I don't know if this was already posted. Funds for the Interim Combat Service Rifle have been redirected to the long-term project to design the Next Generation Squad Weapon.

https://www.armywtfmoments.com...m-rifle-replacement/

It was (unofficially? preliminarily?) cancelled back in September, as mentioned on Page 4 of this previous thread:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...935/m/7310035824/p/1

~7 weeks from announcement to cancellation.

What rifle plan is this? 10th attempt?

Seems every few years the Army spends millions of dollars looking for a replacement. How long have we been using the 5.56? Been working for this long.

The better use of resources would be to cut the SHARP, EO, classroom stuff and focus on stuff like, I don't know, like warfighting...

If you want to stop sexual harassment/assault, start hammering the senior leaders who commit it. No pension but they can have prison. When junior Soldiers see senior leaders get away with it, it does 2 things:

1. displays double standard of justice based on rank
2. shows a discharge while keeping benefits isn't exactly punishment

Get rid of the online training bullshit. SERE training is done online?

My 2 cents, the 5.56 has it's attributes, lightweight, handy, versatile. For the units that have that HIGH likelihood of enemy interaction, let them get what they want, 7.62 or whatever.

The search was unofficially canceled sometime before the start of the search.

Dear Army--

This is the proper fix:

FOR INFANTRY units: Issue all current M249 gunners the M27. Lighter weight / increased mobility.

-AND-

ADD (2) M240 teams and an E6 squad leader to each infantry platoon creating a weapons squad of (4) M240s.

Period. Problem solved.

Line squads are lighter more mobile but you have greatly added to the 'fire-POWER' of the Infantry platoon.

No 'new weapons' required.

--------------------------------------------

Well, everything just got converted to M4A1 with thicker barrel and FA for the ability for higher sustained rates of fire. The much better M855A1 ammo is out as well improving lethality. I don’t think it is enough of a gain to justify the cost until the next generation of weapons can be fielded.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Dear Army--

This is the proper fix:

FOR INFANTRY units: Issue all current M249 gunners the M27. Lighter weight / increased mobility.

-AND-

ADD (2) M240 teams and an E6 squad leader to each infantry platoon creating a weapons squad of (4) M240s.

Period. Problem solved.

Line squads are lighter more mobile but you have greatly added to the 'fire-POWER' of the Infantry platoon.

No 'new weapons' required.

--------------------------------------------

By going from the M249 to the M27, you reduce ammo capacity, lower the rate of fire and lose the ability to swap barrels IOT sustain fire. How exactly does that improve firepower? the only advantage I see is lighter weight and the ability to hit point targets better due to the semi auto feature on the M27. I will say that the M4A1 with a magnified optic and M855A1 or MK 262 actually shoots rather well.

Now the M249 has it's issues but having a lighter weight belt fed can be very useful for dismounted ops and you can also vehicle mount it. I've seen them used in an urban environment effectively and my guys were also found of the MK 48 variant. The M249 can be rather mobile even in the mountains of ASTAN. I will also point out that the US Army evaluated an M27esq capability when it looked at the Colt Heavy Barrel Automatic Rifle ( HBAR) and chose the FN Minimi (M249) over it.

It's also my understanding that the USMC kept some of it's M249s.

I'd be very interested in seeing their new doctrine for the employment of the M27 and I'd like to know what the UBL is for the weapon systems. My understanding is that the USMC is using them more like a more accurate carbine and limited use of full auto in the COIN environment. I'm interested to see what it does in the near peer environment force on force environment I'm looking at here in Europe.

I don't object to adding in more M-240Ls to the PLT, except that it runs contrary to what you are doing with the M27s. You claim you want to swap out the M249s for a lighter more maneuverable M27, but then you add two more heavier machine guns, T&E, tripods, ammo etc. The M240s would probably wind up in the support by fire position or on vehicles, maneuvering a M240 can be done, but it's a big heavy gun. I know some folks who want their M60s back. If you were to stick with a theme you might consider replacing the M240 with the newer generation of M60 or Mk 48. I'd advise against the MK 48 because I don't think that a weapon that light will hold up that well for sustained 7.62mm fire.

FYI the weapons squad in an Air Assault Light Infantry PLT already has an SSG (E6) Squad Leader on the MTOE. I don't know about other units off the top of my head.

Personally, I think the current research spiral into the next gen lightweight weapons and ammo might be the way to look for your automatic rifles and machineguns.

Back to the Interim Combat Service Rifle, IMHO it was an attack of the good idea fairy. While GEN Milley raised a good point on our ability to penetrate modern military body armor, I don't think the ICSR was the right answer to that question.

Also for the record. PARA called it. He correctly predicted that this rifle would not go anywhere.

M27 is by all accounts I have read - far more accurate. Far lighter adding to greatly enhanced mobility (MOUT) for those fire teams. Yes you are removing the belt-fed capacity (volume) but you are gaining mobility and accuracy x6. So basically now you have gained 6 infantrymen with M27 who can actually IMT / assault / do infantry stuff. Plus they are more accurate.

The M249 is an open-bolt dog. High rate of fire, yes. But has LESS power than a M240 and less accuracy but heavier x2 than a M27. So it's pretty much the worst of both worlds. Best word to describe it - clunky. And I'm not even going to get into reliability.

PLUS - the addition of the (2) M240s is where the real firepower is located- the 7.62 belt-fed. No contest. Plus by adding the squad leader / creating a dedicated weapons squad you would get E6 supervision of those teams. Not sure of current MTOE - but my experience was with a platoon of 3 squads (E6s x 3) plus an E7 and a LT.

Let's be honest - guys with belt feds typically overwatch while the rest maneuver. I'm not fond of the M249 idea of - 'Give a guy a 22 pound belt-fed and try to get him to pretend he can maneuver like the rest of the squad.' That's not realistic. Reducing weight by over 10lbs per man is like turbo-charging that team.

But this only works if you add the 7.62mm capability. Also - I am talking about light / airborne / dismounted type infantry. Troops with vehicles it's different because weight / soldier load is not a factor as much. So I am not talking about dumping the M249 as much as replacing it - in INFANTRY units - with the M27 / M240s.

----------------------------------------

I don't have any experience with the M27...but I'd take the trade off of getting rid of the 249's for the addition of the M240's.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
M27 is by all accounts I have read - far more accurate. Far lighter adding to greatly enhanced mobility (MOUT) for those fire teams. Yes you are removing the belt-fed capacity (volume) but you are gaining mobility and accuracy x6. So basically now you have gained 6 infantrymen with M27 who can actually IMT / assault / do infantry stuff. Plus they are more accurate.

The M249 is an open-bolt dog. High rate of fire, yes. But has LESS power than a M240 and less accuracy but heavier x2 than a M27. So it's pretty much the worst of both worlds. Best word to describe it - clunky. And I'm not even going to get into reliability.

PLUS - the addition of the (2) M240s is where the real firepower is located- the 7.62 belt-fed. No contest. Plus by adding the squad leader / creating a dedicated weapons squad you would get E6 supervision of those teams. Not sure of current MTOE - but my experience was with a platoon of 3 squads (E6s x 3) plus an E7 and a LT.

Let's be honest - guys with belt feds typically overwatch while the rest maneuver. I'm not fond of the M249 idea of - 'Give a guy a 22 pound belt-fed and try to get him to pretend he can maneuver like the rest of the squad.' That's not realistic. Reducing weight by over 10lbs per man is like turbo-charging that team.

But this only works if you add the 7.62mm capability. Also - I am talking about light / airborne / dismounted type infantry. Troops with vehicles it's different because weight / soldier load is not a factor as much. So I am not talking about dumping the M249 as much as replacing it - in INFANTRY units - with the M27 / M240s.

----------------------------------------

SIG209, you are unfamiliar with current and emerging doctrine. I respect you for putting forth a reasonable sounding argument based on your personal experiences. Your suggestion about adding the weapons squad leader shows and understand of how a platoon should run.

As I mentioned we already have the weapons squad and the Weapons Squad Leader. A weapons squad leader is a great thing for many reasons, but we learned that lesson at least 10 years ago(we had weapons squad leaders back in 07 if not earlier).

Accuracy works great in COIN or in environments where you get good eyes on your target, but Accuracy takes a back seat to volume of fire when it's time to suppress the enemy. Watch the videos out of Iraq and Astan, talk to the Vietnam guys, you don't break an ambush with accurate semi auto fire, you break it with volume. Hell, half the time we can't even see the enemy and it's perfect acceptable to hit, known, suspected and probable enemy locations. You don't suppress an enemy unit by picking people off, you suppress them by bringing your machine guns and grenade launchers into the fray. Read the old FM 7-8 and the new 3-21.8.

A quote from 3-21.8 (2007)
"automatic rifleman (AR) provides an internal base of fire with the ability to deliver sustained suppressive small arms fire on area targets. The rifleman provides accurate lethal direct fire for point targets."

In plain English, the Rifleman need the accuracy most, not the Automatic Rifleman. The M27's accuracy was a bonus, not a requirement. I'd bee interested to see how that accuracy holds up with sustained use of automatic fire through the barrel.

As for maneuvering with the M249, my guys have used them in buildings and humped them across Afghanistan, Iraq and HTA. It's completely doable. We used to take our 249s on 20 mile road marches in armor for grins. The 240s might be positioned in the support by fire positions but the M249 moves with the squad.

Can you do plunging fire with an M27?

Unlike the USMC most of the Army is MECH/Armored (1ID, 2ID, 3ID,4ID,1st CAV,1ST ARMOR) and Stryker (25ID(MIXED)2CR,3CR). Only 10th MTN, 82D, 101st, 4/25 and 173D are light. Even the light guys cruised Iraq in Astan in vehicles and we seem to have a surplus of MRAPs and HUMMWVs. But, in a near peer force on force, you aren't going to see a lot of long distance dismounted moves by the light guys. They'll get dropped in, or dropped off and take their objective or position and then hold it, or get picked up and moved again.

Since you seem to like the M27 so much, here is an idea. Replace the M16 with the M27. You'll have a more compact rifle with good accuracy and a full auto capability and keep the M249s.

Thanks for the discussion, I actually had to go back and crack the doctrine. I actually went back and looked at the CNET study and the M249 scored very poorly among users polled. So you are not alone in your dislike of the M249. We did to some upgrades to the weapons system and we also replaced a bunch of them.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:


Thanks for the discussion, I actually had to go back and crack the doctrine. I actually went back and looked at the CNET study and the M249 scored very poorly among users polled. So you are not alone in your dislike of the M249. We did to some upgrades to the weapons system and we also replaced a bunch of them.

Yes - fun discussion. Always room for improvement and doing things differently. Point / counter-point.

I will say my background was light - 25th ID and 82nd ABN - and dated. So my background is 3 squads per platoon. Lighter gear mattered. That's why I have a huge bias to the concept of the M27 as an AR vs. the SAW. And I laughed (not mocking) when you said the M249 was doable - I think I found the only guy who wanted a heavier piece of gear!

Plus the M249 never impressed me from an accuracy standpoint. Suppression? I guess - but accuracy matters more. We should be moving past volume from the average Joe kinda like we don't do carpet bombing anymore. And again - I don't want to lose firepower - so I want 2x more belt-fed 7.62mm.

You also made me chuckle at your reference to Doctrine (again not mocking) - our Doctrine which we are notorious for not following and is basically outdated as soon as its written and usually pertains to lessons learned from the last war. I know that is a bunch of military cliches but you gotta admit it's true.

I'm guessing (haven't had a training session with the M27) you cannot engage the enemy with plunging fire due to it being mag-fed. Fair enough. 7.62mm is a better round for that employment anyway. But I'll counter with a question - can you use the M249 in the DM role like apparently you can with the M27?


----------------------------------------------

This just leaves another opportunity for a retiring Army General to resurrect it before getting a consulting gig with Colt / LMT / FN / KAC when the RFP hits.

Gotta milk that cow for all it's worth!

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
This just leaves another opportunity for a retiring Army General to resurrect it before getting a consulting gig with Colt / LMT / FN / KAC when the RFP hits.

Gotta milk that cow for all it's worth!

You obviously have some experience in this area!

----------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:


Thanks for the discussion, I actually had to go back and crack the doctrine. I actually went back and looked at the CNET study and the M249 scored very poorly among users polled. So you are not alone in your dislike of the M249. We did to some upgrades to the weapons system and we also replaced a bunch of them.

Yes - fun discussion. Always room for improvement and doing things differently. Point / counter-point.

I will say my background was light - 25th ID and 82nd ABN - and dated. So my background is 3 squads per platoon. Lighter gear mattered. That's why I have a huge bias to the concept of the M27 as an AR vs. the SAW. And I laughed (not mocking) when you said the M249 was doable - I think I found the only guy who wanted a heavier piece of gear!

Plus the M249 never impressed me from an accuracy standpoint. Suppression? I guess - but accuracy matters more. We should be moving past volume from the average Joe kinda like we don't do carpet bombing anymore. And again - I don't want to lose firepower - so I want 2x more belt-fed 7.62mm.

You also made me chuckle at your reference to Doctrine (again not mocking) - our Doctrine which we are notorious for not following and is basically outdated as soon as its written and usually pertains to lessons learned from the last war. I know that is a bunch of military cliches but you gotta admit it's true.

I'm guessing (haven't had a training session with the M27) you cannot engage the enemy with plunging fire due to it being mag-fed. Fair enough. 7.62mm is a better round for that employment anyway. But I'll counter with a question - can you use the M249 in the DM role like apparently you can with the M27?


----------------------------------------------

I've got a whole bunch of dudes in the Platoon with M4A1s and some even have ACOGS. I don't need to use my Automatic rifle as DM I have a whole bunch of other guys who should be doing that for me. Heck, I can use a Javelin to pick out dismounts out to 2K, doesn't mean it's a good use of my resources (I'd love to try it thought). How accurate is the M27 with M855A1, how fast does the accuracy degrade with full auto fire? Touting the M27's ability to engage point targets (not the automatic riflemans job) while degrading it's ability to do area suppressive fire (it's job) is like saying "My plane can't fly very well, but it can roll pretty quick on the ground". Counter question how well can you do final protective fires with an M27? I'm betting you'd stall out during the mag change.

On UBLs, The UBL for an M249 is 1000 rounds, five 200 round belts in plastic cases. Four of which go into the issued pouches on the FLC or IOTV. To carry the same amount of rounds for the M27 you would either need 33 or 34 magazines. That might be difficult carry and it would definitely slow your dismount down. However, I'm betting that the UBL for the M27 is closer to the UBL for an M4/M16, 210 rounds. Less rounds, less ability to suppress.

As for the M249, It's the only Automatic rifle we've got unless you count the MK 48. It's not light, but when it's all you have, you get used to it. The venerable BAR was in the same weight class. I'm more into the capability the SAW brings vs the M249 itself, if you replaced the SAW with the HK MG4 (assuming it works as well or better) or if the Negev had won the SAW competion, I wouldn't complain.

As for doctrine, you are right a lot of folks are taught it and forget it, the folks that need to read it often don't. But, we are getting better, we produce and evolve doctrine faster than we have in the past and after Odierno got involved, we are making it more readable. I had an interesting incident in ASTAN. The insurgents were making great use of plunging fire, effectively out ranging our guys and getting fire superiority (using belt fed and area fire interestingly enough). To counter it, our BC had the pages from the Machine gun manual on plunging fire and how to counter it distro to the troops. The issue became less significant. Now, we hadn't lost any lives to the plunging fire, so I can't say doctrine saved lives, but not knowing it had put us at a disadvantage.

As for the last war, I'm in Europe. We're bringing tanks back to Europe as fast as we can. If we go force on force with the Russians it's going to look a lot like what we prepped for during the Cold War with an additional hybrid warfare (Ukraine). sometimes the lessons of the last War saves lives. We had to relearn a lot of Vietnam COIN lessons the hard way in Iraq.

So you are an old 82D guy. That explains why we keep crossing swords. I did my Infantry time as a Weapons PLT leader in 3/101. I've found that 82D produces excellent Infantry NCOs and the BDE and below folks I've dealt with have always been good, however I'm going to name my first hemorrhoid after the 82D Division staff.

As an aside, my old BN Chaplains used Proverbs 27:17 all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
I've got a whole bunch of dudes in the Platoon with M4A1s and some even have ACOGS. I don't need to use my Automatic rifle as DM I have a whole bunch of other guys who should be doing that for me. Heck, I can use a Javelin to pick out dismounts out to 2K, doesn't mean it's a good use of my resources (I'd love to try it thought). How accurate is the M27 with M855A1, how fast does the accuracy degrade with full auto fire? Touting the M27's ability to engage point targets (not the automatic riflemans job) while degrading it's ability to do area suppressive fire (it's job) is like saying "My plane can't fly very well, but it can roll pretty quick on the ground". Counter question how well can you do final protective fires with an M27? I'm betting you'd stall out during the mag change.

I would pay real money to see the AAR from a dismount Javlin strike. HVT conference anyone?

The M27 works for the Marines. It fits their offensive nature, be it 'Forward from the Sea' or the 'Beyond the beach' attact attack attack montra. Holding ground is for the Army and it's belt feds.

For me the single issue is the longevity of then much touted long range accuracy of the M27. M855 has never been a match round, and wartime production needs have resulted in large batches of ammo entering the supply chain with accuracy wavers. Another thing I found out first hand is any rack grade rifle used for competition better have a zero full auto round count. The dedicated SDM rifles are fired semi auto (AFAIK) only, and some of them have gone an impressive 10k rounds while still holding mil spec accuracy. I just don't see the M27 doing that. AFAICT the barrel is just an HBAR and isn't stellite lined. For those that don't know, stellite is used in all our belt fed barrels to keep the throat from being shot out.

http://www.usord.com/weapons/stellite