Back to 7.62x51mm... is there a method to this madness?

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Sep 2017, 15:45

Actually I didn't realize that they would have to mill out (make thinner) the front of the Bolt for 6.5 to work in the M4. I guess that isn't going to happen.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1039
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post24 Sep 2017, 07:45

f-16adf wrote:As a civilian, I personally enjoy the 5.56/AR-15 combo. But if the Army is going to replace it (5.56), wouldn't the most logical choice be with 6.5 Grendel? Couldn't they still save the M-4 lowers and mags, but just replace the uppers (BCG/Barrel)?


Though it would seem the US Army is not going to go down the 6.5 Grendel route, elements USSOCOM (specifically USASOC) is looking at 6.5 Creedmoor systems for their sniper rifles and DMRs

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/04/us ... mmunition/

also the Cased Telescoped Ammo for the LSAT is being developed in 6.5 as well.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post02 Oct 2017, 01:24

Image

Army Says 7.62mm Rifle Competition Isn’t Dead Yet

The commander of Program Executive Soldier today refuted recent media reports that the Army’s senior leadership has not killed a requirement to field a new 7.62mm Interim Service Combat Rifle capable of defeating enemy body armor.

“It is not dead. The decision has not been made,” Brig. Gen. Brian Cummings (P) told Military.com.

Cummings’s comments come a day after The FirearmBlog reported that the Interim Service Combat Rifle competition, which was launched in early August, has been cancelled.

Despite Cummings insistence, a source told Military.com that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has decided to cancel requirement, and ultimately the competition, but has not made yet made it official yet...

https://kitup.military.com/2017/09/inte ... 048&rank=3
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1039
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post07 Oct 2017, 21:09

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... uad-level/

Image

So it would seem their going to re-wrap the ISCR for the CSASS...

The US Army already selected the platform they intend for their CSASS, they're spending money and time for something that they really don't need. There is already a (very) viable platform that is ALREADY IN USE and IN SERVICE... albeit within SOCOM.

Image
M110K1. It already has parts commonality with the current M110 SASS so it would be less expensive than all the proprietary parts of H&K's G28. Also because it is already in inventory within the US Military, they don't need to set up a completely new chain.

Personally this would be the better option if it were left up to me :-D

Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2287
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Oct 2017, 21:50

300win has too much power for the average Joe to control.

I'm over six foot tall and did a lot of sports and power-lifting. I get worn out after 10-12 shots. It's brutal.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post17 Oct 2017, 04:33

charlielima223 wrote:Through my time in service I always heard the saying, "method to the madness". Sometimes when I looked hard enough or when I was finished with what ever task or objective I would finally see the method behind all the madness. Other times I was scratching my head wondering "what the F?". Recently the US Army put out an solicitation for a 7.62x51mm rifle to be used by active duty infantry units...

https://kitup.military.com/2017/08/new- ... rifle.html

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

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... d-us-army/

This "interim combat service rifle" as it is to be called, was in response to the concerns of speakers against the current 5.56x45mm (Ret Gen. Scales, being the most vocal) is unable to defeat modern body armor as well as being out ranged (which I will get into later)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... ody-armor/

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/h ... f-the-army

However there already exists 5.56 and NATO 7.62 rounds that can defeat body armor. This is seen in the form of (albeit the unicorn of US Military ammo supply chains) M995 for 5.56 and M993 for 7.62, commonly referred to as "black tip". These round have tungsten cores designed to defeat lightly armored vehicles and most forms of hard body armor.

However this like looking for a solution for a problem that either doesn't (really) exist or making up a problem that doesn't have a practical solution.

Current body armor fielded by US Troops are rated at level IV and higher. The ESAPI plates designed to defeat hits from 30-06 M2 AP rounds. In theater numerous lives of US Troops have been saved by use of ESAPI plates in our current body armor. Accounts of soldiers and marines taking numerous hits from 7.62x39 and walking away from 7.62x54R from both PKM and SVD.

according to description, he was shot 4 times.


this infamous footage showed just how good our body armor is when a US Army soldier took a direct hit from an Iraqi insurgent sniper using an SVD.


So the claim is that using a larger 7.62x51mm round is capable of defeating modern body armor when its already being seen that modern body armor (at least the stuff that we use) is fully capable of defeating 7.62 rounds. This is of course done all in the sake and name of "overmatch".
During military actions in Afghanistan there, US and Coalition forces faced a problem; entrenched Taliban/AQ/Mujahadeen/insurgents in a fixed position. Often times these fixed positions were in higher elevations. Hill top to hill top engagements between Coalition and insurgents became a somewhat regular basis. This drove the US military to reintroduce the M14 back into circulation with combat units in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq (Iraq was for another reason which I wont get into for the sake of this ranting).

Image

Image

This also drove the adoption of the M110SASS along side the M14

Image

These weapons were issued at mostly at squad level. The issue at the time was that with current platoon or squad make up; the only weapon that was capable of engagements that extend beyond our current 5.56 platforms (M249 SAW, M4/M16) was our M240. What was needed was a rifle that could be issued at the squad level and extend the engagement range when needed. To which these two systems (M110SASS and M14) fulfilled their role to great success often as a DMR.
This is where the argument of "overmatch" comes in. Many people will point to the case of Afghanistan as "proof" of the "failings" of the 5.56x45mm round/cartridge and it's platform. However the vast majority of engagements in Afghanistan was still well within the listed engagement range of our 5.56 platforms. The times when US troops were out ranged was when they were engaged by insurgents from a higher elevation using plunging fire or with heavy crew served weapon (DShK).

However there is more to it...

Before all this the US Army put out a solicitation and RFP for something called the Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) which H&K won with their variant of their G28/HK417 (personally I would have thought the KAC's M110K1 better as it is already being used within SOCOM and has more parts compatibility with current M110) to move onto the next phase of trials. There is talk and mention within some circles however that the H&K submission is not performing to specifications and standards and that it is actually more expensive then initially pitched/advertised the US Army. The last part comes as no surprise as the M27 IAR (a variant of the H&K416) already cost 3k per unit... that is before the cost of optic, bi-pod, or what ever stuff that is attached to or issued with the weapon. That is double the base price of a standard M4A1. Personally I am seeing this as a push for the CSASS into a wider role as a way to cover up the failings and cost of the weapon.

There also the case of lethality and barrier/armor penetration of the current 5.56x45 used by the US Army. I will get more into that later but that is a bit of another topic.

Personally I think this is a really F-tarded decision with heavy amounts of Good Idea Fairy dust all over it.
1. Less ammo to be carried by the individual soldier for the same or more weight
2. Heavier individual weapon for an already overburdened troop. Typical load out for operations already exceeds 50lbs and comes very close to 80lbs depending on operations.
3. People are confusing practical engagement ranges (what the soldier is capable of in actual combat conditions) to listed engagement ranges (what you're able to do at the rifle range for BRM quals or a relaxing day at the range).
4. Money and time spent improving the M4A1 and 5.56x45mm to be more effective now all for naught.

Here is an interesting wrinkle. While Big Army as pushing for a heavier 7.62 rifle, USASOC (US Army Special Operations Command... US Army Special Forces aka Green Berets and SFOD-D) seem to be wanting to keep their M4A1s and improve upon them with COTS (commercial after market parts)...

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/08/us ... its-m4a1s/


Army top brass and DOD civilians didn't have the integrity and intellectual capacity to choose a proper replacement for the M9, they won't have a good handle on a .308 battle rifle either. They'll ignore the real experts in SOCOM to chose a rifle that satisfies the political requirements. They will step over a dollar to pick up a dime in the process like they did with ignoring the amazing Glock 19 service record in SOCOM to chose a POS Sig. The obvious choice for this 7.62x51 IBR would be the SCAR-H. I'm sure it will get ignored though.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post17 Oct 2017, 17:59

Sorry I completely forgot about this thread.

That being said inquiring minds would like to know the real intellectually capable 'experts' are. The group running LaRue OBRs? The guys who decided to just update to the Mk110K1? The guys who set aside their Mk-17s & went back to EBRs?

Lots of sturm und drang promoting a weapon that most units in SOCOM are letting gather dust while turning to other options. SCAR-H was a top down program being pushed by those same folks about whom the previous poster waxed so libelously.


When I get a chance I'll post my thoughts about the M-27 (Spoiler: they are about 180 degrees from Xander's).
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post21 Oct 2017, 23:39

pmi wrote:Sorry I completely forgot about this thread.

That being said inquiring minds would like to know the real intellectually capable 'experts' are. The group running LaRue OBRs? The guys who decided to just update to the Mk110K1? The guys who set aside their Mk-17s & went back to EBRs?

Lots of sturm und drang promoting a weapon that most units in SOCOM are letting gather dust while turning to other options. SCAR-H was a top down program being pushed by those same folks about whom the previous poster waxed so libelously.


When I get a chance I'll post my thoughts about the M-27 (Spoiler: they are about 180 degrees from Xander's).


I think you've confused the SCAR-L with the SCAR-H. My understanding is that SOCOM was not pleased with the SCAR-L (5.56 NATO) because it was not that much better than the M4/HK 416s they had been using and that the SCAR-H was better for their purposes. The SCAR-H has a common receiver platform that is caliber-adaptive. The platform also bridges the gap between the standard issue rifle, designated marksman rifle and a standard sniper rifle. I believe this is what SOCOM really likes about the SCAR series and has only given up on the SCAR-L.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 01:36

discofishing wrote:I think you've confused the SCAR-L with the SCAR-H. My understanding is that SOCOM was not pleased with the SCAR-L (5.56 NATO) because it was not that much better than the M4/HK 416s they had been using and that the SCAR-H was better for their purposes. The SCAR-H has a common receiver platform that is caliber-adaptive. The platform also bridges the gap between the standard issue rifle, designated marksman rifle and a standard sniper rifle. I believe this is what SOCOM really likes about the SCAR series and has only given up on the SCAR-L.


No, I'm not.

Look at the rifles I specifically mentioned. They are all 7.62x61 platforms & are being used downrange by various units in preference to the Mk 17. The only folks who are head over heels for the SCAR-H are west coast NSW.
Last edited by pmi on 22 Oct 2017, 05:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 02:59

pmi wrote:
discofishing wrote:I think you've confused the SCAR-L with the SCAR-H. My understanding is that SOCOM was not pleased with the SCAR-L (5.56 NATO) because it was not that much better than the M4/HK 416s they had been using and that the SCAR-H was better for their purposes. The SCAR-H has a common receiver platform that is caliber-adaptive. The platform also bridges the gap between the standard issue rifle, designated marksman rifle and a standard sniper rifle. I believe this is what SOCOM really likes about the SCAR series and has only given up on the SCAR-L.


No, I'm not.

Look at the rifles I specifically mentioned. They are all 7.62x61 platforms & are being used downrange by various units in preference to the Mk-17. The only folks who are head over heels for the SCAR-H are west coast NSW.



http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/u ... scar-mk16/

If I read this brief article (table) correctly, it looks like USASOC plans on continuing FN SCAR-H fielding and sustainment.

Based on articles give by the OP, they're looking for the follow:

"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
Folding sights"

I think you're talking about strictly sniper rifles when I think what the Army is going after is just a hard hitting non-precision rifle. EBRs and M110s are sniper rifles. Are they not? Based on the evaluation criteria above, does it look like they are testing a sniper rifle or just a standard battle rifle? Ever know of a fully-auto test of a sniper system? Anyways, my point is if the Army is going for a standard .308 battle rifle for its grunts, then the SCAR-H is the ticket. I don't think SOCOM uses the SCAR-H for precision engagements as they have the ability to use any sniper rifle they want. For the non-sniper types, I bet the SCAR-H is appealing because you have way more range and stopping power than the standard M4 in something that is only marginally heavier, minus the rounds.
Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests