know how to use their 249 and 240 Bravo's. And weapons squad."
Tell them you're going to give them a new individual weapon system that extends range 200 yards, but adds weight and or reduces ammo load and you get an immediate response.
Of course they would be in favor of any solution that extends range and lethality without increasing weight or decreasing ammo sustainability. But even Grendel can't do that, as much as we like it.
So until there is some break thru that changes the weight/loadout equation, it does not justify the logistical nightmare a new cartidge would incur. (Strategic reserves and all that)
In my son's world, the core issue is finding range time and budget to remain proficient with their longer-range weapons. Fundamentally, at the squad, platoon and Company level where your longer-range assets come into play. And my son's unit gets more of that then most of the other IBCTs. But it's still not enough.
We are currently training limited far more than weapon limited. And there are large interests which only make money if they sell new weapons systems. But addressing training / budget issues is not sexy and does not make these companies money.
It does not solve any problem they have. And would only make problems they do have worse (weight & sustainability).
This is not LT wisdom, this is the combined wisdom of very senior ncos who have been in some of the worst situations we've seen in the last 10 years. And with a large percentage of Ranger regiment experience.
As to the Marines, my understanding is they are supplementing the 249, not replacing it. Just gives them the flexibility to go back to a 249 situation in less urban environments, but not be forcing the 249 into close-quarter stuff.
The mythical rpk range advantage is largely the result of not understanding plunging fire and poor tactical siting decisions / ROE in some of our recent battles. 240 Bravo's out range rpks in pretty much every situation. We just don't train or use them in extreme long-range plunging fire situations. There are better tools to solve that problem, where it's the only solution for insurgents.
Raise the topic of the taking back the rifleman half kilometer to anyone actually leading and fighting modern infantry and the first thing out of their mouths is "that just tells me those people don't know how to use their 249 and 240 Bravo's. And weapons squad."
Tell them you're going to give them a new individual weapon system that extends range 200 yards, but adds weight and or reduces ammo load and you get an immediate response.
Of course they would be in favor of any solution that extends range and lethality without increasing weight or decreasing ammo sustainability. But even Grendel can't do that, as much as we like it.
So until there is some break thru that changes the weight/loadout equation, it does not justify the logistical nightmare a new cartidge would incur. (Strategic reserves and all that)
In my son's world, the core issue is finding range time and budget to remain proficient with their longer-range weapons. Fundamentally, at the squad, platoon and Company level where your longer-range assets come into play. And my son's unit gets more of that then most of the other IBCTs. But it's still not enough.
We are currently training limited far more than weapon limited. And there are large interests which only make money if they sell new weapons systems. But addressing training / budget issues is not sexy and does not make these companies money.