Army ditches plan for interrim rifle

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

reports sts The Army has officially ditched its plans for a new, short-term rifle replacement

 

Excerpt

 

Quote

The NGSW would be "one end-all solution," he added, with a carbine model replacing the M4 and a rifle version replacing the M249 squad automatic weapon. The weapon would likely fire a caliber between 5.56 and 7.62 mm. The Army is likely to see the first NGSWs by 2022, he said, with other enhancements arriving by 2025.

 

Grendel?    the Creedmoor would be more effective

 

might be this critter:

 

Source: 50th Ed Lyman Loaders Manual

 

the notes indicate the round was developed in conjunction with the US Army for possible use in the M4.  Note the .422 base is not .473 like the .30-06 family and is even smaller than the Grendel which is .441

 

The listed bullets are a bit light -- 115 grs seems to be the standard for commercial loads but that's one of their heavierer ones.   It's no substitute for the Credmoor though: even with the 100 grs bullet they are listing velocity around 2500.    With 85 grs bullet they are listing velocity around 2700-2800 -- which is what is needed.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

They never wanted it but they needed a bargaining chip to cave on in budget negotiations.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

if the Army is going back to the table on this it could be this ctg. might have a new revival.   Looks to me like it's right on the edge of being cool.    the book shows they are getting ~2600 fps at ~50,000 psi   ( max loads ).   A spec. change to allow 60,000 psi and a 120 grs bullet might do the trick.

 

it still wouldn't match the Creedmoor 140 grs 6,5mm loads though

[Dantankerous]

300 Blackout would be good choice, I'd think. 

 

Uses the same magazine as a 5.56 and actually uses the same lower. Better energy down range then the 5.56 and can be easily suppressed with subsonic ammo.

 

Plus the name is just scary to the anti-gun establishment and would give them something else to wring their hands about.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

here's the scoop on the 300 Blackout

Source: 50th Ed Lyman Loaders Manual

 

looks like it's mostly similar to the 7,62x39 mm ammo for the AK

 

if I get this right the Army is looking for a ctg. that is going to be effective at distance -- like the 7,62mm Nato,-- but something a little easier to shoot and a bit lighter weight as far as ammo load goes

 

I think the BAR may have been the best ever LMG but there those critters weighed 20lb.   But you need that in a .30cal LMG.

 

the notes provided for the 6,8mm indicated they wanted something between the 5,56mm and the 7,62 mm ctgs that are currently in use.   I remembered reading about the 6,8mm when I was digging in my new book for info in my Creedmoor

[Pat Riot]

It's my opinion that this is all a political opera and  that in the end the Army will stay with the 5.56...unless of course, some "higher ups" in the military / government end up experiencing a personal tragedy due to a loved one or even themselves having to utilize the current ammunition in a life threatening emergency from  a critter larger than a poodle...

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

it's a fun topic to chew on

 

the gist of it seems to be the Army wants a ctg. that is effective beyond 500 yds.    To get this in a lighter weight outfit it seems to me the co-efficient on the bullet is the key metric.    The Creedmoor is noted for retaining accuracy and energy downrange -- even better than the 7,62 Nato.    I don't know if this can be packaged in a smaller case such as the 6,8mm SPC.    It appears a lot of careful work went into configuring the Creedmoor

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

While I am not a fan of the .556 cartridge, I thought it was a sop to NATO.

Is NATO going to change? If so, I had not heard that. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Unless NATO changes caliber. This is all smoke & mirrors with a large part of BS.

OLG

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

4 hours ago, Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 said:

While I am not a fan of the .556 cartridge, I thought it was a sop to NATO.

Is NATO going to change? If so, I had not heard that. 

it's all just conjecture but the kind of topic we like to chew on, in these parts.   it's why we have this here Saloon

[Utah Bob #35998]

4 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

it's a fun topic to chew on

And that’s about all it is. 

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

the Army may have tabled to topic for the moment but I don't think it's really dead

 

Reported from the Army Times:

New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56

 

Excerpt

 

Quote

Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.

Quote

If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower — with little change in weight.

 

these reports keep cropping up; I find them interesting.   the report referenced (above) is dated May.   While the earlier cite indicated the subjected had been tabled it also hinted at possible reconsideration:

Quote

"Resulting from a change in strategy, the Government is reallocating the ICSR funding to the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW). The NGSW will be a long term solution to meet the identified capability gap instead of the ICSR, which was an interim solution," the post says.

 

[Texas Lizard]

I'm going ask a crazy question...I'm Air Force, do not this topic well...Things I worked on took out square miles, lots of square miles...When the Army or Marines go looking for a new rifle, what are they looking for?? I'm not trying to be funny, just wanting to know...One rifle to do everything seems to me would not work well...In my thought anyway...

 

TL

[Utah Bob #35998]

11 minutes ago, Texas Lizard said:

I'm going ask a crazy question...I'm Air Force, do not this topic well...Things I worked on took out square miles, lots of square miles...When the Army or Marines go looking for a new rifle, what are they looking for?? I'm not trying to be funny, just wanting to know...One rifle to do everything seems to me would not work well...In my thought anyway...

 

TL

The services have always searced in vain for a universal tool. For instance:

 

A plane that can carry tons of bombs, can go supersonic or fly low and slow and spend hours on station, then land on an aircraft carrier or tiny jungle clearing transporting an artilkery battery and a weeks supply of chow and a USO troupe.

 

A rifle that is lightweight, suitable for room clearing but with a 1,000 meter range for snipers and be able to take several calibers while having the ability to transform into a pistol.

 

A ship that’s silent, undetectable, can submerge or fly and uses no fuel.

 

Pie in the military sky. 

 

[Texas Lizard]

6 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

The services have always searced in vain for a universal tool. For instance:

 

A plane that can carry tons of bombs, can go supersonic or fly low and slow and spend hours on station, then land on an aircraft carrier or tiny jungle clearing transporting an artilkery battery and a weeks supply of chow and a USO troupe.

 

A rifle that is lightweight, suitable for room clearing but with a 1,000 meter range for snipers and be able to take several calibers while having the ability to transform into a pistol.

 

A ship that’s silent, undetectable, can submerge or fly and uses no fuel.

 

Pie in the military sky. 

 

Kinda what I was thinking...F-111 comes to mind...Lots of luck finding that, one size fits all...Comes mind how the big guy come up women and men...One size fits all...

 

TL

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

Uniformity

 

Uniformity is important to military supply -- you don't want half your troops using Enfields and the other half with Springfields.   So the US Pattern Enfield was made in .30-06 to alieviate this problem rather than pushing .303 ammo into  supply

 

So things kinda settle down.   US Army using .30-06 ctg in rifles and in the M1 MG + .45ACP for pistols.   Germany settled on the 8mm Mauser + 9mm parabellum and that included using the 9mm in their MP40 sub machinegun.

 

then they came up with the intermediate -- 8mm kurz ctg for their Sturmgewehr - assault rifle -- and now instead of rifle and pistol ammo they have 3: rifle and MG 8mm Mauser, + 8mm kurz, and 9mm pistol.     Then the AK47 and the M16 appeared, and we've faced the 3 ctg issue since although US/Nato did standardize briefly on the 7,62 Nato before moving the the 5,56

 

is there a solution that will allow a 2 ctg standard rather than 3 ?

 

a couple good folks here have properly noted there tends to be too much politics in this and not enough range testing, out on the ground.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

We have that 2 ctg std now- 5.56mm & 7.62mm.

OLG

 

[Sedalia Dave]

There will never be a new cartridge that will either work in existing magazines or that will use a magazine that will fit the existing M-16/M-4 lowers.

 

No before you flame me here's why.  In the heat of battle soldier one needs a fresh magazine. He grabs one from a fallen comrade inserts it into his rifle releases the bolt and OH CRAP! the bolt is stuck. Hits the fwd assist several times no joy. Pulls the magazine  looks at it and releases a long tirade of expletives because the magazine he grabbed was loaded with a 6.5 Grendal, 300 blackout, some other cartridge that uses the same magazine as the 556. Now he is taking fire with a rifle that is useless because it has a cartridge stuck in the chamber and the oversized bullet is firmly jammed into the barrel.

 

Think about it.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

my only intention here is to comment on the write-ups that I see in the news here and there

 

what seems obvious is the 5,56 is inadequate and the 7,62 isn't first choice because (a) it imposes a heaver load on the soldier weight wise, and (b) it doesn't work well in a LMG -- too much recoil for hand-held automatic fire

 

all of which makes it fun to speculate on possibilities.   providing a single rifle ctg is obviously the better option and this suggests evaluating interrim ctgs.   The advantages of the 6,5mm have been known for some time and new ctg. configurations appear to be highly promising.   

 

whatever is adopted is up to the Army; I just like commenting on it.

 

btw 5,56mm and 7,62mm and 9mm makes 3 ctgs not 2.    best to switch from 9mm to .40S&W for pistols.

 

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Not all are issued handguns.

GW-Where are you getting your info from?

Have you talked to anyone who has been to the 'box'? I have 3 sons who are multi-tour vets with one an Army Ranger with 6 tours.

These guys carry a lot more stuff that just the rifle, so weight is an issue. 5.56 ammo weight is less, which means more ammo/mags can be carried and maintain max jump weight allowed.

The M4 is a much better weapons platform for optics than any in our military history.

None of my kids have a bad thing to say about the 249 SAW.

The bullet used today in the NATO 5.56 is far more lethal, than the VN era 55gn FMJ was.

OLG

 

 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

15 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

 

The bullet used today in the NATO 5.56 is far more lethal, than the VN era 55gn FMJ was.

OLG

 

 

How does it differ?

[Utah Bob #35998]

29 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

How does it differ?

The current M855 round has a steel interior tip for better penetration.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

It's also a bit heavier, that helps with cross-wind etc.

The heavier bullet also requires a faster ROT in the barrel.

OLG

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

notes

1. you can find many articles online dealing with the Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR)

essentially there are two points: the 5,56mm does not have either the reach or hitting power the Army wants.   This was the reason for ICSR.

 

2. ICSR is now cancelled: The U.S. Army's Powerful New 7.62mm Service Rifle Is Officially Dead

Excerpt

Quote

Army Contracting Command announced the cancellation of the ICSR program on Nov. 28, citing a “reprioritization” of funding for the commercially made service rifle to the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) as a replacement for both the M4 and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and “a long-term solution to meet the identified capability gap instead of the ICSR, which was an interim solution.”

 

3. NGSW should be interesting

Excerpt(same source)

Quote

The final vision for the weapon includes a heads-up display embedded in a conventional rifle scope, and, as Cummings told Marine Corps Times on Oct. 8, is “a wireless fire control system that senses wind, calculates distance and compensates for ballistics, all while being able to spot heat signatures through thermals.”

 

it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

[Dantankerous]

3 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

There will never be a new cartridge that will either work in existing magazines or that will use a magazine that will fit the existing M-16/M-4 lowers.

 

No before you flame me here's why.  In the heat of battle soldier one needs a fresh magazine. He grabs one from a fallen comrade inserts it into his rifle releases the bolt and OH CRAP! the bolt is stuck. Hits the fwd assist several times no joy. Pulls the magazine  looks at it and releases a long tirade of expletives because the magazine he grabbed was loaded with a 6.5 Grendal, 300 blackout, some other cartridge that uses the same magazine as the 556. Now he is taking fire with a rifle that is useless because it has a cartridge stuck in the chamber and the oversized bullet is firmly jammed into the barrel.

 

Think about it.

 

Your premise presupposes the notion that 5.56 is still in use. Then it would be a potential issue, just as once upon a time some Army outposts received 45 Colt ammo for their 45 S&W breaktop revolvers. Oops.

 

My premise  holds that if the Army does away entirely with 5.56 and all associated weapon's then and only then 300 Blackout would be an easy transition utilizing existing stock piles of magazines and lowers if the Army only wanted to replace uppers.

 

However, no transition with the US military is ever just "simple".

[Texas Lizard]

1 hour ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

notes

1. you can find many articles online dealing with the Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR)

essentially there are two points: the 5,56mm does not have either the reach or hitting power the Army wants.   This was the reason for ICSR.

 

2. ICSR is now cancelled: The U.S. Army's Powerful New 7.62mm Service Rifle Is Officially Dead

Excerpt

 

3. NGSW should be interesting

Excerpt(same source)

 

it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

Sounds like a group of experts trying invert a horse and come up with a camel...What does the guy in the battle field want or need...Seems that that comes down to where the fight is at...Open area you want something for long, close room clearing short...Is there one round that can do both, is there one rifle that does both...Being Air Force I have no ideas in this area...The man doing the job are the ones I would talk with...

 

TL

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

11 hours ago, Texas Lizard said:

Sounds like a group of experts trying invert a horse and come up with a camel...What does the guy in the battle field want or need...Seems that that comes down to where the fight is at...Open area you want something for long, close room clearing short...Is there one round that can do both, is there one rifle that does both...Being Air Force I have no ideas in this area...The man doing the job are the ones I would talk with...

absolutely

I wouldn't put a bunch of electronic junk on an infantry rifle but we have grifters who see $$$ and if they can sell the government rifles with $10,000 of worthless electronic junk attached -- they'll do it.

 

the infantry rifle needs to be simple and very highly reliable.   that's why the AK47 is the success that it is.

 

one of the concerns addressed by the ICSR was the old Tokarev ctg (7,62x54mm) being used in Afghanistan etc.    The Tokarev is no modern wonder -- adopted in 1891 it is a lot like the 8mm Mauser.    roughly a 2500 fps ctg -- but -- deadly.

 

I have a nice old 1917 Ahmberg 8mm Mauser.   It's sporterized -- but really lots of fun to shoot with.  Not as brutal at the 03A3.   It does well out to 200 yds -- which is the max. on our range.    Beyond that the bullets will start to loose energy and drop -- which is the issue being addressed by the 6,5mm bullet using a reduced coefficient of drag.     I find the whole subject very interesting

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

An ACOG sight on a M4, is far from worthless. 

Ask anyone who has 'cleared' a house or large buiding..........

OLG

[Sedalia Dave]

19 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

my only intention here is to comment on the write-ups that I see in the news here and there

 

what seems obvious is the 5,56 is inadequate and the 7,62 isn't first choice because (a) it imposes a heaver load on the soldier weight wise, and (b) it doesn't work well in a LMG -- too much recoil for hand-held automatic fire

 

all of which makes it fun to speculate on possibilities.   providing a single rifle ctg is obviously the better option and this suggests evaluating interrim ctgs.   The advantages of the 6,5mm have been known for some time and new ctg. configurations appear to be highly promising.   

 

whatever is adopted is up to the Army; I just like commenting on it.

 

btw 5,56mm and 7,62mm and 9mm makes 3 ctgs not 2.    best to switch from 9mm to .40S&W for pistols.

 

 

 

Comment wasn't directed at you but rather a general statement about the topic in general. Most people fail to consider the less than obvious problems of interchangeability till is bites them squarely in the backside.

 

Did not mean it as an attack on you. I rather like reading the discussion and the various opinions.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

1 minute ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Did not mean it as an attack on you. I rather like reading the discussion and the various opinions.

 

no prob

 

I think I noted someplace in this thread that the Army had modified the British Enfield rifle from .303 to .30-06 during the Great War -- for exactly this reason:  it is very desirable to have everyone using the same ammo

 

wherever this goes is up to the Army, or at least it should be.    we don't need any K-Street lobbyists or office spreadsheet accountants messing with an issue that should be left strictly to Army experts.   

 

ACOG -- are you talking the type with the dual optics?

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

One day, our Army will face an enemy with body armor.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

13 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

One day, our Army will face an enemy with body armor.

Why do you think that they don't now? 

One of the reasons for the M-855 (NATO, SS-109)bullet. 

OLG

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

29 minutes ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

 

ACOG -- are you talking the type with the dual optics?

 

Dual optics??  Not sure what you mean there.

https://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product1.php?id=ACOG

 

OLG

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

2 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Dual optics??  Not sure what you mean there.

when you mentioned ACOG sight, I'm like "WTC?"   ( What's that Critter ? )

so, I did a little research.   at first it seemed the ACOG was a 4x sight and I'm like : how's is that gonna work "clearing a building"?   You need an Uzi or a Winchester 97 for that...    ( tee hee )

 

then I discovered this:

Source: Reloader Direct

 

This has a 1:1 optical in addition to the 4x sight!  Ah HA!

 

kind of a clunky thing to have on top of a rifle though-- and the 5,56mm might produce a lot of over penetration in some circumstances.   not that a 12 ga wouldn't though......

 

I note the photo on the page you referenced appears to show the 1:1 optic as well.

 

 

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

I'm including a reference to this essay as well

Why the AK47 is the most feared weapon weapon

 

• simpilcity
• cost
• reliability

 

It's important to me to note that any decisions will be made by the Army.     Hereabouts -- it's just a fun topic.    Kinda like chewing on why OSU got the boot and Alabama gets a chance at the title.