User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:03:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what Milley views this as. 7.62 is just the interim caliber until they decide on the end goal caliber. It will be a caliber that does not fit in the AR-15 and will require a new rifle anyways, so get the rifle now and when the caliber is here just get a new barrel and magazines and convert them over....That's the idea at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:07:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should be in the 5.56 frame and magazine capacities if at all.....and it shouldn't be done at all, IMO...if that wasn't clear already. .264 between 5.56(left) and 7.62(right) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:12:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're still going to spend billions implementing this. If they spend 100 million on ICSRs, and it leads to correcting faults in the CT carbine, it seems to me it'd be worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:15:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the ICSR is limited issue, as originally stated, I doubt that it would be anywhere near one billion, let alone billions. If they spend 100 million on ICSRs, and it leads to correcting faults in the CT carbine, it seems to me it'd be worth it. I can picture it now "why would we want CTA when we have lightweight 7.62 polymer cased ammunition in our current rifles?". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:26:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I realize that, but I'm trying to think on the bright side of the ICSR and a 7lb AR-10 would be the best case IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Oh, you're one of those dudes that forgets the ultra majority of rounds hit dirt. LOL explains a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:28:17 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be fucking stupid. The ICSR is happening, better get the best weapon possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:29:20 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be better than the SCAR, or a 10lb rifle. The ICSR is happening, better get the best weapon possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:54:15 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.264, the most likely caliber to be chosen in the SAAC doesn't fit in the AR-15 platform. .264 between 5.56(left) and 7.62(right) .260 REM or 6.5 CM would be much more logical. Same case diameter as 7.62 NATO, so same bolt and mags can be used. And would fit M13 links for MG use. Only thing needed for conversion of the ICSR and MG is new barrel. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 2:01:08 AM EDT
[#9]
How will they find a way to make this suit crash at the Paris airshow?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 2:05:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you say .264 USA is the most likely choice? Because of the smaller case diameter, the ICSR would require a new bolt, and probably new magazines. Would also need new feed mechanisms and links to convert 7.62 MG. .260 REM or 6.5 CM would be much more logical. Same case diameter as 7.62 NATO, so same bolt and mags can be used. Plus, M13 links would fit, for MGs. Only thing needed for conversion of the ICSR and MG is new barrel. http://accurateshooter.net/pix/socom6501.jpg Honestly the SAAC just finished up....what last month. So I'm hoping we get that data soon, I know it involved like 20 rounds between 5.56 and 7.62 in the testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 2:11:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they have a 6.5CM in polymer cased? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:41:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Does that suit fly in the Iranians stealth gen 7 fighter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 8:32:31 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe it was either right at 7lbs or just a hair above 7lbs empty. Those are the new way forward for the AR-10, everyone is making one. PSA, Adams Arms, Remington, etc. You can get a AR-10 in the 6.7-7.5lb range. These would be the ideal way to do the ICSR IMO. http://2323862zru3v2q2fq331fqh87fk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Adams_Arms_AA_Patrol_Battle_Rifle_Small_Frame_.308_Win._7.62mm_NATO_Alpha-S_Tactical_AR_Rifle_Carbine_Jeff_Gurwitch_DefenseReview.com_DR_1_small.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 8:43:57 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or we could Qualification =/= Proficiency |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 9:29:56 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny how the picture shows 4 mags on the plate carrier. Has anyone ever seen someone with 10 7.62 mags on them? Also that's just a random picture I found online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 9:36:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sadly they will have to learn because a 210 round combat load is being called for here. Also that's just a random picture I found online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 10:11:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another reason why there's going to be a lot of difficulties with this. Weight of the ammo is just one factor, there's a considerable jump in bulk, too. 7.62 mags are bigger, with less capacity, so Joe is going to have to cram more, bigger magazines into place on load carriage systems that are already crowded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 10:36:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes and the money spent on M855A1 is being put into the M80A1 for the ICSR, so it's not a total loss as M855A1 led to M80A1. Also now NATICK has the new XM1158 ADVAP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 10:42:54 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are more numbers and acronyms in this post than real words. Real military-speak. 
Led to this, which will be the standard general issue ball round for the Interim Combat Service Rifle. 
And now Natick has developed a new Advanced Armor Piercing round called the XM1158 that will be used in conjunction with M80A1 in the Interim Combat Service Rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 11:18:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article is RETARDED. in 10 to 15 years we will be fighting with autonomous drones both land and air. Why put a person in Harms way..... we really don't need to now. We just need to field the current technology level. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 12:34:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Da. But is Russian, so look cool but not work. Spill Vodka on armor and short system electric. I am joke no, Komrade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 1:38:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How will they find a way to make this suit crash at the Paris airshow? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 3:00:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh bullshit... No way in the gates of Hell do the russians have technology anywhere close to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 3:07:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. And total bullshit at that. No way in the gates of Hell do the russians have technology anywhere close to that. But that ain't gonna stop the retard rally from commencing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 3:12:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know it, I know it, we all know it. But that ain't gonna stop the retard rally from commencing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep. And total bullshit at that. No way in the gates of Hell do the russians have technology anywhere close to that. But that ain't gonna stop the retard rally from commencing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 3:49:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is it. We have to watch it, pay for it, and let them fail with no repercussions. The American way... Embrace the ICSR because everyone will be carrying it one day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:02:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Funny how the picture shows 4 mags on the plate carrier. Has anyone ever seen someone with 10 7.62 mags on them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:05:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sadly they will have to learn because a 210 round combat load is being called for here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Funny how the picture shows 4 mags on the plate carrier. Has anyone ever seen someone with 10 7.62 mags on them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:08:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I expect that 210-rd basic load will be revised downward, once they see it isn't feasible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Funny how the picture shows 4 mags on the plate carrier. Has anyone ever seen someone with 10 7.62 mags on them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:12:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I expect that 210-rd basic load will be revised downward, once they see it isn't feasible. They may even want 25 round mags Which would be 160-200 rounds. Thats if they revise the combat load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:15:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you suggesting the Big Army will downgrade weight after realizing it decreases mobility? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:22:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe, however it'll likely become 8 mag loads. They may even want 25 round mags Which would be 160-200 rounds. Thats if they revise the combat load. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I expect that 210-rd basic load will be revised downward, once they see it isn't feasible. They may even want 25 round mags Which would be 160-200 rounds. Thats if they revise the combat load. Is there any doubt that 25-rd mags would be preferred over 20-rd? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:23:58 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL! Riiight... I would be more inclined to believe that the Army CoS fears not getting a sweet job after retirement with a big weapons manufacturer.
How are we expected to have a proper purse swinging blue whistler with all this damned reasonableness and clear thinking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:32:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm suggesting the Big Army will downgrade the number of rounds carried after realizing there isn't enough "real estate" on the torso to stow the requisite number of magazines. None of this would happen without Congress literally getting involved and pressuring or ordering the Army to unfuck itself, which was the impetus for most of the major positive reforms the Army did in the last 16 years (MRAPs, more body armor, better camo, plate carriers and lighter equipment for Afghanistan, M4PIP, etc). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2017 4:36:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we were to take something like the M1, and rechamber it for 7.62 NATO? Maybe tweak the gas system some and make it use detachable magazines, make it select-fire even. I think that could be a real winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 3:11:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most likely. Who knows We could all be wrong and the ICSR could be the best thing since sliced bread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if this thread was how people looked at the ar platform when it first popped up. Time will tell, I suppose. Who knows We could all be wrong and the ICSR could be the best thing since sliced bread. But the trend since the adoption of smokeless powder has been shorter and lighter, with regard to both cartridges and rifles. This goes against the trend (like NATO issuing battle rifles). I wonder how viable it would be to issue carbines chambered in a MARS-like cartridge and SAWs/LMGs/DMRs chambered in something similar to 6.5G (or slightly larger). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 3:41:34 PM EDT
[#37]
I'm not privy to all the info they're using to make this decision, but I'm not sure I agree.
Assuming the threat is improved body armor, I see two ways to defeat it: go through it, or go around it. I think that improved explosive/fragmentation weapons pushed down to the individual soldier would be more effective against armored (and unarmored) enemies. I'm not sure what form these would take, maybe an improved xm25 style weapon, maybe more widespread (and improved) use of 40mm munitions, combinations thereof, or something else entirely. Thermobaric munitions would also seriously boost effectiveness in urban and built up areas. Such a weapon doesn't need to kill the enemy outright. Incapacitating the enemy with blast effects and fragmentation would be the goal. It doesn't matter if he's alive or not if you delimb him (ala Monty Python's Black Knight). I'm not aware of any armor system that would really protect the wearer's arms and hands (outside of a bomb suit I suppose, but a guy in one of them isn't particularly effective to start). M4 or Mk18 type rifles could be loaded with M995 or similar for backup/close fight purposes when slinging explosives is hazardous to friendlies. Also, fuck the ROE. This approach would also be beneficial from a skills standpoint. Marksmanship wouldn't be as critical a skill when "close" is good enough. More training time can be devoted to PowerPoint/sexual harassment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 6:58:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I'm saying they wont, because that requires losing firepower, which we're reliant on for TTPs, just over an issue of lack of comfort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, I'm suggesting the Big Army will downgrade the number of rounds carried after realizing there isn't enough "real estate" on the torso to stow the requisite number of magazines. Can 10x20rd or 8x25rd 7.62 mags feasibly be stowed on a rifleman's body in a manner that won't interfere with his functioning in the field? 5.56 
7.62 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 7:13:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Ammo in 6.5 6.8 etc is never going to happen in the military.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 7:41:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Comfort is not the issue. I'm talking about feasible stowage space for the required number of 7.62 mags, which are bulkier than 5.56 mags. Can 10x20rd or 8x25rd 7.62 mags feasibly be stowed on a rifleman's body in a manner that won't interfere with his functioning in the field? 5.56 https://www.army.mil/e2/c/images/2015/03/30/387497/original.jpg 7.62 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/dvSQXLt.jpg Could have |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2017 8:56:33 PM EDT
[#41]
So fucking stupid it hurts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 10:56:56 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Comfort is not the issue. I'm talking about feasible stowage space for the required number of 7.62 mags, which are bulkier than 5.56 mags. Can 10x20rd or 8x25rd 7.62 mags feasibly be stowed on a rifleman's body in a manner that won't interfere with his functioning in the field? 5.56 https://www.army.mil/e2/c/images/2015/03/30/387497/original.jpg 7.62 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/dvSQXLt.jpg The Army doesn't do that. When the guy with four stars tells them to enlist and train weak females as infantry, they say "Roger that" and find a way to make it look like it works for the short term. When a four star says to enlist mental defects and then to give them hormone to make it worse, the Army says "Roger that" and makes it happen. They don't challenge. If they did, we WOULDN'T FUCKING HAVE A FUCKING 7.62 BATTLE RIFLE BECAUSE NOBODY WANTED ASIDE FROM ONE FUCKING FOUR STAR GENERAL. But that four star runs the Army, so... ROGER THAT SIR |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:09:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, the Russians are as good at fake soldier systems as we are. I am impressed. It's bullshit. In 20 years, they may have ONE working prototype. One. The projwct will never have the budget to outfit a single company with that kind of gear, let alone the entire russian military. Current battery tech means no power source is feasible. Graphene batteries may change that, but those are stil a ways off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:20:47 AM EDT
[#44]
I can't imagine how hot and heavy that shit would be to wear. And a built in gas mask? Fuck that!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't imagine how hot and heavy that shit would be to wear. And a built in gas mask? Fuck that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 12:32:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Da. But is Russian, so look cool but not work. Spill Vodka on armor and short system electric. I am joke no, Komrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 12:34:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you dip in it? What if you sneeze or puke? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can't imagine how hot and heavy that shit would be to wear. And a built in gas mask? Fuck that! And good luck with the electronics inside, fuck those up and they'll cut your balls off and sell them to replace the helmet! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 12:37:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they will find a way to make it work. Because, and this is the part you simply don't get. They have to find a way, because to do otherwise means revamping all Army doctrine and it means telling Milley "Sir, what you wanted can't happen." The Army doesn't do that. When the guy with four stars tells them to enlist and train weak females as infantry, they say "Roger that" and find a way to make it look like it works for the short term. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Comfort is not the issue. I'm talking about feasible stowage space for the required number of 7.62 mags, which are bulkier than 5.56 mags. Can 10x20rd or 8x25rd 7.62 mags feasibly be stowed on a rifleman's body in a manner that won't interfere with his functioning in the field? The Army doesn't do that. When the guy with four stars tells them to enlist and train weak females as infantry, they say "Roger that" and find a way to make it look like it works for the short term. The question is, can they find a way to make it actually work for the long term; be viable for combat operations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 12:55:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't ask if they could "find a way to make it look like it works for the short term." I'm sure that could be done. The question is, can they find a way to make it actually work for the long term; be viable for combat operations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Comfort is not the issue. I'm talking about feasible stowage space for the required number of 7.62 mags, which are bulkier than 5.56 mags. Can 10x20rd or 8x25rd 7.62 mags feasibly be stowed on a rifleman's body in a manner that won't interfere with his functioning in the field? The Army doesn't do that. When the guy with four stars tells them to enlist and train weak females as infantry, they say "Roger that" and find a way to make it look like it works for the short term. The question is, can they find a way to make it actually work for the long term; be viable for combat operations? 1 in the gun. 4 on plate carrier, two pouches. PITA over 5.56 mags, but doable. 4 on belt, two pouches. Could be dropped down to a thigh rig at user discretion for mounted units. Total of 225 rounds. Doing the same with 20 round mags would be more difficult, and possibly require triple mag pouches, or necessitate keeping mags on belt, chest and leg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2017 12:58:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't ask if they could "find a way to make it look like it works for the short term." I'm sure that could be done. The question is, can they find a way to make it actually work for the long term; be viable for combat operations? To acknowledge the issue of bigger and heavier so less means cutting the standard combat load. Which means the first time an Army infantry company runs a basic Battle Drill 1A lane they're going to see time after time squads fucking up when the base of fire fireteam is going to run out of ammo long before the maneuver fireteam gets into place. Then all the people who earlier told them this would happen will want to say, "See? Told you so!", But that means poor OERs and NCOERs. So either redesign all US Army infantry TTPs away from firepower to something else entirely, which means rewriting everything. Or it means adding more double mag pouches, more weight, more bulk, so the problem of running out of ammo doesn't happen again. The answer is pretty simple, especially since "Too heavy to move" is not a metric that is quantifiable on an OER. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
