Had not heard about this before...

http://americanmilitarynews.co...utm_source=tednugent

Oh sweet, another rifle competition!!??!!

I saw the announcement online.

Oh Great another rifle competition that will cost the taxpayers millions for probably the same result.

I wish they would take the money they spent on these and use that money to for the soldiers to work on marksmanship, CQB, etc..

I know my unit got to shoot a lot throughout the year but it was static. We never practiced on shooting and moving, weapons transition drills, shooting in and around vehicles etc..

Um, wasn't having to haul around the weight of a 7.62 M14 and ammo the reasons the Army went to 5.56 in the first place?

Is Russia going back to 7.62x54R rifles?

Millions of dollars to be spent, several trials to go through, and the Army will issue the M4A11 or whatever they are up to now.

Ain't happenin'

I think there's good chance it will happen this time around. But not anytime soon and it won't be 7.62x51. It'll likely be either .260 Rem, 6.5 CM, .264USA, or .277USA. I've read where the 6.8 and 7MM UIAC are also till in the mix. The case will probably be polymer too if they get the bugs worked out.

There's a movement around the world with militaries migrating toward more powerful cartridges and away from the 5.56 Nato round.

https://youtu.be/9APzYqwXckw

Just for the people that think that the M16 platform is no good.

I'm with the poster that said that Uncle Sugar needs to take that money and spend it on training and buying new M16/M4's.

If they want to change something, go with the M16/M4 to a real upgrade in caliber, 6.5 Grendel. It will do better at long range that the 7.62X51mm NATO and have the advantage of also weighting less.

The 6.5 Grendel is a much better long range caliber, and unless the new rifle is an AR 10 variant. That was truly a mil spec. weapon, it most likely will be a compromise.

The M16/M4 has stuck around because it has shown to be reliable, accurate, easy to maintain, cost effective to manufacture and in a caliber that does most of what it's asked to do in the average range of engagement well to OK.

I'll also state this. The different countries that are allies with us, that carry a different rifle then the M16 platform, why is it that their Special Forces carry the M16 platform over their standard rifles?

This is just a silly waist of time and money. Buy new M4's and train our Soldiers, Airborne, Marines and Sailors better on how to use what we got.



ARman

My son just started in the Army two years ago. I figure by the time he's done his 20+, the Army will still be 9mm and 5.56.

Oh yeah, they did a whole series of the mud test. Watch them, you may or may not be surprised.

I for the most part wasn't.


ARman

Perhaps they see a need to penatrate personal armor with M80A1.

quote:

Originally posted by ed308:
It'll likely be either .260 Rem, 6.5 CM, .264USA, or .277USA. I've read where the 6.8 and 7MM UIAC are also till in the mix.

These are NATO rounds, are they? The ones you listed are even less likely than the 7.62x51.

I thought the SCAR17 fit this nitch. Seems to meet the stated criteria and is already in use.

quote:

Originally posted by vincent317:
I thought the SCAR17 fit this nitch. Seems to meet the stated criteria and is already in use.

Exactly... just order more SCAR17's. They already had this competition. Saves time and money, Done.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by ed308:
It'll likely be either .260 Rem, 6.5 CM, .264USA, or .277USA. I've read where the 6.8 and 7MM UIAC are also till in the mix.

These are NATO rounds, are they? The ones you listed are even less likely than the 7.62x51.

I think you know the answer to your question. Take it for what it's worth. But I've not read where the 7.62 Nato is even in the mix. From what I've read, they plan to phase in a new cartridge around 2025. The current solicitation request mentioned is for 50,000 units that will be used as a interim solution until they pick a new cartridge. Testing on the cartridges mentioned have been ongoing from a while. The .260 and .264USA seem to get the most glowing press.

quote:

Originally posted by ARman:
https://youtu.be/9APzYqwXckw

If they want to change something, go with the M16/M4 to a real upgrade in caliber, 6.5 Grendel. It will do better at long range that the 7.62X51mm NATO and have the advantage of also weighting less.

The 6.5 Grendel is a much better long range caliber, and unless the new rifle is an AR 10 variant. That was truly a mil spec. weapon, it most likely will be a compromise.

ARman

From what I've read they are looking at cartridges that have a case capacity of 44gr or higher. That rules out the 6.5 Grendel but not say 6.5 Creedmoor. The other issue with the Grendel is feeding. Based on the case design, the Grendel doesn't feed reliably in a full auto weapons from what I've read.

Interesting to see where this goes.

I have said before - I will say it again - if they want more firepower in the Infantry platoons they should just add (1) medium machine gun to the MTOE. (making it 3 MG sections instead of 2 effectively increasing your heavier fire capability by +50%). Would add three men to each platoon.

Everybody lugging a 7.62mm makes no sense to me.

Plus I hear the new 5.56mm round is a big improvement.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Plus I hear the new 5.56mm round is a big improvement.

^^^^What he said. M855A1 performance was as good or better than M80 ball.

quote:

It'll likely be either .260 Rem, 6.5 CM, .264USA, or .277USA.

The cost to change over Lake City to a new caliber would be in the $100s of millions. I don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
The cost to change over Lake City to a new caliber would be in the $100s of millions.

Do you have a source for these costs?

This 4/2017 article explains the reasons behind the changes that may happen:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017...nterim-battle-rifle/