The problem isn't with the config, it's with the caliber.

Who said there is a problem?

Unlike the relic in your avatar, there are ways to improve the AR15/M16/M4. Especially with the civilian innovation in the AR15 field, COTS improvements are out there. The question is determining which of those improvements make sense for the battlefield as opposed to the 3 gunner, LE, or John Q. Citizen who wants to exercise his RKBA.

What do you propose? 7.62 NATO? Problem is that creates many more problems than 5.56 NATO does. Which is why 5.56 was adopted from 7.62 in the first place. 7.62 NATO is heavy as shit, and the rifle weight is increased to boot. And this is just scratching the surface of the issues 7.62 NATO creates in this role compared to 5.56

Lol, I guess you mean we should be using an AK in 7?62x39 to truly handicap ourselves?

This is true.

Lots of stuff on the market works fine for the average person, but it wouldn't last a day in combat.

Honestly seeing all the "advancements" HK made to the 416 and then seeing how it performs worse then the M4A1....I can see why making drastic changes to the weapon would be difficult.

I mean, the $638 rifle is outperforming guns that cost 5x-10x the price of it, what do these changes bring to the table...and are they worth the price?

Because a $600 rifle that's better than anything out there is tough to beat.

What did you do with joglee's body, and how did you get his password?

Lol it's me. I was just set straight on the way things are.

So at BLC we had the FORSCOM CSM come talk to us and he asked for infantry guys in here who wants a 7.62 rifle, probably 3/4 raised their hands. He then said you guys want more range and knock down power, but how many of you can hit the 300 each time? About half dropped their hands. I'm an armorer and was on the division marksmanship team for the 82nd and talking to other teams at all army they're a year round team that trains the line how to shoot and they have their own shooting schools. 82nd doesn't have that because we spend our money and time on jumping. I agree that 1-6 optics would be great and so would the adoption of 50 or 100 yd zeros but getting the KD range to actually do that isn't easy. For a period the division marksmanship team ran the enduring range on post and we saw some ridiculous stuff out there. There is a lot of bad information that gets passed down. It isn't just the support people even some kids in scouts are jacked up on the range.

What problems did the advancements do?

I'm a fan of 6.8 personally, but the army is gonna do what the army is gonna do

This wouldn't be terrible. It might drive the cost of 6.8 ammo down.

It won't be 6.8. it'll be 6.something that requires an AR-10 to work.

.264 is looking to be the most likely choice.

They'd save a whole bunch of money if they could use existing lowers.  Duh.....  But I guess maybe they're wanting something with more poop than 6.8???  You didn't link your thread in GD so I couldn't see what it had to say.   Or give the the title so I can search it.  Otherwise finding stuff in GD is impossible.  Unless it stays on the first few pages from being bumped.

My bad.
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/

The idea if to adopt a COTS 7.62 rifle now and get that fleeted out to all BCTs.

Step 2 is let the SAAC study conclude, this study is determining what the best "next gen" caliber is that will replace the 5.56.

Take SAAC chosen caliber and convert the new ICSR to it.

The next goal is a NGSAR which will be a mag fed, beefed up ICSR to replace the M249 SAW.

At the same time they're wanting a upgrade for the M110 since the CSASS failed and has been defunded.

That could either be an accurized ICSR or a M110 PiP. Don't know what they want there yet.

Thank you sir!


To me it's all kinds of confusing.  The thing spec'd 16 or 20" barrels.  Well wouldn't going back to a 20"er in 5.56 with some 995 or something do the same thing?  Is ball or any .308 any better at defeating level IIIA plates?    I wonder if part of the problem is they focused on making a really good terminal ballistic round with M855A1 and it doesn't do as well as a M855?  Or heck even 193.  I'm not sure if anybody uses 995........  

I admit I'm not an expert in all this.  But I thought M193 from a 20" will defeat level IIIA plates.  But you start dropping velocity and it's a no go.

The perceived need is to defeat Level IV ceramic plates.

All spitzer rifle projectiles will defeat IIIA, which is designed to stop blunt nose pistol rounds.

M193 will defeat Level III steel plates at close range.

M855 will defeat Level III UHMWPE Plates at close range.

M855A1 will defeat Level III UHMWPE and Steel plates at close range

M80A1 will defeat Level III+ Ceramic/UHMWPE hybrid plates at close range.

None of the above will defeat Level IV. Essentially no steel core projectile will - even M80A1 @ 3400fps fired from a .300 Win Mag would not defeat Level IV at 45' in Buffman's testing.

To defeat Level IV with an infantry rifle requires some sort of Tungsten projectile. This can be applied to 5.56, 7.62, or some intermediate caliber in the 6mm-7mm range.

The higher the mass and energy of the Tungsten core, the longer range it will be able to defeat Level IV. But the higher the mass and energy of the projectile, the more recoil and cartridge weight increases.

All of this.

A few things to add, we have a ton more M993 vs M995. In a peer war we would be cut off from Tungsten for the most part, we don't have enough in stores to keep us going long term in a war against a nation with armor.

Supposedly the new XM1158 ADVAP does away with the need for tungsten to defeat IV plates, and XM1158 was developed for the 7.62.

So yeah, here we are on the eve of the M4 being replaced by the ICSR, and the SAAC study deciding what caliber will be best for future conflicts. The SAAC supposedly finishes around 2020, which is when they plan to have the ICSR already in service.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to produce more M995?  

I think I was confusing IIIA with III+....  I'll have to look into that again.  

Yeah, my bad, I meant III+.   Anyways......   it's all about defeating IV which I don't know anything about.   Byt as some people have pointed out, in the other thread, I didn't think .308 was any better than 5.56 at defeating any armor.  I thought actually really fast 5.56 had a better chance.  Meaning a 5.56 with a longer barrel.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to produce more M995?  

I think I was confusing IIIA with III+....  I'll have to look into that again.  

Yeah, my bad, I meant III+.   Anyways......   it's all about defeating IV which I don't know anything about.   Byt as some people have pointed out, in the other thread, I didn't think .308 was any better than 5.56 at defeating any armor.  I thought actually really fast 5.56 had a better chance.  Meaning a 5.56 with a longer barrel.

Thank you for your service and stay safe.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/09/20/breaking-army-7-62mm-rifle-program-cancelled-icsr-no/

I guess this changes things?

If anything it does the opposite. Things remain as they should be.

Looking forward to your pics and updates. God speed Sir..

I was going to post this but MILSPEC beat me to it. And correct "should be".

SSD has a good look at what we can expect for the Block III/ "URG-I" upgrades to look like:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/09/21/mdm-17-geissele-mk16-rail/

-Super Modular Rail MK16 Rail, from Geissele Automatics
-Super Charging Handle
-Daniel Defense Barrel and Gas Block
-SureFire WarComp.
-Geissele Gas Pedal/High Speed Selector
-Vortex 1-6x in Geissele mount

So, pretty close to what we have speculated on in this thread.

The gas pedal was a separate thing he lumped in there.

Also it remains to be seen if that's the final configuration or not.

I wonder if DD has the ability to build that many barrels.

Aren't they one of the main suppliers for most barrels manufacturers use?  They sure as shit can't keep up with their RIS II rails, but their bbls seem to always be in stock.

Is it going to be a midlength?

One can only hope, but with that said, I believe Colt did an actual study on the pros/cons of Carbine vs Mid-length gas systems and found there were no quality gains in going to a Mid-length setup.  But I would be interested to see how, if any, much longer parts last on a 3 position rifle with a Mid-length gas system as opposed to carbine.

for me, i just like the longer hand guard. i feel like a praying mantis poised to strike, when shooting a carbine length rifle.

i would think there are plenty of enlisted guys that would like something longer too.  

would be really cool to see a KAC RAS in middy length!!

I thought the whole point of mid-length was to mimic the performance of the carbine-length gas port location on a 14.5" barrel.

Mil 14.5" barrel with carbine-length gas port = Civ 16" barrel with mid-length gas port

If I am remembering correctly, I read somewhere that the mid-length gas system was created so that those of us with ATF-compliant 16" barrels could experience the same ballistics as military. A carbine-length port location on a 16" barrel produces an over-gassing effect and the recoil impulse is increased as well.

Somebody jump in here and correct me if I am off base.

^Not sure, but if you ever get the chance to shoot an intermediate gas system on a 16" rifle, do it, especially when it has the words "Knights Armament Company" on the side.  So soft shooting.  I'm a fan of 14.5 mid length also.  I doubt the .mil will go mid length though, as that's a pretty big departure from everything tried and trued they have ever done.

It also makes the Mk18 harder to manage.

Instead of cutting down M4A1 barrels they'll have to find a supplier to produce carbine barrels, they will have to keep 2 gas blocks, 2 different gas tubes, etc.

ballistics might be the wrong word.  I think the ballistics of the bullet is going to be pretty similar from a 16" mid or carbine.  But I agree that 16" carbines have longer dwell time.  

Speaking of this type of stuff, I was watching a Sniper thing on Amazon and I caught a carbine that seemed, well not like a normal Crane build.  I'm betting the video is older, but it seems like all the guys in the vid, up to this point of me watching, are military.  So I took note of this carbine.  

Looks like one of those round FF handgaurds with the round holes.   A Micro (probably t-1) and a DD rear and front.    Seems like maybe a personal build but they looked like the were training for the military.  I realize it's probably not completely on topic of what a Block III might look like, but interesting none the less.

Terrible pic of it but you can see the hanguard at least.

The rail your referring to is the Troy Alpha... I think

Doesn't seem like official military issue........  eh?

Some units can buy stuff to suit their needs. There are some of pics of an Army SF unit fielding them.

Relic. Yeah, ok. It’s hundreds of years older than the AR.........and absolutely no improvements have been made for it. No ergonomic upgrades. Nothing.

People like you talk and people who know what they are doing show themselves making all kinds of shots with the AK.

MRAD?  I'd be interested to know as well.

The AKM in 7.62x39mm is terrible.

The AKS-74 is decent.

Producing more M995 and issuing it to line units would be the smart thing to do.

However, beating level IV armor isn't all that big of an issue, way overblown, IMO. The USA is the only country that issues Lv IV rifle plates in any real numbers. Russia, China, hell even the militaries across europe? Level III, maybe III+ plates. Only their SF get Lv IV plates.

Secondly... Getting shot in the leg or the dick is still going to put a man's dick in the dirt.

I guess you honed in on one word and ignored the rest of my post. I'll expand on the part you ignored.

The huge thing the AR15/M16/M4 has going for it is COTS based improvements. Without going back and reading the entire thread, I can't think of one thing being discussed as a potential Block III that isn't a commercial innovation as opposed to something DARPA, NSCW Crane, PEO Soldier, or another government entity originated idea or part.

Look at the latest iteration of the AK, the AK-12/15: it is trying to be an M4. Every major change between the AKM and the AK-12 is designed to copy something that originated with a western weapon system.
7n6 is commie M193. The move from 7.62x39 to a >2700 FPS ~.22" cal cartridge was because of what the Soviets observed with the US forces using the M16 in Vietnam.
The AK12/15 buttstock is copied from the XCR, ACR, and SCAR
Galil-ish safety as opposed to the horrible AK47/AKM/AK47 safety
Use of Picatinny rails copied from US MIL-STD 1913, STANAG 2324, STANAG 4694. Originally the M1913 rails were developed commercially by A.R.M.S.
- I'm kinda curious to see how similar the TWS Dog Leg rail compares to the AK12/15 rail.

They (Soviets and now Russians) let others do the R&D then copy what has have already proven to work. It makes sense why they do that, they don't have the money to spend on R&D. Unfortunately for the AK, most of those improvements were designed initially for something other than the AK*, so the integration of those improvements to the AK leads to some sort of Frankenstein/Mad Max integration of these improvements.

*5.45x39 being the major exception, but the impact 5.56x45 had on the development of this cartridge is undeniable.

The US's gun culture allows our commercial entities to be innovative because there isn't an exclusive customer with specific requirements. Geissele, KAC, or Vortex can develop a product originally intended for 3-Gun that with little or no modification can have a military application. Very few developed countries allow the civilian ownership of military-like weapons (Switzerland is a notable exception). Larueski Concern isn't out there in the Dead Center of Russia trying to push the limits of the AK.

The Russians and Chinese will never have something like that. Ishmash will never develop a product to be sold to Russian or Belorussian civilians that will find it's way into a RUS Army armorer's shop. I can see Norinco Type 97s on Cabela's Canadian website, but I doubt that is a large enough market for that to drive innovation that could cross over to the PLA.

So although I did not say that there have been no improvements to the AK, I have not seen an improvement to that weapon that has not been influenced by or developed from western small arms advancement. Hooray central planning and kleptocracy!

I have no dog in the hunt, but I have to ask....  Just because a lot of those upgrades were meant for western guns, why does that have to equate to be a bad thing for an AK?  I mean, AR buttstocks have been used on shotguns.  And now sometimes you see similar stuff on bolt guns.  Etc etc.  They're just upgrades.  I personally don't fit a stock wood AK buttstock very well and if you happen to have options that were developed for other guns, but used on a different gun, doesn't necessarily make it not work well.  

And then there's always the magpul furniture for an AK.

There's nothing wrong with it at all. If the roles were reversed and an AKM variant was the US's rifle and Eugene Stoner was born in Germany then forced to work at Ismash after WW2, then it would be Russians trying to implement AK originated improvements into an AR.

Any idea if the backup irons are changing? Or are the Kac and matech going to continue to reign supreme?

Also, can someone chime in on why they would be going to DD bbls? I thought the socom bbls were already hella accurate and durable. I know DD ones are CHF, but is there a thread or anything going into why that would be better? Just seems rather arbitrary, especially considering that the rail won't be made by DD anyway.

Peer nations don't fight each other with rifles.

The type of small arms ammo you are using in that fight would matter about as much as the color of your socks.  

Peer fights, assuming they remain conventional...will be Naval blockades with massive electronic/cyber warfare elements with random missiles falling from the sky and things like the SFW hitting your vehicles followed by unbelievable artillery barrages.  

That's not even addressing things like crashing one another's power grids, financial markets, medical systems, and similar...  

Small arms would be an afterthought.  


If we are fighting people with real body armor in large numbers...and using small arms to do it...something is going very wrong.

Needs war comp but has sf flash hider mount, colt 14.5" socom bbl & upper/lower etc.

While you are correct in everything you posted, you missed the point of the thread entirely.

Just like how not every Pogue in the REMFest reserve component get issued a Block I or Block II M4A1 - they're still toting around M16A2s - this thread is just speculation for what the Block II+, Block IIA, or Block III SOPMOD (Special Operations Peculiar MODification) features could look like. These future components would be for the guys in SOCOM doing the direct type of missions on the chart below.

Attached File