The Army is now requesting a modern, off-the-shelf 7.62x51 battle rifle to supplement the M4-family rifles.  The stated reasons are an effective range gap, and (supposedly) better AP performance.
I've read what is available online on the subject (which is not much) and I think it's a surprising development, which many have been critical of.
Some perceive the supposed need for better AP performance to be evidence that Army leadership perceives an immediate need to counter an army with access to Type IV body armor, which effectively means Russia or China.
I think it's quite possible that, as some suggest, the .308 requirement is basically a Trojan Horse to get funding for a platform which will handle that class of round, but then immediately convert it to something like 6.5 Creedmore or 7mm-08, along with development of a round which really would outclass both 5.56 and 7.62 in AP performance.
Given that the specification is for an immediately available, off-the-shelf rifle, what rifle candidates are out there in .308 which satisfy the requirement?  SCAR-H obviously.  The ARX-200 is probably close to ready for mass production.   A battle rifle version of the AR-10 would be relatively easy to procure.  M14, G3, and FAL are all still available but probably don't have the modern features desired.  What other modern .308s are out there right now that could be entered?

Eh, I doubt it.  No one is in any hurry to replace current military cartridges and even if they were, the military is notoriously slow to change.  They just went through all the hob-knob to get a new service pistol and it's still chambered in 9mm.  NATO isn't going to change any time soon.

I imagine this is just a way to get scar-H's in the hands of regular soldiers rather than just sf. Scars are already in inventory so it would make sense to keep commonality rather than to buy a whole new rifle. I cannot think of any 7.62 rifle that would beat the scar either. Anything else is outdated like the m14, Fal, G3, or is similar to the scar in features like the arx200 or ar10. It just doesn't make sense for them to get anything 7.62 besides the scar

Probably, although the way HK slobbers the govt, don't count on the  HK417 being out of the running.  I'm partial to the ARX200, though Beretta needs to convert the fore end MLok format.  The fact that it can has a mag adapter to run AR10 mags is a logistical a plus.

I thought .308 was limiting due to weight & capacity, but a new caliber seems unlikely given the cultural resistance to change.

Everyone said something similar about 5.56.  "It's too small!  Not enough energy!  Need a heavier caliber!"  Meanwhile, in mother Russia, they said the exact opposite.  "Bullet is too large and too slow!  Need something small and fast!"  So we're going back to a bigger bullet, like the Russians, while they went to a smaller bullet, like ours.  In the end, everyone is chasing their tails.  There is no one size fits all cartridge.

Ugh, 417.

Probably the most likely winner is the SCAR. now that we've seen the scoring system it seems rigged for a SCAR win, honestly. ARX-200 would be a great choice if Beretta submits it. It wouldn't be my number 1 pick due to weight, but I've been extremely impressed by the ARX-100 in 5.56, so I wouldn't be even slightly disappointed if we got an ARX-200.

Personally, I'd use the Colt CM901. Lightest of the bunch with an almost 2 pound advantage over the ARX, HK417, and MWS, probably the most accurate of the bunch alongside the MWS, has tons of parts commonality with the M4 for simplified logistics, and can use existing M4 uppers and 5.56 magazines with a quick buffer swap and magwell adapter. Also doesn't eat optics like the SCAR. But, that would make too much sense so obviously that's not what the government will do.

thread in GD

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/UPDATE-Pg-18-More-questions-answered-about-rounds-per-gun-and-opticsArmy-competition-for-the-7-62-ICSR-/5-2019925/?page=3

its dead

No surprise there!  Comical that some actually thought this could get any traction.  This didn't make logical or logistical sense in any way.

You'd think we would've learned that lesson by now with with our (ongoing) experience with fighter plane design-by-committee projects.  But I digress.  Inefficiency flows more money.

The ARX-200 weighs about 0.7 lb more than the Mk17, which is somewhat significant, but if its receiver doesn't flex & waste optics, I'd consider it an improvement.