US Army wants to bring back the Battle Rifle

[MechAg94]

The Army already has AR10 variants in use and I imagine the armorers already have training on them. Adopting a more widely issued AR10 rifle should be very cheap and easy to do once the rifle is chosen.

[Pariah3j]

Dumb question here, but are our soldiers currently issued rifles with optics attached? I ask because when I got out in 1991 we just had iron sights on our rifles and I had a heck of a time reliably hitting even the 300 yard targets on the range. Then again, I was not the best marksman out there. Probably somewhere near the middle of the pack.

The M16 is physically capable of being accurate up to 500yrds with iron sights - I know in the Marines we trained for shooting at that distance and had to qualify marksman, the 500yrds was 1/3 of your score. I shot Expert but not everyone did, but in order to pass/qualify you'd have to at least hit black on the paper. Honestly I don't see how a different round would make you more accurate - basic accuracy stays the same in standard battlefield ranges whether you shoot a .22 or a 50 cal - might adjust for bullet arc a little differently but accuracy and the ability to be accurate don't change IMO.

Now I understand battlefield conditions differ, can't speak to shooting under those conditions but my point is you should be able to be accurately shoot 5.56 up to 300yrds w/ Iron sights - and the chances of modern combat seeing much greater distances for the average infantryman is pretty slim given current and forseeable conflicts.

I can't speak to optics being issued currently, I would hope that more of an M4 platform with Optics were be issued - but our frontline soldiers don't always get anywhere near what they should have

I'm not advocating against moving to a different platform or caliber - just found the supposed reasoning behind it lacking real justification IMO.

[bblhd672]

The military procurement machine is also looking at "solutions" like this:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... _170405.nl

Billions of dollars are spent researching, developing and procuring stuff the troops in the field find to be useless to their mission.
Meanwhile, useful weapons, say like the A-10 Warthog, are shelved in favor of a boondoggle like the F-35 which looks to have a price tag along the lines of 3 planes per Billion dollars.

[dawgfishboy]

I'll recommend the Tavor

Over DT's MDR?

[The Annoyed Man]

Since it seems like the military insists on re-inventing the wheel over and over again, how about a 7.62 NATO, 20 round or more box magazine fed, DI or piston, that weighs less than an M14 .

There, problem solved, and there are about a dozen choices that will suffice.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

FN SCAR 17 Heavy. It's already designed, and has already been combat-deployed and has a proven record. It weighs 8 lbs in carbine trim - which compares very favorably to any other 7.62 NATO caliber battle rifle. It is already a gas piston design....no need to Frankenstein an AR10. It already comes with the gas regulator for suppressors. Barrels can be easily swapped out for different applications, such as turning a carbine into a sniper weapon for instance. AND.....it is deadly accurate in base carbine trim without any barrel upgrades. It will eat whatever you feed it, as long as it is either .308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO. They would only have to make two easy changes to make it perfect as a general issue weapon: (1) either redesign the existing polymer lower, or swap it out for something like the Handl Defense lower, so that it can accommodate existing NATO standard .308 magazines; (2) less pressing, but maybe redesign/replace the existing buttstock with one that is a bit more robust.

Yeah, yeah, yeah..... I own one and yes I'm a fan. But I have also owned an M1A and an AR10, and I think my opinion is fairly objective. The M1A is a sweet rifle, but it's a little fragile, and the action is not very well protected from sand and mud. The AR10 can be a good rifle if properly assembled, but it is pretty heavy. But neither of them is as good a rifle as a SCAR 17. The SCAR is as dead-nuts reliable as an AK. The R&D work and prior acceptance has already been done. All that would be necessary would be to place a large order for them.

But all of that said, I honestly don't think that a .308 rifle is the right choice for the common infantry soldier. Weapons chambered in 5.56 NATO, or perhaps some intermediate 6mm class cartridge would be a better choice, with .308s being used as they already are, for squad level designated marksmen and medium to long range sniping.

[cmgee67]

Go with 6.5 and change the already existing uppers. Boom. Or use the scar or Tavor.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'll recommend the Tavor

Over DT's MDR?

Both good choices. I said Tavor because it is battle tested and also a bit cheaper. Plus I have actually shot a Tavor. I have not yet been able to shoot the MDR, so can't speak as knowledgably on that gun.

[locke_n_load]

The Army already has AR10 variants in use and I imagine the armorers already have training on them. Adopting a more widely issued AR10 rifle should be very cheap and easy to do once the rifle is chosen.

Exactly. Half the parts are interchangeable too. No need to train any soldiers on how to use one if they have been trained on the M16. All optics interchangeable. Seems like a no-brainer.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Army already has AR10 variants in use and I imagine the armorers already have training on them. Adopting a more widely issued AR10 rifle should be very cheap and easy to do once the rifle is chosen.

Exactly. Half the parts are interchangeable too. No need to train any soldiers on how to use one if they have been trained on the M16. All optics interchangeable. Seems like a no-brainer.

That would only be true for RDS and magnified optics with milling reticles. ACOGs or any other optic with a BDC wouldn't interchange, as the bullet drop values for M80 ball and M855A1 ball are not identical.

[Pawpaw]

The Army already has AR10 variants in use and I imagine the armorers already have training on them. Adopting a more widely issued AR10 rifle should be very cheap and easy to do once the rifle is chosen.

This was exactly my thought, as well. I'll add that they should also specify SR25 magazines. It would then be easy and quick for Magpul to provide 20 or 25 round mags.

[zmcgooga]

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm

Not quite sure why the basic rifleman needs weapons designed to engage targets beyond 500yrds - because the M16/M4/5.56 can accurately and easily do that range without a problem. Modern Infantry hasn't engaged at ranges much greater then this - at least not the standard infantryman. In fact its mainly been street/urban fighting mostly - and that doesn't look to change anytime soon for any future conflicts.

Dumb question here, but are our soldiers currently issued rifles with optics attached? I ask because when I got out in 1991 we just had iron sights on our rifles and I had a heck of a time reliably hitting even the 300 yard targets on the range. Then again, I was not the best marksman out there. Probably somewhere near the middle of the pack.

Yes or at least everyone I saw in while I was active had at least a minimum of an ACOG, the exception to the rule was that I did see some NG units without them.

[rm9792]

Wow. I skimmed the article, and can't believe that the SCAR was given the "Well it uses proprietary magazines" as the only comment.

Uh, how about that they are mission adaptable? You can go from a 10", 14" 16" 20" barrel on them in minutes.
The stock folds for easy deployment in the vehicles. The MTBF is extremely high, and the range on the 16" is an easy 600+ meters.
This weapon is produced in the States, and we already have a huge contracts with FN for military weapons.

The others are more 'Sniper-Rifle" configurations. Try using that M110 in a CQB situation. Or a vehicle. Bah.
As for the 'Proprietary Magazine' nonsense, there are aftermarket lowers that can be had that use PMAG magazines.
Just tell FN to fix it and get the huge order.

And the SCAR 17 weighs less than the HK416 5.56 rifle.
Talk about reinventing the wheel....

Why did they say that?? My SCAR uses GI Mags, literally from Iraq. Also uses the same pmags as my Ar15s.

[stroo]

A Marine I know well, used and was satisfied with the M4 in Iraq although he preferred his grenade launcher to his rifle. But he went to an AR 10 variant in Afghanistan because the engagement distances were often longer, past the 600 yards of the M4. He was in Marcom in Afghanistan so he could choose his weapon.

I don't have enough knowledge about any of the variants being considered to have an opinion.