US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/0...m_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

What are your thoughts on this?

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.

PWEC here we come.....

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:


.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.




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.

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??

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!!!

Sorry, but in this day and age, I'm not lugging around a 8 pound rifle with another 6 pounds of crap on it with an extra 10 pounds of ammo just so I can miss with greater confidence.

Address the deficiency in training soldiers to shoot, then we'll talk about giving them a bigger round.

Preach it brother.

Here is a shot a buddy of mine (who is a drill sergeant) of a trooper misloading a round in basic training.



No ignoring the fact that the idiot loaded the round backwards into the magazine what else is wrong with this picture?

If you guessed 'the guy is doing BRM with a damned reflex sight' then you win the boobie prize.

I asked my DI buddy if he this is standard operating procedure now to have recruits train with these kinds of sights? He said for the most part yes.

Soldiers aren't training off of iron sights anymore. I was flabergasted. I can hit a 2'x2' gong at 200 meters standing, every time with a reflex sight. I barely have to aim. It is really that easy but I learned the proper way to shoot over iron sights. These kids are qualifying with damend Eotechs and still have trouble qualifying. I would hate to see any of them if they had to try to fire a carry handled M16 like we used to carry.

Franze is entirely correct. The maximum effective range of an M16 is 460 meters. That is far enough with most sights these days. If they want a dedicated sniper style rifle I can see an M110 (or AR10 which it really is) but a bigger, heavier round that misses a target is just a waste of time).

Teach soldiers to shoot, properly, and this will be a moot point.

Tom, what does "for the most part" mean? I'm just flabbergasted that they'd be training folks over anything but iron sights to begin with...

I mean, there's a wide variety of people that joint the military. I can see how someone who has never even held a gun before would not know anything at all (I mean, imagine a kid who only is exposed to video games for guns). His parents wouldn't have let him ever touch a gun (danger danger will robinson) but let him play terrible video games from age 5 up. How's he gonna know which is the business end of a cartridge? (did it shove the bullet into the casing???!!!)

Anyway, that same kid, thusly, needs to be taught how to properly shoot over the iron sights, what is a proper sight picture, basic stuff you and I learned when we were 7. Putting him down with an Aimpoint or Eotech or whatever just reinforces the Call of Duty mentality. Plus, it's not gonna help he or she if he ever has to pick up a rifle of any sort, with iron sights, which happens to be needed because it was lying in the mud next to him at the time and it's that or nothin!

The world has passed me by, I think.

My oldest son completed basic at Parris Island in 2010, he was among one of if not the last class of Marine recruits to qualify on the M16 using iron sights.

There actually is a SCAR without a reincorporating charging handle and has been for years. I think it is called the FN Advanced Rifle or something. Not sure what happened to it. I am not sure why they are not rolling out the updated versions. Depending on what else they changed, it may have won a big contract with the French. As of now it has only sold in smaller numbers and the only country to adopt it for standard issue is Belgium... which was a given.

My understanding is the HK 416 brings a host of problems that regular ARs do not have. You get some advantages, but also some disadvantages. From the sound of things, better life on parts that need quick replacement and easier cleaning, but worse long term problems that may require the rifle to be overhauled. I wonder what changes the HK416F brought.

On the other hand, the MCX is more or less being bought for SOCOM in .300 blackout, and British metro police are having the MCX's converted to .300 as well. Even Sweden is issuing .300 rifles. I know they're phasing out the G-36 with a .300 AR while using the Canadian C8s for their SWAT teams. The MCX and .300 are going to be the next big things it seems.

As well, I'm not sure how relevant it is to Aghanistan but it becomes obvious pretty quickly that 5.56 is vastly inferior to 7.62 when it comes to overall barrier penetration, and also effectiveness after passing through given barriers, especially over any kind of a distance.

5.56 tends to be better at penetrating metal plates but its not impressive against things like substantial building materials, car bodies, big trees and heavy brush, even so-called barrier blind ammo is meh.

F4U pretty much confirmed it with the Marine story. In all honestly I don't know if it is TRADOC policy for all BRM to be done with reflex sites but I know that it is happening in basic training right now. I asked him what will happen when these troops end up in units that still have carry handle M4s and M16s? He said it was the unit's responsibility to teach the soldiers how to zero and qualify with the weapon.

I was flabbergasted myself at that statement. As a former E-6 and range NCO at more than a few rifle qualification ranges I knew exactly what kind of 'training' would be done with these troops. Most would get a rifle, get a quick 'here is how you zero' lesson and then out to the range to figure it out. BRM is taught in Basic and reinforced in the unit. He could tell I was pretty upset at the whole idea. He hates it too be he has no say in how the training is done. The goal these days is to get them qualified and get them down the road. I suspect that much of the old 8 week course has been cut down due to requirements for this kind of training and that kind of training that really has nothing to do with the go to war mission. I think you probably can guess what kind of 'training' that is. When you have 8 weeks and you take four or five days of it for 'play nice with others' training you know that something is going to have to be shortened. I am guessing it is BRM and probably things like Grenade training and bayonet drills.

Heck, in the medical field none of the Docs or nurses even do BRM. They do an 'orientation to weapons' training which is a one day shoot where they go out and fire a bunch of rounds at targets and that is it. Most of them don't see a rifle or M9 until they are up for deployment and then have to try to qualify before leaving. Some ROTC programs have absolutely no weapons training, even for future Combat Arms Officers. Just a couple of months ago I had a Captain come to me terrified because she had to go to the range and attempt to qualify a second time with an M16. The first time, a few months earlier she went and hadn't fired a rifle since OBC four years earlier. And that was just an orientation. She shot a 9/40 at her first attempt. All the NCOs there did was tell her that she was a crappy shot. No attempt at teaching. NONE.

She didn't learn BRM, didn't know how to zero a rifle, didn't really know anything. So I got out my trusty Colt Sporter 2 (carry handle model) and took her to a gun range, with M16 zeroing targets and spent the whole day teaching her BRM, how to zero, how to get good shot groups and generally ease her anxiety. She found out she could shoot, and fairly well. She easily zeroed and qualified on the range which made her ecstatic. I ended up burning through about 200 rounds of 5.56 to let her do that but it helped.

I shouldn't have been the one to do that. I haven't been in the Army since 2005 and haven't been an NCO since 1997. Cripes I hadn't officially qualified myself since 2002. Yet here I am teaching BRM with a carry handle AR15A2 to a US Army Officer at a civilian range because somewhere down the line the NCOs decided to not do it. I was happy to do it but it should never get to that point. There is no guarantee that ISIS or the Taliban won't attack a hospital or that if they overrun a Forward Surgical Team that the members might have to fight for themselves. There really are few rear echelons in the wars we fight these days and everyone should be able to defend themselves.

Exactly. My son took an offered "early out" from the Marine reserves due to the constant barrage of "that kind" of "training", as did two thirds of his unit.

Thanks, Tom.

That is crazy. Just crazy. The world has indeed passed me by!! Holy cow.

The stories I hear from friends who retired in the past 8-10 years really make me feel sorry for anyone enlisting now. The things you hear officers & NCOs doing just boggles the mind, you kind of expect some stupid stuff from lower enlisted now & then but that's just ridiculous. I can only hope those range NCOs got the worst ass-chewings of their careers from their 1SG and that captain's CSM. And I think letters of reprimand for unprofessionalism would be justified.

TRADOC is garbage these days. They only care about the numbers.