US Army wants to bring back the Battle Rifle

[dlh]

The M14 is certainly decent---not sure they will go with it though.

[zmcgooga]

I think the HK417 would be a better option and easier transition since the platform is closer to the M4 than the FAL.

[bblhd672]

Don't forget that the primary reason for the AR was the weight reduction of both rifle and ammo over the M-14 and .308.

Today's soldiers are already carrying a great deal of weight on top of their M4 and ammo load. Any new rifle and ammo must not add weight to the load.

Regardless, the military services continue to find reasons to feed massive amounts of taxpayer dollars into the military industrial complex. And what we the people are ending up with to equip our troops is increasingly overpriced underperforming junk.

[AJSully421]

Who is the "Amry"?

[LeonCarr]

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

[C-dub]

There are plenty of great options. It's only a matter of whether or not they'll make the criteria so tough that they'll spend a few million and a few years only to ultimately say that nothing passed their test and abandon the idea.

[Oldgringo]

There are plenty of great options. It's only a matter of whether or not they'll make the criteria so tough that they'll spend a few million and a few years only to ultimately say that nothing passed their test and abandon the idea.

War is good for business and business is good for the USA, right?

[The Marshal]

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....

[hovercat]

Unless the enemy are using Mossion Nagant rifles, nobody is using the 7.62x54R cartridge.

[LeonCarr]

The Dragunov Sniper Rifles are chambered in 7.62x54R, along with a few Russian built belt fed LMGs. They are still being used, and probably a few Mosins since millions and millions of them have been made since 1891.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Soccerdad1995]

I'll recommend the Tavor

[Pariah3j]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.