Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#4354733 - 05/01/17 01:20 PM US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,426
KraziKanuK Offline
Hotshot
KraziKanuK  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,426
Ottawa Canada


There was only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters that used 100 octane during the BoB.
The Fw190A could not fly with the outer cannon removed.
There was no Fw190A-8s flying with the JGs in 1945.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4354735 - 05/01/17 01:25 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 16,204
Nixer Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Nixer  Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 16,204
Living with the Trees
Interim...spend some billions for an interim weapon then toss em and spend some more billions for a different caliber final weapon.

Sounds like a DUMB solution to me.



"There's a sucker born every minute."
Phineas Taylor Barnum

#4354736 - 05/01/17 01:27 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 112,606
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 112,606
Miami, FL USA
PWEC here we come..... wink


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4354740 - 05/01/17 01:55 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Bill_Grant Offline
Hotshot
Bill_Grant  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Dallas, TX
The MK17 is proven, solves all the needs, and is ready to go. SOCCOM is using it for the sniper rifle in the SF groups in A-stan.
The BS and Political Games are the reason it is not the front line weapon it could be.


~Bill

In my defense, I was left unsupervised...
#4354768 - 05/01/17 04:08 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: Bill_Grant]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,114
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,114
US
Originally Posted by Bill_Grant
The MK17 is proven, solves all the needs, and is ready to go. SOCCOM is using it for the sniper rifle in the SF groups in A-stan.
The BS and Political Games are the reason it is not the front line weapon it could be.


My understanding is the SCAR has the following problems:

- Brittle plastic lower which cracks with little field use. That, along with not being a whole lot different from the M4, is why the MK16 was pushed out of service.
- The MK17 recoil impulse kills some optics and electronics earlier than usual.
- The SCAR failed the drop test in the French Army rifle replacement program (please, no jokes here!)

There are some guys that post some good info on AR-15.com. Lots of garbage to filter through, but a lot of good info as well. Some other things I've been reading from people who seem to know their stuff:

- 6.5mm is being considered for future LMGs and semi auto sniper rifles.
- 6.5mm in case telescoped for the former.
- The LSAT is working fairly well and is well received in testing
- 7.62x51 is looked down upon for being inefficient in terms of weight per rounds carried. Less accurate than the newer 6.5mm rounds.
- HK 416 has a good number of problems and isn't better than a regular AR.

I don't think this is anything more than someone saying something stupid. An "interim rifle" makes no sense unless we're talking about SOCOM. We're not going to buy 300,000 rifles and use them for 10 years, along with the magazine pouches, cleaning kits and whatnot to go with them only to throw it all out shortly.

#4354784 - 05/01/17 04:57 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,589
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,589
Alabaster, AL USA
So, basically what the Army wants is something with the reliability and low training curve for the troops of the M4, which is 5.56mm, and based on the M16 series.

Sort of like what they have now, only in 7.62x51mm NATO standard.

[Snicker]

Isn't this where we started out with Eugene Stoner and the AR-10?


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#4354786 - 05/01/17 05:21 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 693
Schwalbe Offline
Member
Schwalbe  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Flogger23m


My understanding is the SCAR has the following problems:

snip



wow. I always thought the Scar was the best rifle to come out (relatively) recently... Does the SOCOM still use it though?

Last edited by Schwalbe; 05/01/17 05:22 PM.
#4354794 - 05/01/17 06:10 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Bill_Grant Offline
Hotshot
Bill_Grant  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Dallas, TX
According to those who know on the FNForum, the complaints that Flogger listed there have not been any issues with the lowers cracking. Only new in box broken stock butts were the issue, and blown out of proportion.
The M4 is COMPLETELY different from the the Mk16, because one is direct impingement, and the other is piston operated. Only the magazines and pistol grip are interchangeable between these two rifles.
The Mk16 was dropped because the newly developed heavy barrel for the M16Ax solved their reliability issues, and allowed them to save money by not switching platforms.
Several other countries (Belgium for sure) field the Mk16 5.56 battle rifle.

SOCOM still fields the SCAR Heavy rifle, they use it as the Mk20 (?) with the 20" barrel for sniping.
The Optics was a problem for the early adopted rifles, until NSW Crane took up the complaints and addressed it with the military vendors.


~Bill

In my defense, I was left unsupervised...
#4354797 - 05/01/17 06:30 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Airdrop01 Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Airdrop01  Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Kansas, USA
I've never fired it in anger, so to speak, but I've got four Scar 17s, set up for different ranges, and they are freaking tack drivers. And that's with my crappy eyes. However, the optics I have on them cost as much or much more, in two cases, than the rifles. Two of them are suppressed. Two not (but of course can be).

My only complaints were the factory trigger which I've replaced and with the crap I get from the others at the range on the two non suppressed ones which have the FN supplied PWS brake on them. It works great but it is freaking LOUD.



"For I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Matthew 5:11

Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful. James 5:11
#4354858 - 05/02/17 12:43 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,589
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,589
Alabaster, AL USA
Quote
The M4 is COMPLETELY different from the the M16


Except the design of the bolt, bolt carrier group, extractor, magazine feed, trigger assembly group, lower receiver, upper receiver, buffer for recoil, and chamber feed you are correct.

Last edited by Dart; 05/02/17 12:44 AM.

The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#4354869 - 05/02/17 01:16 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,484
CyBerkut Offline
Administrator
CyBerkut  Offline
Administrator
Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,484
Florida
Originally Posted by Dart
Quote
The M4 is COMPLETELY different from the the M16


Except the design of the bolt, bolt carrier group, extractor, magazine feed, trigger assembly group, lower receiver, upper receiver, buffer for recoil, and chamber feed you are correct.


Bill wrote Mk16, not M16.

#4354873 - 05/02/17 01:22 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,484
CyBerkut Offline
Administrator
CyBerkut  Offline
Administrator
Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,484
Florida
My understanding of what is driving this, is many of the enemy encounters in A-stan are at distances outside the effective range of the 5.56 rifles.

#4354887 - 05/02/17 02:25 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Airdrop01 Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Airdrop01  Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Kansas, USA
Originally Posted by Dart
Quote
The M4 is COMPLETELY different from the the M16


Except the design of the bolt, bolt carrier group, extractor, magazine feed, trigger assembly group, lower receiver, upper receiver, buffer for recoil, and chamber feed you are correct.


Mark 16 is the 5.56 SCAR. As in 7.62 NATO is Mk17 Mod 0, thusly, my brother going at it with one of ours a few years back:


.


"For I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Matthew 5:11

Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful. James 5:11
#4354907 - 05/02/17 05:33 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
FlashBurn Offline
Senior Member
FlashBurn  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
Washington State, USA
Its knee jerking time, again on this. If they mean by interim battle rifle just buying more of something in 7.62 Nato to replace a few M4/M16's out of a line platoon for the Afghanistan not a bad idea. If they mean replace all M4 with something like this, dumb.

The writing is on the wall. You need something totally new that addresses modern body armor and long range. Its not the 1950's any more and you can do more with small arms ammo with a blank page. The dumbest thing possible would be suddenly buy 500000 battle rifles of some sort when 7.62 nato is no better at defeating ceramic plates than 5.56. And the 6.5 and 6.8 are worse at defeating armor than 5.56. So to knee jerk and not prepare for 1st world issues and go nuts over the goat humping garbage at this stage is probably counter productive. Getting something battle rifle like into the line platoons in Afghanistan does make sense. But those guys will hate life up till they have to engage folks far off or take less ammo.

But to get blinded to the needs of Afghanistan at this point is counter productive. The Army needs to get back its edge its lost on the meat and potato stuff of fighting a 1st world power. On some stuff a full generation behind places like Russia.

#4354930 - 05/02/17 11:06 AM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: CyBerkut]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 112,606
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 112,606
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by CyBerkut
My understanding of what is driving this, is many of the enemy encounters in A-stan are at distances outside the effective range of the 5.56 rifles.



I guess those ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters have more than just AK's with iron sights....


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4354944 - 05/02/17 01:29 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,014
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,014
Jackman, ME
PKMs that outrange the M4 & M249, for one. Plus what's cover when 5.56mm bullets are flying is often only concealment from 7.62x51.


Phil

"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
#4354960 - 05/02/17 03:14 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Jayhawk Offline
Silastic Armorfiend
Jayhawk  Offline
Silastic Armorfiend
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 6,968
Docking Bay 94
For an interim solution, the Army could purchase M-14s or G3s and modifiy them (carbon-fibre stock and grips, Picatinny rail). The Bundeswehr has been using a couple of G3 DMRs in Afghanistan when they were deployed. Probably a cheaper solution than buying Mk17s or HK 417s.


Why men throw their lives away attacking an armed Witcher... I'll never know. Something wrong with my face?
#4354976 - 05/02/17 04:26 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: Bill_Grant]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,114
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,114
US
Originally Posted by Bill_Grant
According to those who know on the FNForum, the complaints that Flogger listed there have not been any issues with the lowers cracking. Only new in box broken stock butts were the issue, and blown out of proportion.
The M4 is COMPLETELY different from the the Mk16, because one is direct impingement, and the other is piston operated. Only the magazines and pistol grip are interchangeable between these two rifles.
The Mk16 was dropped because the newly developed heavy barrel for the M16Ax solved their reliability issues, and allowed them to save money by not switching platforms.
Several other countries (Belgium for sure) field the Mk16 5.56 battle rifle.

SOCOM still fields the SCAR Heavy rifle, they use it as the Mk20 (?) with the 20" barrel for sniping.
The Optics was a problem for the early adopted rifles, until NSW Crane took up the complaints and addressed it with the military vendors.


My understanding is that the lowers were indeed brittle and the Rangers that were issued them broke the majority of them within months. The stock latch is a quick fix via the aftermarket. I've heard complaints about the charging handle to, which makes it a pain when pressing the rifle against a tree for stability or the like. Overall, it seemed like those that were issued it and watched its adoption in widespread use were not too fond of it. It looks like more modern designs are dropping polymer only lowers and going with metal inserts wrapped in polymer, such as the Galil ACE and I think new HK433 and CZ Bren.


Originally Posted by Jayhawk
For an interim solution, the Army could purchase M-14s or G3s and modifiy them (carbon-fibre stock and grips, Picatinny rail). The Bundeswehr has been using a couple of G3 DMRs in Afghanistan when they were deployed. Probably a cheaper solution than buying Mk17s or HK 417s.


Both of those rifles are terrible compared to modern alternatives. A 7.62x51 AR is cheaper and better than both in just about every way possible. I'd be like building new F-4s because our F-15Es are getting old - inferior and more expensive. A SCAR is probably to be even cheaper than a 7.62 AR to. The lower is polymer.

#4354977 - 05/02/17 04:42 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Bill_Grant Offline
Hotshot
Bill_Grant  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,709
Dallas, TX
The charging handle can be an issue, since most rifles do not have a reciprocating CH like the SCAR does. It will give you a surprise if you get your thumb up in the way. Lets say that you won't do it again. ha!
But the reciprocating mass of the bolt/CH is what makes it a soft shooter. Another issue, one that really sucks, is that the CH is close to the upper rail, and it is not uncommon to drag your knuckle(s) across the Scope mount and take off some skin.
Note that most will change this to a canted lever as soon as they discover it.

FNH could address the lower issue and make it a) aluminum and b) standard AR 10 Mag compatible and that problem would be solved. HANDL and Stryker Enterprises have done this in the aftermarket and supply the Military SOCOM units.

I have never had the pleasure of shooting the HK416/HK417
I thought that the SOCOM had a contract with getting those platforms in place??


~Bill

In my defense, I was left unsupervised...
#4354986 - 05/02/17 05:51 PM Re: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO [Re: KraziKanuK]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Airdrop01 Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Airdrop01  Offline
Chief Pheasant Controller
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Kansas, USA
I like the Stryker charging handle. It's pretty solid.

They also make an aluminum lower and a compatible stock though I haven't tried those. I'm not sure I'd want to lug a loaded SCAR and 308 all day in addition to everything else but I'm fortunately old enough that there are half a century younger guys who will do it!!!


"For I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Matthew 5:11

Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful. James 5:11
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Kung Fury
by Chucky. 11/26/20 08:12 PM
Need a laugh ?
by WangoTango. 11/26/20 07:02 PM
Fantasy NHL League
by WangoTango. 11/26/20 06:36 PM
Thanksgiving In America!
by Blade_Meister. 11/26/20 03:00 PM
Thanksgiving
by NoFlyBoy. 11/25/20 07:16 PM
Uh oh...
by Nixer. 11/24/20 09:12 PM
meaning of a deck of playing cards
by KraziKanuK. 11/24/20 03:27 PM
Criterion Collection BR/DVD sale
by Patrocles. 11/24/20 03:26 PM
Ex Nazi can be deported
by NoFlyBoy. 11/23/20 11:10 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0