US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LRRPF52
    Super Moderator
    • Sep 2014
    • 8569

    Originally posted by n9nwo View Post
    No one is disagreeing with your observations. However when did the Army ever use good sense?
    For most laymen who have zero idea about the technical or tactical and logistics considerations, the Army has a huge knowledge base that would overwhelm most if they peeked into that world.

    A big problem is that hardly anyone in the civilian world has even a rudimentary understanding of what considerations there are, and are influenced by gun rag opinions based on anecdotes from disgruntled wood and steel fans from long ago who might have held some rank that was enough to give them more clout for their article in American Rifleman. Then those opinions get carried into the service by new volunteers, who think they have it all figured out because they read an article, or heard it from Cleatus at the local gun shop.

    An example relevant to this thread is this continuous discussion of a select-fire 7.62 NATO rifle, which is so far out from reality that any of us who were 11Bs or 0311s just shake our heads and wonder why it is that in 2017, people still don't know that we don't even shoot 5.56 on Automatic from M4s, save a few extremely rare circumstances.

    Why is that in 2017, we don't have people that can easily look at previous select-fire 7.62 NATO service rifles and realize that professional armies like the UK and US deactivated or never used the select-fire feature on the SLR L1A1 (FAL) or the M14?

    When I drew my first issued M14 from the arms room, it was capped where the selector should have been because the Army learned back from the start that it's just not feasible to equip a 7.62 NATO service rifle with automatic select fire. Now they've made it a requirement for the ISCR.

    "He who studies history is condemned to watch he who doesn't repeat it."
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
      A big problem is that hardly anyone in the civilian world has even a rudimentary understanding of what considerations there are, and are influenced by gun rag opinions based on anecdotes from disgruntled wood and steel fans from long ago who might have held some rank that was enough to give them more clout for their article in American Rifleman. Then those opinions get carried into the service by new volunteers, who think they have it all figured out because they read an article, or heard it from Cleatus at the local gun shop.

      An example relevant to this thread is this continuous discussion of a select-fire 7.62 NATO rifle...
      You are the only person in this thread who has discussed full-auto for the ICSR.

      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
      Why is that in 2017, we don't have people that can easily look at previous select-fire 7.62 NATO service rifles and realize that professional armies like the UK and US deactivated or never used the select-fire feature on the SLR L1A1 (FAL) or the M14?

      When I drew my first issued M14 from the arms room, it was capped where the selector should have been because the Army learned back from the start that it's just not feasible to equip a 7.62 NATO service rifle with automatic select fire.
      The M14 had a "drop comb" stock, so naturally it had extremely poor controllability.

      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
      Now they've made it a requirement for the ISCR.
      That's hardly surprising. Select-fire has been a requirement of most armies that adopted 7.62 battle rifles, even in the 21st century.
      Select-fire capability was a requirement of Turkey's new MPT76 battle rifle, as well as on New Zealand's designated marksman rifle.
      Note that even SOCOM, which you said "has zero plans to go that direction," required full-auto capability on the SCAR-H battle rifle.


      Last edited by stanc; 09-09-2017, 12:51 AM.

      Comment

      • montana
        Chieftain
        • Jun 2011
        • 3209

        One of the biggest let downs in my youth was when I shot my first full auto 308 rifle, an FN FAL from Armex. Great noise maker but completely useless if trying to hit anything past 5 yards. I'll have to agree with 52 on this one LOL. That said, the Scar heavy is suppose to be one of the lightest recoiling 7.62X51 rifles made.

        Comment

        • LRRPF52
          Super Moderator
          • Sep 2014
          • 8569

          Select-fire is one of the ISCR requirements. SCAR had the requirement because they wanted a modular system that could change between the calibers, so the select-fire would be there for 5.56 NATO in the lower group, not because SOCOM was asking for select-fire 7.62 NATO.

          Everybody knows that select-fire 7.62 NATO is retarded from a lightweight service rifle.

          It's uncontrollable in the FAL, the G3, the M14, the AR10, the SCAR (without a brake), and any other non-belt fed weapon. It also eats through your minimized basic load faster than you already can't afford to do on semi.

          Why are we having this regressive, bad idea conversation over and over again?

          Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.

          The only thing that would make sense would be a 2-round burst FCG in that size of a gun for movers, shooting suppressed, with a suppressor engineered for the cartridge and system.

          Again, we're back to fighting with the weight and recoil of an albatross cartridge that has no other place than a DM role in the Rifle Squad.

          The only thing that makes sense to me is that they know we're headed into a full-scale war, and want to distract rifle makers with the ISCR from something better so they can keep a staple cartridge for the more important systems fed well (mini-guns, vehicle-mounted co-ax MGs, M240s).

          If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed. Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find. The Russians have to be laughing at us right now.
          NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

          CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

          6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

          www.AR15buildbox.com

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.
            If you want to know for sure, you would have to ask the Army Chief of Staff, or someone involved with the ICSR program. My thinking is that full-auto capability would be wanted if (as I suspect) they plan to use some ICSRs in the automatic rifle role, as was done with the M14A1.

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed.
            Your continued ranting on the poor full-auto controllability of 7.62 battle rifles makes it sound as if the ICSR is meant for blasting away in fully automatic fire, when it will undoubtedly be fired almost exclusively on semi-auto, the same as is SOP with select-fire 5.56 carbines.

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find.
            If they come up with a practical way to carry 210 rounds, then combat endurance will be unchanged from that with the M4 carbine, thereby avoiding the feared plague of overrun incidents.
            If the ICSR is only issued to units facing the Russkis, the risk of escalation to nuclear war means those soldiers will likely never be involved in any firefights. So again, no overrun incidents.
            Personally, I see the ICSR program as a good thing, as lessons learned from it may result in the NGSAR being dropped in favor of a belt-fed LMG, and rethinking of CT carbine ammo power.
            Last edited by stanc; 09-09-2017, 03:57 PM.

            Comment

            • Joglee
              Unwashed
              • Sep 2017
              • 7

              Everything I've been told points to CT not being a major focus right now or for the foreseeable future.

              Instead they're putting a ton of money and engineering into polymer cased 7.62 that can be applied to M80A1 and the new XM1158, then later applied to an intermediate caliber in the .264 range.

              No one seems to want CT anymore.

              Comment

              • 6.8 klr
                Bloodstained
                • Oct 2014
                • 49

                Right on Bro. You are spot on the >308, is it for U.S..........There is no way the .30 will ever change....It is Americas choice Cal. Period.

                Comment

                • LRRPF52
                  Super Moderator
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 8569

                  Hybrid polymer/metallic cases have always had issues with case separation at the joint between the 2 materials, especially in high dust environments.

                  The industry is apprehensive about investing in an entirely new cased telescoping cartridge infrastructure due to the initial associated costs, even though it is superior to metallic cartridges and the actions required to feed and extract them.

                  We're at the foothills of a possible new advancement in technology, which has a lot of gravitational pull in the current way of doing things keeping it from escape velocity. I'm reminded of the .276 Pedersen, General MacArthur, and the coming world war in the 1930s. Maybe MacArthur knew things in advance that Army Ordnance Bureau did not...

                  The difference is that maybe we do have the capacity to conduct finalized development of a new cartridge in the middle of full-scale war, and maybe we don't. They might be looking at strategic reserves and manufacturing centers for propellant, cases, primers, and bullets and not want to mess with that right now.
                  NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                  CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                  6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                  www.AR15buildbox.com

                  Comment

                  • stanc
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 3430

                    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                    We're at the foothills of a possible new advancement in technology, which has a lot of gravitational pull in the current way of doing things keeping it from escape velocity. I'm reminded of the .276 Pedersen, General MacArthur, and the coming world war in the 1930s. Maybe MacArthur knew things in advance that Army Ordnance Bureau did not...
                    If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.

                    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                    The difference is that maybe we do have the capacity to conduct finalized development of a new cartridge in the middle of full-scale war, and maybe we don't. They might be looking at strategic reserves and manufacturing centers for propellant, cases, primers, and bullets and not want to mess with that right now.
                    I'm not following you. In 1932, World War II was still years in the future. In 2017, we're not in the middle of a full-scale war; just low-intensity, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations.

                    Comment

                    • Joglee
                      Unwashed
                      • Sep 2017
                      • 7

                      One thing a lot overlook in this case is the main idea behind this is the ability to defeat armor.

                      We have significantly more M993 than we do M995.

                      We also do not control Tungsten mines, nor do we have enough Tungsten in US reserves to wage full scale war against a nation with armor.

                      Supposedly Natick has found a way to defeat armor without the need for tungsten with the XM1158.

                      I fully believe this is why Milley may see 7.62 as the answer, because we just don't have enough Tungsten to pump out millions and millions of M995 if we should need it during a major conflict.

                      Comment

                      • montana
                        Chieftain
                        • Jun 2011
                        • 3209

                        Originally posted by stanc View Post
                        If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.
                        There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor. The largest bomber factory in the world at Willow Run was dedicated the summer before Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2. Great timing wouldn't you say?

                        Comment

                        • LRRPF52
                          Super Moderator
                          • Sep 2014
                          • 8569

                          Originally posted by stanc View Post
                          If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.


                          I'm not following you. In 1932, World War II was still years in the future. In 2017, we're not in the middle of a full-scale war; just low-intensity, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations.
                          If one were to read the diplomatic cables of the 1930s even today, it would change much of the way you view the history of that era.

                          Also, look at how many carriers were built from other ships or purpose-built in the 1930s. 3 carriers were built from 1934 to 1940, to add to the existing Langley and Lexington.

                          There were a lot of shifting tidal waves of the global power structure in the 1930s, in addition to the Great Depression.

                          I think a combination of factors came into play that prevented the .276 Pedersen from being adopted, many of them potentially more valid for the decision-makers if we were to see their perspective and what they were factoring into the process.

                          Either way, it retarded small arms cartridge development for the infantry rifle in the West by decades, and we still have not recovered from that opportunity, given the stinking example of the 7.62 NATO albatross around our literal necks.
                          NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                          CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                          6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                          www.AR15buildbox.com

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430

                            Originally posted by montana View Post
                            There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor. The largest bomber factory in the world at Willow Run was dedicated the summer before Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2. Great timing wouldn't you say?
                            1937 - Japan invades China
                            1939 - Italy invades Albania
                            1939 - Germany invades Poland
                            1939 - Russia invades Poland
                            1939 - Russia invades Finland
                            1940 - Germany invades Norway, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands
                            1940 - Germany attacks Britain
                            1940 - Italy invades Greece

                            By 1941, it didn't take a crystal ball to see that it might be a good idea to prepare for war.

                            Comment

                            • LRRPF52
                              Super Moderator
                              • Sep 2014
                              • 8569

                              There was also:

                              Gibara Rebellion in Cuba 1931
                              Manchurian Incident 1931
                              Greco-Bulgarin border clashes 1931
                              The Chinese Soviet Republic 1931-1934
                              Military Coup in Ecuador 1931
                              Republican Revolution in Spain 1931
                              Irgun Terrorism in Palestine 1931-1948
                              Kurdish Rebellion in Iraq 1932
                              Promoter's Coup in Thailand 1932
                              Sino-Japanese War of Shanghai 1932
                              Bonus Marchers in Washington DC 1932 (Army Chief of Staff, Douglas MacArthur, dispersed the veterans and their families and burned their camps using coordinated armor and cavalry, including shots fired and veterans slain.)

                              1932 was a really busy year for assassinations, conflict, skirmishes, revolutions, revolts, coups, insurrections, and protestors even within the US. Given the amount of global conflict and internal discord, it's reasonable to ask whether someone at the Army Chief of Staff level just might have been a little apprehensive about adopting a new cartridge in the middle of a Depression and uncertainty, especially if his office was privy to diplomatic cable summaries distributed to the War Department.
                              NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                              CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                              6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                              www.AR15buildbox.com

                              Comment

                              • stanc
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 3430

                                Oh, yeah. As if the Bonus March, Jewish terrorism in Palestine, a few military coups and minor rebellions in other parts of the world really factored into his decision.

                                Budget considerations during the Great Depression, yes, certainly. That other stuff, nah, I don't buy it.
                                Last edited by stanc; 09-12-2017, 06:28 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X