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.

137 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.

        • Which “AR-10” mags?

          There are TWO “AR10” mags or rather one true AR-10 mag for actual “original pattern” Armalite AR-10s and then there are the LR-pattern mags for LR308s and most other NON-AR10 7.62×51 AR-pattern rifles. And aluminum mags may very well be fractionally lighter than a P-Mag, but I’d rather not have my ammo in a modified beer-can and in particular not heavy ammo like 7.62×51.

          So I’d go with P-Mags or even steel mags.

          I get that most of your “weight freaks” don’t know that its been a long time since U.S. troops MARCHED and HIKED into battle and vehicle-transportation of troops has been developing since Korea, but that’s the reality and nobody is having to hump a hundred pounds of gear from sunup until sundown these days. And men much younger, smaller and lighter on average DID that kind of soldiering and in some cases for weeks, months and even years on end during WWII.

          So getting all apprehensive about bigger, stronger, better trained, better-equipped all-volunteer U.S. forces today maybe being “forced” to endure the agony of a heavier weapon/ammo load with 2.5-3 times as much energy and mass per round as their old 22-caliber peashooters is a little ridiculous. I get that in COD the .30-caliber rifles don’t kill the bad guys any deader than the 5.56 rifles, but here in the real world BIGGER BULLETS are usually BETTER BULLETS when the whole point is to poke holes in things.

          We won two World Wars and made the North Koreans and Chinese give up and go home during Korea with .30-06 battle rifles more often than not with ONLY 5 ROUNDS and a BOLT TO OPERATE (Garands didn’t become “common” until late in WWII) AND were well on our way to doing the same thing in Vietnam and would have had it done much earlier if we’d stuck to the M14 until AFTER that little “conflict”, but we just don’t seem to be able to “close the deal” these days despite having one hell of a lot more advantages and fighting rag-tag groups of wannabe “revolutionaries” instead of highly trained professional military forces like those we faced in WWI and WWII.

          I gotta think that having a lot longer “conflicts” with a lot fewer of a lot poorer “soldiers” has at least a LITTLE to do with using “assault rifles” instead of BATTLE RIFLES and fooling recruits into thinking “volume of fire” accomplishes anything but wearing out guns and emptying out ammunition warehouses in a hurry. That’s been alleviated to some degree with 3-round burst replacing full-auto, but then turning around and getting rid of M60s and replacing them with “SAWs” spewing little .22-caliber bullets even faster than a well-lubed M16 can kind of put us back at square one.

          I have no doubt that on average U.S. troops are far better marksmen across the board than any other military or mercenary force around, but the problem with little bullets that don’t even kill prairie dogs effectively (don’t even bother doubting me – use FMJs on PDs and it’d better be a head or heart or spine shot or they’re gonna suffer for many seconds to many minutes and a V-Max or other VARMINT/HUNTING bullet is the only cure for THAT problem) is that its do damned hard to tell if you hit the guy and where.

          That becomes much less of an issue with 150-175 grain .308″ bullets and even though a prairie dog can ALSO survive a 110-grain .308″ V-Max from a .30-06 (they’re damned tough but decidedly less so with .30-caliber body damage and pain and suffering doesn’t really seem possible with what little is left but I still follow up if I can) and a .308″ caliber FMJ can also punch right through the bad guy and go whistling out the other side, the punch is considerably harder and there aren’t many areas of the body where the resulting blunt-force trauma, penetrating trauma and hydraulic shock aren’t going to make hits pretty noticeable.

          As a longtime hunter and personal witness to what bigger bullets do and how much better they do it than smaller bullets and generally being aware like MOST HUNTERS and honestly most shooters period who have done more shooting in the field than on a video game screen are aware that BIGGER BULLETS are BETTER BULLETS, I just laugh my ass off when some COD combat-vet clown(s) try to sell the whole “more ammo per pound of weight is better than fewer rounds” line of complete B.S. to people who just plain know better because they at least know SOMETHING.

          A 20mm Vulcan on a fighter plane or GAU-8 Avenger on an A-10 “only” holds enough ammo for SECONDS of “high-volume” fire at best. But go find me an F-14 pilot or A-10 pilot who would rather be “dogfighting” with half a dozen .50s spread across both wings or strafing enemy ground positions/armor/etc with same handful of .50s with a LOT more ammo to burn.

          GIVE ME THE SMALLEST RIFLE YOU HAVE! said no hunter OR soldier heading into the field EVER if he had a CHOICE of what to carry.

    • My 16″ LR308 doesn’t weigh but a few pounds more than an AR carbine with a 20-round mag in the LR and a 30-round mag in the AR. You also don’t need a “full combat load” of just as many rounds of .308/7.62×51 as is “required” with 5.56×45. You’re putting pretty much almost three times the bullet weight downrange per round of 7.62×51 compared to 5.56. 2.5 times at the bare minimum. How often do troops that ride into battle these days ever “shoot out” their “full combat load” of ammo to begin with?

      Kinda interesting how we didn’t start “losing” wars until we started sending troops into battle with lots of .22-caliber bullets in full-auto/burst rifles, isn’t it?

      Show me a soldier that won’t gladly hump more weight on hours-at-most-long “patrols” to have 2-3 times the “firepower” and I’ll show you a soldier that doesn’t want to carry a rifle period. Overall, its pretty damned hard to do WORSE than an 8-9 lb. 22-caliber short-barreled carbine with a whole bunch of small cartridges that aren’t even legal for deer in a lot of jurisdictions and won’t kill PRAIRIE DOGS reliably (been there and done that with 5.56 FMJ and sans head/spine/heart shots they die slow which is why I switched to V-Maxes) and men a lot younger, smaller and lighter than the “average” U.S. soldier today lugged BARs and Garands and M1903s clear across multiple countries and onto beaches at Normandy and all over the Pacific. And of course the M14 seemed to do pretty well where its been carried.

      Not surprising since a Garand or M14 is a 10-11 pound rifle throwing way bigger bullets makes a lot more sense that “high-volume” fire with a .22-caliber peashooter. At least everywhere but in the heads of COD “experts” and wannabe Range Rambos hung up on 5.56 and 9mm because they’ve never seen what bigger bullets do and either can’t afford or can’t handle .30-caliber rifles or .45-caliber pistols. Hell, I think its time to let the TROOPS pick what they want instead of a bunch of REMFs like yourself.

      The contract is for 5 initial units ASAP and up to 10,000 later. Don’t worry, little guy. 5.56×45 will still stay dirt cheap long after any M4 “replacement” happens IF it happens. And the new rifle if there ever is one won’t be any heavier on your video games or even on the short walk from the trunk of your Prius to the shooting line at the range when at some point suddenly 7.62×51 service rifles become overnight cool because the ARMY USES THEM!

  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.

    • It’s only interim in the fact that 7.62 will be changed to whatever .264 or .277 or whatever caliber the SAAC decides is ideal.

      This rifle will be the rifle for the next 50-100 years of the US Military.

  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.

      • Uh, the M-14 was never ISSUED on anything like a widespread basis with the “giggle switch” installed. It was issued in SMALL NUMBERS as a full-auto replacement for the BAR with one or two per platoon. Everybody else got SEMI-AUTO M14s. And no “machine gunner” worth a damn EVER has gone “rock and roll” burning dozens or more rounds at a time. Good machine gunners stick to 3-4 round bursts. Which is why a BAR or M14 with “only” 20-round magazines was just fine in the field for lots of decades. A full-auto “squad machine gun” is good for snap-shots in short bursts at enemy troops that suddenly pop up in front of an advancing force, etc.

        Of course almost anybody willing to put a minimal amount of time and effort into learning to CONTROL an M14 on “rock and roll” CAN ACTUALLY DO SO just like anybody who works at it can prevent “muzzle flip” that seems to OWN so many shooters of HUGE and HIGHLY POWERFUL 9mm pistols because its really just MIND and MUSCLE over MATTER, but that’s beside the point. The point is that you’re wrong, the only M14s that ended up full-auto that weren’t issued that way were the beneficiaries of “scavenged” auto-sears but RARELY FOR VERY LONG since good C.O.s confiscated them while explaining the reason WHY a whole squad or platoon of “machine gunners” is a really dumb idea if getting home alive is the general goal of the group.

        Try reading a BOOK sometime instead of learning from COD and movies and internet forums and at some point you might actually know something TRUE.

        • Y. Momma: Having been an M14E2 carrier, I know whereof I speak. A lot of full auto M14s were indeed issued.
          Given today’s fascination with issuing an automatic weapon to pretty much every infantryman, going back to the 7.62 NATO round would mean an automatic rifle.
          Maybe experience rather than book learning means something after all, eh?

        • I didn’t say there weren’t “a lot” of full-auto M14s issued. I said that contrary to a lot of opinions and beliefs, not all M14s are full auto. M14s are also “converted” in a few minutes by installing the auto sear and I seriously doubt even an “experienced” person like yourself knows how many of the full-auto M14s you personally saw were “issued” or “built” that way and which were converted later. I’ve got an M1A in a surplus G.I. fiberglass stock with the notch for the auto sear. I’m not completely clueless on the rifle pulling shit out of my ass. And the books and stories I’ve read were about and by your fellow veterans, so unless your personal experience trumps all of theirs, I don’t think I’m the one acting like I know more than I actually do. In fact, I didn’t even say what you’re implying I said and I made no claims you’re actually contradicting. So what exactly was the point you were trying to make?

    • 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.

        • I don’t think you know much about accurizing Garands, At least not National Match-level rifles. The amount of modification that can be done to any of the factory parts which are mainly G.I. issue with a few “special” National Match parts used and required to prevent “one in a million” service guns that just happen to a lot more accurate and precise than the “average” guns with are pretty damned good to start with, from being used in competition which is just as much about the UNIT ARMORERS and what they can do off the range as it is about what the unit SHOOTERS can do on the range. There are big thick “shop manuals” for Garands, M14s, 1911s etc that walk an armorer or gunsmith through the process of building those guns to “service” and “compeition” and “National Match” levels in a very detailed and precise manner, but the majority of the “work” is minute detail stuff and checking for precise dimentions, fits, etc. Parts can’t be significantly altered or hand-fitted to build a “custom” gun because they all have to remain interchangeable with any other parts on any other gun. And there’s no way to “bed” a Garand stock that doesn’t do more harm to precision and accuracy than good if it significantly alters the way the trigger group “clamps” the receiver/barrel assembly into the stock. Some relief work can be done in some areas to prevent the stock from interfering with various metal parts and the top front handguard or “heat shield” can be “floated” so it doesn’t rattle around and lay on top of the barrel, which some builders and shooters swear hurts accuracy and precision and others say doesn’t make a bit of difference. Its a delicate, tedious process and it’s usually one that has to be done over and over when the epoxy bonding steel to steel up front breaks loose from recoil, vibration, travel, etc or someone grabbing the handguard. The National Match-specific parts are typically factory production parts that are pulled from production at random or were used for QC purposes etc and then get National Match numbers or designations and there are a limited number of them available. All the other parts and pieces can be mixed and matched until the armorer runs out of NOS or used parts to measure, test-fit etc looking for the “perfect” fit but to be a true “National Match” build certain parts have to be “NM” parts and to be a an “original” NM gun the receiver serial number has to jive with a known group or range of numbers documented to be set aside as “National Match”-bound guns. Usually they were NOT brand-new guns although they may have been factory-test guns that were never issued, etc. The other reason for parts like barrels to be only “legal” for National Match competition if they’re “NM” marked is so that super-accurate production barrels weren’t sniffed out during testing, rebuilds, post-rebuild testing etc and set aside for competition gun. Building the guns is mainly about the quality of the training armorers get, the materials provided to them and then their own ability to go “by the book” and build the “best” National Match guns.
          As for 1 MOA or better with a Garand, if you can just do a barrel swap and some “bedding” and guarantee sub-MOA accuracy and precision, you shouldn’t be here wasting your time talking about it. Its not that Garands can’t be that accurate and precise. They can. Its just that like ANY gun, the shooter and ammo tend to have a LITTLE to do with it. And there aren’t any Garand “benchrest” matches I’m aware of. They’re usually military-style shooting and competitions with the 4 basic shooting position, strict limits on ammunition that can be used, obviously they’re with open sights and I believe 200 yards may be the CLOSE distance. So what barrel do you use in your sub-MOA Garands?

      • WTF are you talking about? An M14 doesn’t have the same operating system as an M1 Garand, neither has an “open operating assembly” and they’re both VERY well “sealed” to keep out dirt and debris and what DOES get inside takes about 20 seconds at most to DUMP OUT or BRUSH OUT when the barreled action is popped out of the stock in a couple seconds. And despite all the “op-rod problems” geniuses like you seem to think plague Garands, when you get any number of actual Garand owners and shooters together (I’ve got a late-WWII early-’45 Garand with its ORIGINAL OP-ROD AND an M1A) and they start talking about all the problems Garands have according to assclowns like you, you never really hear about “bent op-rods”.

        OF course a “bent op-rod” on a Garand is real HARD TO FIX because its not like you can just BEND IT BACK or anything. And given the fact that Garand Match ammo (I’ve got 4 boxes from the early 1960s) was loaded with 170+ grain bullets at almost 2700 fps and that’s PRETTY STOUT .30-06 because MOST military ammo has historically been “hot” for the obvious reasons that STRONG AMMO makes DIRTY and COLD and STICKY guns WORK, it’s pretty freaking hard to imagine really hammering the dogsh!t out of a Garand with “hot” hunting ammo.

        Most .30-06 180-grain hunting ammo is going to be right in that same 2600-2700 fps range, few people shoot HEAVIER 200-220 grain bullets through their .30-06s unless they’re hunting MOOSE or ELK and going with the much more common 130-165 grain hunting bullets gives you a lot more pressure and velocity to play with. But even Hornady “Light Magnum” .30-06 150-grain hunting ammo tops out around 3100 fps. Probably not going to beat a Garand into submission EITHER unless you want to go shoot hundreds of rounds through it.

        Which could be why even though we’ve all heard all you “experts” talk about bent op-rods, we just can’t think of too many op rods actually getting bent. Of course we’re not as smart as you “gun experts” that also literally think an M14 is “just a .308 Garand with a box magazine”, either. News flash, gun expert.

        There are a handful of parts that interchange between a Garand and M14 and the “op rod” and everything else involved in cycling the action and chambering and ejecting the cartridges AIN’T AMONG THEM. Thanks for playing. Go back to COD.

  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.

    • Not to mention marksmanship would need to be improve to take offset the lower ammo and higher recoil.

      • Marksmanship and tactics. Should use less suppressive fire unless you actually plan on keeping the same basic load of 210 rds.

    • FYI there is nothing in the NATO charter that says anything about “NATO standard” equipment, ammunition or anything else. It’s a mutual defense agreement. Not a “we have to use the same cartridges” contract. And you can forget about the U.S. military ever purchasing the rights to or seizing the rights to a commercial cartridge. That’s why .300 Blackout, .338 Lapua and every other wannabe “next U.S. military cartridge” was doomed and is doomed to failure.

      You don’t rely on companies to produce military hardware for you or provide services or supplies for you and then jerk the rug out from under them making their proprietary cartridges or other intellectual property “public domain” and you don’t rely on private companies with no history as U.S. DoD contractors and their ideas of what is or isn’t the “right” cartridge for military use when the results are literally life an death. If companies want to GIVE AWAY the rights to their very expensive and costly to develop and ADVERTISE and PROMOTE and MARKET and PROPAGANDIZE intellectual property or other proprietary products that’s one thing. If they’re standing there telling you ‘YOU NEED THIS!” and are funding massive ad campaigns containing everything from bought and paid for YouTube “reviews” to fake blogs to fudged performance claims and numbers (all of the AMAZING early .338 Lapua “performance” was achieved with significantly overpressure ammunition and “laboratory” conditions) to future employment offers for military and civilian DoD employees if they “help you out” before retirement and other “standard operating procedure” tactics on the other side of the pond, they’re the last people you buy anything from.

      The ongoing presumption is that the U.S. is just going to keep getting into wars forever. I don’t think that’s going to be the case and I think that in the future if and when we do get unavoidably dragged into yet another mess one of our allies created or helped create years or centuries earlier, there’s going to be a lot fewer “boots on the ground” and a lot more “missiles in the air”. I don’t think it would hurt “world peace” a DAMN BIT to dust off a small tactical nuke one of these times some tinpot dictator or radical religious leader gets a little big for his britches. I’m not saying nuke a city or even a populated area. Just call it a remote aboveground nuclear weapon test within sight of said nutjob’s palace or castle or whatever.

      People act like Donald Trump was CRAZY for asking what to me is a perfectly reasonable and very good question. Why do we have nukes if we won’t use them? I’m not saying start nuking people, but we spend shitloads of money maintaining nuclear weapons that EVENTUALLY will be useless no matter what and that get weaker all the time. And contrary to all left-wing and “scientific” bullshit, there are no short-term or long-term effects from “radiation”. We’re constantly bombarded with all kinds of radiation.

      And a nuclear weapon CONSUMES THE NUCLEAR ENERGY to produce the EXPLOSION. The amount of nuclear material to begin with is anywhere from a few ounces to a few pounds or maybe a few dozen pounds, And it’s very low in radioactivity, which is what allows safe storage, Take away the radiation scare bullshit and they’re just really efficient and really effective BOMBS. And they’re way cheaper and safer to DETONATE than “decommission” and “dispose of”.

      • Y. Momma: “And a nuclear weapon CONSUMES THE NUCLEAR ENERGY to produce the EXPLOSION. The amount of nuclear material to begin with is anywhere from a few ounces to a few pounds or maybe a few dozen pounds, And it’s very low in radioactivity, which is what allows safe storage, Take away the radiation scare bullshit and they’re just really efficient and really effective BOMBS. And they’re way cheaper and safer to DETONATE than “decommission” and “dispose of”.”

        And here you demonstrate your disconnect from reality better than anyone else ever could.

  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.

    • Compared to a “light” AR15-type rifle that weights 8-9 lbs with a full 30-round mag? Not really. Damn sure not with 2.5-3 times as much bullet weight and energy per round and 30% larger holes. 3-4 more pounds is what, maybe .3% of what an “average soldier” in the U.S. military might weight buck naked? And a lot less for some of them. I don’t think they’re doing to much marching/hiking into war or across countries or through deep jungle for many miles these days. I think they’ll manage.

  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.

      • The USN still has a bunch of them. They’re in the weapons lockers of every USN ship and the Coast Guard has quite a few as well. There are also lots and lots of stripped receivers all over the place and Fulton Armory is just one outfit that builds “brand-new” genuine “G.I.” M14s with NOS/rebuilt receivers, bolts, etc. Even Chinese Norinco knockoffs are decent M1As and the receivers are harder than sin and tougher than U.S. G.I. receivers from what I’ve heard. Fulton can fit a G.I. bolt to a Chinese receiver and so can several other large and small U.S. mil-surp gunsmithing outfits. Criterion makes high-quality barrels for them and even in different lengths so you can go “standard” or “tanker” or “long-barreled” if you want. G.I. wood and fiberglass stocks can still be found, new stock hardware from butt plate to storage compartment cover/door assemblies to sling swivels can be purchased an Fulton Armory or any other outfit or gunsmith that does parkerizing can make it look like it should. Of course Springfield Armory builds several M1A variants, several companies build aftermarket stocks from mild synthetic “standard” style stocks to the wild chassis systems like a Sage. You folks that think there just aren’t any M14s around or options to produce more just don’t know a hell of a lot. I’m pretty sure if someone were so-inclined it wouldn’t take much to start making new receivers. Probably a lot cheaper on a CNC machine that it was back in the 1950s. Do you think there’s a better 7.62×51 battle rifle out there than the ORIGINAL? Please. The only one that has ever come close is the AR10. I mean the REAL ONE and not the “AR10” every wannabe “gun expert” sees when he’s looking at an LR308, SR25, etc. I don’t know why you folks are so anti-American when it comes to battle rifles. Seems like there’s never been a lack of willing second owners for any we’ve ever had to give away. Hell, I’d take my GARAND in a heartbeat over any of that foreign-made, half-plastic dogshit that looks like its made more for looking cool on COD than working well on a real battlefield. Has GERMANY or AUSTRIA or ISRAEL or any of the countries making all of those supposedly superior and oh-so-badass-because-they’re-not-American rifles been an actual war recently? Or EVER?

    • Modern military forces that have had to put bayonets to “good use” did a damn poor job of putting their rifles to use and had no choice but to use bayonets. Pretty shitty way to use a rifle as a weapon overall. Put a stubby little fighting knife on a crappy bullpup and I think suddenly your British examples of good bayonet use and doctrine don’t look so impressive. You’d want one? Well, most troops today have fighting knives and that’s all modern “bayonets” are. True bayonets made/make for really shitty knives and knives make for shitty bayonets. Do you want a sword, too? How about a a longbow? Maybe a mace? I know, we could put soldiers on horses again and give them lances. Honestly, I don’t think the folks that wanted to cut a deal with Hitler, just launched a diesel-electric “supercarrier” that can’t break 25 knots but has a “ski-jump” (I’ve never understood how going up a ramp gets a plane off a deck faster when forward airspeed is lift and wind over the bow is non-existent behind a ramp and nobody but the Russians and Brits ever needed one to get heavy planes off a carrier deck is anything but asinine and 100% contrary to basic physics and common sense) despite its supposed use being for VTOL F-35s and that apparently spends more money on fancy “vintage” military costumes and horses and bearskin hats for parades on the Queen’s birthday than it does on things like decent rifles is probably the military “superpower” the U.S. needs to be educated on weapons, tactics, practical and useful expenditure of taxpayer dollars, etc. The British government’s lone military “victories” in the last 50 years were “fighting” Argentina to a stalemate over a month after declaring war and only be able to do that because of U.S. fuel and other supplies on Ascension Island and shooting some protesting Irish Catholics that just want to be left the fuck alone. I kind of have a problem with the “divine right of kings” and “classism” and “royal prerogative” and “royal assent” and having a steady stream of U.K. “citizens” show up on U.S. television where they proceed to tell us everything that is wrong with us, our country, our history etc while not so much admitting who started the really shitty parts and big problems that still exist today. African slavery, segregation….

      As for “Where do you put the bayonet”, if you’re talking about M14s, the answer is ON THE FUCKING BAYONET LUG.

  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.

        • Got a little knowledge for ya. The original AR rifle as “adopted” by the U.S. “military” aka DoD was the AR10. In 7.62×51 NATO. Then McNamara and the recently fired by Ford Motor Company “Whiz Kids” decided they were defense experts and “whittled” it down to the AR15. Which was NEVER half as bad as all you armchair experts that don’t even know it was “compromised” primarily by being a 2/3-size AR10 with only 1/3 the cartridge energy to operate it. Using .223 Remington commercial ammo made for coyotes and such didn’t help a lot and even .223 was pretty new then and Remington was working pretty hard on the upcoming Model 700 rifles and nobody in the states really new an actual WAR was already underway thanks to other “distractions” like the Cuban Missile Crisis, some assassinations, etc. Otherwise various “powerful” people may have told McNamara to pound sand and the Korean War and WWII vets telling anyone who’d listen it was crazy to go from .308-caliber battle rifles to .22-caliber battles rifles may have been more successful. Regardless, the AR platform always has been and still is an excellent design and the AK always has been and still is a colossal clusterfuck composed of various “borrowed” design features from whatever patents were expired, could be ignored or weren’t protected at the time the Russians decided they needed a mass-produced, cheap and disposable “battle rifle” for their mass-produced, cheap and disposable conscripted “soldiers”. Everything I’ve read indicates an “average” AK with decent ammo is about a 5-6 MOA rifle at 100 yards. A couple years ago strictly for grins but having an idea what the result would be, I did some 100-yard “benchrest” shooting with my Hi-Point 9mm 4995TS carbine. Open sights and a big, mixed bag of factory and reloaded JHP and FJM and cast lead ammo. I shot 4 or 5 5-shot 100-yard groups off a good steel bench with a few sandbags for rests, My worst group as about 5-6″ and the average was closer to 4″. Now go ahead and tell me AKs are “accurate enough” and I’ll tell you that anybody who believes in such a thing as “accurate enough” is the wrong person to be listening to when it comes to guns. Its damned easy to say “accurate enough” behind a keyboard. I doubt conscripted communist country soldier on an actual battlefield having to fight with one or anybody else who knows that we have rifles for ACCURACY and PRECISION would ever be caught making such a stupid statement. The most INACCURATE AR-pattern rifles I’ve ever heard of are M4s and AR15 M4 “clones” with mil-spec chrome-lined barrels with chrome-lined chambers. Good AR parts suppliers like Palmetto State will tell you up front those barrels, uppers and rifles will give you about 3-4 MOA with good FMJ ammo. An AK fanboy will point to someone using a “high-end” AK with a similar group and say that’s “normal”. The only problem is that the AR is 20 minutes and a new barrel away from being a 1 MOA rifle and the AK will always be an AK. Less accurate than a Hi-Point. Hell, I KNEW they would be. What gun with a rifled barrel ISN’T more accurate than most AKs? My 1914 Remington Model 8 in .35 Remington is a 2-4 MOA rifle depending on the day and the ammo. I don’t think there’s a modern breech-loading muzzleloader or shotgun with a slug barrel or even many smoothbore shotguns firing rifled slugs that won’t shoot 5-6 MOA at 100 yards. My Les Baer Premier II Tactical is a guaranteed 1.5″ @ 50 yards pistol and I’ve backed that claim up personally with my own cast lead semi-wad cutter bullets in “untuned” reloads. Yep. AKs gotta be “accurate enough” because they’re as accurate as they’re ever going to be. And they’re so damned GOOD countries all but give them away.

        • Yeah. ARs are “maintenance intensive”. No wood to dry out or swell, no directly exposed steel in large quantities to rust, dust covers over the ejection port, magazine wells that are well “sealed” when there’s a magazine installed, one pin to partially remove to flip the upper open, a charging handle to set aside and a cotter pin to pull out of the BCG so the firing pin, cam pin and bolt will drop out of the BCG. Douche the BCG and bolt and pins with brake cleaner, gasoline, rubbing alcohol, powder solvent etc, apply any light grease and/or motor oil liberally to the bolt and gas rings and cam groove and to the firing pin and reassemble. Clean the barrel like any other rifle, lightly oil in the bore like any and all other rifles, oil/grease the exterior of the BCG and charging handle, reinstall the handle and BCG, drop the upper closed, push in the takedown pin and its done. 10 minutes if you’ve done it once before. 20 minutes forever if you’re stupid enough to think that’s a lot of maintenance. And that HUGE PILE of small parts that supposedly make normal maintenance so HARD and TIME-CONSUMING? Detents, pins, springs, levers, a switch, a button and trigger parts you will probably never have to touch again after the lower is assembled the first time. They’re so maintenance intensive and “sensitive” to dirt and dust I’ve only been able to go 400-500 rounds of fairly “hot” varmint ammo while “benchresting” on the ground on top of dirt prairie dog mounds while shooting prairie dogs in western Nebraska in mid-summer. 90+ degrees, 20% humidity, 150+ in a closed pickup cab where that rifle lived 24-7-365 for a few years and for up to 3-4 months between cleanings I performed when I felt guilty about not cleaning it sooner and was bored. Time to clean? 10 minutes. How much “power residue” flushed out of that FILTHY receiver from that HORRIBLE direct-impingement gas system? Not enough that I ever noticed any accumulated before I hosed out the upper with brake cleaner. Never seemed to stop that rifle in probably 4000 rounds and counting of ZERO failures/malfunctions that weren’t my fault due to reloading errors. I didn’t even kill it when I had a powder mixup and put 3 or 4 rounds of loads so hot they self-decapped when fired with the primers literally blown out of the case prior to extraction/ejection. And oh by the way, I “built” that rifle with an 18″ WIlson Combat stainless match barrel and Timney 3-lb. comp trigger. Twice I’ve put 10 consecutive rounds in 1.100″ or less at 100 yards. A 1″ average actually, with one 1.100″ group shot over the hood of my pickup and one .900″ group shot at an actual range on a good solid steel-in-concrete bench and sandbags for a rest. Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14×50 scope on it at the time. Ammo is 40-grain to 55-grain Hornady V-Maxes I reload in PMC many-times-fired sized, trimmed and deburred brass with thrown powder charges from an RCBS volume thrower. 3100 fps from 55-grain bullets (I’ve got a chronograph) and 3300 fps from 40s. I could get into how remarkably unAR-like the dozen or so ARs I’ve “built” and/or currently own from a 7.5″ pistol to a 7.62x40WT “sister” to the 5.56×45 prairie dog’s nightmare I just described (first and only shot on a PD with the 7.62x40WT rifle was a 150-yard high center chest shot with a 110-grain V-Max that literally picked him up and carried him backwards so he “disappeared” into the grass – damndest thing I’ve ever seen shooting because he just vanished) to my first AR, which is a DPMS LR308 16″ Oracle. That’s the only AR I ever had problems with and I think once I finally quit tinkering with it myself and sent it back to DPMS they just opened up the gas port a touch. The invoice said “replace extractor” but bad extractors don’t cause short-stroking and “double feeding” and I’d already replaced it. That’s the only AR I’ve heard of anyone having trouble with and I’ve got a bunch of friends with a bunch of ARs. The main problem with ARs is the main problem with 1911s. City-boy wusses who don’t want to get their wittle hands and guns and maybe their safes a wittle oily trying to run guns that like plenty of lube damn near bone-dry. Because just like I’ve heard a million horror stories about how hard ARs are to keep “running” I’ve heard them about 1911s. Funny thing is I treat my 1911s pretty much the same as my ARs and my R1 still lives in my truck 24-7-365 and IT has 5000+ rounds if it has 10 through it and IT has only failed when I failed it. I ALSO go 400-500 rounds between cleanings when I get bored and that can be 3-4 months. I do a 10-minute cleaning on it, lube it up good and its good to go for hundreds more rounds and months of sitting in a dry, dusty old Dodge pickup gathering dust in a holster on the trans hump until I want to shoot it. Then it shoots whatever ammo I want as long as I want until I put it away until the next time.

          So excuse me for replying to your comments about ARs being maintenance nightmares with “You’re full of shit”.

    • 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.

        • Exactly what “Tier 1” unit has “adopted” .300 Blackout? The last time I checked, .300 Blackout is still caught between success and failure with zero chance of ever being “adopted” by the U.S. military because the U.S. military isn’t going to pay for or take via imminent domain the “rights’ to the cartridge. Not to mention the whole “easy swap” thing falls apart when you realize the parts to convert an existing AR-pattern U.S. service rifle to .300 Blackout probably cost about as much as tens of thousands of new rifles can be purchased for. Then there’s the whole “Colt supplies all AR-pattern rifles to the U.S. military and Colt isn’t going to pay a third party for the rights to a commercial cartridge either” thing. Going “commercial” with that cartridge was a really stupid move if the intent was to sell it to the U.S. government. There IS a cartridge very similar that actually predates the .300 Blackout as a commercial cartridge slightly and it has 5mm more case length. It’s called 7.62×40 Wilson Tactical. Wilson Combat sells ammo and and converted brass and barrels and dies and has reloading info and sells modified Lancer mags since the 5mm longer cases put the bottom of the neck where most mags have reinforcing ribs, but a good coarse rasp file and a few minutes per P-Mag modified mine just fine. Keeping it proprietary is smart on Wilson’s Part because it doesn’t draw a bunch of fanboy idiots new to guns who think the U.S. military has ever bought commercial cartridge rights and that then buy the supposed “replacement for 5.56×45 NATO barrels, uppers, rifles etc expecting dirt-cheap ammo to suddenly flood the market. That’s the majority of the .300 Blackout customer base right now. And they’ll huddle up and whine about limited ammo availability and how slow the U.S. military is “adopting” .300 Blackout and they’ll make up new magical capabilities and applications for it like the “300-400 yard deer cartridge IDIOCY” I saw on YouTube just a few days ago. But they won’t get off their dead asses and start reloading. Wilson Combat’s cartridge was designed for CHEAP AMMO from CHEAP BRASS that can be LOST while doing things like HOG HUNTING without losing $1-$2 per case every time an ejected case can’t be or isn’t found. Which is ironic because the idiot .300 Blackout fanboys won’t even reload anyway and apparently leave their brass laying on the ground. Hell, Wilson doesn’t even sell actual “7.62x40WT” brass and sells converted Lake City 5.56×45 instead. Why? Well, it’s the best brass for starters. Two, its dirt cheap enough they can buy it, convert it and still sell it a profit and third as long as they don’t pay Starline or anybody else to make ACTUAL 7.62x40WT brass, it stays proprietary. Wilson didn’t go “commercial”, gets a nice revenue stream from its cartridge, still owns it entirely and can give it to the U.S. military if it likes with little or no loss which is WHAT IT WILL TAKE to replace a PUBLIC DOMAIN CARTRIDGE and Wilson Combat picks up the “I like the .300 Blackout concept but don’t want to be one of those bandwagon blackout morons” shooters and reloaders who don’t expect a NEW WILDCAT CARTRIDGE to be EVERYWHERE OVERNIGHT.

          So again, what “Tier 1” units are using .300 Blackout and specifically what ammo/bullets are they using? I’m assuming those “operators” would be using FJM bullets and that’s pretty limited to 147-150 grain bullets in .308″ diameter. So they’re getting a hot 2100 fpm max from an 18″ barrel but aren’t breaking 2000 with a “tactical” 14.7
          barrel. That’s the funniest thing about .300 Blackout morons. You’d think they’d realize you want as much barrel length as possibly launching .308-caliber bullets at or below even .30-30 velocities and really POOR BULLETS for low-velocity use at that given they’re fantasizing about shooting armed, heavily-clothed and possibly body-armored “bad guys”. But oh no, not only do they go for every last foot per second and lb.-ft. they can get, they go SUBSONIC and use SUPPRESSORS to be STEALTHY!

          And they expect to be taken seriously by anybody with a clue when they’re out shilling for or rather EVANGELIZING FOR their beloved “future U.S. military cartridge” .300 Blackout. The U.S. military gave up on proprietary “commercial” rifles and cartridges at about the turn of the 20th century when the Krag-Jorgensen and .30-40 Krag were put out to pasture. You just can’t have military procurement deals of major importance like RIFLES and AMMUNITION subject to “negotiations” and you can’t pay a private company to let you use their product or intellectual property without selling out to them in the process.

          I’ll bet whatever rich folks both American and foreign dumped a bunch of money in Hornady, Norma, Knoch and whatever other “ammunition” companies are all involved in the current MULTIPLE “borderline” cartridges that have been sales pitched to the U.S. military as something the U.S. just HAS TO HAVE are getting nervous and maybe even desperate by now as far as recouping their investment. Because Hornady and several others are ALL in on .300 Blackout and 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 Creedmoor and .338 Lapua and so far thos new “wonder cartridges” are collectively a big fat GOOSE EGG as far as U.S. military PROCUREMENT contracts “won”. The U.S. did finally issue a “contract” and cut a check to Lapua and Accuracy International for however many rifles AI “provided” (when you give something to the U.S. military for testing you no longer OWN IT as far as whatever actual items you hand over) for .338 Lapua testing and the ammo fired right down to the last round because the contract was for something like 1,234,567 rounds.

          Which I found funny because that was a clearly the “Ok, We’re done “testing” your products and sick of the bullshit “performance numbers” not showing up in our testing and sick of you using the fact that we agreed to test stuff you gave to us as sales tool and negotiating tool and fundraising tool as you mention the U.S. military is “testing” your products and keep implying “adoption” is just around the corner. So you can take this check and get lost now”.

          You’d think all those wealthy business types would know that you don’t SELL THINGS to the U.S. government and especially not to the U.S. military by basically telling the world that what the U.S. is CURRENTLY USING is DOGSHIT and the government is full of FOOLS for every buying it and using it to begin with. And you don’t run in and upset the apple cart and start “scaring” existing contractors who produce the hardware you claim you’re going to “replace” with YOUR new product IF you want a warm welcome into the “defense contractor community”.

          But that’s just what that same gang of idiots has done with every one of their “superior cartridges” destined to “replace” one or more “obsolete” cartridges in the U.S. inventory. Dumbasses all the way around. That’s like trying to sell someone a new car by meeting them in the parking lot as they get out of their possible trade-in and saying “Holy shit! What a piece of JUNK you’ve got there. Give me a bunch of money for a new car and I’ll take that piece of garbage off your hands for you!”.

  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…

    • Last time I read the Constitution, the ONLY “expense” Congress is authorized to levy taxes for and raise revenue for is NATIONAL DEFENSE. Despite what assclown pseudo-Constitutional scholars and so-called Americans who can find a “right” to abort unborn babies in there but never quite read what’s actually written think. Don’t like paying taxes to equip the U.S. military? Get your ass on a plane and get lost. We don’t need your or your “tax money” that’s probably a net LOSS for the U.S. treasury when you get more back than you pay in.

  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?

    • Uh, what the U.S. insists on has nothing to do with what other “NATO” countries are supposedly “required” to do. There’s nothing in the NATO charter that says every country has to use the same cartridges in rifles, pistols, etc. That’s all bullshit concocted so a handful of chickenshit countries that have historically had other more important “conflicts” to deal with when the U.S. has had shit those countries originally caused thrown on its plate to deal with have an excuse for their shitty old guns and other hardware they’ve never upgraded because they’ve never had to spend SHIT on their military forces as long as the U.S. has been an “ally” and “partner”. The fucking limeys and cannucks want to blame their “canceled” TS-R2 and CF105 “super plane” programs on the U.S. and already have for decades saying the U.S. “pressured them” to cancel the programs and buy F-111s when the fucking F-111 was YEARS away from even being in U.S. FLIGHT TESTING at the time they canceled the programs and neither the U.K, OR Canada ever BOUGHT ANY WHEN THEY WERE BUILT. The U.S. doesn’t build weapons for resale as a primary goal. Plenty of “Commonwealth” countries apparently do, they make shitloads of money selling their shit to other countries but don’t have any money to spend on their own military forces unless its for new costumes for the Queen’s birthday shindig parades where they dress up like its still 17 fucking 50. Australia is a LITTLE BETTER but not a hell of a lot because here you are fucking blaming the U.S., which hasn’t fielded a foreign-made service rifle since the Krag and then only because the “U.S. Army” was a small national defense force, for not buying fucking FALs. How fucking childish and stupid can you be? The limeys and cannucks also have a list of “superior” cartridges they were just DYING TO USE TO just like YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, but once again those fucking Americans just wouldn’t go along with them. Yeah. Right. That doesn’t really explain why they were still using .455 Webley revolvers and .303 British Lee-Enfields WAY into the “NATO era” if the U.S. and what the U.S. uses has so much fucking influence, which obviously DIDN’T EXTEND to PREVENTING them OR Australia from using the FAL and ALSO didn’t prevent them from DROPPING the FAL when they decided to. Its also HILARIOUS you’re bragging up the FAL because apparently you don’t know or conveniently forget that the FIRST AR rifle was the AR10. That was the rifle Stoner submitted as a finished design, the AR10 was “adopted” as you gun experts in Commonwealth countries put it like its a poor child needing a home instead of machines being purchased for a purpose – you all care bout machines more than men when it comes to “winning wars” which is REALLY pathetic – by the DoD and then McNamara and his “Whiz Kids” took the “axe” to it and decided more, smaller bullets were better.

      That’s the reason we’ve had 22-caliber service rifles for all these decades. And those decisions were made against the strenuous objections of WWII and Korean War veterans in and out of uniform at the time who knew damned good and well replacing .30-caliber rifles with 22-caliber rifles was a mistake. Hell, you don’t have to be a combat veteran but only just a HUNTER to know that if you have a good cartridge for a certain game animal there’s no fucking way to “improve on it” by going to a smaller bullet, less powder and then “compensating” for those disadvantages through “volume of fire” and being able to “carry more ammo” and carrying more ammo has gotten progressively less necessary and important since the advent of “mechanized warfare” with each “conflict” having a lot more soldiers RIDING INTO “battle” than the last. I don’t know what you’re bragging about the FAL for. 11+ pounds empty and semi-auto? I’ve got a DPMS LR308 and a Chinese M1A that match it or beat it for weight and ammo capacity and I’ll bet they’ll both outshoot it. I know the DPMS will. Hell, I’ll even take my Garand since its closer to 10 lbs empty, en-bloc clips weigh an ounce or two each and don’t require huge pouches to store like 20-round mags do. And no, I’m not worried about “only” having 8 rounds in a rifle or a pistol. I grew up hunting and going into the field with 1-5 rounds “on board” and hunting and “buck fever” are a damn sight better test of and training for practical shooting of the high-stress battlefield variety than any stupid drill on a range. I’m not saying hunting is like actual combat, but I know the overwhelming majority of “troops” in any military force today and that have ever served period haven’t and won’t see actual combat regardless of how long they serve. Meanwhile, every hunter who is “good” enough to bother continuing to try has been on “auto pilot” and hasn’t known whether to shit or go blind and had to stop and remind himself or herself to SHOOT THE GUN when a covey of quail flushed three feet away or the big buck showed up 30 or 200 yards away, etc. That’s as close to combat as its possible to get with an actual gun in your hands. Drills and training are drills and training. Hunting is real-life and way less predictable than war. Anyway, there’s your reality check on the U.S, supposedly having so much influence on your country and its military choices, We could give two shits less whether you use the same ammo and to be honest, it’d make our military activities a hell of a lot cheaper, more effective and faster and we’d have to do a lot less dicking around cleaning up the worldwide messes left by the “British Empire” if we DIDN’T share ANYTHING militarily with you OR the other NATO countries. Because sure as shit , the only thing we apparently CAN’T INFLUENCE when it comes to our “military allies” is them actually fighting their own wars, cleaning up their own messes and minding their own business. You made some comment about 6.8 SPC II at some point in your FAL “narrative” and I can’t find your comment now to re-read it and I’m sure its just bullshit anyway, but if you’re putting the whole FAL thing in any kind of “context” or timeframe with 6.8 SPC II, you’d better get your “history” and manufacturers and whatever other random “knowledge” you have bouncing around inside your head figured out, because 6.8 SPC and 6.8 SPC II have nothing to do with FN or the FAL, both cartridges came along after 2000 and many DECADES after the FAL, they’re REMINGTON CARTRIDGES and they’re not even SHORT-ACTION high-powered cartridges that would “fit” in an FAL or any other 7.62×51 NATO rifle unless you want to for some unknown reason carry around an an 11+ pound, 20-round rifle chambered for a cartridge made to go in an AR15 or other 5.56×45 NATO PLATFORM. .223 Remington and other similarly-sized cartridges compatible with AR15-platform rifles and magazines are a LOT SMALLER than even SHORT-ACTION .308/7.62×51 NATO. The .308-caliber AR is/was the AR10. DPMS LR308s, Ruger SR25s, the two “current” versions of the AR10 made by ARMALITE, the M14/M1A are all WAY LARGER AND MANY POUNDS HEAVIER than any rifle chambered for 6.8 SPC/II needs to be. Those are REMINGTONS “replacements” for 5.56×45 NATO/.223 Remington. And they’re WAY LESS CARTRIDGE in ENERGY and BULLET DIAMETER than .308/7.62×51.

      So this is another case where the “Commonwealth” solution to a non-existent problem was “thwarted” by the United States even though the Commonwealth solution of a supposedly “superior” cartridge is an AMERICAN CARTRIDGE that doesn’t come CLOSE to “replacing” much less IMPROVING ON the supposedly inferior American 7.62×51 cartridge unless you think SMALLER BULLETS and WAY LESS ENERGY are an IMPROVEMENT.

      And because its a REMINGTON and PROPRIETARY CARTRIDGE that Remington has produced COMMERCIALLY and LICENSED TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS, the U.S. military was just as likely to “adopt” it as it is to “adopt” .300 Blackout or any of the other COMMERCIAL and PROPRIETARY cartridges the U.S. military would have to someone BUY and/or TAKE BACK the “rights” to in order to have “creative control” over it. Which is why the U.S. military never went for .276 Pedersen or the many British “wonder cartridges” or the Australian “wonder cartridges” or the Canadian “wonder cartridges” those countries tried to SELL to its supposed ALLY.

      Piss and fucking moan all you want about being “forced” to use supposedly “American” military cartridges like 5.56×45 NATO and 7.62×51 NATO and .50 BM…I mean 12.7×99 NATO since you assclowns get butthurt and have to “metricize” everything so it doesn’t hurt your feelings quite as much using American cartridges, but one thing the U.S. sure as hell never did was try to SELL YOU an American commercial cartridge. Much less FORCE YOU to use our “inferior” cartridges instead of your far superior ones. But then again, given the history of private gun ownership, military success in actual wars both against and with “Commonwealth” countries and how many more gun manufacturers, gun designers, gun types, ammunition types, cartridges etc. the U.S. has compared to pretty much…the rest of the world combined when a lot of the “rest of the world’s” guns and cartridges are partial or complete rip-offs, copies or licensed American designs too, I think we all know how fucking likely it is that the same countries that were still using rimmed rifle cartridges that were designed as blackpowder cartridges in service rifles and machine guns into and long after World War II, somehow really came up with BRAND-NEW and SUPERIOR cartridges to the what the U.S. had just OUT OF THE BLUE. Jesus, the British didn’t even actually build 95% of the “British-made” and “best-quality” double rifles and shotguns they’ve bragged about for well over a century. They IMPORTED and PROOFED and STAMPED and ENGRAVED the names of British “makers” onto BELGIAN-BUILT and GERMAN-BUILT double rifles and shotguns and “made” them “British” in THAT SENSE. But CONSTRUCT and MANUFACTURE them? Not so much. And honestly, did they really think they could build Webley revolvers and Lee-Enfield rifles for NATIONAL DEFENSE and get people to believe they were also BUILDING those gun works of art for HUNTING? Please. All you white folks in Commonwealth countries might want to take a giant step back from your BBC propaganda and brainwashing, pay more attention to what’s happening in the world, stop living in the past and start worrying about who’s going to fight your future wars for you when the rest of the British Empire’s chickens come home to roost. Because they are going to come home, Americans are sick to death of wars and international relations and just being endless slammed and criticized and mainly by our “allies” who can’t MIND THEIR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS. So I don’t think we’re going to get suckered into any or at least many more “regional conflicts” and if we are, I think “boots on the ground” will be off the table and “ICBMs in the air” might be a distinct possibility. Like Donald Trump said, why do we have nukes and pay all that money for them and to keep them and keep them guarded and functional if we can’t use them? Something for our “allies” to keep in mind more than our “enemies”.

  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.

      • A bunch of COD commando, wannabe Range Rambo Tactitards running around doing full-auto mag dumps is not in the interest of “national security” any more than same idiots trolling around the internet fantasizing and philosophizing about “barrier penetration” and “sniper rifles” and “urban combat” and other “I’m going to turn into Super Soldier when the Shit Hits The Fan” is beneficial to national security, gun rights, etc. If you think any decent machine gunner, squad automatic weapon gunner, etc in history has ever been trained to and has ever in combat made a habit of mag-dump or belt-burning bursts of full-auto, you’re a Hollywood educated fool. Read actual war biographies and other literature by and about actual combat veterans and you’ll find a common thread of GOOD MACHINE GUNNERS sticking to short 3-4 rounds bursts. Thats how BAR men and their assistants were trained, its how SMG-equipped troops were trained and its why the whole “M14s suck on full-auto” thing is complete horseshit. Full-auto M14s literally replaced BARs as a squad light machine gun, one or two men tops per platoon were issued M14s with “giggle switches” and when other soldiers “acquired” their own auto sears and installed them in their service rifles, which is a simple and quick process on an M14, they normally didn’t have full-auto for long. Not that it was ever a widespread phenomenon since it was mainly the USMC using the majority of M14s and trained Marines are/were smart enough to know “rapid fire” means the maximum rate of fire practical while retaining accuracy and precision, but some squads and platoons did get almost or completely “full-autoed” before wise old C.O.s with Korean War and maybe even WWII experience calmly and quietly confiscated the unissued auto sears and explained to the green troops why a whole unit of machine gunners wasn’t a very good idea in that combat environment. Of course equally stupid is the idea that a little old M14 on full-auto is going to “own” a GOOD and WELL-TRAINED gunner anyway given just like managing handgun recoil its 90% psychological and 10% physical. But all that makes for a good story and it makes the communist military conscripts and “revolutionaries” who historically haven’t been able to hit dick with an AK on full-auto look a little less like poorly-trained combat casualties waiting to happen and more like “trained professional soldiers”, so it gets endlessly repeated. But as far as needing or wanting a full-auto anything for “SHTF” or “WROL”, you can count me out. Call me stupid and cowardly, but not only would I do as little shooting period as possible and would I go out of my way to avoid “firefights” and “gun battles” that almost certainly aren’t going to be compatible with long-term survival for whatever fools are involved, if one or more of those Rambo/Zaitsev wannabes happens to stumble into my “backyard” (I can’t think of a single even BAD reason to “bug out” and leave 90% of all my “firepower” and 100% of the territory I know best behind for someone else to use), I WILL be ending their combat career(s) just as quickly and violently as I can. A lot of freaking morons out there seem to think “WROL” means that murder and shooting people just because they might be a “threat” won’t still be murder, but I know as far as my definition goes, that’s EXACTLY what murder is law or no law. While REMOVING THEM and not only the “threat” but the actual danger to and impending death of anyone and everyone they don’t happen to like the looks of whether dozens or hundreds of yards away until someone does finally take them out in actual “combat” to ME would be a “community service” and acting in self-defense if there ever was such a thing. Maybe I’d be wrong and maybe I’d be in hell with them at some point, but I’d take that chance. Trigger-happy, scared-shitless nutjobs out running around blowing people away because that’s what happens in all of the Hollywood post-apocalyptic movies isn’t going to fly if the real thing happens. I tend to be a little leery of the folks planning to go climb in their hidey-hole bunkers and “wait it out” too, given how out of the loop and confused and scared they’ll be when they finally have to come out when they run out of food, water, sanity or whatever else kept them hiding from reality for days or weeks or months. SHTF and/or WROL doesn’t mean humans should turn into animals. In fact, that’s the worst situation for that to occur if “survival” is the idea. I have serious doubts about the mental state of people who seem to fantasize and wish for and almost hope for the chance to run away, hole up in their bunker, start shooting people, etc. Just like I wonder about people who associate “national security” with repealing NFA laws so suddenly the same nutjobs who might right now be planning their own 15 minutes of fame as a mass-murdering active shooter at a school or wherever can do it with a full-auto AR they bought LEGALLY instead of being stuck with a semi-auto rifle. I’d love to have a Class III and a Ma Duece and I’d also like all those cool “toys” to be as available as other non-NFA guns and I think having suppressors and SBRs and SBSs on the NFA item list is just stupid. But this isn’t the point in history to suddenly open the full-auto floodgates, Americans have NEVER “commonly” owned machine guns since even in the heady days when Thompsons were commercially and legally available that whole GREAT DEPRESSION THING put them out of reach for most “sport shooters” and the last thing we need is a full-auto mass-shooting when we just want to keep what we have for the time being.

    • Its the military and most “service rifles” of the semi-auto variety are pretty easily “converted” to full-auto. On an AR its just a matter of a 3-position safety lower, properly located and drilled pair of holes for the auto sear pin and M16 or M4 fire-control trigger group parts available online for $200 or so last time I looked a couple years ago,

      An AR10 or LR308-rifle wouldn’t be much different but the auto sear, trigger and fire-control parts might be hard to find. Of course DPMS does make a Gen II LR308 that’s basically and AR15 everywhere but the mag well, BCG etc. That’s certainly an interesting possibility and a damn sight better from a “Buy American” standpoint than a SCAR or other foreign-made rifle. Manufacturers CAN LEGALLY MAKE non-transferable full-auto firearms for “demonstration” purposes and I imagine that might be what the first 5 would be for.

      I suspect that they’re thinking 3-round burst rather than full-auto, since the last one or two M4 versions have only been 3-round burst rifles with no “rock and roll” on the giggle switch. Good gunners never go “rock-and-roll” for more than 3-4 rounds anyway.

      The U.S. military since the days of the Gatling guns has always been “short burst/look/adjust aim/short burst/look…” because its effective, efficient, saves a hell of a lot of ammo, saves a lot of lives, prevents the need for stupidly complex and clumsy “exchangeable barrel” machine guns that rarely work as well in combat as in field trials and training and is in line with historical U.S. military AND civilian shooting doctrine of ACCURACY and PRECISION before SPEED.

      You don’t ever count on getting to shoot the next round in a magazine or belt, much less the last one and you damn sure don’t use “volume of fire” to “pin down” an enemy that would have to be stupid to retreat from a battlefield where the other side is shooting all its ammo at nothing. Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Norman Hathcock and his spotter Lance Corporal John Burke kept an NVA platoon pinned down for multiple days with nothing but a bolt-action sniper rifle, an M14 and the ammo they carried in with them on a regular “stalking” patrol.

      They fired a handful of rounds per day and after 2-3 days in the heat and sun when the NVA finally started wigging out they had to shoot like hell and open up on them at both ends of the dyke they were pinned behind just to keep them cornered long enough to get away without getting flanked, but they did it, got out of there and called in some airstrikes as they left. If they’d have started blazing away immediately when they spotted the platoon they’d have been dead meat.

  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.

    • Using antique rimmed cartridges in a semi-auto/full-auto rifle is about as retarded as gun “engineering” gets. And why in God’s name would the U.S. government, with a long history of using REAL 7.62/.308 cartridges from .30-40 Krag to .30-06 to .30 Carbine to .308 to .300 Winchester Magnum use some half-assed .312″ bullet diameter communist joke of a “modern” service rifle cartridge nobody has even made a NEW RIFLE for since the CARTRIDGE was new?

    • Other than the fact that only Armalite makes actual AR10s. Seriously, AR10 is an Armalite trademark and specific product. The original AR10 was actually the FIRST true “AR” and it was the rifle selected by the U.S. DoD at which point McNamara and his “Whiz Kids” got involved and decided to make a few “changes”. Because former bean counters for Ford Motor Company are ALWAYS the best choice to “design” new rifles.

      The current Armalite “AR10” is actually two different rifles and I believe one is fairly true to the originals and uses kind of an “oddball” magazine specific to those rifles while the other one is pretty much the same as DPMS LR308, Palmetto State PSA10, etc. Regardless, only Armalite makes actual AR10s, their rifles aren’t automatically “identical” to SR25s, LR308s etc and in fact can be a lot different. When you start ordering parts, magazines, etc you’d better know the difference.

      • “Other than the fact that only Armalite makes actual AR10s.”

        You might want to check your facts a little better.
        Colt and Artillerie Inrichtingen also made them.
        I get the distinct impression you don’t really know what you’re talking about. For all of your book learning, you evidently don’t know how to even use the internet.

    • Try reading the RFI. It called for availability timelines for an initial batch of 5 rifles and then up to 10,000 rifles with COTS rifles specified and “custom” rifles specifically prohibited. Somebody is wanting several thousand rifles quick-like. Its not a “development” process. It’s a contact us if you can get us what we need ASAP situation specifically called a CONTRACTOR OPPORTUNITY. So…it’s going to result in a CONTRACT.

Leave a Reply

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