The U.S. military has issued a Request For Information (RFI) to firearms manufacturers looking for a 7.62 NATO battle rifle to be placed into service. The contract’s been dubbed the “Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR)” or more formally, opportunity W15QKN-17-X-0A1V). It’s an attempt by the military to fill “a potential gap in the capability of ground forces and infantry to penetrate body armor using existing ammunition.”

To address this operational need, the Army is looking for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR) that is “capable of defeating emerging threats.” In other words, 5.56 NATO isn’t cutting the mustard and the military wants to go back to 30 caliber weapons.

The requirements for the platform sound oddly familiar:

• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.

• Caliber: 7.62x51mm

• Available barrel lengths, to include 16 and 20 inch barrels, without muzzle device attached.

• Muzzle device capable of or adaptable to auxiliary devices for:
— Compensation of muzzle climb
— Flash suppression
— Sound Suppression

• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.

• All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users

• Capable of mounting a 1.25 inch wide military sling

• Capable of accepting or mounting the following accessories.
— Forward grip/bi-pod for the weapon
— variable power optic

• Detachable magazine with a minimum capacity of 20 rounds

• Folding or collapsing buttstock adjustable to change the overall length of the weapon

• Foldable backup iron sights calibrated/adjustable to a maximum of 600 meters range

• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic

• Extended Forward Rail

There are only one or two weapons that fit that specification at the moment that come to mind: Knight’s Armament’s SR-25 line of AR-10 rifles and the FN SCAR 17 platform.

The SR-25 has been in service since 1990 as a semi-automatic medium range weapon for designated marksmen, but the longer overall length has kept it from being deployed in the close range “door kicker” type roles.

That’s really where the SCAR 17 was designed to fill a need, providing the raw power of 7.62 NATO in a maneuverable package. That firearm is currently in use with SOCOM units, although only on a per mission basis and not offered for widespread use.

For my money it sounds like this is a shot by the military at bringing the SCAR 17 into the fold. Instead of procuring one-off weapons and limited availability, this is an opportunity for the military to stock up on SCAR 17 rifles (now properly field tested and soldier approved) for widespread deployment. We shall see.

113 Responses to US Military Issues New Contract for 7.62 NATO Battle Rifles

  1. Guess 2017 is just a year for bad ideas in the Army. First the M17, now an infantry rifle that’ll weigh 2-3 times more than an M4 when taking into account a full combat load (210 rounds).

    • If we can just get polymer .308 AR lowers and polymer-cased ammo to work out, and use Pmags, then weight wouldn’t be an issue. I doubt that it will work out and everyone will have to deal with boat anchors, but it’s nice to dream.

        • Tungsten is denser, and thus heavier. Plus, they are available in 5.56. This is a solution in search of a problem

        • Jesus Rincoln, wasn’t the absurdness of my comment coupled with a winky enough to set off your sarcasm detector. We all know that tungsten is heavy, expensive, and in the the M995.

  2. If they are designating this an interim rifle, that is off the shelf model ready for production, does that mean there is a plan in the works to develop and procure a permanent rifle for this application that will take five or more years to approve and squander millions?

    • More likely is that the ‘interim’ rifle will become the de facto standard rifle. Few realize this, but the Abrams was an ‘interim’ tank to bridge us to something better. It’s almost as old as I am.

  3. Why don’t they re-issue all the excellent M-14 rifles sitting in storage.I know Odumo and Billary tried to burn em but thousands still exist.
    SA still makes them as well.

    • Maybe because the M-14 doesn’t do full auto well; it’s really hard to keep on target firing full auto.
      An AR style platform (or another straight-thru platform, like the SCAR) does much better.

      • Fired the M-16 I had at the time full auto exactly once. Useless. Semi auto will cover ground fast enough if that’s all you want to do. (Fully aware of all the complaints about a full battle rifle. When we were carrying the M-14 we were not wearing 80# +/- of body armor and carrying 100# +/- packs too). Poodle shooters are meant to herd people into position and let the big dogs kill them.

        • adverse4: “Fired the M-16 I had at the time full auto exactly once. Useless.”

          An excellent example of anecdotal evidence.
          Not saying anything against you personally, but only firing an M-16 in auto only once doesn’t really make you an expert.
          OTOH, there’s a reason they were limited to 3-round bursts.
          Full auto fire has its purpose, but trying to make an infantryman remember than while being fired at is hard.
          Let’s face it, combat is hard. Sometimes I think it’s a wonder anyone survives it. Then I remember that pretty much everyone sucks at it. So the fact that most survive it isn’t so remarkable.

      • Full auto in a rifle is for the untrained/amateur grunt. Usless BS if you need automatic fire for the intended purpose the professional uses an GP machinegun. On a tripod.

        • I understand the idea of automatic fire is for suppression, not killing.
          I’m rather talking in the reality, not the ideal.
          Generals in, um, general, are infatuated with automatic fire. It certainly has its place. But I don’t believe that place is in the hands of every infantryman.
          It wastes far too much ammo.
          The ratio of rounds fired to kill/wound in WWII was far lower than in Viet Nam, when full auto was put into everyone’s hands. The full auto capability of the M-16 had to be cut to three-round bursts for that very reason.

    • Because the M14 was a stinking dumpster fire when it was new.
      1. Open action allows contamination directly into the bolt/chamber interface.
      2. Same op-rod problems as the M1.
      3. Virtually impossible to control on full auto.
      4. Minute of dump truck accuracy unless you spend a fortune re-bedding the action and accurizing the entire system.

      Quite franckly, the .30 cal purists view the M14 through the rose colored glasses of 60 years of development optimized for one of a kind match rifles. As a standard issue battle rifle, the thing is a steaming pile of crap unless you spend so much money on it that you could afford two SCAR 17s for the same price.

      • “Minute of dump truck” accuracy?

        I’ve never met a M1A or M14 that grouped worse than about 2 MOA with ball ammo. That’s on par with any other issue military rifle.

        Want a M1A/M14 to group 1 MOA or less? OK, now we need to start bedding, replacing the barrel, etc.

        All of your other complaints or issues would have applied to the M1 Garand – and it seemed to work just fine, in all theatres of WWII. The M1A’s problems on full auto were foretold by the Garand’s designer, John Garand, and they all came true. If you want a full auto, full-power .30 cal rifle, it just needs to weigh more. That’s it. The op rod problems happen usually only if someone is screwing with the op rod, or they’re shooting heavier bullets (or hotter ammo) than the ball ammo issued with the rifle.

        But let’s say we want to leverage off the training for armorers and soldiers/Marines from the M-16 – because that would save the taxpayers money (a radical idea, I know) and it would save the DOD time and increase acceptance of the new rifle by the troops. Let’s go with a heavier AR-10 – because even the AR-10 as currently furnished will climb on full auto, even with it’s straight[er] recoil vector.

        In this situation, once again, the DOD is continuing to repeat past mistakes. There are more cartridges available than just 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. They could choose something in the 6 to 6.5mm range. They could choose 6.5 CM and use 120-something grain bullets and have a better starting point for a full-auto rifle in the AR-10 class in a 10lb (eg) rifle, with better energy retention downrange, longer effective ranges, etc.

        But they won’t. No, they appear to want to go back and act as tho they’ve not learned a thing in the last 50+ years, only now, they want a folding stock and some plastic in the furniture.

        • The same people tell me over and over magical tales about a 1-2 MOA Garand. From what I’ve seen, those rifles must use unobtanium receivers as I have never seen a stock M1 shoot better than 3 MOA.

          The major problem with an open receiver is that it doesn’t work “just fine” when you’re in an environment with talkum powder consistency dust flying everywhere. You know, like more or less any place in the Middle East. For a modern rifle you need a sealed (AR) or semi-sealed (AK) system. Training soldiers to fall a certain way to keep crud off of their rifles was a stupid idea in 1940 and it’s a stupid idea today.

        • pwrserge: “The same people tell me over and over magical tales about a 1-2 MOA Garand. From what I’ve seen, those rifles must use unobtanium receivers as I have never seen a stock M1 shoot better than 3 MOA.”

          I always figured that MOA was absurd for a combat rifle. What’s needed is MOE(nemy).

        • The M-1 Garand and it’s descendant I would venture to say have proven themselves worthy in any environment. Ever seen pictures of Iwo Jima or Tarawa ? Iwo as you probably know was a damn volcanic island completely blasted into volcanic dust by months of bombing and then one of the most vicious displays of naval gunfire ever seen. Just look at some of the pictures of what the men were laying in and tell me it wasn’t sand dust and grime. Tarawa was and is a pure salt and sand desert island with some palm trees on it. After action reports across the Pacific never mention anything about the garand not performing. On the contrary the gun is consistently praised for its accuracy, power and reliability. On top of that they shoot great. Most people who are competent with a garand can shoot 2 inch groups without optics. Now if they are shooting one of those guns made 70+ years ago that fought its way across Europe or the Pacific I am not surprised at all if they can’t do so but go pick up a new garand or m-14 and I bet you can shoot the daylights out of it.

        • It’s day the Kentucky Rifle was great and praised but that doesn’t mean it’s viable now. Get with the times, gravel-belly.

        • I never said it was viable today. My point was that its reliability has never been called into question. Reading comprehension much?
          Racist much?

        • Still holding too much bulk .308 ammo in stock which is why no other cartridge will be used.

        • The talc-fine alkaline dust issue affects AR’s as well as any other gun. I used to live in Nevada, and hunted & hiked around the playa in central Nevada. Talcum-powder fine alkaline dust would blow off any given playa, all summer long. Sometimes, we’d have dust devils that ran over a playa, and you’d see talc-fine powder lofted 1,000 to 2,000 feet into the air in a column.

          There were only two ways to run an AR in that environment: dripping wet with lube, or dry. There was no in-between that would work. Same deal with tight bolt guns, same deal with my M1A, same deal with my 1911’s.

          From my observation, the AR design can handle dirt in a superior manner only whilst the dust cover is closed. After that, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the AR and any other semi-auto.

        • One little detail is that the gas exhausted from the AR BCG tends to blow off minor particulate in the immediate area with every cycle. The M1 and its descendants don’t have that. Worse, minor grit can easily work its way into the bolt locking area due to the fact that it is, for all purposes, open to the elements. For an AR, the grit would have to work its way past the carrier / ejection port seal and forward past the bolt. A much harder proposition.

        • pwrserge: “One little detail is that the gas exhausted from the AR BCG tends to blow off minor particulate in the immediate area with every cycle.”
          To replace it with, what exactly? Unicorn farts?

        • Um… Empty space? The gas functions as an air purge to blow contamination out of the ejection port area. You can see this in the In Range TV AR mud test. The two holes on the scallop of your BCG are gas ports.

        • M-14 is still upside down, like AK. Optics and accessories interface is a problem, charging handle is still on the right. And rock-in mags belong to 1940s. More importantly, it just makes no sense when AR-10 exists. Yes, it’s an okay rifle, on par with the AK-47. But even Russians saw fit to issue AK-12, you know. There’s just no point in sticking to an inferior gun only because we have it in storage. Training a professional soldier costs way more and increasing its combat effectiveness just a little bit also increases his survival chances – thus saving more money than issuing an ancient rifle from storage would save.

          P.S. We don’t actually have any M-14 in storage. But hey, even assuming that Springfield can crank them out cheap, it’s still a bad idea all by itself.

  4. Could be interesting, I would like to see fairly wide spread adoption due to impact on the civilian market. It would probably bring prices down on parts and increase standardization on one version vs the 2 or 3 that are out there now.

  5. There is already 5.56 NATO penetrator ammo for this. This is some knucklehead general’s G.O.B.I. (general officer bright idea). Somebody thinks that they can make an end-around of the NATO standard and get to a new ammo type like .260 Remington or something else close to 6.5mm by purchasing this dinosaur. This idiocy will double the weight of a standard loadout or cut our guys’ ammo load in half. Neither option is good.

  6. If I were an active infantry man, I would start jumping up and down right now. Since I seriously doubt anyone would be expreincing any sort of normal body operation once the 7.62 is adopted.

    • Don’t forget, that’s before mags/optics/silencer/accessories. 210 of 7.62 NATO later, and suddenly the poor guy is carrying 30+ pounds more than before.

  7. Sounds like an operator special. Full-auto in 7.62x51mm? I’ve had a bit of experience with that (M14 in Vietnam – very difficult to control) and I don’t think it’s a good idea, except to waste ammunition.

    As Chesty Puller once said, “Where does the bayonet fit on it?” Many operators consider the bayonet passe, but it still has combat uses, as proven by the Brits in Afghanistan. I would want one.

    Why doesn’t the Army re-issue the M14’s (including ones with full-auto selectors) that it has sitting around in government armories/warehouses? They’re already paid for. I consider the M14 to be a superb combat rifle.

    • There aren’t any M14 collecting dust anymore. EOD snapped up what was left when they went to the Sandbox and we even had to ask for some back from Estonia, IIRC.

  8. Field experience has shown that 7.62×39 beats 5.56, hence—finally—the recognition that we need a new gun. A direct comparison with an M14 would be interesting.

    • You say it as if it’s a fact. It’s not. Even the Russians down sized from the slow 762×39.

      I like the 7.62×39 but it isn’t obviously superior.

      • If DARPA announced all turds would no longer to be tapered at the ends, the Russians would release their version/copy within 18m.

      • IMO, It can easily be argued that the 7.62×30 was indeed superior to the 5.56 NATO round, in the specific role it was intended for.
        The M-16 was a lot more expensive, and in its originally issued form, vastly inferior to the AK.
        Even in the -A1 form, it was far more expensive, and vastly more labor intensive to the man using it.
        Ballistically, the 7.62 round was better up close, where most of the combat was. The 5.56 has the 7.62 round beat to hell beyond 100 yards, but, realistically, not much actual combat occurs there. That’s one of the reasons both sides took the path they did.
        I’m not saying the 5.56 NATO platform is bad, just that, in certain situations, the AK beats it.

    • Reference please. If that was true the tier one operators would be using 7.62×39 more than 5.56×45. Do they in fact do that?

      • You can’t look at caliber selection in a vacuum. The Russians adopted 5.45×39 to be generally the same as 5.56…it’s come full circle and our “tier one” units have selected 300 BLK as a 7.62×39 equivalent to use in urban and CQB environs and for suppression. Before that everyone had their .30 cal equivalents…it’s just the military equivalent of keeping up with the Joneses…

        • That doesn’t surprise me. I have never owned a 5.56 (I was issued a few though). My first AR was a late ’90s 7.62×39. I also suspect that if had to go to war and got to pick just one rifle it would be a .300BLK. I am glad to hear that that much maligned round is being put to good use. I did not know that is was often being chosen by the tier one guys.

        • I’ve read suppressed .300 BLK replaced suppressed 9mm. I don’t know if it is more widely used than that.

        • Speaking of Russians, although some were much into the continuation of 7.62×39, the official line was to introduce a bunch of strange 9mm for CQB and operators. Some were designed to be used with integral silencers 100% of the time, at all ranges.

  9. IIRC, LMT won a contract to make the L129a1 sharpshooter’s rifle for the British Army a couple years back. While the Brits like it, they deemed 7.62 NATO as being “too light” to penetrate body armor at range, and thus use a special load of “155-grain sniper ammunition” as opposed to M80 Ball.
    In addition, the Brits are working on a new projectile development with a steel penetrator tip specifically for use in this weapons system to defeat anticipated advances in body armor.

  10. Pedantic note:

    The Army has not issued a contract. The contract will be issued once they select which weapon they want.

  11. “The requirements for the platform sound oddly familiar: . . ”

    Yes it does. SIG SAUER MCX HERE WE COME. followed by the conveniently similar MPX.

    FN will likely complain that they’re not drop tested.

    • Are we forgetting the Battle for the Faulcan Islands? FAL semi-auto 7.62 with the British and the full auto FAL carried by the Argentinians? One long rifle stretched for the 7.62 round that couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn on full auto with barrel climb! Oh yeah and the weight!

      • But a lot of the British troops used captured Argentinian rifles in the Falklands because there’s just SOMETHING about that “rock ‘n’ roll” bang switch that everybody loves.

  12. 5.56 with those new rounds would do good enough and still have more rounds and less weight. Unless they really push marksmanship to the forefront I think they’ll regret it, notwithstanding the extra weight…

  13. Interesting that American soldiers and Marines of the greatest generation were able to carry their .30 cal M1s and BARs over half of Europe and most of the Pacific, while the modern Army can barely manage a 5.56 peashooter.

    • Back then the enemy was also carrying around heavy slow wielding steel. I’m not sure what your point is in the context of the current battle field? We have become weak because we don’t carry long barreled heavy guns while our enemies carry light maneuverable ones? It’s the evolution of war. That’s why.

      • “I’m not sure what your point is in the context of the current battle field?”

        It means that the current soldier is fully capable of handling a .30 cal rifle if the brass would let them, and they will damn well need it too.

        The average Marine in WW2 was 5’8″ and 150 pounds and they managed to lug their gear. If infantrymen have become as weak as the generals believe, it’s not because they don’t carry heavy guns but because they can’t.

        The 5.56 NATO round and the M4 may be just the ticket for clearing buildings, but maybe, just maybe, American soldiers may someday have to fight outside of Fallujah. When and if they do, they will beg for a weapon that’s more powerful than the enemy’s 7.62×39 or their current 5.56.

        • Consult “The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation” and look at current packing list.

          Note that body armor is NOT workable.

        • neiowa: “Consult “The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation” and look at current packing list.”

          If there wasn’t a disconnect between what is currently being carried, and what should be carried, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
          As new generals replace old generals, new thoughts about combat emerge. This includes weapons (the current discussion) as well as loadout for the grunt.
          Tactics also change, mostly, it seems, brought about because the enemy changes tactics (usually because as we adapt to the enemy’s new tactics, he changes tactics. Again.). One way or another, both sides are constantly changing tactics, which often requires a change in equipment.
          Nothing is as constant as change.

    • Just because a soldier carries the weapon does not automatically make the weapon best, and the soldier superhuman. He has no say in the matter anyway.

    • Grunts carry what they are told to carry. If they aren’t bitching, they aren’t happy.

      Go go 1ST Civilian Division!!!

    • The difference is all the other crap our boys are forced to carry nowdays.
      My Grandfather fought the Japs in the Pacific. In most of his old photos all he’s carrying is an m1, a couple cartridge belts, a canteen, and a entrenching tool.

      • Since the infantry needs firepower, it makes sense to dump some of the other gear and not the weapons and ammo that may save their lives and kill the enemy.

        In many cases, a WW2 paratrooper’s loadout exceeded a hundred pounds, which included an M1 Garand and more than 250-rounds of 30.06. They managed.

        • Firepower is paramount, that’s what combined arms are for.

          People somehow forget that infantry is not supposed to fight alone and with small-arms only. Quite the opposite. Or the army will face impossible task of having That Universal Weapon, the magic gadget that allows to fight in close quarters,can send that DShK gunner 1+ km away to see his virgins right now, and weighs so little that grunts began putting bricks into their backpacks just for sport.

          It is not gonna happen. The best answers are tactics, reconnaisance, transportation, close air support. If infantry regularly finds itself pinned down, without weapons adequate to ranges of engagement (I guess 240s are just f***ing pigs to carry), the problem is deeper than (admittedly unimpressive) long-range ballistics of 5.56.

    • The greatest generation thing is BS. Any generation could have won that war with the material and geographic advantages the US had. That generation is also the one that put FDR office and really got the socialism ball rolling. As with every generation a precious few were the inventors and innovators, the rest were a bunch of jackwagons.

      • I don’t think the “Greatest Generation” moniker comes from a belief that generation was somehow born superior, or that no other generation could have done what they did. Rather, it’s given in recognition of their actually having done it.

        • They were at the right place at the right time to look good. Even the post war prosperity was due to the fact that their economic competition had been bombed into rubble. They also set up ponzi schemes like social security and generous but unsustainable pensions in which a later generations paid for there retirements. Where is the greatness in that?

      • Check this out! A few days ago I got a wild hair and looked up the dates of the various generations, and the greatest generation was listed as birthdates 1930-1945. I called BS, what I’ve understood as the greatest generation would have an END date around 1930 or even 1925, making a person 20 years old when WWII ended.

    • That’s why the losses were so heavy back then, and now we fight a war for 4 times longer and only lost a few thousands. If we had draft, then sure, might as well give them trapdoor Springfields with bayonets.

      • Pete: “That’s why the losses were so heavy back then, and now we fight a war for 4 times longer and only lost a few thousands.”

        Actually, the reason is because back then, most battles were set piece battles.
        Now, battles are ambushes.
        Symmetric vs asymmetric.

  14. Scar 17 8lbs Dry. I wouldn’t want to carry a rifle that weighs 12lbs dry. Imagine carrying a 15lb loaded gun all over. But I’m a small guy. Some of these meatheads could carry a 20lb rifle like I carry a 6.5lb rifle.

  15. A 7.62 x 51 with a “rock ‘n’ roll” switch weighing under 12 pounds? As esteemed firearms expert Dr. William Atwater memorably said of the M-14A1 “In full-auto the first couple of rounds hit the target, the next few went over the target, and anything after that it was an anti-aircraft gun.” Granted, technology has improved recoil attenuation to some degree but I’m betting that it hasn’t improved it to the point where you can keep a 7.62 NATO “automatic rifle” weighing less than 12 pounds on target for more than just the first few rounds.

    • During training, I could keep five rounds out of an M-14E2 within 5″ at 20 yards.
      But that’s me; I’m a big guy, and understood applied physics better than the average person. (No, I wasn’t a ‘geek,’ I just understood how things work.)
      I would imagine with a platform like the AR that produces far less rotation around the shoulder, keeping the mighty 7.62 NATO round on target would be even easier.

  16. HK 417 could work depending on the configuration, the G28 or CSASS versions might be more in a dmr setup and not what they want if they are looking more general purpose.

    LWRC or other AR based mfgs might go after it too I would think. Daniel Defense?

  17. How are the troops going to carry those heavy things and ammo too? The recoil, think of the recoil!! OMG!!

  18. Being smarter than the Army, I am getting into the increasingly popular .243 WSSM. Soon everybody will have one.

  19. I love the IAR/M27 (5.56). Full auto is only good till about 100-150 meters because its not as heavy as that Jam-o-matic SAW. I’ll take a 240 over a SAW any day.

    Just issue beefed up SR-762s, or HK417s. Even a belt fed AR10 platform similar to the ARES AMG-12 would work.

    • Or you could have a PKM, even PKP! Chinese make versions of those in .308. Much lighter than the MAG and possibly even more reliable.

  20. The POS m-16 and variations engendered the new military, butt buddies and all into spray and pray instead of
    aimed fire, the length of contact regulates the ammo expended! WWII vets must have been stronger and better able to handle 30. cal weapons. if you needed Ammo take it off the dead and wounded, today’s wimps piss and moan about weight which is good, imagine a wonder gent in this wimp Army being issued a BAR man OMG that weapon weighs 20 pounds without the bi pod and loaded Magazine of 20 rounds in 30-06 talk about ammo weight. get rid of the body armor days of knights are gone

    • Thats neat and all, up until your unit expends all of its ammo and the enemy doesn’t use the same caliber. Its kind of hard to get ahold of one of their weapons being 100+ meters away.

      Modern times, 81s 81s grid mission up! Mortar the enemy into the ground. Rinse and repeat.

      I will add that body armor is invaluable, the one thing you want when bullets are flying is more armor. Be it those side plates, that butt flap you left in the PB because its tacky, sand bags, whatever, more armor and more ammo.

      Bigger, heavier weapons also suck at clearing rooms. If I’m room clearing, I want light, nimble, and full auto. Battle rifle is its own animal.

  21. Ah, seems like someone sold idea of .308 for Army. Eat that and move aside, Colt!

    Reminds me of all those (perfectly valide) 5.45 complaints voiced by guys who were never issued anything but N6.

    • Kaban: ” Eat that and move aside, Colt!”

      Actually, it was NATO who decided to go with 5.56, and Armalite who came up with the M-16.
      Colt was given the contract to make it because Armalite didn’t have the wherewithal to produce it.
      Sort of like how Ford made the Jeep because Willys didn’t have the wherewithal to produce it for WWII.

      • I meant they (Colt) pretty much hogged M4 production contracts. Did not make Colt’s competitors happy, probably.

  22. More reinventing the wheel. Plenty of 7.62 rifles you can buy already.

    I carried Australian version of FAL for over 10 years in 7.62. Everyone did even the female soldiers.

    Basic data-
    11 pounds unloaded
    20 round steel magazines
    Semi auto only
    Fixed timber stock.
    18″ barrel with flash suppressor
    200 rounds minimum (personnel record 600 including extra for M60)

    Not a great close quarter weapon due to length but there was a folding stock paratrooper version.

    Without starting the whole debate again the original rifle was designed for full auto in 6.8 mm until USA insisted that the NATO round had to be .30 caliber. It was issued as semi auto as the muzzle climb was too much in full auto for most people when the bigger round was introduced.

    Personally not a fan of 5.56 / .223 for battle caliber but use frequently for fox shooting and small game.

    • “Plenty of 7.62 rifles you can buy already.”

      Umm… It appears they are looking for a 7.62 rifle you can buy already.

      Maybe you didn’t read the article?

  23. “Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today… and fully automatic capable.”

    If these things are available for puchase off the shelf, then I’ve been looking at all the wrong shelves.

  24. Can you say,

    Smith&Wesson Military&Police AR10?

    Do a few required mods and you already have it.

    I like AK47’s that shoot an 7.62 x 39mm,
    but AR10’s that shoot the 7.62x51mm fit the bill.

    Oh, but please don’t restrict yourselves to the 7.62x51mm
    when the
    7.62x54R has filled this niche for OVER 100 YEARS!

    • There’s really no point in looking at 7.62x54R when .308 exists. Have you seen the magazines AKs use in 7.62x54R? It’s a joke. Even SVD mags aren’t all that great. The PKM may be the best GPMG in the world, but we need a rifle here, and that requires working magazines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *