The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States
This is a discussion on The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Other weapons solved the problem of crammed vehicles by either being one of the mentioned bullpub designs or by simply ...
Other weapons solved the problem of crammed vehicles by either being one of the mentioned bullpub designs or by simply adding a folding stock. By just reducing the barrel length extremely I think the M4 made an important trade-off.
In the US Army you either have the choice of a very short-barrelled carbine or an assault rifle which doesn't even feature full auto.
IMO other nation's 5.56mm rifles offer more and because of this the discussion about the calibre is not so intense as it is in the US.
The problem is, at least in part, due to the short barrel of the M4. The loss of muzzle velocity is definitely effecting the terminal ballistic performance of the 5.56mm. BUT.....The short LOA of the M4 is one thing that every soldier who carries one is pretty universally happy with. CQB with with a full length M16 is a pain in the ass, as is constantly climbing in and out of HMMWV/MRAP/Bradley/Stryker with a full length rifle.
I spent a lot of my time in Iraq crammed in the front seat of an up armored Toyota Land Cruiser, and with my body armor and M4 it was a tight fit (and I'm not a big guy). A full sized M16 would have sucked to no end.
So it's a trade off - short and light but some loss of range and terminal ballistics.
I would have been willing to carry a longer, heavier rifle, but ONLY if it was worth it due to a larger caliber providing more range, etc.
The people I knew who carried M-14s in a DM role, were quite happy with them (despite the length, weight, etc.) because they felt it was worth the hassle to gain the range, penetration and stopping power of a 7.62mm (especially in Afghanistan were long range shooting is more likely).
I think they best compromise for general use is a intermediate caliber carbine (6.8mm, 6.5mm, etc.) with roughly the same dimensions as the M-4 (perhaps a bullpup, so you can have a shorter LOA and still have a full length barrel). Or maybe field a rifle with interchangeable barrels, so you can throw on a shorty 14.5" or even 10" for CQB and a full length barrel for patrol in the mountains.
Adrian
The problem as always with replacing the M-4 is with what and who will pay for it. SOCOM adopted the SCAR L & H. Now they have stopped purchasing the SCAR-L, but want to keep buying the SCAR H.
They argue that the SCAR L is a better rifle than the M-4, but not worth the much higher costs, probably 50% to 75% higher than buying the M-4 (I don't know what SOCOM paid for them, but am basing this on the MSRP of the civilian version.
The SCAR H in .308 is a different matter. There is not other choice. The M-14 is out of production and would make a poor carbine anyway. It was designed to WW II standards to give the generals an M-1 GARAND with a box magazine in .308 (7.62x51) caliber. SOCOM will keep buying it.
The problem with issuing a 7.62x51 caliber rifle is hitting the target. Designated Marksmen and Snipers do not count. They are by definition, expert shots and specially selected. Same for SOCOM units. What happens when you issue a 7.62x51 rifle or worse a carbine to the average infantry soldier. I will bet the hits go WAY DOWN. A miss with even a .50 caliber Browning is still a miss.
In the end, the next army rifle will probably be selected by the MARINE CORP who are already looking. The will just use the selection process for the interim squad weapon as a chance to spec out an M-4 replacement. Then the ARMY can either buy the 416 top end so as to not buy what the MARINES picked (again) or maybe just go with an ALL AMERICAN buy like the RUGER SR-556 or REMINGTON version of the ACR. To the ARMY, only big name contractors need apply.
The problem as always with replacing the M-4 is with what and who will pay for it. SOCOM adopted the SCAR L & H. Now they have stopped purchasing the SCAR-L, but want to keep buying the SCAR H.
They argue that the SCAR L is a better rifle than the M-4, but not worth the much higher costs, probably 50% to 75% higher than buying the M-4 (I don't know what SOCOM paid for them, but am basing this on the MSRP of the civilian version.
The SCAR H in .308 is a different matter. There is not other choice. The M-14 is out of production and would make a poor carbine anyway. It was designed to WW II standards to give the generals an M-1 GARAND with a box magazine in .308 (7.62x51) caliber. SOCOM will keep buying it.
The problem with issuing a 7.62x51 caliber rifle is hitting the target. Designated Marksmen and Snipers do not count. They are by definition, expert shots and specially selected. Same for SOCOM units. What happens when you issue a 7.62x51 rifle or worse a carbine to the average infantry soldier. I will bet the hits go WAY DOWN. A miss with even a .50 caliber Browning is still a miss.
In the end, the next army rifle will probably be selected by the MARINE CORP who are already looking. The will just use the selection process for the interim squad weapon as a chance to spec out an M-4 replacement. Then the ARMY can either buy the 416 top end so as to not buy what the MARINES picked (again) or maybe just go with an ALL AMERICAN buy like the RUGER SR-556 or REMINGTON version of the ACR. To the ARMY, only big name contractors need apply.
A recent press release from FN is denying reports that SOCOM is no longer purchasing the SCAR-L.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that issuing a 7.62mm rifle to "he average infantry soldier" is going to negatively affect marksmanship. A SCAR-H or M-14 is more inherently accurate than an M4 carbine (which is what 90% of US infantry soldiers are carrying these days), especially at longer ranges. With appropriate training and range time, the differences in felt recoil will be no big deal. Everyone these days has some kind of optic as well, either an M68 CCO, ACOG or EoTech. The marksmanship standards of every infantry unit I've ever served in has been remarkably high. I expect is only going to improve due to the recent changes to the basic and advanced rifle marksmanship programs in Army BCT. Non-infantry soldiers will now fire 500 rounds in BRM, and infantry soldiers will fire 750 rounds - a 50% increase from the previous standard.
Army marksmanship declined in the late 60's early 70's after the introduction of the M16 and the retirement of the M-14.
Ultimately it is training, proper weapons maintenance and shot placement that really matter. I'd rather have a squad of professional, well trained soldiers with M1903 Springfields than a bunch of ragged ass conscripts with the latest high tech super rifle.
ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.
When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.
My agency finally retired the last GLOCK 17's in my district. They were kept for several years past their intended retirement out of fear that those officers issued them would not be able to transition to the .40 caliber H&K that we are now issued.
In fact, several officers are now marginal qualifiers while previously, they shot better scores.
RECOIL is a real factor. Hand an M14 to a 5'9" 160 pound male and train him to the same standard as used now. Then hand the same gun to a 5'3" 115 pound female or even small statured male and see what happens.
Also, according to the U.S. ARMY, the guy who did the most shooting and hitting was not armed with a SPRINGFIELD or GARAND, he was carrying a BAR.
Let me ask. If the requirement for a heavier round is that important, why keep the 7.62x51? I would drop it and issue a long range round like the .260 REMINGTON or 7 MM-08. They both shoot flatter and have nearly as much power. The lesser recoil would also mean more hits and only hits are going to drop an opponent.
ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.
When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.
I have not personally fired either the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, or the .30-06 Springfield (yet) and understand that there is some concern regarding recoil. However, I have to point out that both rounds were standard issue rounds used by the US military for extended periods of time. In the case of the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, it was the standard US Army issue round in 1952 and remained the standard round for ~15 years, until the 5.56 x 45 mm became standard with the widespread deployment of the M-16 and various derivatives. The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO remained the standard round used by many members of NATO until well into the 1980's. In the case of the .30-06 Springfield round, that was the standard US rifle and LMG round for nearly fifty years. That suggests to me that the US has built up considerable experience in fielding a larger calibre round that is currently standard issue, while managing to achieve satisfactory performance in both World Wars.
Granted, there might be a greater number of smaller-statured personnel in the service today, what is really more important given the function of a military or defence force? Be inclusive so that everyone can serve, or require that a minimum set of basic standards be met in order to serve?
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
I have not had a chance to fire either the SCAR-H or L yet. I have fired the M14, M21, AR-10, FN-FAL (including the folding stock para model), M24, and the G3. I have the Bundeswehr Schützenschnur in Gold (German Armed Forces Badge for Weapons Proficiency) - which is essentially qualifying "expert" with the G3 Rifle, MG3 Machine Gun and P1 9mm Pistol. While 7.62x51mm rifles certainly have more felt recoil than 5.56x45mm ones and can be a little more challenging to shoot as a result, it's nothing that can't be mitigated through proper training. The armies of the world in WW1 and WW2 had no problems with their variety of heavy, full caliber, mostly bolt action rifles (in most cases, being fired by conscripts).
A good example - British Army Infantrymen were expected to be able to fire 15 aimed shots at a 300 meter target (and hit) in 60 seconds with their .303 Lee-Enfields. Given that the Lee-Enfield only has a 10 round magazine, that time included throwing another 5 round charger in. Many soldiers could exceed this rate, and fire 20, 25 or even 40 rounds in 60 seconds. That is also factoring the recoil of a bolt-action rifle, firing a full sized cartridge. There are anecdotal stories from WW1 of German soldiers who thought they were facing a machine gun, but in fact were being fired on by a British Rifle Squad, firing their Lee-Enfields at a high ROF.
I have two friends who both served in OIF with the 101st Airborne (AASLT) Division and frequently carried M14s (by choice) on missions instead of their M4.
I don't think that 7.62mm is the perfect cartridge. It's just convenient since it's in the system, readily available, and there are already several issue rifles in use chambered for it (M14, M21, SCAR-H, M110, M24) and in some circumstances it is superior to the 5.56mm. If I had my choice I would prefer 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel or the like. I've fired some 6.8mm M4s and was impressed. I have not yet got had the chance to shoot a 6.5mm, but I've heard good things. FN initially developed a 6.8mm version of the SCAR, but the Army wasn't interested since there were no plans for a cartridge chance any time soon.
Again, ultimately it is the training that matters, not so much the weapon.
Adrian
Quote:
Originally Posted by golden
ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.
When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.
My agency finally retired the last GLOCK 17's in my district. They were kept for several years past their intended retirement out of fear that those officers issued them would not be able to transition to the .40 caliber H&K that we are now issued.
In fact, several officers are now marginal qualifiers while previously, they shot better scores.
RECOIL is a real factor. Hand an M14 to a 5'9" 160 pound male and train him to the same standard as used now. Then hand the same gun to a 5'3" 115 pound female or even small statured male and see what happens.
Also, according to the U.S. ARMY, the guy who did the most shooting and hitting was not armed with a SPRINGFIELD or GARAND, he was carrying a BAR.
Let me ask. If the requirement for a heavier round is that important, why keep the 7.62x51? I would drop it and issue a long range round like the .260 REMINGTON or 7 MM-08. They both shoot flatter and have nearly as much power. The lesser recoil would also mean more hits and only hits are going to drop an opponent.
PRIOR to WWII, both BRITAIN and the U.S. looked at adopting alternate, smaller caliber rounds. At the beginning of WWI (the poorly named WAR TO END ALL WAR), the BRITISH planned to drop the old SMLE and adopt a MAUSER pattern rifle, the P13 in a 7m.m. round. The obvious reasoning was the beating they took from the SOUTH AFRICAN Boers who used the 7x57 MAUSER round in an 1895 MAUSER rifle.
WW1 came along and the 7m.m. was dropped for production reasons. The P13 was a very good design and was produced for the BRITISH by REMINGTON and WINCHESTER in the U.S. When the BRITISH decided they did not need TWO rifles in production, REMINGTON and WINCHESTER then produced it as the 1917 ENFIELD in .30-06 for the U.S. forces.
The BRITISH stayed with the .303 and the SMLE, even though they found it wanting. THEY WERE BROKE and the .303 proved if anything, too powerful in the trenches.
After the war, REMINGTON produced a modified 1917 as the model 30 for many years.
The U.S. has just replaced the .30-03 which had just replaced the .30-40 KRAG prior to WWI. The new .30-06 was supposed to restore the advantage over the 7x57 MAUSER rifles used by the SPANIARDS during the SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (please note, both countries were adopting new calibers and guns to deal with the LESS POWERFUL 7x57 MAUSER round. They both had been on the receiving end and did not like it.
The U.S. even went to the trouble of adopting a modified MAUSER and then had to pay royalties over it to the MAUSER company.
During the BETWEEN WARS period, the U.S. planned to replace the BAR, 1903 rifle and .30-06 round with a 7m.m. round in the GARAND and a new light machine gun. They got 1 out of 3 and only after they were already fighting in WWII.
Roy BRAYBROOK, a well known BRITISH aviation writer pointed out that militaries always plan to use equipment and tactics that worked in the last war that they had won.
So after WWII, the U.S. ARMY decided to buy a shortened .30-06. After all, it had won WWII with it. Other countries did not agree, but their vote did not count. The U.S. was bankrolling NATO, so you bought what the U.S. told you to buy or paid for it yourself.
BRITAIN, had gotten a much worse beating in WWII than the U.S. They wanted to adopt a more modern round and rifle. They came up with a series of pioneering BULLPUP rifles and a 7m.m. INTERMEDIATE round that would have launched a 139 grain bullet at @ 2530 fps. This would have been simply the 6x55 SWEDE round in a shorter form.
The U.S. did not want it or anything else but the 7.62x51. So that was the end of all that was learned the hard way during WWII.
The RUSSIANS on the other hand, had taken a terrible lesson from the 7.92x33 KURZ round used in GERMAN assault rifles and adopted the 7.62x39 round. Several years later they chambered this round in the AK-47 and a world wide legend was born.
My belated point is that the 7.62x51 was not chosen because it was the best round or had proven itself superior. It was a political choice and not a very good one from an infantry point of view.
In combat, both the various 6.5m.m. and 7m.m. have proven they can do just as well, if not better than the 7.62x51 used by the west.
LESS RECOIL, FLATTER TRAJECTORY, LESS WEIGHT TO CARRY OR MORE AMMO FOR THE SAME WEIGHT & A LIGHTER GUN, what is not to like.
One last thing. RUGER recently dropped the 6.8 SPC round from the MINI-14. I may be jumping the gun, but if this round does not find a niche soon, I think it will die off and we will be using the 5.56 until caseless ammo replaces it.
Sorry for the long winded, history lesson. I wanted to be thorough.
PRIOR to WWII, both BRITAIN and the U.S. looked at adopting alternate, smaller caliber rounds. At the beginning of WWI (the poorly named WAR TO END ALL WAR), the BRITISH planned to drop the old SMLE and adopt a MAUSER pattern rifle, the P13 in a 7m.m. round. The obvious reasoning was the beating they took from the SOUTH AFRICAN Boers who used the 7x57 MAUSER round in an 1895 MAUSER rifle.
WW1 came along and the 7m.m. was dropped for production reasons. The P13 was a very good design and was produced for the BRITISH by REMINGTON and WINCHESTER in the U.S. When the BRITISH decided they did not need TWO rifles in production, REMINGTON and WINCHESTER then produced it as the 1917 ENFIELD in .30-06 for the U.S. forces.
The BRITISH stayed with the .303 and the SMLE, even though they found it wanting. THEY WERE BROKE and the .303 proved if anything, too powerful in the trenches.
After the war, REMINGTON produced a modified 1917 as the model 30 for many years.
The U.S. has just replaced the .30-03 which had just replaced the .30-40 KRAG prior to WWI. The new .30-06 was supposed to restore the advantage over the 7x57 MAUSER rifles used by the SPANIARDS during the SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (please note, both countries were adopting new calibers and guns to deal with the LESS POWERFUL 7x57 MAUSER round. They both had been on the receiving end and did not like it.
The U.S. even went to the trouble of adopting a modified MAUSER and then had to pay royalties over it to the MAUSER company.
During the BETWEEN WARS period, the U.S. planned to replace the BAR, 1903 rifle and .30-06 round with a 7m.m. round in the GARAND and a new light machine gun. They got 1 out of 3 and only after they were already fighting in WWII.
Roy BRAYBROOK, a well known BRITISH aviation writer pointed out that militaries always plan to use equipment and tactics that worked in the last war that they had won.
So after WWII, the U.S. ARMY decided to buy a shortened .30-06. After all, it had won WWII with it. Other countries did not agree, but their vote did not count. The U.S. was bankrolling NATO, so you bought what the U.S. told you to buy or paid for it yourself.
BRITAIN, had gotten a much worse beating in WWII than the U.S. They wanted to adopt a more modern round and rifle. They came up with a series of pioneering BULLPUP rifles and a 7m.m. INTERMEDIATE round that would have launched a 139 grain bullet at @ 2530 fps. This would have been simply the 6x55 SWEDE round in a shorter form.
The U.S. did not want it or anything else but the 7.62x51. So that was the end of all that was learned the hard way during WWII.
The RUSSIANS on the other hand, had taken a terrible lesson from the 7.92x33 KURZ round used in GERMAN assault rifles and adopted the 7.62x39 round. Several years later they chambered this round in the AK-47 and a world wide legend was born.
My belated point is that the 7.62x51 was not chosen because it was the best round or had proven itself superior. It was a political choice and not a very good one from an infantry point of view.
In combat, both the various 6.5m.m. and 7m.m. have proven they can do just as well, if not better than the 7.62x51 used by the west.
LESS RECOIL, FLATTER TRAJECTORY, LESS WEIGHT TO CARRY OR MORE AMMO FOR THE SAME WEIGHT & A LIGHTER GUN, what is not to like.
One last thing. RUGER recently dropped the 6.8 SPC round from the MINI-14. I may be jumping the gun, but if this round does not find a niche soon, I think it will die off and we will be using the 5.56 until caseless ammo replaces it.
Sorry for the long winded, history lesson. I wanted to be thorough.
Jim
Jim, an interesting history lesson, and there was quite a bit there that I didn't know about - thanks for the info. Adrian, however wasn't questioning what was the perfect calibre, rather he was pointing out that he disagreed that 7.62 x 51 produced worse accuracy due to flinching compared to smaller calibres. When I served the weapon I was most accurate was the L1A1 SLR in 7,62 x 51. I could not achieve the same scores with M16 or later suprisingly the F88 Steyr despite the optical sight (mind you that was just the basic handle optic, not the new fangled doo hickeys fitted these days). I was on shooting teams for a couple of units and a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62 being fired didn't seem to worry me. For long range accuracy I liked the L1A1 (strange that that weapon was fairly accurate due to the rear sight being on a totally different part of the frame located by a fairly basic hinge pin). Close combat sneaker ranges the M16 worked best, overall I liked the Steyr.
No weapon is perfect and training and proficiency will certainly disguise any shortcomings pretty well. I would put my money on a well trained soldier with a bolt action Mauser/Springfield/SMLE 303 against a poorly trained soldier armed with a SCAR.
Jim, an interesting history lesson, and there was quite a bit there that I didn't know about - thanks for the info. Adrian, however wasn't questioning what was the perfect calibre, rather he was pointing out that he disagreed that 7.62 x 51 produced worse accuracy due to flinching compared to smaller calibres. When I served the weapon I was most accurate was the L1A1 SLR in 7,62 x 51. I could not achieve the same scores with M16 or later suprisingly the F88 Steyr despite the optical sight (mind you that was just the basic handle optic, not the new fangled doo hickeys fitted these days). I was on shooting teams for a couple of units and a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62 being fired didn't seem to worry me. For long range accuracy I liked the L1A1 (strange that that weapon was fairly accurate due to the rear sight being on a totally different part of the frame located by a fairly basic hinge pin). Close combat sneaker ranges the M16 worked best, overall I liked the Steyr.
No weapon is perfect and training and proficiency will certainly disguise any shortcomings pretty well. I would put my money on a well trained soldier with a bolt action Mauser/Springfield/SMLE 303 against a poorly trained soldier armed with a SCAR.
MARC,
I would also put my money on the trained soldier as long as I was sure of how much training they had. Some training works better than others. I would give points for actual combat experience.
The U.S. Navy found that if a pilot could survive his first 6 dogfights, he survival chances went way up. I am willing to be the same rule applies to infantrymen.
Because of the differences in individuals of the same size, some will handle recoil and be effected by it more than others. This is before we even get into people of different sizes. It is interesting how the fastest growing feature in handguns lately is the interchangeable grips that WALTHER put on the P99 and have now spread to BERETTA, GLOCK, RUGER, SIG and SMITH & WESSON.
No one rifle will be perfect. By the way, do you remember how much that L1A1 (FN) rifle weighed? It probably did not kick that much, but how about an 8 pound carbine? I still think for most troops, the 6.8SPC is the way to go, but I would take the 5.56 over the 7.62 if I could only pick one. It would cover more situations.
However, we will not know if the 6.8 or 6.5 or whatever is an improvement until it sees field issue or shows a big change in qualification scores.
I have not personally fired either the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, or the .30-06 Springfield (yet) and understand that there is some concern regarding recoil.
I have fired 30-06 rounds and .300 WIN MAG rounds before. The 30-06 rounds have a little bit of recoil but their not too bad and you get used to them. The .300s have a little bit more recoil though and does take some getting used too. I used to flinch every time I've fired a .300 at first. But now I'm used to it. 30-06's are low in recoil IMO.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
To me it depends on the rifle. I fired a REMINGTON 700 ADL in .30-06 and thought it was horrible. My M-1 GARAND was fine. It also depends on the experience level and tolerance of the shooter. I know people who insist that the .300 REMINGTON ULTRAMAG is not a heavy recoiling round.
My point is that the service rifle is not designed for the 1 in 10 or 1 in 8, but for all 10 shooters. Pick 10 shooters at random. Train them on a .30-06 and a .223. Then see which one get all the hits!
I know where I would put my money.
This is the reason that what rile is picked in .308 by SOCOM is not relevant to the choice of a general issue rifle. It has to be useful by everyone and for some, no amount of training is going to overcome stature and personality.
I prefer the 9m.m. over the .45ACP for the same reason. Only hits will count.
But now I'm used to it. 30-06's are low in recoil IMO.
It makes the gun have a feel of power IMO.
