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

[LRRPF52]

U.S. Army weapon officials just opened a competition for a new 7.62mm Interim Service Combat Rifle...according to an Aug. 4 solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.gov.

"The Government has a requirement to acquire a commercial 7.62mm ICSR to field with the M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) to engage and defeat protected and unprotected threats," the solicitation states.

The competition will consist of live-fire testing and evaluate the following:

Dispersion (300m - function, 600m - simulation)
Compatible with Family of Weapon Sights - Individual and laser
Weapon length (folder or collapsed)/ Weight (empty/bare) / Velocity (300m and 600m calculated)
Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic function testing (bursts and full auto)
Noise (at shooter's ear) / Flash suppression
Ambidextrous Controls (in darkness or adverse conditions) / Rail interface
20-30 round magazine to support a 210 round combat load

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/...rifle.html

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Full auto, huh?
20-30rd mags that support a 210rd combat load?

Somebody has obviously never tried to carry 7.62 NATO mags to that round count, and especially has never done it with plates.

Cue the SF unit that tried an all-7.62 NATO mix within their first few weeks on deployment, then stashed everything in their ASP and said, "Never again will we be that dumb. F that noise." These are guys with physical fitness and endurance levels that exceed the median in other combat arms units measurably, who frequently conduct movements that are 3-5x what a regular infantry unit will ever do, with heavier rucks, evasion plan contingencies in enemy territory that cover many map sheets and national borders even.

Someone needs to shoot all the 7.62 NATO out of the system and be done with that albatross cartridge once and for all.

The Army's Interim Combat Service Rifle should have either 16-inch or 20-inch barrels, a collapsible buttstock, an extended forward rail and weigh less than 12 pounds unloaded and without an optic, according to a May 31 Army request for information.

All weapons should include items such as a suppressor, cleaning, specialized tools and enough magazines to support the basic load of 210 rounds.

Milley told lawmakers in late May that the Army does not believe that every soldier needs a 7.62mm rifle. These weapons would be reserved for the Army's most rapid-deployable infantry units.

"We would probably want to field them with a better-grade weapon that can penetrate this body armor," Milley said.

[stanc]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Yeah, I figured you'd like it.

Full auto, huh?
20-30rd mags that support a 210rd combat load?

Looks like fun. Definitely needs more mag capacity than 20 rounds.

[video=youtube;him6JW_mRZs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=him6JW_mRZs[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=him6JW_mRZs

[n9nwo]

U.S. Army weapon officials just opened a competition for a new 7.62mm Interim Service Combat Rifle...according to an Aug. 4 solicitation posted on FedBizOpps.gov.

"The Government has a requirement to acquire a commercial 7.62mm ICSR to field with the M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) to engage and defeat protected and unprotected threats," the solicitation states.

The competition will consist of live-fire testing and evaluate the following:

Dispersion (300m - function, 600m - simulation)
Compatible with Family of Weapon Sights - Individual and laser
Weapon length (folder or collapsed)/ Weight (empty/bare) / Velocity (300m and 600m calculated)
Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic function testing (bursts and full auto)
Noise (at shooter's ear) / Flash suppression
Ambidextrous Controls (in darkness or adverse conditions) / Rail interface
20-30 round magazine to support a 210 round combat load

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/...rifle.html

Is there any update on this? First we heard that the Army was looking at the 6.5 Creedmore then just going to 7.62x51 rifles. That the purchase would be 50,000 weapons. I would gather that would be combat units (BCT).

I could see why they would want a 7.62x51 rifle. There is ammo enough for it. It would reach out as well as higher penetration of buildings. Plus some of the rifles, if based on a SR25 or AR10 design, could be set up as an IAR platform to replace the SAW. This would solve the short term problems giving the military time to figure out what they really want.

Support personal would still have M4s and M249 along with the M240B/G

[stanc]

Is there any update on this? First we heard that the Army was looking at the 6.5 Creedmore then just going to 7.62x51 rifles. That the purchase would be 50,000 weapons. I would gather that would be combat units (BCT).

I haven't seen any updates, yet.

Bid samples are due by 6 September, so maybe we'll hear something late this year, or early 2018.

The purchase is for "up to 50,000" so the actual buy could be less than that number.

My understanding is that the ICSR would go to select infantry units, probably first issue would be to units facing Russki troops.

[hill37]

maybe FightLite (ARIES) is going to bring out 7.62 NATO poly ammo

[LRRPF52]

Is there any update on this? First we heard that the Army was looking at the 6.5 Creedmore then just going to 7.62x51 rifles. That the purchase would be 50,000 weapons. I would gather that would be combat units (BCT).

I could see why they would want a 7.62x51 rifle. There is ammo enough for it. It would reach out as well as higher penetration of buildings. Plus some of the rifles, if based on a SR25 or AR10 design, could be set up as an IAR platform to replace the SAW. This would solve the short term problems giving the military time to figure out what they really want.

Support personal would still have M4s and M249 along with the M240B/G

7.62x51 is a horribly retarded idea in every way for mass issue, and we've known this since it was first tried with the M14/M60 mix.

An SR25 platform can't even begin to do a fraction of the job of the SAW, not even close. 20-25rd mags versus a 100-200rd sack or drum on the gun, comes off target with every shot versus tracks somewhat well on target, closed bolt vs open bolt, terrible full auto handling characteristics versus manageable full auto, no quick barrel change versus the fastest quick barrel change system of any machine-gun (one of the very few things I like about the SAW), no way to carry a basic load versus the 5.56 linked basic load...

An AR10 is not only a non-starter as a service rifle, it's especially a non-starter as an LMG. The Dutch built a bunch of prototypes for belt-fed use, and Stoner was a big fan of a belt-fed AR10, but it's just not a viable system as an LMG, mainly because it was designed as a rifle and not a machine-gun.

The only place I see a role for a Stoner 7.62 NATO rifle patterned after the AR10 is what they should have done from the start, which is a DM or Semi Auto Sniper System. We've done the latter already, but seem to still be spinning our wheels when it comes to accepting the necessity of a DM within the Rifle Squad and providing a permanent training program or rifle/optic/ammo system for him.

[n9nwo]

The Marines are replacing the M249 with the Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). It is basically a M16 that is set up to be an automatic rifle.

That was my thought if they go to the 7.62x51, even temporarily. The M240 is just too heavy to carry as a squad rifle.

[n9nwo]

I haven't seen any updates, yet.

Bid samples are due by 6 September, so maybe we'll hear something late this year, or early 2018.

The purchase is for "up to 50,000" so the actual buy could be less than that number.

My understanding is that the ICSR would go to select infantry units, probably first issue would be to units facing Russki troops.

What I read into this is that the 7.62x51 weapons would be in BCT units (combat -- infantry brigades). The rest of the Army would still have the M4 and M249

[LRRPF52]

The Marines are replacing the M249 with the Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). It is basically a M16 that is set up to be an automatic rifle.

That was my thought if they go to the 7.62x51, even temporarily. The M240 is just too heavy to carry as a squad rifle.

We've been tracking the Marines IAR program for many years. These threads run better if you go through the history and see what has been discussed. Among the many duty positions I held, M60 gunner, AG, Ammo bearer, M240 gunner, SAW Gunner, and Weapons Squad Leader were included. A lot of guys with this background will let loose a litany of colorful expletives when non combat arms or civilians try to tell them about their job, but I will approach it differently.

For those that aren't familiar with the Infantry MTO&E, understand that M4s are not the main focus for firepower or actions on the objective for most missions that a dismounted infantry unit conducts.

Within a Fire Team, you have:

Team Leader M4A1
Automatic Rifleman SAW
Grenadier M4A1/M230 (used to be M203)
Rifleman M4A1

You have 2 of these Fire Teams in a Rifle Squad in the Army led by a Squad Leader with an M4A1 (bad MTO&E because there aren't enough people based on After Action Reviews covering multiple conflicts over the last century, need 11 bare minimum in a Squad-we have 9 based on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle).

The full Platoon looks like this:



One of the main contributing factors to longevity or the ability to sustain the fight, make chance contact and still have enough ammo to continue mission, or conduct follow-on missions after expending the ammo required to take an objective, is 5.56 NATO and linked 7.62 NATO distributed throughout the Platoon.

Once you go to 7.62 NATO rifles or carbines, you erase all of that and become a major liability on the entire system, because now you need resupply and badly. You went from a capable force, able to deliver combat power, to a liability with dozens of soldiers' lives on the line if they don't get resupplied immediately. Things are already stretched thin with reduced basic loads due to SAAPI plates, IOTVs, and the added constraints armor brings to your maneuverability, water consumption, and limited endurance.

By increasing the weight of the soldier's load, while decreasing his hit probability and number of rounds carried, you shoot yourself in the foot. There have been multiple incidents already where units went near black or black on ammo, and barely escaped by the skin of their teeth, and these were units that had dedicated aviation support from the best rotary wing pilots in the world, not even in the conventional Army.

There are so many more factors that are never taken into consideration when I see people looking in from the outside.

[stanc]

What I read into this is that the 7.62x51 weapons would be in BCT units (combat -- infantry brigades). The rest of the Army would still have the M4 and M249

Yes, that's my take on it, too.

P.S. There was a discussion on arfcom about a week ago, in which one poster claims to have heard that the plan has recently been expanded to completely replacing the M4 throughout the Army. However, he provided no substantiation for that idea.

[LRRPF52]

Yes, that's my take on it, too.

P.S. There was a discussion on arfcom about a week ago, in which one poster claims to have heard that the plan has recently been expanded to completely replacing the M4 throughout the Army. However, he provided no substantiation for that idea.

The pushback is going to be immense when units start experimenting with this.

SOCOM has zero plans to go that direction, that's for sure.

They're just going to more integrally suppressed 5.56 uppers with the SURG.

6.5mm Sniper Support Rifles (Semi Auto)

6.5mm LMGs (called an Assault Machine Gun)

[stanc]

The Marines are replacing the M249 with the Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). It is basically a M16 that is set up to be an automatic rifle.
That was my thought if they go to the 7.62x51, even temporarily. The M240 is just too heavy to carry as a squad rifle.

IMO, you may be right about the Army fielding an IAR version of the ICSR, similar to what was done to make an automatic rifle version of the M14.
First, I have seen no mention of a replacement for the M249, and it seems rather unlikely the squad would have 7.62 rifles and 5.56 squad autos.
Second, the program to develop an M249 replacement even shows the concept to be a magazine-fed automatic rifle, not a belt-fed machine gun.

[stanc]

The pushback is going to be immense when units start experimenting with this.

Yeah, I would imagine so. It ought to be interesting.

SOCOM has zero plans to go that direction, that's for sure.
They're just going to more integrally suppressed 5.56 uppers with the SURG.
6.5mm Sniper Support Rifles (Semi Auto)
6.5mm LMGs (called an Assault Machine Gun)

Why are you sure SOCOM does not have such plans? Page 10 of the NDIA presentation shows an Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle/Carbine.
To me, that sounds more like an M110 SASS-type sniper rifle and a "battle carbine" (for want of a better term), than a sniper support rifle.
That they want an Intermediate Caliber Carbine makes me think it's basically a 6.5 version of the ICSR...or the battle rifle they currently use:

[Lightning8]

When I went to Ranger school, the M14 was used to "simulate" a Squad Automatic Weapon as the M249 was not in the inventory yet. Our machine gun was the M60 and our rifles were M16A1. I made the mistake of admitting I knew how to clean a M14 so I carried an M14, the heavy steel mags, and a basic load of blanks for the Mountain phase. I am not scared to admit that carrying a 7.62x51 "battle rifle" through rough terrain as an Infantry soldier sucked. I was very happy to give up the M14 and go back to a M16A1. The Infantry carries these weapons 24-7 and the "soldiers load" is killing our mobility.

[Joglee]

Yes, that's my take on it, too.

P.S. There was a discussion on arfcom about a week ago, in which one poster claims to have heard that the plan has recently been expanded to completely replacing the M4 throughout the Army. However, he provided no substantiation for that idea.

That person was me and it comes from the same place that gave me the information that the ICSR was happening months before anyone had said anything publically.

Also the Army has this in mind for the NGSAR(M249 replacement).

"The Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) is a single incremental program to meet future force warfighting needs. It is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and select support units during the next decade. It will combine the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a carbine, yielding capability improvements in accuracy, range, and lethality. The weapon will be lightweight and fire lightweight ammunition with improved lethality."

So basically a slightly modified ICSR firing polymer cased 7.62.

[n9nwo]

My take on this is that it is a temporary fix until the Army figures out where they really want to go. So yes it sucks in terms of weight but is more lethal.

My thoughts are that long term the Army is looking at some form of 6.5mm in a CT format. But that might be 10 years out. 2025 is the target date for the "Army after Next". That is when all the trucks go electric drive train (and maybe hybrid so as to run silent in a combat zone). Several other projects are in the mix. It does appear that a new rifle/caliber is in order.

[Joglee]

My take on this is that it is a temporary fix until the Army figures out where they really want to go. So yes it sucks in terms of weight but is more lethal.

My thoughts are that long term the Army is looking at some form of 6.5mm in a CT format. But that might be 10 years out. 2025 is the target date for the "Army after Next". That is when all the trucks go electric drive train (and maybe hybrid so as to run silent in a combat zone). Several other projects are in the mix. It does appear that a new rifle/caliber is in order.

6.5 in the end goal. The Army is running the SAAC to decide which 6.5 is the most ideal.

All will be to big to fit in the AR-15, as they use modified 7.62 brass.

This is why the ICSR is happening. Get it fielded now for 7.62 and in 10-20 years move to the new 6.5 wunder caliber.

As for CT, it appears to have taken a back seat due to recent advancement in polymer 7.62 cases, which are progressing faster than LSAT is.

[LRRPF52]

This picture is a perfect example of why you won't be carrying a 200rd+ basic load of 7.62 NATO effectively. Notice the shingles on shingles interfering with movement over a common obstacle. Looks like one of the pics from the unit that tried going 7.62 NATO across the board and then stashed all their loaded mags in the ASP, saying, "We've learned our lesson."



It's a lot easier to carry linked 7.62 NATO than mag-fed 7.62 NATO because of the weight of the mags, and linked 7.62 NATO sucks big time already because there isn't a lot of space for it, let alone its weight problem. Trying to find a place for 210rds of 7.62 NATO is a fool's errand. Jokes are already running about a combat squire (which has been done).

A buddy of mine attributes a lot of his spinal issues to carrying a basic load of 7.62 NATO for the M14 EBR on several deployments to both OIF and OEF, where he put as many mags as he could in an unauthorized chest rig, as well as his assault pack. He also had to carry frags and smoke, NODs, water, suppressor, optic, LRF, meals, batteries, radio, etc.

In the line, we used to distribute linked 7.62 NATO out to Riflemen in their buttpacks and later assault packs to augment the insane load the gun teams were already carrying. Every rifleman that didn't have an extra 100rds of 7.62 linked would carry an extra 200rd drum for the SAW, 2 rounds for the mortars, and/or a CLS bag or some other important Squad Item of equipment. AT4s would also be dished out, so dudes are laden down with a lot of weapons, munitions, and equipment.

In the line, when you approach an objective, the line dogs dump off their mortar rounds to the mortar section, who is setting up to provide indirect fires for your advance or assault on the OBJ. Gun teams and attached snipers will get in closer for support by fire positions, while the Rifle Platoons or Squads set up for breech, local support, assault, and security elements.

Trying to assault an OBJ with strictly 7.62 NATO is one of the worst possible weapon/ammunition structures you could possible conjure, because your assault elements now are lugging that crap when they need to be really agile and maneuverable cutting through the OBJ, with high round count in the mags. They would be much better served with D60s and 5.56 as part of the pre-combat checks before hitting the OBJ. Reducing their magazine capacity, increasing their recoil, increasing their weapon weight, and increasing muzzle blast is pure regression back to 1940s, but at least they had M1 SMGs and M1 Carbines to choose from back then.

[n9nwo]

No one is disagreeing with your observations. However when did the Army ever use good sense?

[LRRPF52]

No one is disagreeing with your observations. However when did the Army ever use good sense?

For most laymen who have zero idea about the technical or tactical and logistics considerations, the Army has a huge knowledge base that would overwhelm most if they peeked into that world.

A big problem is that hardly anyone in the civilian world has even a rudimentary understanding of what considerations there are, and are influenced by gun rag opinions based on anecdotes from disgruntled wood and steel fans from long ago who might have held some rank that was enough to give them more clout for their article in American Rifleman. Then those opinions get carried into the service by new volunteers, who think they have it all figured out because they read an article, or heard it from Cleatus at the local gun shop.

An example relevant to this thread is this continuous discussion of a select-fire 7.62 NATO rifle, which is so far out from reality that any of us who were 11Bs or 0311s just shake our heads and wonder why it is that in 2017, people still don't know that we don't even shoot 5.56 on Automatic from M4s, save a few extremely rare circumstances.

Why is that in 2017, we don't have people that can easily look at previous select-fire 7.62 NATO service rifles and realize that professional armies like the UK and US deactivated or never used the select-fire feature on the SLR L1A1 (FAL) or the M14?

When I drew my first issued M14 from the arms room, it was capped where the selector should have been because the Army learned back from the start that it's just not feasible to equip a 7.62 NATO service rifle with automatic select fire. Now they've made it a requirement for the ISCR.

"He who studies history is condemned to watch he who doesn't repeat it."