Beginning order will be 50,000 rifles given to front line rapid deploying units, replacing the M4.
Has the good idea fairy struck again?
Dosen’t sound like it to me…
The M4 will be replaced with the piston-driven HK product. That is all.
The idea that it will replaced with a 7.62 NATO weapon is so laughable it doesn’t even deserve a response. Oops.
Although I have not seen it, the POF Revolution seems to fit the bill for a direct size replacement for the M4 in 7.62x51. One would think that the replacement for the M4 should not be pigeon holed to the 7.62x51 make it an open competition for all the Calibers that fit in-between the 5.56 and 7.62.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/04/25/how-much-does-cartridge-matter/
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/10/14/rifle-calibers-what-the-pros-use/
Not ever… POF makes guns for magazine covers and the Gunsite Academy crowd. For phuck sakes, if caliber is the issue, lets just form and equip the 1st Charlie Gutsache Division. Nothing says overwhelming firepower like 10, 000 men with 84 mm man-portable multi-role recoilless rifles. The Army’s caliber crap is so tiresome. Enemy body armor isn’t the problem, a stomach for solving the problem is.
If the ADVAP round technology can be applied to 5.56 as well as 7.62, why the hell go in this direction? While I am not opposed to exploring new calibers for the future combat rifle/carbine, 7.62 ain’t the answer. Welcome to the 1960’s…
IMHO improved 5.56 is the way to go for now to address logistical, cost, and expediency purposes.
I am surprised they are not thinking along the lines of a WSM cartridge.
Interim,…?
So does that mean we don’t have the complete answer, but we are going to take a swing at it anyway?
I keep thinking this is a problem that might be better addressed by keeping the M4 and working on advancing the ammunition instead of a new carbine.
The problem with “Interim” is that it usually ends up becoming permanent. If I recall, the M-16 was supposed to be an “Interim” solution on the way to the SPIW program coming to fruition.
I’m not an infantry guy, but there’s a whole lot about this that doesn’t make sense. What problem are they trying to solve? If it’s a body armor problem, isn’t the EPR supposed to do that?
If the problem is being outranged by PKMs, shouldn’t we be considering more 240’s?
A combat load of 210 rounds? Of 7.62? Yeah, that weight increase is going to go over well.
Perhaps this is a step along the way to fielding a 6mm class cartridge (.260 Rem?) for both individual weapons and support weapons.
Maybe those in the buildings with no windows know something about the possible pivot to the Pacific theater that the rest of us don’t, and they need a solution real friggin quick.
Maybe it’s just some general or colonel looking to move up the ladder by pushing some new program, through. Who knows?
In all honesty, it will probably end up like the last few efforts to replace the M4.
Of note, Lt. Col Dave Lutz (who was responsible for the M16A2) posted this comment on SSD’s Facebook page
…can’t, CAN’T, adequately design a weapon for a new round that yet exists…if the Army can’t supply 1,000’s of rounds to each qualified vendor, you are just wasting everyone elses time while Soldiers wait patiently…
I would think that the push for 7.62 (range-wise at least) is focused on The Sandbox, i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. If there was a pivot to the Pacific that is where the body armor concern would likely imply China specifically. Of course any near-peer (to include the Rooskies) could be expected to be sporting body armor of some sort.
Doesn’t M995, the elusive “Black Tip”, penetrate body armor? That would seem to be your answer to that concern for 5.56mm.
That was my initial thought, too. There’s been far too much written about the issues with being outranged by PKMs in the 'Stan for there not to be some kind of response. I guess it just took a while for the officers who had been there and done that to get to positions of influence. From a planning/logistics standpoint, though…does it make sense to try and force a new service rifle that would have been useful for Afghanistan right when it looks like we may just walk away from the country?
If we do find ourselves pivoting to the Pacific, are we going to learn lessons from Korea/Nam all over again about weapons that are too heavy and designed for ranges far longer than typically engaged in?
Not that my observation is a new one, but maybe the answer is a modular rifle/carbine that can easily be converted from 5.55 to a larger round in the .308 family. A chassis that allowed say a swap of bolt head, barrel, and magazine well. As long as weight could be kept reasonable that might be a decent solution. Then the mission can dictate what caliber or mix of caliber is used.
Of course this would be hugely expensive, take forever given our DoD contract process, and only really address a small fraction of situations where 5.56 simply won’t do.
There’s a lot of background noise going on, just look at the CSASS selection and some user group selections. With a possible addition of something like this to the mix, I do not expect less than more of that.
The Mk17 does this.
Seems like a new crop of former Generals with ambitions of a corporate nature, queueing up with their sponsors product ambitions.
While we fight the last war, with the last war’s weapons, the grunts carry heavy things up hills day in and day out.
They are a beast of burden, over tasked, under appreciated, unknown but to their families and brothers in arms, invisible to America.
You can’t buy will, and when the tables turn as they always do, the will we will need more than anything will have been exhausted
by our never ending imperialist ambitions.
There does seem to be a base problem with PK type and PKM’s that out reach past our M240’s, among a few other things. We don’t have the base that supersedes them range, or in any capacity/quantity or a non high capacity precision that meets this for use the same that applies that towards us for one for aa offense role at least.
Sure, some will mention things like .338 Lapua, but they are are a limited few compared to what we face.
Okay, it’s been a while since I’ve been a grunt (ETS’d 30 years ago) but I’ll wager that the Taliban have a similar distribution of weapons like we do, i.e. not everyone is toting a PKM. One for every X amount of troops just like we do with our GPMG’s. So why are we “outgunned” by the PKM? Our 240’s have basically the same range, and every platoon will have a couple. Is our goal with this 7.62 push to allow every grunt we have to be able to duel with a PKM from a distant hillside? This is a rhetorical question, not aimed at you BrigandTwoFour.
Every time I hear this “mismatch” crap it makes me wonder exactly what those espousing it are driving at. Hell, a Muj with an AK isn’t going to fare any better shooting it out with an M240 at 700 meters than a GI would engaging a PKM with his M4. In fact, I’d submit that with M855A1 and an ACOG at least the GI could possibly make the bad guy duck with area fire (which is what it would essentially be at that distance), more so than the other guy with an AK plinking at a 240 .
To harken back to when the average American grunt carried the same caliber as his GPMG you’d need to look 50+ years ago with the M14 and M60. I just don’t see the need.
Historically we’ve done this to ourselves so many times I cannot believe we are about to do it again. We learn nothing from the history of others, or even our own recent history.
Designs being brought to the drawing board for T&E take so long and are usually fraught with dangerous, but the best of intentions. By the time they unscrew this we will likely be in it knee deep and with an unproven battle rifle/carbine again.
This is an all volunteer Military this time, that might make a remarkable difference when they screw this one up.
They are looking for a 7.62x51 carbine. With all the weight our guys carry Id think a 7.62x35 would save them several pounds. Still interested in seeing what comes out of this.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk